Hey marm,
That is absolutely true. john “pay my parking tickets, bitch” kerry did receive the second most votes in history.
That also means that more people pulled the lever for kerry than Reagan, and bill “I’m going to take that furniture, suckas” clinton.
However, an entire state-full of voters 3,500,000 more people pulled it for George W. Bush.
With that many votes, it must be hard to categorically dismiss the voters as “dumb” (however, you guys do try).
JeffR
[quote]Marmadogg wrote:
Regarding the MSM’s reaction…
…There’s this psychological theory called displacement. You can look it up.
Now the right wingnuts know how the leftwing nuts felt when Lewinsky was the hot topic.
Cheers!
Cheney’s incident happened on private property so it should remain private affair.[/quote]
I agree to a certain extent w/r/t the private property thing. He’s still a very public figure though.
However.
Since Clinton was soliciting oral sex, from an intern that was working underneath him (literally!)and had authority over, as the nations top elected official, in the oval office, which could be the most public of places even though every joe schmoe can’t get in whenever he/she wants, does it therefore become a public act and subject to the scrutiny that it recieved?
I think so. I mean if I was a fire chief that was soliciting oral sex from a female probie in the chiefs office, would that not warrant a firing? I would certainly hope so.
I think you’re comparing apples to oranges here marma. The scope of the two are very different.
[quote]vroom wrote:
finally a “shock and awe” campaign that is working! ;)[/quote]
lol - totally… “dude, did you hear? the americans are so hardcore that they shoot their FRIENDS in the FACE!”
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Howard Kurtz has the media round up on this story:
One would think OJ was running for the border in a white Bronco or Michael Jackson was moonwalking on a limo in front of a courthouse for the level of attention this is getting.
Perhaps there are some real news items to cover?[/quote]
Like Clinton and Lewinsky?
Eye of the beholder…right?
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
I think you’re comparing apples to oranges here marma. The scope of the two are very different.
[/quote]
No they aren’t. Why is it YOUR business if the president gets his dick sucked by another woman? From many rumors, this was not a first among presidencies. Marilyn Monroe was believed to have had “access” that very few others had. This is just the first time that our media has been so invasive that every aspect of these people’s lives is on tape 24/7. 60 years ago, we probably would have never even heard of it.
Just wondering if anyone had seen the reports that Cheney denied speaking with the local police until 14 hours later and that the Secret Service pretty much made it impossible to meet with him till that time?
I ask because of the speculation that he was drunk at the time, therefore needing the “sober up” time to meet with authorities.
Either way drunk conspiracy or not, it seems like a pretty above the law attitude. I don’t think if I shot a buddy in a hunting trip that the cops would let me get back to them when I felt like it the next day.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
bigflamer wrote:
I think you’re comparing apples to oranges here marma. The scope of the two are very different.
No they aren’t. Why is it YOUR business if the president gets his dick sucked by another woman?[/quote]
Prof,
I personally don’t care if Clinton was getting his dick sucked by another woman, especially after seeing who he was married to.
Hovever his soliciting oral sex from an intern that was working underneath him, in the oval office of the POTUS makes the issue different IMHO. This incident didn’t occur on private property, it occured in the oval office of the United States. And it didn’t occur with a random beeotch, he solicited oral sex from a white house intern.
Like I said, these cicumstances make the incident quite different from the VP accidentally shooting a friend while hunting on private property don’t you think?
If Clinton was getting his dick sucked by some woman he was not profesianally superior to, on private property, things would’ve been vastly different.
[quote]
From many rumors, this was not a first among presidencies. Marilyn Monroe was believed to have had “access” that very few others had.[/quote]
True, I’ve alway’s heard that many presidents have been involved with other women. Clinton got cought. If JFK was banging Marylin in the oval office I would still have problem with that. Not the fact that he was banging someone other than his wife, but the fact that he was banging some chick in the highest office of the land. Respect for the office of the president. I remember hearing that Reagan wouldn’t even enter the oval office without a suit on, I really respect that.
[quote]
This is just the first time that our media has been so invasive that every aspect of these people’s lives is on tape 24/7. 60 years ago, we probably would have never even heard of it.[/quote]
Again true, it sucks for any celebrity or politician to be in the middle of the information age.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
bigflamer wrote:
I think you’re comparing apples to oranges here marma. The scope of the two are very different.
No they aren’t. Why is it YOUR business if the president gets his dick sucked by another woman? From many rumors, this was not a first among presidencies. Marilyn Monroe was believed to have had “access” that very few others had. This is just the first time that our media has been so invasive that every aspect of these people’s lives is on tape 24/7. 60 years ago, we probably would have never even heard of it.[/quote]
Are you really so uninformed that you think Clinton was in trouble for getting his dick sucked? Is that really what you think? Are you completely unaware of his long history of sexually harassing women, which led to a lawsuit being filed by one of his victims, which led to him lying under oath? When they were impeaching the man, did you hear anything in Congress about him getting his dick sucked? Me neither.
