Cheney shoots trial lawyer who 'gets in his way'.

[mrbiggs]

Originally Posted by achilleus

On the somewhat original topic, I can't believe any of you would wonder why this is news. I mean, he's a public figure. He, during the campaigns, had his whole life scrutinized for any impropriety, and you think him being involved in an accident of this nature isn't news?

In addition, I don't really think Brad, Jen, and Angelina should be news, but guess what, they are.

That's pretty much what I was trying to say; that this isn't really a political event as much as it is celebrity gossip.

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by jeff

Nice try.

It's easy when the facts support one's "try".

Keep trying to spread the absurd story that this is a snit by the chattering classes, since it obviously won't wash that it's a liberal conspiracy if NR takes the same position.

I prefer to keep trying to spread the perfectly supportable story to the same effect.

Since bloggers, Republicans (the Administration itself is tight-lipped in expression), Democrats, and even former White House staff blast Cheney as a chump in how he handled this (just Google on "cheney fitzwater" for revealing remarks) your claim that it's the Press's problem is obviously wrong. It's only the most ardent partisans who pooh-pooh this as a non-issue.

Argumentum ad numeram. If everyone on earth believed in ghosts, that would not go one inch toward proving that ghost exist. And a crowd of people nodding their heads on this issue does not establish the truth of your version of reality.

[jeff]

Inq, it does call judgement into question because behavior in a crisis matters. That's when character is revealed. Is somebody a straight-up person who takes responsibility in a crisis immediately and forthrightly? Does he or she show leadership and set an example? Or does somebody dispatch underlings to report a problem as quietly as possible, to the most favorable audience, and blame the victims? There is importance to how people behave under pressure, and the poor performance here can legitemately be applied elsewhere. As far as the partisan aspects: I may enjoy the mistakes made by those I dislike, but I don't deny the equivalent applicability of mistakes made by those I support, when I don't enjoy it. It still counts, either way. As we've concurred, Cheney and the administration are the losers in this little tempest. They have nobody to blame for it but themselves.

As far as the press goes, you compare totally different, and then hypothetical examples that are unrelated to the subject at hand. Except for this thread, I haven't heard "laziness" as the press's motivation. Yesterday watching the talking heads shows, Matalin and Gigot were spinning this for all they were worth, and their position was "unimportant partisan, now let's move on to the country's business". Ironic, considering how much venom they've placed in character-revealing faux pas by their opponents. Just what do you think the job of a White House press office is?

Regarding your charge of argumentum ad numeram, the wide range of individuals pointing out this incompetence isn't an argument of numbers, but a refutation that it's only a 'lazy press' who says so. As previously pointed out, not partisan, because the Right (eg: NR) has taken the same position, and not just the press because others besides the press have made the same observation.

A small crisis, but one amplified by Cheney's poor response.

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by jeff

Inq, it does call judgement into question because behavior in a crisis matters.

If so, it's an easily dismissed question.

If a single poor performance in an isolated nonpublic incident does in fact demonstrate that a man's whole judgement and character are and always have been poor, then it must work the same way in reverse: a single good performance in any isolated nonpublic incident proves that it is and always has been good, no? ( So if he's done one thing indicative of good judgement and character, that remedies all previous mistakes or faults in same? I doubt you would sign on to THAT one! )

We must not judge individual performances on their own circumstances, but damn or praise a whole life according to the latest performance? Is that what you are arguing? If not, what are you saying?

As far as the press goes, you compare totally different, and then hypothetical examples that are unrelated to the subject at hand.

Not different at all in the relevant particulars. In fact the analogies were very apt, in that they shared with the Cheney affair the two characteristics which you yourself forwarded as salient: they had "no press corps attached" to them, and they involved things which happened in private, in fact in under conditions of strict exclusive security. If you did not make your conditions narrow enough, don't blame me: I am working with what you gave me.

Cheney's incident was (a) in private and (b) there was no press corps in attendance, as you said. So too were all of the other examples I mentioned. The press managed to dig out all of the latter; they would have and should have done the same with the former. ( Instead they affect outrage that they weren't immediately summoned and the story laid in their laps. ) That other extraneous details of the other affairs differed from the Cheney one is immaterial to the points which you spotlighted and which I answered.

Except for this thread, I haven't heard "laziness" as the press's motivation.

Well, where WOULD you "hear it"? From other members of the Fourth Estate? How likely are they to condemn themselves---or even to see their own failure as a possibility? It probably never occurred to them.

Yesterday watching the talking heads shows, Matalin and Gigot were spinning this for all they were worth, and their position was "unimportant partisan, now let's move on to the country's business".

Probably true as far as it goes. Do you deny that partisanship infuses everything these days? Do you really think that this is meaningful in any larger policymaking sense?

