February 16, 2006

"It's not the shooting incident itself, it's that Dick Cheney has been the administration's hate magnet..."

Peggy Noonan talks about replacing Dick Cheney:
Mr. Cheney took the heat that would otherwise have been turned solely on George Bush. So he had utility, and he's experienced and talented and organized, and Mr. Bush admires and respects him. But, at a certain point a hate magnet can draw so much hate you don't want to hold it in your hand anymore, you want to drop it, and pick up something else. Is this fair? Nah. But fair has nothing to do with it.
But it's not a good move unless you've got a good replacement. The President's choice has to be confirmed by Congress, which contains some folks who want to run for President and will not like to see any of the competition getting a head start. And maybe the press and the people will balk:
A lot of people would find such a move too cute by half. The contenders already in line--and their supporters, donors, fans, staff and friends in the press--would resent it. Big time.

People wouldn't like it . . . unless they liked it. How could they be persuaded to like it?

It would have to be a man wildly popular in the party and the press.
A man?

60 comments:

Pete said...

I think my dear, sweet Peggy doesn't want Condi as a replacement. For purely political reasons, I'm sure, perhaps saving her for the actual election. I don't think anyone who's named to replace Cheney would stand a chance at winning. So that likely narrows the field to a man, some dutiful party member who has no eye on the prize, like Ford probably, before Nixon resigned and changed everything.

Goesh said...

Had Cheney rushed to a podium blubbering and weeping and falling all over himself announcing he had just shot a man by accident, he would be deemed cold and calculating, putting his image above the suffering on his victim. He would still have been under the microscope on suspicion of trying to cover something up. Few working, tax paying Americans connect this accident to national policy in any way and realize it has no impact on their lives in any way, except as a source of humor. End of story, all the rest is pundits with boring, meaningless lives trying to sound important.

Gerry said...

Almost within moments of hearing of the accident, I wondered to myself if this was an opportunity.

The more I thought about it, the more I concluded that the cost-benefit scales are tipped in the wrong direction.

It is a bad idea to stay in the habit of doing something that should not be done only for political reasons. Think the general case: should a high-level politician have to resign due to a hunting accident where medical help was called for immediately? Of course not.

The only reason to replace Cheney would be to take advantage of the situation for political purposes. That's not a really good reason for setting such a precedent.

HaloJonesFan said...

I agree with Goesh.

And, as for the column, I wouldn't call Cheney a "hate magnet" any more than anyone else in the current administration. We're just thinking about Cheney right now because he's in the news. Tomorrow it will go back to Rumsfeld or Rove again.

Gaius Arbo said...

The usual suspects will hate anything and anyone from theis administration, period.

It would be hysterically funny if Condi stepped in. Blood vessels all over the left would be exploding.......

David said...

Dick Cheney is not the hate magnet for the administration. We are not talking about hate but self-loathing. The people whose every answer to current problems is "I hate Bush (and everyone associated with him) are actually expressing vividly the hate they have for themselves, their outdated ideas, and subsequent impotence on being denied access to the seats of power.

I remember a teacher of mine who reminded me that when one finger is pointing at someone else, three are pointing back at you.

Nothing Cheney would have done would have been acceptable to the White House Press Corps. These yapping dogs deserve exactly what they didn't get! Cheney did the correct thing by not politicizing the situation and keeping it personal until he felt the time was right for disclosure.

The Washington Press Corp is comprised of prima donnas who, by virtue of their access, think they are annointed to inform the rest of us. This will come as news to these folks that the internet has allowed the besotted rabble to emerge from the cave in search of the real truth, or close approximation thereof.

knoxgirl said...

Hello-ooooo, Peggy, get with the program!

Somebody needs to send her the memo that *Condi* is going to be our next prez.

brylin said...

Check out NBC's David Gregory showing off his hate.

More BDS: Bob Herbert today calls for Cheney's resignation behind TimesSelect.

(TimesSelect is wonderful! It saves the rest of us from the insane leftist rantings that are not intended to persuade and serves them up to the "true believers.")

And consider Dick Cheney's hunting accident from the perspective of "concern for the victim of an accident."

Then compare with Ted Kennedy's concern for victim Mary Jo Kopechne (no phone call for help...).

amba said...

