"They're upset because we called the Corpus Christi Caller-Times instead of The New York Times"

Tim Cavanaugh | February 15, 2006

That's Dick Cheney, playing the D.C. version of Blame the Paparazzi with fawning lapdog Brit Hume right now on Fox News.

The funny thing is, I wasn't aware that "we" called either paper.

Comments

|2.15.06 @ 6:17PM|#

Love, and membership in the Republican Party, means never having to say you're sorry ....

Stephen Macklin|2.15.06 @ 6:55PM|#

Actually, Cheney did apologize to the only person he needed to apologize to - the guy he accidentally shot.

As for the delay in notifying the media - So F***ing What.

What purpose would it have served for Cheney to hold a national press conference on the steps of the hospital?

What is the media's reason for trying to make this into something, the public's right to know? Sorry, their steadfast refusal to inform the public about one of the central aspects of the largest on going story makes that line complete quail sh*t.

|2.15.06 @ 7:13PM|#

Yeah, he's definitely making a populist, blame it on the paparazzi, type of appeal to the public. And, I'm remain as disgusted with Cheney as the next libertarian-Republican who doesn't think that a VP should be seeking to create loopholes for torture, or should have helped the neocons deceive the country into a needless war. However, I don't see how he is under any ethical obligation to tell the public about the accident.

|2.15.06 @ 7:29PM|#

"They're upset because we called the Corpus Christi Caller-Times instead of The New York Times"

Further evidence that party leaders, on both sides of the aisle, strive, subconsciously or otherwise, to become the caricatures their opponents claim them to be.

|2.15.06 @ 7:33PM|#

The fact that you don't know that "we" called the paper in Corpus Christi seems a pretty damning indictment of the media, doesn't it...

|2.15.06 @ 8:08PM|#

Yeah jimmy, please be so kind as to explain yourself. (Note that I didn't use any codewords-just a simple request)

|2.15.06 @ 8:12PM|#

...Oops. Please note that "codewords" is a typo and not a code word for "code words". (That was fun)

|2.15.06 @ 8:17PM|#

I think that "please" is like "apology" Rick--I think it's a code word for something. ...and if you don't stop using it, people will start to think that the "libertarian movement" is dying. So next time, be careful!

|2.15.06 @ 8:18PM|#

are you people serious? The vice president shoots a guy in the face and you don't think he has any obligation to tell the public -- the people he works for -- about it?

|2.15.06 @ 8:19PM|#

"The fact that you don't know that "we" called the paper in Corpus Christi seems a pretty damning indictment of the media, doesn't it..."

"We," in this case the office of the Vice President of the United States or the office of the President, did not contact any media outlet. The Corpus Christi Caller-Times was contacted by Katharine Armstrong, who is not affiliated with the office of the Vice President. So Cheney's statement is incorrect, the media, in this instance, remains unindicted.

|2.15.06 @ 8:19PM|#

The vice president shoots a guy in the face and you don't think he has any obligation to tell the public -- the people he works for -- about it?

Steve, don't you know there's a war goin' on? ; )

|2.15.06 @ 8:28PM|#

Contrary to their own prejudices, the Universe does not revolve around an axis that extends from the podium of the White House press room to the Editor-in-chief's desk at the NY Times. Get a Life!!

Apoligies are owed to Mr. Whittington, his family, and to his host, Ms. Armstrong. Beyond that...a personal heart-to-heart explanation later-on to POTUS. That the liberal, MSM WH Press Corps is not on that list is the press' problem.

Cheney's group at the ranch called the ambulance, and the police...and that Ms. Armstrong made the announcement to the "press" was appropriate under the circumstances...she was their "host".

|2.15.06 @ 8:31PM|#

Ken,

Oh yeah; damn I didn't think of that! Also, and this is off topic, but my 8:12 comment kinda reminds me of a AI seminar that I attended like a gazillion years ago back in the early 80's where the example "Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo" was translated to mean; Buffalo who fool the kind of buffalo who fool buffalo...or some something like that.

|2.15.06 @ 8:41PM|#

Further evidence that party leaders, on both sides of the aisle, strive, subconsciously or otherwise, to become the caricatures their opponents claim them to be.

I'd like to expound on that...

Contrary to their own prejudices, the Universe does not revolve around an axis that extends from the podium of the White House press room to the Editor-in-chief's desk at the NY Times.

That the liberal, MSM WH Press Corps is not on that list is the press' problem.

