Disclaimer: Aside from this disclaimer, this post has nothing to do with Lars Larson. Who is an idiot.
While waiting on my daily soy latte with my friend JLowe this morning, we ended up discussing Cheney-Gate, or The Case of Dead-Eye Dick, or whatever the pundits have officially declared the recent unfortunateness to be named.
I find that my friend JLowe and I are remarkably like-minded about a great many things. Having been bosom buddies since high school, this doesn't really surprise me. What does surprise me are the number of times we end up having a serious difference in opinions, and how often these differences are political in nature.
JLowe is more conservative then I am. And I'm fairly conservative. I tend to be more like a typical Portland Conservative, though, than a true-red conservative, which makes me fiscally conservative and socially liberal. I'm not actually that socially liberal, though. On the hot-button issues, I usually end up on the more stereotypically conservative side than a social-liberal would. I'm pro-life (although I often vascillate on when abortion should be available), I'm pro-being-in-Iraq (originally, I was pro-invasion, and I'd probably be pro-invasion again, but knowing what I know now I'd have wanted to see a better plan in place for the post-invasion scenario to avoid the current morasse), I'm for state's rights, I'm against unnecessary federal entanglements, I don't like excessive entitlements, and so on.
Anyway, today I was the liberal among us as we discussed Cheney. Having recently cashed-in my Bush-backer card, I was busy doing my Jon-Stewart-doing-Dick-Cheney-styled Dick Cheney impersonation and pretending to be a gleeful VP brashfully boasting about how much damage I was able to do with one shot, and what not. We ordered our drinks, and then the discussion got serious.
JLowe posited that it was entirely acceptable to him that the Veep's staff, and the Veep himself, had dragged their heels on making any statements. JLowe raised the Fifth Amendment, and asked why the Vice President should be expected to make any statements that may later incriminate him (say, if his friend unfortunately dies and he has to be investigated by a grand jury) when a normal citizen wouldn't be expected to.
A good question. I retorted that it was the responsibility of the government to inform its citizens about matters affecting the government, including an embarassing-albeit-important incident involving the Vice President shooting a man. Further, I stated, that the duty to fulfill that responsibility fell upon the VP's press people, as I discussed in an update earlier.
JLowe pondered whether the Veep's staff, acting as his agent, could be argued to be making statements by the Vice President that could be used against him. Truly an interesting legal point. However, I pointed out that a statement could be issued which simply stated that there was a hunting accident during which a man was shot by the Vice President and injured, and such a statement would not be one assigning blame or forwarding any sort of incriminating statement on behalf of the Vice President.
JLowe went on to disagree. And so did I. Altogether done in a not-disagreeable way, though, so at least we have Congress beat.
As I actually have to work for a living, I don't intend to look into this at all. JLowe may end up posting on it later, as he tends to like to mull these things a little more deeply than me. Either way, if you have any thoughts to contribute, they are welcome (as always).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I'm politically similar to you, though still support Bush.
There are two issues at hand: 1) was Cheney's action (or inaction) politically prudent, and 2) was Cheney's action legally/morally/etc wrong?
I think the answer to number 1 is obvious from the fallout. He made the politically incorrect choice. It would have been smarter to make a simple statement, assigning no blame and giving no specific information just that they're hoping he will get better and will let the doctors or whoever update the press on his status.
However, this should not be confused with an obligation that Cheney had under the law or under his duties as a public official. We want to know about this not because Cheney's actions have any effect on us or the workings of the government, but only because we hunger for dirt on celebrities, and the VP is a celebrity. We'd feel the same right to know about the other J-Lo shooting someone in the face, too, except she wouldn't have a white house press corps to hound her every morning.
If Cheney had been shot in the face, that would be another matter, because his health and safety does affect what goes on in the government, and we should know about it. Whittington's health and safety do not.
If there weren't already concerns about the Bush administration being open with the press, I don't think Cheney waiting 24 hours to give an official statement would have mattered much. It's just the political context for a political issue that make it seem like more than its real effects dictate.
Well-put, but I respectuflly disagree.
The issue as I see it isn't one related to devulging dirt for a scandal-happy society. As I see it, when a public official engages in an arguably criminal (I'm not saying he committed a crime, I'm saying he acted in a way that is subject to some form of review by the criminal authorities), that is a matter of public interest and does bear on an official's ability to exercise his post.
I think Cheney's non-disclosure action was politically stupid. I don't really posit that it was legally or morally wrong, but I do posit that it was not in the best interests of the American public to withhold that information, and it was poor public policy. In the sense of what should he have done, he clearly did the wrong thing.
By saying "wrong" you're attributing a moral judgment to the action. But there was nothing moral or immoral about it. It was just whether it was politically advisable or inadvisable. If Nancy Pelosi had been in this same circumstance, it wouldn't have mattered. It's only that Cheney is such a focal point for media disdain that he should have announced it for political reasons only. Not moral ones.
If Cheney's house had burned down, he would have been subject to criminal investigation as to whether it was arson, etc, but I doubt we'd expect him to immediately make an announcement about his house being burned down. In fact, if he had, then the press would have attacked him for wasting their time with his arrogance -- as if we should care about his house.
Here. I just looked up Krauthammer and he says a similar thing, but much more lucidly:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/16/AR2006021601561_pf.html
In the sentence "I don't really posit that it was legally or morally wrong" I clearly state that I'm not attributing a moral judgment. I finish the sentence with my actual position, which was "I do posit that it was not in the best interests of the American public . . . and it was poor public policy." I then say "he did the wrong thing," which, given my removal of morals or ethics from the equation, simply means he made an incorrect choice out of available alternatives.
It is my fault, however, for throwing that word into that last sentence -- it does muddy my message. Thanks for pointing it out; it needed clarification.
With regard to the arson fire bit, I think that's different. Cheney shooting someone, and therefore perhaps being a subject of a criminal investigation, is different to me that Cheney being victimized. One affects his ability to take part in government; the other doesn't.
I suppose we may have to agree to disagree. Although I haven't always made it clear (either in this blog or my old one), although we often don't agree (especially with regard to BBQ-type restaurants), you bring well-thunk opinions to the table and that's what makes blog comments worthwhile (that, or they're just funny).
Post a Comment