Wonder who she means? McCain is wildly popular in the press, but not in the party.

Cheney handled this accident with the instincts of a powerful and private man. He must feel terrible about it, and he is not the type to sell those sentiments to the public. The trouble is, that's being turned into a symbol of the secretive and autocratic tendencies of this administration in matters that are the public's business, although the public is not well qualified to decide on them. Congress is supposed to be a double filter, coarse and fine, for the impulses of the democratic mob. But the press amplifies the howling directly.

amba said...

Brylin: have you seen this bumper sticker?

For the record -- yet again -- I think Condi Rice would make a fine president.

Charles said...

It's interesting that now the story from CNN is that Cheney slighted them by going to Fox. Not that CNN shows favoritism in getting exclusives. Isn't that why it's called an "exclusive?" Fox News has made the tape available, but the other news shows won't run it.

Interesting also that CNN has suddenly disconnected the link to their instant poll on whether Cheney did a good interview or not. Must not have liked the results.

Henry said...

It's a little off topic, but one defense of Cheney going to Fox that I haven't heard yet is simple -- it's the most watched network.

EddieP said...

And why did Harry Reid wait three days before announcing his recent stroke? Think David Gregory would be all over that one since 18 hours was an abomination to him.

Sissy Willis said...

Great point! Here's my take on the whole affair:

"The biggest weapons issue of our time

PatCA said...

And why did Hillary wait 30 hours to announce Vincent Foster's death?

The people who hate Bush with such a passion will never stop. It would be ludicrous to replace Cheney now at the end of the term over an ACCIDENT when the opposition has accused him of being Satan for so long as to the war, etc.

Bruce Hayden said...

I don't think that they just dump Cheney. Bush doesn't operate that way, esp. with someone who has shown a lot of loyalty and is willing to fall on grenades for him. But I do think that both of them would probably prefer Dr. Rice as Bush's replacement. She is loyal, smart, and intimately involved in much of what is done in the Administration.

I do see a couple of problems right now with Cheney resigning and Condi slipping in there. One thing is that this would look like Bush dumping Cheney through embarassment. That is a sign of weakness, and, besides, is out of character. Secondly, she has a job to do trying to clean up Foggy Bottom.

On the other hand, there is the question of what sliding her into the VP slot would do for those elections. It might just be an advantage to the Republicans getting her in before the elections. Calling someone an Uncle Tom is hard when she would be one heart beat away from the most powerful office on Earth. And, ditto for any claims that Republicans are racists.

I think that the way it is going to work out is that Cheney resigns about a year from now for health reasons, in particular, his heart. Everyone will be exhausted by the election, and Dr. Rice is slid in. She then goes on to run for President in 2008, with a leg up over her opponent (still most likely Hillary), of being addressed as Ms. Vice President.

As for her getting confirmed by the Senate, no Republican, except maybe McCain, would dare vote against her - because doing so would brand them as racists and sexists. And McCain won't hang out there by himself, since that would make (more) obvious his political maneuvering and spite.

Maxine Weiss said...

Peggy is just being realistic. A woman will not be President, or VP. At least not any time soon. It will be very entertaining watching 'em try, though.

Peggy understands what many don't: less than 100 years ago women weren't even allowed to vote. It's going to take at least that long, or longer, to get 'em into Office.

Peggy gets it: With or without Hillary/Condi, change happens slowly.

There were very talented, enigmatic, and pioneering women in the 1800s, far more than Hillary/Condi....yet they still had to wait 100 years to even vote. Sorry about that. We, as a nation, are slow to change...with or without dynamic leaders of whatever gender.

100 years, in the life of our Nation, is actually not a long time.

Peace, Maxine

Elizabeth said...

Why did Hillary wait 30 hours to announce Foster's death? Must be to wash the gunshot residue from her hands. Isn't that the only answer the Lucienne Goldberg rightwing lunatics will accept?

I'm intrigued by Condi running, but it's not a given that she'd be a good president. She's not talked about her stances on any domestic issues, and where's the evidence that she's been an effective Secretary of State? It's premature to annoint her. She's certainly a viable candidate, but alot of her appeal is surface gloss. Finding out what's underneath is what the primaries are for.

