By the way, if it didn’t come accross, my last post was farce.. which I guess this one would make clear.

Cheney is uncharacteristically private and tight-lipped for someone holding such a public office

i quoted this snippet from mason, then referred to one of bill clinton’s many secrets to point out two things:

first, cheney isn’t “uncharacteristically private and tight-lipped.” every president has been this way, pretty much, and every president will be this way. which brings me to #2:

second, no one is eager to have their embarrassing moments put under the microscope of media analysis.

additionally, there are other differences.

i think it was bill clinton’s choice to lie (and encourage others to lie) about the affair(s) after they had been discovered that served the country poorly, not his failure to be forthcoming. in the case of mr. cheney, some people are probably waiting for lies of his to come out, but he seems to have been honest so far.

I guess the Bush White House can use Clinton as an excuse for their mistakes, but that makes little sense. Shouldn’t we expect more?

i don’t think the bush white house has mentioned clinton in this. i did not mention clinton to excuse cheney. i mentioned clinton (i could have mentioned a dozen others, both republican and democrat) to show that there are others who are just as private and tight-lipped, and to support the claim that cheney is not “uncharacteristically” so.

now, if we want to talk about blameworthiness, there is another point to make: bill clinton carried on his acts over a lengthy period, in an official capacity, using taxpayer resources, and with clear intent and desire. mr. cheney, by all accounts, had an accident on a private outing, in an unofficial capacity.

the main beef the media has: it took 18 hours for them to get the news.

talk about a hissy fit. give me a break.

Yes, Bill Clinton wasn’t open either and it also served him and the country poorly. That’s another great example. Of course, Clinton isn’t president anymore so nothing can change about his administration. I guess the Bush White House can use Clinton as an excuse for their mistakes, but that makes little sense. Shouldn’t we expect more?

Is that trying to cover it up? The strange thing is that reporters and others think that this administration was actually considering trying to cover this up. Or they are trying to leverage this event to support their claims that the administration is secretive and evil.

They actually are suggesting that. THEY ACTUALLY ARE SUGGESTING THAT. WOAH WOAH WOAH…lemme say that again. They are actually suggesting that! Haha. Good gosh. That is scary.

I love this. We’re excusing the VP’s actions because, hey, he’s no worse than a forgetful teenager.

i’m not excusing him. he shot somebody. others have already done a great job of condemning him. i took the opportunity to point out a funny element of the monday press conference. hystericity seems to be a characteristic of reporters generally. white house press conferences, gretzky gambling conferences, you name it. it is ugly and i don’t like it.

Cheney is uncharacteristically private and tight-lipped for someone holding such a public office

ah, yes, i remember it like it was yesterday: bill clinton, our model of openness and speedy honesty, came out of the oval office with monica lewinsky and immediately sought out the white house press corps, where he could inform the american public of his and the intern’s extracurricular activities — activities not done on a private ranch outside of a work context, but carried on at least in part while the president was on official business and in the oval office. but cheney is the uncharacteristically private one.

And not to beat a dead horse, but you seem to take issue with the reporters question: “Is this type of accidental shooting a type of criminal offense?”

If the shooting victim dies (which at the time of the questions was a real possibility considering his age and minor heart attack). The shooter if found to be negligent or reckless can be charged with criminally negligent manslaughter.

The question by the reporter, especially considering the unnecessary secrecy, was actually quite relevant and understandable. But, admittedly, you have to have some understanding of the law to realize that.

what bothered me, as i said, was the barrage of hostile questioning. i’ve seen this before (you noted my lack of understanding of press relations and my lack of historical perspective:

It appears you have little understanding of how press relations have traditionally worked….If you had a more accurate historical perspective (or any historical perspective at all)….

but i referred to it, briefly, here, in an article about helen thomas from years ago) the question the reporter raised was relevant, but i think we will find, like the case of the hyperactive mother, that it was an overreaction.

the facts as they have been reported would not reach the level of a criminal offense. the majority of courts have typically distinguished the following types of cases:

(1) hunters who mistake a person for an animal and shoot at it may be found guilty of criminally negligent homicide or voluntary manslaughter (or whatever term the jurisdiction uses to describe criminal offenses at that level).

(2) hunters who shoot at an animal and accidentally hit a hunting companion will generally only be civilly liable. see Hunt v. Commonwealth, 289 Ky. 527, 159 S.W.2d 23 (1942); State v. Millin, 318 Mo. 553, 300 S.W. 694 (1927); Robertson v. State, 70 Tenn. 239 (1879) (action accompanied, not only with no intent to do harm, but also with a reasonable belief that no harm is possible, is clearly wanting in every essential element of crime). the problem with cases in category (1) is that the belief of the shooter was unreasonable.

but you probably already knew this because of your extensive knowledge of the law!

a texas attorney appeared on keith olbermann’s “countdown” (not exactly a bastion of conservatism) last night and said that hunting accidents of this type are not generally prosecuted as criminal offenses in texas. he also said (if memory serves) there were 79 or 89 such accidents in texas resulting in death last year. as i said, some cases support imposing criminal liability for hunters who shoot, intending to kill, figures rustling in bushes, figures in the brush, etc. cases in which a hunter accidently shoots a companion whose location he is unaware of do not warrant criminal charges. if it is true that mr. whittington had been apart from the group and was approaching unbeknownst to vice president cheney, that would support the fact that the vice president reasonably believed that no harm was possible. lacking intent and reasonable belief of harm, mr. cheney will not face criminal charges.

It appears you have little understanding of how press relations have traditionally worked with the executive office regardless of the controlling political party. (Hint: it’s not exactly like a teenager forgetting to call home when he’s going to be late). Cheney is uncharacteristically private and tight-lipped for someone holding such a public office.

If you had a more accurate historical perspective (or any historical perspective at all), you would be less eager to chalk this up to “hysterical reporters” and more likely to see it as it is: a very strange and poor PR decision by that quirky VP Cheney.

I for one am not going to encourage the press to back down and give the executive office some breathing room. What a dangerous practice to encourage, no matter which party is in power.

And not to beat a dead horse, but you seem to take issue with the reporters question: “Is this type of accidental shooting a type of criminal offense?”

If the shooting victim dies (which at the time of the questions was a real possibility considering his age and minor heart attack). The shooter if found to be negligent or reckless can be charged with criminally negligent manslaughter.

The question by the reporter, especially considering the unnecessary secrecy, was actually quite relevant and understandable. But, admittedly, you have to have some understanding of the law to realize that.