Now, of course they are hastily trying to get the story out of the spotlight. Their motives are clearly suspect, but the specific arguments they use aren't necessarily invalidated by their motives.

Ironic, considering how much venom they've placed in character-revealing faux pas by their opponents.

No doubt ( although I don't listen to any commentators much more strident than those on The News Hour, or read the worst offenders' columns ). Now more than ever, where one stands seems to depend on where one sits, and hypocrisy is the currency of much of the partisan punditry. ( It always was the currency of the partisan political class. )

Just what do you think the job of a White House press office is?

Not dissimilar to one of those inflatable dolls sold in porno shops, I'd say. A cross between a puppet and a prostitute.

Do you doubt that the White House press office often filters, delays and withholds information for both reasons of ( perceived ) national welfare and petty political reasons? It cetainly isn't just a wide-open spigot for the press.

Regarding your charge of argumentum ad numeram, the wide range of individuals pointing out this incompetence isn't an argument of numbers, but a refutation that it's only a 'lazy press' who says so.

Ah. In that case, it addresses an argument I never made. At no time have I asserted that ONLY the press has been complaining. I HAVE asserted that the press is complaining because it's lazy, but not that everyone else must have the same motive.

At the same time, that others complain about the delays in going public does not really address the central issue of whether the press is in a snit because it feels a sense of entitlement with regard to the release of news to it without having to do any real journalistic work...

[jeff]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

If so, it's an easily dismissed question.

If a single poor performance in an isolated nonpublic incident does in fact demonstrate that a man's whole judgement and character are and always have been poor, then it must work the same way in reverse: a single good performance in any isolated nonpublic incident proves that it is and always has been good, no? ( So if he's done one thing indicative of good judgement and character, that remedies all previous mistakes or faults in same? I doubt you would sign on to THAT one! )

We must not judge individual performances on their own circumstances, but damn or praise a whole life according to the latest performance? Is that what you are arguing? If not, what are you saying?

You're arguing against something I never said. Who said that a single incident would summarize a person's abilities according to a single incident? Not I. An example of poor judgement is an example of poor judgement, to be used along with all the other evidence a person creates through life. This was poor judgement on Cheney's part, further, giving ammunication to those who say he is inappropriately secretive, and can point to his behavior with sealed records on energy policy, Halliburton, pre-war intelligence, and so forth. This hampered the administration and cuts to the core of complaints against it. Karl Rove must have smacked his shiny forehead and said "Gee, Dick! Why did you hand them that".

Are you about to retract all comments with respect to stains on blue dresses? Poor judgement then with Clinton and poor judgement now with Cheney, to the disadvantage of both. The former was widely used to cast a shadow over Clinton's judgement - amplified by his trying to weasel out of it. Cheney isn't eligible for the same?

So, do you disagree with my (partially elided) remarks about crisis demonstrating character? Do you truly feel that this incident doesn't illustrative?

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Not different at all in the relevant particulars. In fact the analogies were very apt, in that they shared with the Cheney affair the two characteristics which you yourself forwarded as salient: they had "no press corps attached" to them, and they involved things which happened in private, in fact in under conditions of strict exclusive security. If you did not make your conditions narrow enough, don't blame me: I am working with what you gave me.

Cheney's incident was (a) in private and (b) there was no press corps in attendance, as you said. So too were all of the other examples I mentioned. The press managed to dig out all of the latter; they would have and should have done the same with the former. ( Instead they affect outrage that they weren't immediately summoned and the story laid in their laps. ) That other extraneous details of the other affairs differed from the Cheney one is immaterial to the points which you spotlighted and which I answered.

You mean to say that Al Capone's gang going through the streets of Chicago with blazing machine guns was somehow a secret uncovered by investigative journalism? That's pretty wild. How much digging was required to get that little nugget (eg: the very existence of an incident) out in the open?

If you want claim that you are proceeding along guidelines I gave you with conditions (a) and (b), then fine, but you're missing the point. With Cheney, the very existence of an incident could not possibly have been known until someone from their party reported it, so claiming that it's lazy press is merely a smokescreen.

I also think funny you suggested the Unabomber as an alternative case study. You would have to search far and wide for a less appropriate example. Gee, the guy mails bombs to figures and then sends manifestos to the press telling them why. Just how much investigative journalism do you suggest it took for the press to figure out that a crime took place, and be able to describe the bomber's motivation.

The Cheney shooting was a case where the very fact that an incident place was outside the public eye, and its very existence could have been kept quiet. Or, are you going to say that the Democrats shouldn't have immediately called the police when they discovered the Watergate burglary?

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Well, where WOULD you "hear it"? From other members of the Fourth Estate? How likely are they to condemn themselves---or even to see their own failure as a possibility? It probably never occurred to them.