Elizabeth said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Elizabeth said...

100 years wouldn't be long in the life of our much older cousins in Europe, but to a 230 year-old nation? How many of those much older nations have had a woman in their top elected offices? England and Ireland, Iceland, Malta, Finland...that's just a short list, and doesn't include Israel, Southeast Asia, South and Central America. You'll find women presidents and prime ministers in all those areas. And not many of those nations gave women the vote much sooner than the U.S. did. I'm not persuaded, Maxine.

Balfegor said...

Nothing Cheney would have done would have been acceptable to the White House Press Corps.

Yes . . . but he shot a man in the face. I'm a Cheney fan, and I support the administration, but this is like that one scene in Arrested Development -- where the mother goes: "But he won't see the good part; he'll just see the drugging and the beating." I think it's difficult for the situation not to reflect badly on Cheney. The fact that the White House Press Pool loath the Bush administration is only incidental to the underlying fact here. Which is that Cheney shot a man in the face.

Coco said...

"It's a little off topic, but one defense of Cheney going to Fox that I haven't heard yet is simple -- it's the most watched network"

I know its a little off topic too, but to be accurate, Fox's news isn't even close to the "most watched network". The nightly news of the major networks dwarf Fox's viewership...indeed even last place CBS' has more viewers than all of the cable news networks' viewerships combined. Fox has the most cable viewership by a strong margin however.

Coco said...

Even though its a very simple explanation, I think there's some real truth to balfegor's comment. The fact that the vice president shot some someone is simply huge news no matter if it was Al Gore, Dan Quale (imagine the quail jokes), Gerald Ford (how did this not happen actually?), or even Spiro Agnew (can you imagine Agnew hunting?)...

So while I agree that this media event can be viewed as a condemnation of our rabid press (whcih may ultimately be a condemnation of our collective selves), I don't think the political elements tell us very much.

This of course isn't to say that folks calling for his resignation deserve any serious merit

Craig Ranapia said...

Balfegor said:
Yes . . . but he shot a man in the face.

I reply:
Well, if you believed the media you'd think Cheney went on a drunked murderous rampage with an Uzi, and (like William Shatner in Boston Legal) his only response is to chant "Dick... Cheney" - like some senile old Repuglican thug.

And I personally have found it remarkably distasteful to see the media conducting a murder trial by media, while Whittington is still in an ICU. That's not partisan, just ghoulish and would have bewn if we were talking about Vice-President Edwards.

Sorry, Belfegor, but as this story grinds on it seem to be more about wounded media egoes than anything else.

Meade said...

A man?
posted by Ann Althouse at 5:53 AM

C'mon, Ann you of all people know she meant man/[wo]man.

Synova said...

It may be that Cheney functions as a hate magnet (though there certainly seems more than enough to go around, a well without a bottom) but I disagree with the idea that there would come a time when Bush would want to drop him because he'd aquired too much heat. It would be out of character for him. (This is, incidentally, one of the reasons that military people tend to like Bush... the demonstrated top-down loyalty.)

Anyhow, I've been boggling at the fact that anyone is even talking about Cheney resigning at all. It's weird.

As for the chances of a woman winning the presidential election. For 20 years I've been saying that the first woman president will be a Republican. Very recently I changed my mind about that because Hillary seemed so possible this time around, mostly because the next pres *has* to be a Democrat. Even more recently (like yesterday, after watching the video clip of that SF supervisor talking about the Iowa) I've decided that the Democrats can't win next time (even though, by rights, it should be a shoo-in for them) and we will have another Republican president.

Could it be Condi? Possibly, though I think my gut likes Guilianni. Yet, if it *is* Condi, it won't be *because* she's a woman. No one will think that. This is the "problem" that the Democrats have, if you will. Did Ferraro (is that right?) get the VP slot on the Dem ticket because she was the best for the job or *because* she was a woman?

No one is going to think that a minority or a woman got on the Republican ticket because the party is trying to promote women or minorities, therefore they *must* have got there, not only on merit, but on excessive merit.

The country is more than ready to vote in a woman for president but they aren't going to vote for her *because* she's a woman. That would be just stupid.

