Shots Across The Bow

"During the whole Clinton impeachment, we heard endless babble about how the entire Lewinski affair was part of the President's private life, and should be off limits to the press and legal review. Do we hear them saying the same about Cheney's private life?"

You're saying it.

And there's a difference between press review (fair game really) and IMPEACHING the president over some rather shoddy behavior. But sheesh, it's not like he, you know, shot somebody .

Posted by: Vol Abroad on February 15, 2006 7:31 AM

First, let me thank you for the compliment. It's not often that I'm told that one simple post on this very small blog is as pervasive and influential as months of television, radio, and newspaper commentary.

Stop it, or I'll get a big head!

Second, not to rehash the whole impeachment process, but the actual charge was perjury, not the "shoddy behavior," and if the President lied under oath, then that would be relavent to his job performance.

Third, my point was that Cheney is getting raked over the coals for failing to immediately issue a press release about the accident, not that the accident isn't newsworthy; obviously it is.

Posted by: rich on February 15, 2006 10:44 AM

You make it REALLY hard to be a conservative.

The problem with conservatives is that they're simple. Some are simple as a tactic, as I suspect you might be, but most are just a black-and-white-minded folks who are easily led by the nose. It is a cognitive trait of the politically conservative person to be uncritical, and so those of us who actually believe in conservative *principles* are left scratching our heads at your idiocy.

"people have a right to know every mistake, every blunder, every oops I commit."

Clearly, this is not true. Your attempt at irony fails because you're not an elected public servant. (Although many would argue that Bush and Cheney were neither elected nor public servants. While the former is open for debate, the latter is certainly true.)

"I'd have to rank it somewhere below, say, driving a young woman off a bridge and leaving her alone to drown while you do...whatever the hell it was he did for several hours.

"But that may just be me."

Hopefully, it is just you, but, again, we're dealing with simple folks. Everyone just *loves* to heap on Ted Kennedy any time a conservative commits an egregious breach of the public trust. But Ted Kennedy didn't leave Mary Jo Kopechne to die: He escaped a terrifying near-death accident, and then made several attempts at rescuing her from the bottom of a rushing river. At one point he actually grasped onto part of the chassis of the car. How do we know this? Because he accurately described the bottom of the car, its location, and its position to police officers before it was removed.

But death and personal loss couldn't deter conservatives from bashing Kennedy for 37 years and, in lockstep, trotting him out whenever they needed to distract the public from their own misdeeds. This practice has been, and remains, dispicable.

But I understand: It's easier for the Limbaughs and Coulters of the world to repeat the lies and exaggerations of others than it is to research the actual grand jury testimony (which, by the way, completely exonerated him, even though the day after the accident he respectfully pled guilty to leaving the scene). But again, we're dealing with simple conservative folk who like to be led around.

"So why should Cheney have rushed to spill this news?"

1) Because, by law, he was supposed to.
2) Because the local sheriff was requesting an interview with him.
3) Because he has a history of alcohol abuse, and if he were drinking, his accidental shooting would be deemed a crime.
4) Because we're all under the impression that he is a public SERVANT.

"Does this incident have anything to do with National Security, or the performance of his duties?"

Absolutely. When leaders in a democracy put themselves above the law, you no longer have a democracy. However, "rule of law" is, in *principle*, a very big idea. And we again are not dealing with "big idea" folks, but conservatives.

"During the whole Clinton impeachment, we heard endless babble about how the entire Lewinski affair was part of the President's private life, and should be off limits to the press and legal review."

This is disingenuous, if not an outright lie.

In reality, all we heard about was that we were supposed to know EVERYTHING about the President's private life.

I don't recall any conservatives stepping up for privacy then; they were champing at the bit over a $65 million investigation that uncovered some oral sex. Nice fiscal conservatism.

"I remember wincing when John Kerry referred to Mary Cheney during the last Presidential debate."

But, as a simpleton, you didn't stop to think why.

Kerry was pointing out the hypocracy of Cheney's aligning himself with the cadre of hatemongers. He *should* have just brought up the Boystown controversy, which exposed the Republican homosexual pedophelia ring in D.C. Where was the liberal media on that one?

