I took James Fallows to task for his double standard in excoriating former Vice President Dick Cheney for Cheney’s critical comments about President Obama despite having remained silent when former vice president Al Gore leveled many worse, ad hominem attacks on President George W. Bush.

Mr. Fallows apparently heard from others as well. He has now attempted to justify his double standard — and in doing so, he has only made things worse for himself.

The explanation Fallows offers is based on what he calls a “hyper-literal” defense. According to Fallows, the “important differences between the comportment of previous ex-Presidents and Vice Presidents who have gotten re-involved in political discussions and what we have seen in the past year from Dick Cheney” have to do with two things: In previous cases, the former officials have waited well over a year before criticizing the policies of their successors; and in previous cases, former presidents and vice presidents have been slow to question the character, loyalty, or patriotism of their successors, as Cheney “has unmistakably done with Obama.”

This is not a “hyper-literal” defense; it is a hyper-silly one.

For one thing, the statue of limitations on criticism that Fallows employs is completely arbitrary. The basis for it seems to be whatever justifies Fallows’s point of view. Apparently our new civic standard — let’s call it the Fallows Standard — is that there must be a one-year waiting period before unleashing angry, hyper-partisan, vitriolic attacks in polite society. After that, you’re off the hook.

I would wager a good deal of money, though, that if Joe Biden were to attack a Republican successor to Barack Obama eight months after the new administration took office, the new Fallows Standard would become a six-month moratorium on criticism. One of the virtues of the Fallows Standard is its flexibility.

In addition, what Gore said about President Bush — calling him a “moral coward” and saying Bush had “betrayed this country” and “brought deep dishonor” to it — is far worse than anything Cheney has said about President Obama. (And I say that as someone who thinks it’s not fair to argue that Obama’s Afghanistan decision was made for “small ‘p’ political reasons”; in fact, that decision represents the first time President Obama has stood up to his liberal base, and he deserves credit for it.)

Another factor to take into account is that Obama has been much more critical, graceless, and small-minded in his attacks on his predecessor than either Bush or Bill Clinton was. So Dick Cheney has more reason to speak out, and to speak out sooner, than most previous vice presidents.

Let’s employ Occam’s Razor. The truth is that partisanship and a dogmatic (and liberal) cast of mind explain Fallows’s double standard. His outrage is selective (he still has not taken Gore to task for his ugly attacks on Bush). And Fallows’s effort to justify himself is comical. Whether for reasons of self-delusion or something else, Fallows is hiding what is really at play.