PatCA said...

"Why did Hillary wait 30 hours to announce Foster's death? Must be to wash the gunshot residue from her hands. Isn't that the only answer the Lucienne Goldberg rightwing lunatics will accept?"

Jeez, Elizabeth, can't you recognize a freaking joke when you see one? Guess I need to use emoticons for cultural warriors like you or risk getting my head chopped off.

And I would try to think of a personal insult to equal your "Lucienne Goldberg rightwing lunatics" but I have better things to do.

Alexandra said...

All Things Beautiful TrackBack How To Kill A Mockingbird

Stacy said...

I am not a cheney fan but I do have to admit the guy certainly does his own thing regardless of what anyone thinks- but that can of course be a liability.

I don't really think he is a "hate magnet"- some of us just really don't agree with his take on things and I personally think he has a certain attitude that suggests an arrogance, hositility and sense of his own power that perhaps makes him forget that in fact, this Republic has checks and balances that he may find inconvenient, but that's the way it is. At least in a democracy.

Do some people hate Bush and Cheney? Sure, I guess some do. But some of us also simply don't agree with them politically. And that doesn't necessarily equal hate. I am always amazed how when I state my disagreement against a certain policy supported by the Right, someone is usually to just label it as some sort of irrational bush-hatred. I guess that's easier than actually providing a rational rebuttal.

And many of the folks psychoanlyzing the left would do well to remember their own reaction and emotions towards bill and hillary because I honestly hadn't seen such vein-popping resentment and perhaps even hatred, towards a politician in my lifetime atleast.

George Will today takes aim at this sort of Cheney attitude that seems to be running rampant at 1600 Avenue these days.

And of course this shooting incident was bound to catch the attention of the media- it's right up their alley. It doesn't matter whether its a democrat or republican and I dont believe all the nonsense I am hearing from *some* conservatives saying this is all some liberal media conspiracy against Cheney. But that's always the fall-back position. And quite frankly, anyone in his situation would of course be attacked no matter what they did (this is politics after all), but had Cheney and his folks handled it a bit differently, the press wouldn't have much to keep talking about.

This sort of story is what they live for- it's so much easier to cover than some complicated policy issue that doesn't become an easy soundbite. Whether it's some missing girl in Aruba, Scott Peterson killing his wife and unborn child, Clinton's sexscapades- the lowest common denominator is that stories like this sell copy, for better or worse.

good day all

Maxine Weiss said...

Dr. Rice is like the Jeanne Kirpatrick of today. They were both extremely brilliant women; but, nobody ever talked about Jean Kirkpatrick ever running for president, or Vice President. And, it's just as preposterous to even think of Condi being president, much less wasting her time running.

There are lots of brilliant women in society. The best thing to do for a Hillary/Condi....what they should do....is put their efforts towards someone who has a chance of being elected.

Peace, Maxine

Elizabeth said...

Pat, I'll apologize and call a truce. But consider how hard it is to recognize that as a joke when that very accusation is STILL hurled around by bloggers and commenters on the right.

I can equate Lucienne Goldberg with lunatic, but just a week ago we were debating whether her progeny is a worthless windbag or a reliable pundit (there's no question, he's a windbag). Scroll through a few Hillary threads on this very blog and you'll find comments accusing her of criminal activity, and more. Poor Vince Foster is still offered up as evidence of the Clintons as murderous, adulterous MacBeths.

I actually thought my GSR comment was kind of funny, too, by the way. Sorry about the "lunatic" part. That apology is for you, personally, not for the actual lunatics out there. (fill in appropriate emoticon here.)

ChrisO said...

I realize it's such an article of faith around here that I probably won't get any serious responses, but on what do you base the constant assertion that the press "hates" Bush? They were total lapdogs in the entire run-up to the war in Iraq, and for some time after. Now that the Bush administration has assembled an impressive list of screw-ups, the Right wants to blame the press for reporting on them, as if everything would be all right if the press just didn't say anything.

And the fact is that not only did Cheny shoot a guy, but the story wass terribly mishandled, and has change radically over time. Is the VP alowed to just dissemble whenever he wants, and only talk to news men who won't press him for the truth, and anyone who objects must "hate" him? Since when did the role of the press in this country be to just shut up and roll over?