Further evidence that some of us will howl back the calls of party leaders, like wolves barking at the moon.

|2.15.06 @ 8:48PM|#

I for one groaned when I first read that Cheney accidently shot a member of his hunting party that basically snuck up on him.

I could care less, but I knew the media were going to jump all over it, and that meant that every time I turned on the news on tv I'd have to hear tons of junk about it before they got to the real news.

The only thing less newsworthy in my opinion than Cheney accidently shooting a fool is the non-story about the delay in informing the media about it. Big fucking deal. It's not like it was something that would have altered anyone's behaviour if they had known about it sooner. If a terrorist strikes, I want to know about it ASAP. A little delay in the Cheney incident is totally harmless.

And for what it's worth, before some fool drills into me for being a Cheney apologist or something, I think Cheney is a royal scumbag for 1) helping to con America into a war under false pretenses 2) For (apparantly) outing a covert CIA agent because her husband had an issue with point number 1.

|2.15.06 @ 8:59PM|#

"are you people serious? The vice president shoots a guy in the face and you don't think he has any obligation to tell the public -- the people he works for -- about it?"

He did. The argument seems to be that he didn't tell it to the right people and didn't do it quick enough for some people's tastes.

I'm sure his explanation that he wanted to make sure the victim's family was notified before it got out in the press is just another convenient dodge, right?

I now see how it's Watergate all over again.

When did Reason become the Democratic Underground?

Not everything Bush or Cheney does is the embodiment of all evil and evidence of shady nefarious backroom dealings. Calm the hell down until we're on the subject of stuff that actually matters to the governance of the country...

Jesse Walker|2.15.06 @ 9:08PM|#

When did Reason become the Democratic Underground?

For those who don't read left-wing blogs: Democratic Underground is a site where some of the more unhinged Bush-bashers and conspiracy theorists like to congregate.

For those who don't read right-wing blogs: All you have to do to be compared to Democratic Underground is to criticize any member or policy of the Bush administration for any reason at all.

|2.15.06 @ 9:34PM|#

Jesse -

I don't disagree with you on your assessment of CaptVee's Democratic Underground idiocy, but seriously...

This is like the 5th post on H&R in two days about nothing.

And hell, I even tend to agree that Cheney in the least bungled the whole affair. He should be smart enough to know this information should be given up quickly, as any delays will only increase the controversy. A simple statement, accident, no names until family notified, at local hospital, etc, etc, should've happened.

But what are we really arguing? He didn't have enough style to do it correctly?

It seems to only be a story becuase no celebrity has been indicted for rape/murder/child molestation recently.

I mean - wouldn't it be nice for the MSM to ask poigant questions about Afghanistan or Iraq? Or domestic policy? Or anything that actually affects more than two people?

Jesse Walker|2.15.06 @ 9:44PM|#

This is like the 5th post on H&R in two days about nothing.

This afternoon I devoted 400 words to gay country music. Posts about nothing are my bread and butter.

|2.15.06 @ 9:48PM|#

Jesse -

Touche.

|2.15.06 @ 9:52PM|#

That's rich Steve. If I shoot someone by accident, or bust my buddy's skull in while swinging a baseball bat at practice, or I rear-end a Honda Civic, I'll be sure to notify my employer first chance I get. After that, I'll call the local papers. Opps, make that the New York Times, or CNN. Yeah, I guess its the least I owe them, and in the public's best interest, being all newsworthy and all.

Bush lied!

|2.15.06 @ 10:10PM|#

Hey: Stephen Macklin? I have balls too. Why does Cheney get all your sucking attention?

"The funny thing is, I wasn't aware that "we" called either paper."

That is funny. So funny that Armstrong apparently had to have a sit-down with the White House PR team and Karl Rove (I shit you not) before talking to the press OR the police. Obviously, this was just a personal, everyday people issue, and the idea that anyone thought any media or PR or all that stuff is CRRRRRAAAAAZY!

|2.15.06 @ 10:42PM|#

I too think it remarkable that anyone would think it a non-story when the vice-president shot someone with a shot gun. I mean, when's the last time we had a vice-president that shot somebody? ...You have to go all the way back to Aaron Burr, right? ...am I right?

|2.15.06 @ 10:43PM|#

Plunge-

I've heard people say that the ranch owner talked to Rove before talking to the cops, but I haven't seen that claim sourced. Where did you come across it?

|2.15.06 @ 10:47PM|#

As far as Cheney goes, the best person to talk to after shooting somebody is neither the cops, nor the press, nor the victim, nor even Karl Rove.

