Can we NOT wag the dog today?
I don't post many political entries here, but my readers know I'm not exactly a fan of Bush and Cheney. However, am I the only one sick to death of what I'll call "Hunting-Gate"? Today the big deal (at least on NBC's Today show, not exactly the best source of hard hitting news) concerned the fact that Cheney had been forthcoming with news on the accident, and has not spoken to the "people." Well, as one representative of the "people", I can say I don't care. It was an accident. Watching the press try to turn this into a major scandal is simply ridiculous. Cheney does not need to make any kind of public statement. He has already spoken to the poor guy he shot and that should be the end of it. I've also heard he didn't have a proper hunting license. Well, give the man a fine and move on. If the RNC pays for it, who cares.
I think any person who thinks like I do about this administration can come up with about 10 other topics that are greatly more important. I think the most ardent Bush supporter could do the same.
p.s. Why does it seem like every picture of Cheney shows the man scowling, or generally looking like a storm trooper for the Empire? The man can't be that evil. I say we start a Flickr site and collect some nice photos of him!
Comments
It is kind of amusing watching the White House press core asking stupid questions like, "Why did it take so long?" Or, "Do you think the VP will submit a letter of resignation?" << That person should be smacked.
One headline from the papers was, "Duck! It's Dick!"
I support Bush/Cheney, but i'm no Clinton Kool-Aid drinker type, I do do have my grudges.
One headline from the papers was, "Duck! It's Dick!"
I support Bush/Cheney, but i'm no Clinton Kool-Aid drinker type, I do do have my grudges.
# Posted By mikeD
| 2/15/06 8:32 AM
The story has stuck because it is part of a larger "storyline", which has less to do with the accident itself than with the attempt to hide this from the public. The storyline is an administration that doesn't believe you have the right to information. Then, when they supply information, it is disinformation, blame the victim, smear and fear, etc. Despite the fact that it isn't an overtly political story, it still fits into all of the overarching storylines...
# Posted By Brian Rinaldi
| 2/15/06 8:45 AM
What was there to hide? The VP's office couldn't have been that stupid in thinking that people weren't going to find out about it. Should they have gone and notified the press core first - who's to say? In this age of technology the story was going to spread like fire anyway. This just shows the true liberal side of the media.
I also think the WH press core (and the big networks) is a little pissed because they didn't know first.
I also think the WH press core (and the big networks) is a little pissed because they didn't know first.
# Posted By jimjay
| 2/15/06 8:54 AM
Stories like these are why we have "The John Stewart Show"
# Posted By Michael White
| 2/15/06 9:07 AM
I'm a Republican and a Bush/Cheney supporter.
I think Cheney should have issued a statement, or at least his office should have, and it should have been early on Sunday. He's the VP, and it is news. But that's it.
What has followed is part and parcel for the liberal media in the USA. I love it - they're showing their true selves and there is nothing better for this country than to see the media and the press exposed themselves for what they are - the "media wing" of the Democratic party.
What's even SICKER is that people really believe that this was setup to draw attention away from the former CIA guy, Paul Pillar, who said the pre-war intelligence was fudged and massaged this week. Sick.
I think Cheney should have issued a statement, or at least his office should have, and it should have been early on Sunday. He's the VP, and it is news. But that's it.
What has followed is part and parcel for the liberal media in the USA. I love it - they're showing their true selves and there is nothing better for this country than to see the media and the press exposed themselves for what they are - the "media wing" of the Democratic party.
What's even SICKER is that people really believe that this was setup to draw attention away from the former CIA guy, Paul Pillar, who said the pre-war intelligence was fudged and massaged this week. Sick.
# Posted By Alex Sherwood
| 2/15/06 9:20 AM
What if Harry Whittington, the victim, wanted to keep this private? Perhaps he knew it would turn his life into a circus? Perhaps this shouldn't be about Cheney, but about what the victim's wishes. (And don't tell me that if Cheney would have made some public announcement about an anonymous accidental shooting that the media wouldn't start releasing the victim's name within days if not hours.)
The media is always looking to make next big "Gate" scandal.
The media is always looking to make next big "Gate" scandal.
# Posted By Dan G. Switzer, II
| 2/15/06 9:31 AM
It was noted on the news (of course) this morning that Cheney hasn't give a press conference... for anything... since 2002. If true... what would it say if he gave a press conference about this while he's had no comments regarding wars, hurricanes, etc.