When Scott McClellan stands in front of the press and makes statements that are obviously false, then stonewalls any follow-up questions by just repeating the same three lines over and over, then I hope the press will keep up the pressure. And when he insults David Gregory personally, I'm glad Gregory comes back at him.

Everyone wants to lean on the fact that Cheney had to make sure that Whittington was OK before doing anything else. Well, no one believes that Cheney had to personally call the press, but he does have one or two people that are tasked with that assignment. Do you think he could have taken time out when he was having dinner and a cocktail... I mean, holding Whittington's hand at his bedside, to have one of his press people deal with the issue?

He wanted to have Katherine Armstrong tell the press, because she was an eyewitness and a hunting "expert." So she gets essentially the entire story wrong, and people want to stll fall back on the meme that the press would have misreported it?
\
And craig ranapia, I'm sure when I say just how stupid your comment was when you said "Well, if you believed the media you'd think Cheney went on a drunked murderous rampage with an Uzi," you'll respond that it was sarcasm. Well, sarcasm has to be based in truth. Please tell me who in the media has made even a suggestion of what you are saying?

Many many commenters, on the right and left, have pointed out that there are huge gaping holes in Cheney's story. Yet the only response I ever hear is "you hate Bush," as if that answers everything. No matter how many facts are pointed out, it seems "the media hates Bush" is the canned response. It's like you guys are in a cult or something.

Meade said...

"Pat, I'll apologize and call a truce. But..."
TEXT

Elizabeth said...

Meade, what's your point? And what's your interest in my communication with PatCA?

Hank said it well.

anonlawstudent said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Meade said...

Thanks, Elizabeth. Hank really was the greatest.

anonlawstudent said...

Dick Cheney is not the hate magnet for the administration. We are not talking about hate but self-loathing. The people whose every answer to current problems is "I hate Bush (and everyone associated with him) are actually expressing vividly the hate they have for themselves, their outdated ideas, and subsequent impotence on being denied access to the seats of power.

I think that in a forum for discussing ideas among people who do not see eye-to-eye, this kind of arrogant stereotyping is counter-productive. I resent you telling me that my political views are a function of some neurosis I have. And the gall of diagnosing the hundreds of millions of Americans who agree with me.

Instead of telling us we're all full of self-loathing, why don't you ask us why we dislike the Bush administration so much? Give us the basic credit you'd give to someone you meet face to face and assume the reasons we give are the reasons that apply. Not some assinine pseudo-analysis you've come up with.

It's one thing, when you're joking around with your buddies to make comments like that. I'll freely admit that when I'm hanging out with my liberal friend, we talk about how ignorant people on the right are. But it's understood that that kind of talk is sloppy and essentially meaningless. When actually engaging people in a pucblic forum, it's important to give us credit for being able to explain ourselves to you and not to denegrate us as a class based on your speculation of our inner life or mental state.

Elizabeth said...

That's generous of you, but misguided. Move over, little dog.

Meade said...

You gonna just keep naggin' all night long, woman?
Or am I gonna hafta come down there and make you do what's right?

Elizabeth said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Craig Ranapia said...

ChrisO wrote:
Well, sarcasm has to be based in truth. Please tell me who in the media has made even a suggestion of what you are saying?

I reply:
Chris O, I've assembled links of media reports and blog posts that most certain did heavily imply that Cheney was drunk, and appear to have problems distinguishing between bird short and and getting ripped by a machine gun, but my wrist started getting very sore around the fiftieth link.

Just as a taster, try the New York Times, Daily Kos (the post headlined CHENEY WAS DRUNK gives it away somewhat), The Huffington Post (where the standard for insobriety in Lawrence O'Donnell's world is what he and his buddies "assume"), the New York Times, Washington Post etc.

Again, Chris, it would actually be nice if you didn't appear to work from the baseline that everything I say is a lying lie that is coming straight from Karl Rove via my teeth.