Ms. Matalin was there in her capacity as PR spin-doctor for Cheney, representing his interests and not the 4th Estate. So it was non-press saying the subject was other than 'it's the lazy press'. Her lame excuse was that the delay was caused by wanting to get the facts in order before going to press, which hardly passes the giggle test.

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Probably true as far as it goes. Do you deny that partisanship infuses everything these days? Do you really think that this is meaningful in any larger policymaking sense?

Of course partisanship is in everything. With all due respect, I think your defense of Cheney is partisan as well. I don't recall you extending the same considerations for private behavior to the other side of the aisle. If I'm mistaken, then apologies in advance, but it certainly doesn't look like equal distributions of sauce for goose and gander. This is part of the job - core competency for people at high levels of public life.

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Now, of course they are hastily trying to get the story out of the spotlight. Their motives are clearly suspect, but the specific arguments they use aren't necessarily invalidated by their motives.

Not necessarily invalidated, but not given presumption of credibility either

Originally Posted by Inquartata

No doubt ( although I don't listen to any commentators much more strident than those on The News Hour, or read the worst offenders' columns ). Now more than ever, where one stands seems to depend on where one sits, and hypocrisy is the currency of much of the partisan punditry. ( It always was the currency of the partisan political class. )

With that it's impossible to disagree.

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Not dissimilar to one of those inflatable dolls sold in porno shops, I'd say. A cross between a puppet and a prostitute.

Wow - I had to go flip back to see what the question was that this answered....

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Do you doubt that the White House press office often filters, delays and withholds information for both reasons of ( perceived ) national welfare and petty political reasons? It cetainly isn't just a wide-open spigot for the press.

Of course - they manipulate events for reasons both national and partisan. Both sides use each other - it's a well-rehearsed dance (Ye auld dance, if you want a Chaucerian back-reference to your previous paragraph!). That's why it stands out so starkly when somebody on the home team bungles a play as badly as Cheney does.

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Ah. In that case, it addresses an argument I never made. At no time have I asserted that ONLY the press has been complaining. I HAVE asserted that the press is complaining because it's lazy, but not that everyone else must have the same motive.

My motivation in this thread is not to trap you in a gotcha or 'win' a debate on either a narrow or broad argument, so it's not crucial to me which particular line of reasoning you were or were not pursuing. My motivation is exclusively to make the point I said in the 1st paragraph of my last post, regarding character.

By your paragraph above, different people have different reasons for complaining, and some of them surely have more than one. I can live with that.

Originally Posted by Inquartata

At the same time, that others complain about the delays in going public does not really address the central issue of whether the press is in a snit because it feels a sense of entitlement with regard to the release of news to it without having to do any real journalistic work...

My answer to that is "who cares what the media thinks?" I view them with a distaste only slightly different from the people they chase after. What the press thinks it is entitled to is not particularily of interest to me. The fact that other people have other reasons for complain (as you've just said) shows that the media's self-perception isn't the crucial factor.

This story is not about the media, it's about the VP.

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by jeff

An example of poor judgement is an example of poor judgement, to be used along with all the other evidence a person creates through life. This was poor judgement on Cheney's part, further, giving ammunication to those who say he is inappropriately secretive, and can point to his behavior with sealed records on energy policy, Halliburton, pre-war intelligence, and so forth.

Thanks for the clarification. That's not at all what I was getting from "This calls his judgement into question" and so on.

This hampered the administration and cuts to the core of complaints against it.

Maybe it's a matter of perspectives. I don't see any great hampering effect.

Are you about to retract all comments with respect to stains on blue dresses?

Whatchoo talkin' bout, Willis?

Poor judgement then with Clinton and poor judgement now with Cheney, to the disadvantage of both. The former was widely used to cast a shadow over Clinton's judgement - amplified by his trying to weasel out of it.

Indeed, but not by me. My objection was to the perjury and oathbreaking---as you have said yourself, with the weaseling, not the act. I cannot object to a man seeking consensual sexual gratification.

Cheney isn't eligible for the same?

It hardly seems to be a question of eligibility. The recriminations aren't going to be vetted for fairness, they are just going to fly regardless.

So, do you disagree with my (partially elided) remarks about crisis demonstrating character?

In part, yes. But rather the aggregation of crises than just of a single isolated one. A man is more than a mistake he makes now and then.

Additionally, while we have heard a lot of allegations---Cheney did this, Cheney did that---we do not in fact know what he did or did not do, what his actual reaction was, and so on. We were not there. For all we know he behaved admirably but was restrained by subordinates and advisors. For all we know he passed out or got chest pains and was not even in on the decisions made. For all we know he gave orders that were bungled or disobeyed.