[quote]knewsom wrote:
Kuz wrote:
I found this piece kind of amusing:
I’m just hoping he will be OK and recover… but the idea that this is somehow a big story or that there are whisperings of some kind of conspiracy are just silly. Cheney should have been more careful, no doubt… now can the story just go away? Is this really the most important thing to discuss such that it leads all the news reports on a daily basis? Sheesh.
No, I don’t think this is the most importatnt thing in the news, and I hope the guy is ok too. What it IS however, and the REASON it’s getting so much press, is that it is a VERY TELLING THING. I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: Would you trust Cheney (or ANYONE who has shot one of their best friends in a hunting accident while blatantly disobeying basic conduct) behind your back with a loaded gun? 'course not. Would you trust someone whom you wouldn’t trust with a gun to run the country!? …exactly.[/quote]
Exactly? Those two things are so completely unrelated, I don’t even know where to begin…
[quote]vroom wrote:
Lucasa,
Lighten up man, I was joking, I thought the description of birds flying over looking for food was funny.
I’m guessing you were thinking I was launching a political attack or something? I’m genuinely fascinated by this, it is completely out of the ordinary.
If you are right wing, I’m sure you’d like this to be non-news, but the rest of the world is simply amazed… finally a “shock and awe” campaign that is working! ;)[/quote]
Just putting things in perspective for the people who are asking “What’s a canned hunt?”. I’d like it to be non-news from a pro-hunting/pro-gun standpoint. I wish Whittington the best of health, but if he dies (knock on wood), I’d like to at least see Cheney brought up on criminal charges. Others may disagree with me, but my understanding would be that it’s the letter of the law. I don’t mind you rippin’ Cheney for what he did, but my intention was to balance the hunting portion of the debate.
The best quote I heard was that the secret service had to tell VP Cheney that you don’t have to suck the blood out of a gunshot wound.
dude, trying to compare the clinton/lewinski thing to this is ludicrous. APPLES AND ORANGES. Billy got his cock sucked IN the oval office, BY an intern, yes this was wrong and disrespectful, but he didn’t intend to disrespect the nation by doing so. Cheney SHOT A GUY IN THE FACE, DUDE! HIS BUDDY! He coulda KILLED that guy! I’m sorry man, but I’m more likely to trust a guy that cheated on his wife than a guy that SHOT SOMEONE, even if it WAS an accident. (besides, there are loads of other reasons not to trust Cheney, but let’s stay on topic)
Thanks doogie – that laid out the differences quite nicely. I’ll only add that no one would have heard of Lewinsky save the lawyers in Paula Jones’ lawsuit if Clinton hadn’t lied under oath.
Also, newsflash, Brit Hume will be interviewing Dick Cheney this afternoon; interview will air on Hume’s 6 PM (EST) on Fox (I think Fox News cable, but it might be the network).
A revealing look at a Washington Post article on the subject, courtesy of U of Wisconsis law prof Ann Althouse:
“Mystified that the vice president has not come out in public to express his feelings.”
That’s the WaPo’s description ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/14/AR2006021402137.html ) of Robert H. Michel, a former House Republican leader who is a “longtime friend” of Dick Cheney’s. But is it mystifying? It’s not as though Cheney has committed some wrong in his public capacity that affects the public and implies the need for an apology directed at us.
[i]"I guess he's so measured with what he does say personally, but boy, I'd think on something of this nature, you'd let your feelings [be] known," Michel said.
In general, Michel said, Cheney has "enclosed" his personal feelings so tightly to avoid showing them in public. "I guess that discipline upon himself is probably the thing that holds him back." Cheney, he added, is virtually immune to public criticism and image problems: "I don't think he really cares."[/i]
Doesn’t care that he shot a man in the face? No, Michel didn’t say that. He said Cheney doesn’t care if people criticize him. The suggestion is only that there’s a political need to go on TV and emote so that people see you’re not a machine. TV demands emotion. Tell us how you feel, reporters demand of people in pain, who often enough snap back “How do you think I feel?” Cheney accidentally shot an old man. How do you think he feels? Why do you need him to go on television and say what you already know? Because it would be so weird and awkward for gruff old Dick to do that?
[i]That disregard for public approval, though, can become a problem for the White House, according to veteran presidential aides from both parties. "When the vice president is immune to politics and tone-deaf to politics, as Vice President Cheney has shown himself to be at various stages along the way, then his perspective on this kind of situation isn't as sharp," said Ronald A. Klain, chief of staff to Vice President Al Gore.[/i]
Well, we’re not so immune and tone-deaf that we’re going to care what Gore’s chief of staff has to say on the subject! How many “veteran presidential aides from both parties” did you talk to anyway?