And stop putting words and attitudes into my mouth. Strange as it may sound, I used to be a journalist and guess what - I worked with some very big egos who would go toxic at the suggestion they were not in the loop at all times. So, in my experience, it's quite fair comment to ask if there isn't a touch of pricked egotism in play here. And I'd like to be able to offer a POV without being called a Cheney/Bush cultist (does that make Condi the Holy Ghost?) - that's not only stupid and lazy smear, it's factually inaccurate.

Hey, nobody forced Dick Cheney to accept the VP nomination with a gun of any description held to his head so he's wide open to scrutiny and criticism. But I keep being reminded of an acidic comment Christopher Hitchens made about the more hysterical right-wing conspiracy mongering around the Clintons - They weren't objectionable because the Clintons were good people, because he didn't think so. They were objectionable because they provided a vicious and corrupt man with public sympathy and cover he didn't deserve, while more rational (and damning) criticism was ignored.

YOu might care to meditate on that for a moment. As a REAL fiscal conservative, I wish the pork-addled, state-expanding fiscal irresponsibility of this administration had attracted one percent of the media coverage that attached itself to this story like flies on bulls**t. Or the blowout in corporate and mildde-class welfare disguised as Medicare reform? I could rattle the real, unreported questions troubling this conservative for a month of Sundays.

And as a closer, I'd love to get in a room with David Gregory and the rest of the White House Press Corps and tell them they're PERSONALLY a disgrace to their profession, and deserve to be exiled to some rural bureau covering A&P shows until they learn how to gather news instead of transcribing talking points.

Elizabeth said...

Good one! Now, do I toss it back to you, or throw in the towel? Oh, let's spend the rest of the night in peace.

Craig Ranapia said...

anonlawstudent said...
I resent you telling me that my political views are a function of some neurosis I have. And the gall of diagnosing the hundreds of millions of Americans who agree with me.

I reply:
Anon, but you're quite happy to do exactly the same thing when you're hanging out with your liberal friends? Gee, sounds a lot like the bigots in my family who are sweet as pie to my face (I happen to be gay and the child of an inter-racial marriage) but think it's OK to make homophobic and racist "jokes" in less mixed company.

Perverse as it may sound, I always prefer an upfront bigot to the "sensitive" hypocrite who will say one thing to my face and do the opposite behind my back. And while I don't always succeed, I try to live by the Golden Rule no matter where I am, or who else is in the room.

(And I didn't even trot out the old stereotypes about lawyers or law students...)

Katharine Lindgren said...

Whoever would be picked would be the frontrunner for the Republican nomination, unless he/she were obviously a placeholder.

It would be a good way to groom someone who might otherwise be insufficiently conservative (eg, Rudy Giuliani) or insufficiently prepared or connected (Condi Rice).

James Lindgren

Johnny Nucleo said...

Anonlawstudent said: "I resent you telling me that my political views are a function of some neurosis I have. And the gall of diagnosing the hundreds of millions of Americans who agree with me."

Hundreds of millions? I doubt that. If the neurosis is Irrational Bush Hatred, then, you gotta admit, it isn't that far-fetched.

You hate Bush like you hate cancer. It's okay. Sometimes hate is okay. But you've become monomaniacal.

All political junkies are somewhat paranoid. But if you hate Bush with such fury that it becomes your politics - and this applies to a frighteningly large number of smart people on the left - your neurosis has gotten the better of you.

We don't ask you why you hate Bush because we know. We don't care. He'll be gone in two years.

We're calling you nuts. Resent all you want.

I assume you think we're nuts. You may be right. But why? We've explained over and over again why we think you're nuts.

ChrisO said...

craig ranapia

You claim you used to be a journalist, yet when I ask for some basis for you saying that the media is implying that Cheney went on a murderous drunken rampage with an Uzi, you come back with Kos and the Huffington Post? You talk about the media, and then cite left wing blogs? Are you serious? And then you just throw out the NY Times and Washington Post, as if just mentioning the names is enough. Don't tell me you had 50 links, but your wrist got sore, so you can't even provide one. That's pretty weak

I made a detailed post, and your response is more of the same gneralized pap. I called you on a specific statement you made, I didn't suggest that everything you say is a lie from Karl Rove. You're the one who keeps making extreme nonsensical statements like that. And when I ask for a basis on which people are suggesting that the press's whole motivation is anger that they were left out of the loop, you respond that you knew journalists with big egos. What a non-responsive response.