While celebrities and politicans are expected to accept that their personal lives are going to be made into press fodder, they don't OWE anyone anything. Most of them don't choose to talk about many things until idiocy like this pretty much forces them to.
The public is only made aware of certain things because of the press. If the press didn't get the scoop on Saturday, then too bad.
Also, I'm hearing it was also the family who owned the property taking time out to figure out how best to release the info.
Can you blame them? Look at the reaction. I think if it had come out on Saturday people would still find some reason to be peeved about it.
I'm with you. Sick to death of it. There are more important things to rag on the gov't about, repub or dem.
While celebrities and politicans are expected to accept that their personal lives are going to be made into press fodder, they don't OWE anyone anything. Most of them don't choose to talk about many things until idiocy like this pretty much forces them to.
The public is only made aware of certain things because of the press. If the press didn't get the scoop on Saturday, then too bad.
Also, I'm hearing it was also the family who owned the property taking time out to figure out how best to release the info.
Can you blame them? Look at the reaction. I think if it had come out on Saturday people would still find some reason to be peeved about it.
I'm with you. Sick to death of it. There are more important things to rag on the gov't about, repub or dem.
Dan, doesn't your comment presume to know that the victim wished to keep this quiet? 1) If you heard this, I'd like your inside sources. 2) The vice-president shot someone. By accident or not, this is definitely newsworthy. For gods-sake, Clinton's BJ was news for years...and this was cheared on by the right and the supposedly "liberal" media.
# Posted By Brian Rinaldi
| 2/15/06 9:39 AM
Brian -
Let's not forget that both Newsweek AND the New York Times had the Lewinsky story for 3-4 days before it broke and made an editorial decision to NOT run with the story. The ONLY reason this was done is because they are/were sympathetic to Clinton and the Democrats.
It wasn't until the Drudge Report broke the story that it that the press started to report it. And, it was DAYS before the nightly newscasts, including good 'ol Dan Rather, even acknowdledge it was news, and when they did it was with an air of "Republic Political Tricks" swirling around it.
Let's not forget that both Newsweek AND the New York Times had the Lewinsky story for 3-4 days before it broke and made an editorial decision to NOT run with the story. The ONLY reason this was done is because they are/were sympathetic to Clinton and the Democrats.
It wasn't until the Drudge Report broke the story that it that the press started to report it. And, it was DAYS before the nightly newscasts, including good 'ol Dan Rather, even acknowdledge it was news, and when they did it was with an air of "Republic Political Tricks" swirling around it.
# Posted By Alex Sherwood
| 2/15/06 10:27 AM
Oh, and it wasn't "Clinton's BJ" that was the issue, it was that as a sitting President, he purjured himself by intentionally giving false testimony in a Grand Jury investigation. But, since the Grand Jury was about the Paula Jones case ('just sex'), it didn't matter that Clinton lied, because it's OK to lie about sex.
Let's not forget that Clinton was subseqently disbarred in Arkansas. He's got the distinction of being the only President to be disbarred! Bravo!
Let's not forget that Clinton was subseqently disbarred in Arkansas. He's got the distinction of being the only President to be disbarred! Bravo!
# Posted By Alex Sherwood
| 2/15/06 10:30 AM
Did we ever find out the true meaning of word "is", is?
# Posted By mikeD
| 2/15/06 12:15 PM
Maybe the subject line should have read 'can we lay off the highly partisan rhetoric?' This started out as a call to essentially give Cheney a break, and turned into the typical political slugfest. Take a pill and relax, people.
I will make one other comment: I always have to shake my head at people who think the media as a whole exhibits a bias. There are just as many examples of the media supporting the Republicans as there are of the media supporting the Democrats.
I will make one other comment: I always have to shake my head at people who think the media as a whole exhibits a bias. There are just as many examples of the media supporting the Republicans as there are of the media supporting the Democrats.
Brian,
You misread what I typed. I said "Perhaps" he didn't want this information released. Personally, if I was hunting w/some friends in a similiar circumstance, I'd want the issue to pass a quietly as possible. I certainly wouldn't want my life to turn into a circus because of it. I just think the victim's wishes are the most important thing.
It would be one thing if there was malicious intent involved, it's another thing that it was an accident.
Just my $0.02...
You misread what I typed. I said "Perhaps" he didn't want this information released. Personally, if I was hunting w/some friends in a similiar circumstance, I'd want the issue to pass a quietly as possible. I certainly wouldn't want my life to turn into a circus because of it. I just think the victim's wishes are the most important thing.
It would be one thing if there was malicious intent involved, it's another thing that it was an accident.
