Tuesday, February 14, 2006

Red Blue Exclusive: An Imaginary Conversation With Dick Cheney

Today the New York Times reports that there is "No End to Questions in Cheney Hunting Accident." There's even a multi-media graphic showing a timeline of how the news trickled down after the accident, which has been referred to menacingly in some reports as "The shooting," which it technically is, but that seems to overshadow the fact that it really was an accident.

Don't get me wrong. Like lots of folks, I have plenty of beefs with Cheney. But is there really no end to the questions about his hunting accident?

How many questions are there to ask about this, really? In this imaginary conversation with the Vice President – a Red Blue exclusive – I asked all of the questions I could think of...

"Did you intend to shoot the old geezer?"

"Did you see him there?"

"Would you have still pulled the trigger if you had known he was there?"
"Hmm... no."

"Will you be more careful next time?"

"Did you hit any of the birds you were intending to kill?"

"What did you do with those birds?"
"Roasted them and ate them."

"Was there any birdshot in your meal?"
"A little."

"What did that taste like?"
"Sort of metallic."

"Would you reccomend that American citizens add birdshot to other foods?"
"I would not."

"Are you aware of the fact that Jay Leno will be making fun of you for several nights because of this incident?"
"I suspect he will."

"Did you tell Mr. Whittington that you're very sorry?"

"Why didn't you call a press conference immediately after the incident?"
"Well, it's kind of embarrassing."

After that I ran out of questions. But I'm sure the real press will think of more.



Blogger SMA said...

First of all, I think there being an "endless number of questions" is just a bit of hyperbole.

But unlike your limited avenue of questions, I think the media are more concerned with questions like "why didn't you say anything about this yourself?" or "Why did we hear it first from the woman who owned the ranch?" Or maybe questions like "How much could the woman who owned the ranch really see if, as she was quoted as saying 'he got knocked silly, but he was okay.'" I mean, ending up in intensive care seems a bit beyond "knocked silly"...

I think it is entirely fair for the press to ask pointed questions, even about an accident, when government officials appear to be covering something up. Whether anything is being covered up or not, the way the Cheney camp handled this seems odd. And the press is supposed to dig into things that look odd. I mean does this happen to Cheney so frequently on hunting trips that he didn't think to mention it to anyone?

Like if it was one of your kids who shot a friend while hunting, you'd hope to hear it from them first... It's probably just the conservative "it doesn't concern you so don't worry your pretty little head over it" crap mixed with a dose of "conservative leader can't be seen to make a mistake" mixed in. But the press wouldn't be doing their job if they just took Cheney's word.

Blogger RedBlueProject said...

Inappropriate use of hyperbole for dramatic effect. I guess that's really my point.

I agree the media has every right and even an obligation to look into the matter, but it just seems like they're making a mountain out of a mole hill. The media had the story less than 24 hours after it happened and there's no evidence of foul play or any attempts to hide what happened from local authorities.

It seems like a lot of the fascination is with the fact that it involved a firearm. If Whittington had fallen off the back of a scooter being driven by Cheney (just enjoy that image for a moment), I suspect there would have been significantly less uproar. I think the sensationalism of the event has to be a factor.


Blogger SMA said...

Oh, come on! Are you telling me you can't see the irony? And I think the mountain out of a mole hill effect is due to the 24 hour nature of some of those news networks. It's the same 3 or 4 minutes of tape run over and over. Speculation is used as filler--so they only have to show that 3 minute clip 8 time an hour instead of 15.

And I think the press had every reason to suspect the delay in reporting was due to an attempted cover-up. Why? A) because that's their job--to make sure the government isn't acting above the law--which, we have seen lately, it does! and B) because this is one of the most secretive administrations we've ever had.

Personally, I wouldn't be surprised if one or both of them had been tipping a few while out hunting. It HAS been known to happen on hunting trips...

But the "right's" response is comical. Comments like "it has no bearing on running the government, get over it..." coming from the people who impeached Clinton over something that had no bearing on running the government.

Maybe some things never change...


Post a Comment

<< Home