Frankly, it is immaterial to me whether Cheney praised him or not. I have specific objections to this article and his commentary over the past month. I am not even going into his accusations of anti-semitism in "The Passion of Christ", which I chalked up to hypersensitivity because of his faith.
I know what I heard him say on Fox in the first couple of days after New Orleans flooded. He had made no effort to determine if the President was actually slow to respond or not. He didn't bother to talk about Blanco's responsibility. He referred to it as a "PR disaster."
Well, for someone supposedly so thoughtful, he seemed to conveniently leave out much of the truth of the situation. And he made no effort to defend the administration. None.
And the results of that commentary, and others, caused the effects that I listed here.
Punditry is fine, but pundits do not have all of the information on how Senators will vote, what Harriet Miers is really like, and other considerations which a President must take into account when making a nomination.
I am quite capable of making up my mind without the opinions of columnists in the Washington Post. I got along without them before the internet made their readings available, and I will now.
The slowness of Bush's response was obvious to everyone sans blinders. He admitted as much.
On the other hand, what compelled the White House to condemn Bill Bennett on a reputation destroying charge without a second thought to Bennett's meaning or purpose.