No, the best person to talk to is a lawyer.

|2.15.06 @ 10:52PM|#

No, the best person to talk to is a lawyer.

Alberto Gonzales, you mean?

|2.15.06 @ 10:55PM|#

Ken -

I agree the VP shooting someone in the face, accident or not, is certainly news worthy from a completely voyeuristic sort of way, but this, "What did you know and when did you know it" ad naseum seems like there's nothing else wrong since this is the most important thing we have to discuss.

|2.15.06 @ 10:56PM|#

It is remarkable that anyone would see considerable difference between shooting a friend by accident and trying to kill a man in a duel...

|2.15.06 @ 10:56PM|#

I find it pretty hard to have any sympathy on almost any level for the White House Press Corp.

The White House (or Cheney?) apparently screwed up the PR aspects of this story, but this feeling of entitlement that the WH Press Corp has definitely deserves a bath in cold piss once in a while.

|2.15.06 @ 10:59PM|#

Folks, of course when someone shoots someone, its an issue. Why, because all gunshot wounds if treated at a hospital, are investigated by the police. So we have a gap in hospital treatment, three hours. Now, this is the VP of the USA, so of course its a story, quit yer yappin that it aint. But, if the VP made an honest mistake, then he follows legal protocol, and to head off any suggestions of wrongdoing, he has somesort of press release/statement. The point of all this of course is transparency. NO ONE ABOVE THE LAW! NO MORE CHAPPAQUIDICKS!

|2.15.06 @ 11:06PM|#

Alberto Gonzales, you mean?

I would want a more competent lawyer.

|2.15.06 @ 11:10PM|#

It is remarkable that anyone would see considerable difference between shooting a friend by accident and trying to kill a man in a duel...

Vice-Presidents, shooting, newsworthy, surely there are other similarities. ...There was no equivalence and none suggested.

...although, now that I think of it, Aaron Burr didn't seem to care much for the Constitution either.

|2.15.06 @ 11:21PM|#

Sorry Ken, couldn't help the cheap shot, its the even cheaper beer talkin...

|2.15.06 @ 11:24PM|#

I agree the VP shooting someone in the face, accident or not, is certainly news worthy from a completely voyeuristic sort of way, but this, "What did you know and when did you know it" ad naseum seems like there's nothing else wrong since this is the most important thing we have to discuss.

Exactly, Sigma, but how can you expect the press corp not to ask those kinds of questions, ad nauseam? ...complaining about the press corp for asking such questions, when the vice president shoots someone in the face, is like complaining about water being wet. They're the press corp--that's what the press corp does. ...they ask questions about sensational stories, ad nauseam. ...it's like complaining about babies for crying... like complaining about sugar for being sweet.

...and the vice-president's comment, typical complaint of any right wing hack, is newsworthy. It's the liberal media! They're asking me about shooting someone in the face! ...They're so MSM! ...and look at all the losers, comin' out of the woodwork, responding in kind, with a nod and a grin. As if pointing at the liberal press corp was someone how insightful, somehow indicative of something. If every member of the White House press corp was a member of Move On!, why would that matter?

...How would that give them something better to write about when the vice-president shot someone in the face?

|2.15.06 @ 11:33PM|#

Further evidence that some of us will howl back the calls of party leaders, like wolves barking at the moon.Further evidence that some of us will howl back the calls of party leaders, like wolves barking at the moon.

Vice President Cheney: "...New York Times"

Cultural Identity Republicans: "Ar Ar Ar Arooooooooow!"

|2.16.06 @ 1:10AM|#

I'm with Jimmy; the VP didn't shoot any of you pricks. It's between him, the sycophant he shot, and perhaps the local PD. I've got real beef with the VP. This shit is trivial.

|2.16.06 @ 2:04AM|#

Cheney may not have shot any of these pricks but something definitely found it's way up Shulz's ass.

|2.16.06 @ 2:34AM|#

It's a post about nothing!

|2.16.06 @ 2:36AM|#

I admit that I got a giggle out of the story that Cheney accidently shot one of his hunting buddies, but I find the fact that the democrats and the media are making it out to sound like it's in the interest of the state to have press releases and public apologies from Cheney on the issue to be pretty outrageous.
I for one could have waited for next weeks issue of the National Enquirer to come out with the story and been pretty satisfied.