"I remember reading blogs breathlessly telling the story of Laura Bush murdered her ex-boyfriend in a drunk driving accident."

Funny, I've *never* heard this story talked about in the "liberal" (i.e., corporate mainstream) media. I've only ever heard it mentioned by the far left...and only to highlight the right's hypocracy.

Of course, we hear the "Swift Boat" lies repeated endlessly by the "liberal" media, and we hear the "Al Gore claims to have invented the internet" lie over and over by the "liberal" media.

But simpletons will never understand that a billion-dollar oligopoly cannot, by its very conservative nature, be liberal.

Enjoy being spied on in the name of a phony war against terrorism. I'm moving to France where I can live like an American (except with health care).

Posted by: ConservaTim on February 17, 2006 4:42 PM

Tim, after reading your comment, I really wonder just what conservative principles you actually believe in. The tone and content of your argument (such as it is) could be taken directly from any fringe left website. Let's go point by point, shall we?
Your attempt at irony fails because you're not an elected public servant.
Where is it written that elected public officials have no right to privacy? It's not in the Constitution, or any Federal regulation that I know of. Perhaps you'd like to quote applicable case law. The truth is that any public figure, whether elected or otherwise, loses certain expectations of privacy by nature of their fame. There is no special case for elected officials, unless there are details that bear directly on their duties.

But Ted Kennedy didn't leave Mary Jo Kopechne to die: He escaped a terrifying near-death accident, and then made several attempts at rescuing her from the bottom of a rushing river. At one point he actually grasped onto part of the chassis of the car. How do we know this? Because he accurately described the bottom of the car, its location, and its position to police officers before it was removed.

And how long after the rescue attempt did he wait to inform the police? 10 hours! And was he available for any statements to the police afterwards? Nope! Whereas in the Cheney incident, not only did he immediately render aid to Whittington, the police were informed promptly, and Cheney gave a statement to the police at 8AM the next morning. This is a key distinction between the two cases, one you choose to obscure with insults and irrelevancies. For 10 hours, despite the repeated requests of his two friends, and multiple opportunities to either phone in a report, or tell anybody anything about the accident, Ted Kennedy did nothing.

Because, by law, he was supposed to.

Show me a law that requires anybody to notify the press of an accident. We're not talking about police notification here, we're talking about the press, and nobody has a legal obligation to say anything to the press. Period.

When leaders in a democracy put themselves above the law, you no longer have a democracy.

At no time did Cheney act like he was "above the law." In fact, he filled every obligation he had under the law, as well as those required by simple human decency. It is significant that no charges were filed in the incident.

Kerry was pointing out the hypocracy[sic] of Cheney's aligning himself with the cadre of hatemongers.

Which would have been fine if he had not chosen to try and use his family to hurt him. Look, it wasn't like he was outing Mary, or that he was causing her harm in any way, but by trying to use Mary to hurt her father for political gain, he crossed a line. If you can't see that, then there's nothing more to say on this one.

Funny, I've *never* heard this story talked about in the "liberal" (i.e., corporate mainstream) media.

Funny, I didn't say I saw it there, only on lefty blogs. The media has to maintain some sort of standards, which is why this nonstory gets no play there. Of course, that doesn't stop the DUcks and KOSlings from dragging it out whenever possible.

But simpletons will never understand that a billion-dollar oligopoly cannot, by its very conservative nature, be liberal.

How simplistic of you. Corporations are not conservative or liberal; they are capitalistic. Their money goes to where their best interests lie. Since conservative principles favor free enterprise more than liberal principles do, capitalist interests often coincide with conservative ones. However, it's a large leap to go from there to claiming that the capitalist corporation must produce a conservative media when all indications are the exact opposite. The vast majority of reporters, editors, and publishers are liberal. It's hard to imagine that these folks would stay in a job where the truth is being subverted by the corporate office. And if that is the case, then what does that say about the strength of their commitment to liberal principles?

I'm moving to France where I can live like an American (except with health care).

Bye.

Posted by: rich on February 21, 2006 7:43 PM

Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Security Code:

Remember info?