Maybe the press will bother to investigate further and we'll find out. But right now, we are just making assumptions based on personal standpoints.

You mean to say that Al Capone's gang going through the streets of Chicago with blazing machine guns was somehow a secret uncovered by investigative journalism?

You think that's all they did? The worst of what they did? Killing rival gangsters and traitors strikes you as more pernicious behavior than subverting judges and politicians, paying graft to cops and bureaucrats, and so on? That's Geraldo journalism, Jeff: focus on the flash instead of the fundamental.

In the end, did Capone go to prison for murder? Hiring murder? Accessory to murder? Or for quiet, boring, backroom tax evasion?

If you want claim that you are proceeding along guidelines I gave you with conditions (a) and (b), then fine, but you're missing the point.

You made the argument, I attempted to refute it on the grounds to which you stipulated. How is that not to the point?

With Cheney, the very existence of an incident could not possibly have been known until someone from their party reported it, so claiming that it's lazy press is merely a smokescreen.

That's how much journalism works. Or worked. Like Watergate---who was Deep Throat but "someone from their party"? Shall we retract Woodward's Pulitzer, because his informant did the real reporting?

Journalism makes heavy use of inside sources. That's a reporter's primary resource. Demanding not to have to do your job any more---demanding that miscreants come stand before you and confess in excruciating details instead---yes, that's laziness.

I also think funny you suggested the Unabomber as an alternative case study. You would have to search far and wide for a less appropriate example. Gee, the guy mails bombs to figures and then sends manifestos to the press telling them why.

OK, fair enough...

Or, are you going to say that the Democrats shouldn't have immediately called the police when they discovered the Watergate burglary?

The argument you are making amounts to saying that the Nixon Administration should have announced it to the press, and its failure to do so amounted to an even worse sin than the actual crimes! Or "called its judgement into question"...

Ms. Matalin was there in her capacity as PR spin-doctor for Cheney, representing his interests and not the 4th Estate. So it was non-press saying the subject was other than 'it's the lazy press'.

Which proves what? That she doesn't want to stir up those sleeping dogs any further?

Moreover, saying X does not necessarily imply not-Y. If I give three reasons why I believe something happened, that does not preclude the possible existence of a fourth---or my belief in it.

Her lame excuse was that the delay was caused by wanting to get the facts in order before going to press, which hardly passes the giggle test.

But it is what passes for a reason in politics. They may not believe it; the press doesn't believe it; they know the press won't believe it; the press knows they know they won't be believed. Yet they have to say it anyway...

Of course partisanship is in everything. With all due respect, I think your defense of Cheney is partisan as well.

"You may be right; and certainly I cannot go so far as to say that you are wrong; but still!"

I don't recall you extending the same considerations for private behavior to the other side of the aisle.

I don't think I was even around on the board during the Clinton Administration.

And on that note I must away...

[umbrella]

I am disturbed that at this time, our Vice Presdent, who should have been more responsible for some of our domestic issues, would go off on a fund-raising trip and shoot his friend.

Now he wants to blame 911. More self pity. Another vacation for the poor victim of 911, while the rest of us are out ducking and covering, looking for foodstamps while the boys back home are slowly growing beards in order to preserve themselves. Give Chaney the boot.

I have a new candidate for President. Out of Hawaii, Senator Akaka, should run, he's Japanese decent, a Republican, and very knowledgeable, he could definetly bridge the cultures and all that.

What say you?

[YankeeRebel]

You have to love The Onion-- it turns out that President Bush was warned in August 2005 that Cheney was "determined to shoot old man in face"

In a Presidential Daily Briefing given to Bush in August 2005, the CIA warned that the vice president was a potent threat to the senior population at large, and in particular "possessed the capabilities and intentions to spray a senior citizen with projectiles fired from a shotgun or other weapon." A second brief identified the population at risk as those "between 70 and 80 years of age," and warned that the vice president posed the greatest threat to "seniors in close proximity to the vice president when he is armed."

The brief, which urged the White House to take "the most thorough possible precautions to disable this threat to the faces, necks, and chests of the nation's elderly," was issued a full six months before the events of Feb. 11.

[umbrella]

Buckshot, birdseed, I'm buying pepperspray.
But really folks, no I'm not. I noticed Felton is on the board. Welcome Felton, Felton, are you the one with whom I spoke in regard to signing your time slip for payrolll? If so, you might notice I'm not there anymore. They got mad at me for giving the Janitor two slices of birthday cake. - it was for Stanley, he had a hip operation, and I just felt so sorry for him. How's it in the office.

Stay in touch and try real fencing Felton, it's a great sport - I Mean it seriously.

[Inquartata]

Mango????








( and characters )

[Philistine]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Mango????

That's my guess.

--Philistine