Xmas|2.16.06 @ 8:52AM|#

I'm actually upset because the media's striving to make this into a big story is keeping actual big stories out of the mainstream news.

Demonstrations in Lebanon, Iran's nuclear fuel tango, the Brits being asked to leave parts of Iraq and god knows what else has been happening and all we've been hearing about is Cheney peppering some guy with birdshot from 30 yards away.

As if it is a coverup if an eye-witness discusses all of the details of the shooting with the biggest paper in the area. The reporters are upset because they didn't have someone on-site at the time of the shooting. As if following the Vice President around the country was unimportant.

|2.16.06 @ 8:55AM|#

Pitchers and catchers report today.

Jesse Walker|2.16.06 @ 9:19AM|#

I wonder what the people who spent the '90s yapping that "character counts" think about Cheney's poor grasp of gun safety and his team's early efforts to blame the accident on the victim?

That's a rhetorical question.

It's nice to see the "this is a matter between Bill Clinton and his wife" argument dredged up and refurbished as "this is a matter between Dick Cheney and the man he shot in the face." If Whittington dies, I suppose it will become "this is a matter between Cheney and Harry Whittington's clan, should they choose to seek vengeance." As a libertarian, I can only applaud this new respect for privatization -- I just didn't know there were so many closet anarchists out there.

|2.16.06 @ 9:34AM|#

A man gets falling down drunk, unable to follow the most basic hunting procedures (swivelling around 180 degrees and shooting at face level), and shoots a guy in the face and heart sending him into intensive care, then has the secret service head of the sherrifs department investigating the incident, and some people think this is not a big deal? Odd.

|2.16.06 @ 9:44AM|#

Jesse, you nailed it. Bill's offenses per Hillary were accidental.

|2.16.06 @ 9:55AM|#

Here's a thought: If "lightly peppered" means shot in the face, neck and chest, then "one beer at lunch" means ???

R C Dean|2.16.06 @ 10:00AM|#

Pitchers and catchers report today.

I think you're looking for the post on gay country music, Ed.

|2.16.06 @ 10:11AM|#

Anything Hillary finds "disturbing" is a good thing.

|2.16.06 @ 10:11AM|#

Just to be up front about this...I don't really care that much whether or not Cheney shoots old men in the face outside of its pure entertainment value as a news item, but I suspect that most of the "no big deal" crowd thought differently about the need for a recent president to report on who blows him. If that describes you, you're an asshat to the nth degree.

|2.16.06 @ 10:16AM|#

Lest anyone accuse me of being too general in my criticism...I'm referring to Macklin, Barton, Jimmy, Ted B. who very selectively choose who, in the public realm, is allowed to be left alone. Please enlighten me if I'm wrong about this guys.

|2.16.06 @ 10:21AM|#

As a libertarian, I can only applaud this new respect for privatization -- I just didn't know there were so many closet anarchists out there.

Billary was a strong supporter of the feminist dogma ("pattern of harassment") which made his private life public, so (s)he merely got what (s)he asked for.

|2.16.06 @ 11:20AM|#

"... but I suspect that most of the "no big deal" crowd thought differently about the need for a recent president to report on who blows him. If that describes you, you're an asshat to the nth degree."

The analogy would be a bit more apt if the VP was being sued by someone he allegedly shot a ways back, and was now lying about this shooting (to a grand jury) to make it look like he wasn't that sort of guy. Bill's problem wasn't his successful advances.

|2.16.06 @ 11:33AM|#

Does anybody know how long after the accident the local authorities were called? and how much access they had to file a report?

scene:
Paramedics are rushing up to Mr whittington.
Secert service stops them.
SS: "Hold up, there."
Para: "We need to get that guy to a hospital."
SS: Not until we determine if you are terrorists or not."
Para: "huh?"
SS: "Dont worry the background check only takes 18 hours, please step into this windowless room, thanks."

|2.16.06 @ 11:44AM|#

True enough pigwiggle...but I'm talking about a broad tendency here to say "move along, nothing more to see here" over the last five years no matter what anyone in the administration does. I think you, and others, are missing the larger point.

Viking "jeg er ikke dansk" Moo|2.16.06 @ 12:09PM|#

budgie:

why lump Mr. Barton in that grouping? Clearly you don't post here enough to realize that Rick isn't in that group.