Just my $0.02...
# Posted By Dan G. Switzer, II
| 2/15/06 12:52 PM
Spot-on post, Ray.
# Posted By CJ
| 2/15/06 1:14 PM
Steve:
Come on man, the big networks and big media outlets are predomintely democrats/liberals. I work for one of these newspapers, trust me.
Come on man, the big networks and big media outlets are predomintely democrats/liberals. I work for one of these newspapers, trust me.
# Posted By johnny5
| 2/15/06 2:23 PM
well it's the first time in recent memory that a VP shot somebody (i suppose back in the early years of the US, they shot folks w/some regularity). that's news no matter what. the fact they he was hunting w/out a license is news too. if it was back home in PA, the game wardens would have had him in handcuffs. in PA hunting/fishing licenses are a big deal, so him not having one was kind of shocking to me. the fact that he didn't have one & they're being so casual about it speaks volumes. the rules apply to everybody or they apply to nobody.
Johnny -
I wouldn't be surprised that a particular media outlet (paper, cable channel, etc) has a bias. The newspaper you work for may be a good example of that, and it seems obvious that Fox leans heavily towards the GOP, and that MSNBC leans the other way. But media as a whole does not exhibit a bias one way or the other. No more than the public at large does.
I wouldn't be surprised that a particular media outlet (paper, cable channel, etc) has a bias. The newspaper you work for may be a good example of that, and it seems obvious that Fox leans heavily towards the GOP, and that MSNBC leans the other way. But media as a whole does not exhibit a bias one way or the other. No more than the public at large does.
Steve-
The media most certainly does exhibit a bias, and it's mainly a bias towards liberal/democratic causes. Now, does this mean that the networks get together each night in the news rooms and say "How can we be biased tonight?"
Read the book BIAS by Bernard Goldberg, who worked at CBS news for 20+ years. He does an awesome job of covering bias, how it comes about and TONS of examples of factual events and how they are eventually packaged and reported with a BIAS. One of concepts covered is "Conservative Bias", or the complete lack thereof.
Do yourself and read it and become more informed!
The media most certainly does exhibit a bias, and it's mainly a bias towards liberal/democratic causes. Now, does this mean that the networks get together each night in the news rooms and say "How can we be biased tonight?"
Read the book BIAS by Bernard Goldberg, who worked at CBS news for 20+ years. He does an awesome job of covering bias, how it comes about and TONS of examples of factual events and how they are eventually packaged and reported with a BIAS. One of concepts covered is "Conservative Bias", or the complete lack thereof.
Do yourself and read it and become more informed!
# Posted By Alex Sherwood
| 2/16/06 11:56 AM
Will do! I am all for being educated, and will reserve judgement until I read it, follow up on the author and see what else is out there regarding this subject.
# Posted By steve ray
| 2/18/06 2:39 PM
One of the point Goldberg makes in BIAS is that 99% of "GOP/Conservative/Republican" TV is *Commentary*, as opposed to "news". Bill Oreilly and Sean Hannity are not newscasters, they are commentators.
Another thing to consider...O'reilly, on a good night, gets 3.5 million viewers. The nightly newscasts on NBC,ABC and CBS get 30+ million! It's the writing and programming that is NOT commentary in which a bias appears that is the issue.
And I must say, as a Bush supporter, I can only take so much of Hannity!
Another thing to consider...O'reilly, on a good night, gets 3.5 million viewers. The nightly newscasts on NBC,ABC and CBS get 30+ million! It's the writing and programming that is NOT commentary in which a bias appears that is the issue.
And I must say, as a Bush supporter, I can only take so much of Hannity!
# Posted By Alex Sherwood
| 2/21/06 1:13 PM
And I must say, as a Bush supporter, I can only take so much of Hannity!
~~~
That's refreshing. :)
Yes, I'm aware of the distinction with O'Reilly, et al. Same as with Air America.
~~~
That's refreshing. :)
Yes, I'm aware of the distinction with O'Reilly, et al. Same as with Air America.
That said, I agree that more important issues could be talked about. Many dealing with him, but several democrats should be run out of office too. Makes me wish 'wacking day' from the Simpsons was a real day. Get yourself a stick and wack some snakes.
I say we start a Flickr site of polititions that actually deserve to be in office. (that we all agree on) It would be hard, and the list of photos pretty small. Also start a flickr site of evil polititians, and then see which one gets more views. Popularity meters like that are pretty popular.
We all know evil side will win...