Sympathy for the Devil

My friend Paul, taking the role of Devil's Advocate, raises some interesting criticisms in reaction to a blog post on the Cheney shooting incident.

He writes: "I honestly believe that part of the hysteria surrounding this issue is cultural. I'm not sure the New York and Beltway media can come to grips with guns and hunting as a sport."

He goes on with a fictional "What if Clinton had tripped..." First, tripping someone and shooting someone are drastically different situations.

I think you're buying into the Cheney-vision view on this, whether or not you are just playing the Devil's Advocate as you say. I don't think this is some cultural disconnect with the gun culture. I've heard criticisms from folk in all corners about how the incident was handled. I, and I think most rational people, know this was an absolute accident. I think most people know guns are dangerous and quite a few - including me - know that guns and hunting for sport are popular and legitimate. I haven't read any bashing of gun laws or "this is proof that more gun control is needed."

Paul goes on to write: "I re-read the 1st Amendment and it doesn't say anything about the press's right to know. I think this idea that we have to know everything, right now, before the facts are sorted out..."

Once again, you're following the Cheney line of thinking, that this is all about the press. It's that New York/White House media being jealous that the Corpus Christi paper got the scoop.

Look no further than the right-leaning editorial page of the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette to make my point:

"...he's sticking with his story about its being perfectly proper to wait till the next day to let the country know that the vice president of the United States had shot a friend in a hunting accident. Even though presidential counselor Dan Bartlett and the president's press secretary, Scott McClellan, both advised him to get the story out - widely - as soon as he could. But the best advice is of no use if one doesn't take it."

Much comparison has been made to the president's early pretzel-choking accident and how he promptly walked out to meet reporters and answered questions. The story went away relatively quickly. This was no pretzel choking. This was an accidental shooting.

The D-G editorial notes that the veep claimed it was proper and appropriate that his hostess made the call to the local paper with the "accurate" story. But it wasn't. She told reporters later when asked that no alcohol was involved at all. Then later we find out Cheney told police he had had a beer before the hunt. "A troubling little detail. No big deal, but big enough to raise an eyebrow here or there." (Especially given the delay and method of releasing the news.)

I close this long post with more from the D-G:
"Leaders who are trusted tend to be those who trust the rest of us to be fair. Which is why the best way to manage the news may be not to manage it at all - just tell it the way it happened. And don't wait till you've got all your quails in a row with Fox News.
"Candor can be a virtue in a politician. In a society in which trust has eroded, it can be an especially valuable character trait."

I think that many looked at the incident and considered it in the prism of what the knew about the vice president. How he fought to keep secret his meetings with oil companies when fashioning an energy plan. How he, Mr. "We'll-be-welcomed-as-liberators" and "the-insurgency-is-in-its-final-throes" has positioned himself on Iraq and warrantless spying on American citizens.

They considered his F-U to a Decratic senator on the floor of the U.S. Senate. They considered he may have authorized his chief of staff to leak the identity of an undercover CIA agent as political payback. They considered this record and may well have thought when hearing of his bobbing and weaving on the hunting accident - to borrow a phrase - "There he goes again."

You Can Think That All You Want, But... [Jonworld]
Dick Cheney's Problem [Arkansas Democrat-Gazette]