And as a friend of his, i'd like to add a note of resentment that you'd somehow imply that he's an "asshat". You see, I know this, because I am a outright HABERDASHERY of ASSHATTERY!

And your 11:44 point that elaborates your "nothing to see here" observation is actual further differentiation from Rick's contributions to this board. He is most certainly not in that crowd. Rather he is amazingly consistent and well-thought-out on his support for minimal, libertarian government. He is a steadfast critic of big government bullying, in both administration flavors (bland and blander).

(the cynical side in me, however, does see a quick, knee-jerk reaction from administration apologists for every fucking thing they do.)

This message will start humping the carpet in five seconds.

Cheerio. and to quote I.M. Fletcher, "have a nice day" :)

(oh yeah! throw in a "Fletch" quote)

|2.16.06 @ 1:14PM|#

I like how this post appeared on CNN yesterday evening as part of a sampling of "bloggers' opinions". I like how they represented the headline as the opinion of the article's author (i.e. Tim Cavanaugh), rather than a quote of Dick Cheney.

|2.16.06 @ 1:31PM|#

Cheney may not have shot any of these pricks but something definitely found it's way up Shulz's ass.

I think the charge of bias in the press corp is the calling card of Cultural Identity Republicans everywhere, and to see them respond like Pavlov's dog to the vice-president's use of "New York Times", it just seems revolting to me. ...especially considering that there are Cultural Identity Republicans, yowling out there, that I know and care about.

|2.16.06 @ 1:42PM|#

...and you get extra credit for leavin' off the "c", but then you missed a point for droppin' the "t" too.

|2.16.06 @ 2:12PM|#

Viking,
I'm only referring to what was said in this post as far as names go. I don't rent that much space in my head for posters' specific habits and leanings over the years. I'll leave that to you.
The reference to the broad tendency is just that...a reference to...um...a broad tendency.

|2.16.06 @ 2:20PM|#

You know, there's another similarity to Clinton ... but there are so many "shot somebody in the face" jokes that I don't know where to start.

On a serious note, to the guy who said, ""Ok, next time I get in a car accident, I'll be sure to tell my employer & all the newspapers" ./... you're not the vice presdient

VM|2.16.06 @ 3:45PM|#

Budgie:

i see. "ready, fire, aim" it is, i guess.

sorry for your limited space. maybe taking up chess could help with that, um, problem.


cheerio

|2.16.06 @ 8:46PM|#

That was me Steve. I see your point (that he should report it because of his political position), but can't bring myself to agree with it to any great extent. Had he pulled something on the scale of Ted Kennedy's "accident", or Nixon's "lapse of judgement", then I would agree fully, and add he should offer his resignation. How about my batting practice example (clocked his buddy with the bat by accident)? Does that rise to the level required for personal media notification?

If Bush rear ends a Honda with his pick-up truck, I DO want to know about it. But not because its newsworthy, I just need a good laugh:)

|2.16.06 @ 9:05PM|#

"It's nice to see the "this is a matter between Bill Clinton and his wife" argument dredged up and refurbished as "this is a matter between Dick Cheney and the man he shot in the face." - Jesse Walker

I'm consistently surprised by people who feign surprise that there are two sides worth of partisan hacks running amok.

Almost as surprised as I am to find someone (Douglas Fletcher) who is surprised that Ken Schultz is self-righteous hack whose biggest complaint when people "pepper him" with a bit of profanity (nothing compared to his usual profane ad hom attacks) is how D.F. spelled Schultzie's last name.

|2.16.06 @ 9:10PM|#

However, let's review the facts of the case:

1. Dick Cheney is, well, a "Dick."
2. Dick Cheney thinks he's right about everything and never at fault for anything - even when he does something completely blameworthy, like, say... shooting a friend of his in the face with a shotgun!
3. Dick Cheney is so sure he'd never make a mistake or do anything wrong that he ACTUALLY tried to blame the guy HE shot for getting shot!
4. Dick Cheney, like any other self-important "Dick," is absolutely sure he's right about everything and regularly resorts to profanity when he (rapidly and frequently) runs out of counter-arguments.

Obviously, Dick Cheney IS Ken Schultz!

I mean, it's so obvious I can't believe I never noticed that they even have the same number of letters in their names:

Ken Schultz
Dic kCheney

Ok, powering down the "Conspiracy theory generator (trademark of DCKS Inc.)"