I certainly have a point of view on all this, but I also try to make specific points backed by facts. Perhaps you could do the same.

And by the way, the last graf in my post was a general conclusion, not part of what I was addressing to you, although it looked that way.

Craig Ranapia said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Craig Ranapia said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Craig Ranapia said...

ChrisO:

Ever considered the notion that the proverb "you catch more birds with honey than with vinegar" has something to it? And do you think perhaps you look a little silly going off on an obviously sarcastic comment in a lengthy post, or being quite so defensive when I don't roll over when you call me a liar?

I actually have marginally better things to do with my time and energy than provide lists of links for pompous, irony-deficient people who display little interest in anything that falls outside their socio-political filter.

Meade said...

"[Lizzie], I think this is the beginning of a beautiful friendship."
"You Win Again" has to be one of the best songs EVAH!
I hope you slept well... little darlin'.

brylin said...

ChrisO: After reading your comments I am sure you would rather be riding with Ted Kennedy than hunting with Dick Cheney!

(Credit to Amba.)

Hey Chris, seriously, do you have any comments on the issue of "concern for an accident victim?"

PatCA said...

Thanks, Elizabeth.

ChrisO said...

craig ranapia

"I actually have marginally better things to do with my time and energy than provide lists of links for pompous, irony-deficient people who display little interest in anything that falls outside their socio-political filter."

You said you compiled 50 link, until your wrists got sore. I asked you to provide just a couple, and you say you have better things to do than compile links. Hey, you could work in Cheney's press office. My request wasn't unreasonable or hectoring. It's fairly common on discussion threads to ask someone for a citation when they make a bold statement of fact. If you don't have any, just say so. Don't act like I'm being so unreasonable. Face it, you shot your mouth off and you can't back it up.

And you may be right about catching more flies with honey than vinegar, but after scrolling through comments like "The people whose every answer to current problems is "I hate Bush (and everyone associated with him) are actually expressing vividly the hate they have for themselves," or "We're calling you nuts. Resent all you want." or "pompous, irony-deficient people who display little interest in anything that falls outside their socio-political filter," I guess I kind of lost sight of that.

And brylin, I do have thoughts on concern for the victim. Why do you ask? I'm not sure what kind of answer you're looking for.

I will say that one of my concerns would be to not add to his and his family's distress by telling the national news media that he was responsible for getting shot. Is that what you mean? Or are you suggesting that "concern for the victim" rendered Cheny incapable of doing anything, except of course for having dinner and a cocktail, talking with the White House and planning how to release the story with Katherine Armstrong?

brylin said...

ChrisO: I was referring to how Ted Kennedy had so little concern for Mary Jo Kopechne that he wouldn't even telephone for help.

Cheney's first response wasn't to consult his lawyer, it was to get medical help for the victim of the accident. Notification of the family was his second concern.

So you would rather ride with Ted?

Henry said...

Hey folks, Whittington is out of the hospital:

"Accidents do and will happen," Whittington said, "and that's what happened."

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Cheney.html

That reminds me of one of my favorite John Allen Paulos quotes:

"Bad things happen and they have to happen to somebody."

brylin said...

I just saw excerpts from the Whittington press conference. He apologized to Cheney.

I wonder if Mary Jo Kopechne's family held a press conference to apologize to Ted Kennedy?

ChrisO said...

brylin

Let it go already. We get it. Apparently, unless someone dies in a car, the Republicans are beyond criticism. Is Chappaquiddick your response to everything? It must be nice not to have to think.

brylin said...

Chris, I'll let Harry Whittington speak for himself.

brylin said...

Whittington's video his here.

brylin said...

Apparently great minds think alike, but Mark Steyn is perhaps more eloquent:

"Hmm. Let's see. On the one hand, the guy leaves the gal at the bottom of the river struggling for breath pressed up against the window in some small air pocket while he pulls himself out of the briny, staggers home, sleeps it off and saunters in to inform the cops the following day that, oh yeah, there was some broad down there. And, on the other hand, the guy calls 911, has the other fellow taken to the hospital, lets the sheriff know promptly but neglects to fax David Gregory's make-up girl!"