[i] Despite a string of political embarrassments linked to Cheney, including not finding weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, the indictment of the vice president’s chief of staff in the CIA leak case and now the shooting, he remains a powerful force inside the White House.
A testament to his power is the deference Bush showed Cheney in the handling of last weekend's shooting episode. White House aides said Bush has not pressured Cheney to disclose more details about the shooting or to apologize.
One person close to both men said that Bush is the only person in the White House who could persuade Cheney to change strategy and that even high-level White House aides are reluctant to take on the vice president's office. That left White House press secretary Scott McClellan to be battered by reporters on national television.
"This is one of the challenges of having a high-profile, very powerful vice president inside the White House," said Klain, who added: "The disadvantage is when something negative happens involving the vice president, it is much harder for the White House staff to step in and exert control."[/i]
More from Klain! I love the effort to drag Bush into this for not “pressuring” Dick Cheney, to connect this story to the Iraq war, and to make it sound ominous that Cheney is “a powerful force inside the White House.”
In short: What a crock o’ crap.
…“doogie”? 
[quote]doogie wrote:
Professor X wrote:
bigflamer wrote:
I think you’re comparing apples to oranges here marma. The scope of the two are very different.
No they aren’t. Why is it YOUR business if the president gets his dick sucked by another woman? From many rumors, this was not a first among presidencies. Marilyn Monroe was believed to have had “access” that very few others had. This is just the first time that our media has been so invasive that every aspect of these people’s lives is on tape 24/7. 60 years ago, we probably would have never even heard of it.
Are you really so uninformed that you think Clinton was in trouble for getting his dick sucked? Is that really what you think? Are you completely unaware of his long history of sexually harassing women, which led to a lawsuit being filed by one of his victims, which led to him lying under oath? When they were impeaching the man, did you hear anything in Congress about him getting his dick sucked? Me neither.
[/quote]
I think the whole process of women jumping up to claim “harassment” was bullshit. Yes, lying under oath is wrong. However, I think everything that led up to it was one of the largest wastes of money and political time that I have ever seen. It was a freaking witch hunt. Women lie too. They will especially do it if a book and movie deal are on the line and they have their one chance to get rich.
[quote]storey420 wrote:
Just wondering if anyone had seen the reports that Cheney denied speaking with the local police until 14 hours later and that the Secret Service pretty much made it impossible to meet with him till that time?
I ask because of the speculation that he was drunk at the time, therefore needing the “sober up” time to meet with authorities.
Either way drunk conspiracy or not, it seems like a pretty above the law attitude. I don’t think if I shot a buddy in a hunting trip that the cops would let me get back to them when I felt like it the next day.[/quote]
Now that sounds bad.
First off Clinton was impeached for lying under oath, not getting his dick sucked. Way to not understand the issues!
Second, Cheney deserves all the late night talk show ribbing he will get over this and more.
The news media has every right/duty to report this.
The only thing that has bothered me about the news media is that they are more pissed that Cheney isn’t talking to them about it. They don’t give a shit about the victim. They are a bunch of fucking vultures.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
storey420 wrote:
Just wondering if anyone had seen the reports that Cheney denied speaking with the local police until 14 hours later and that the Secret Service pretty much made it impossible to meet with him till that time?
I ask because of the speculation that he was drunk at the time, therefore needing the “sober up” time to meet with authorities.
Either way drunk conspiracy or not, it seems like a pretty above the law attitude. I don’t think if I shot a buddy in a hunting trip that the cops would let me get back to them when I felt like it the next day.
Now that sounds bad.[/quote]
I heard Ted Kennedy was drunk when he drove off that bridge and killed that woman.
Face it, politicians are assholes. They can get away with things we cannot.
Cheney fucked up. He will get away with it unless he lies under oath.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
They are a bunch of fucking vultures.[/quote]
This surprises you? Didn’t think so.
The main point…this is not political bias.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Professor X wrote:
storey420 wrote:
Just wondering if anyone had seen the reports that Cheney denied speaking with the local police until 14 hours later and that the Secret Service pretty much made it impossible to meet with him till that time?
I ask because of the speculation that he was drunk at the time, therefore needing the “sober up” time to meet with authorities.
Either way drunk conspiracy or not, it seems like a pretty above the law attitude. I don’t think if I shot a buddy in a hunting trip that the cops would let me get back to them when I felt like it the next day.
Now that sounds bad.
I heard Ted Kennedy was drunk when he drove off that bridge and killed that woman.
Face it, politicians are assholes. They can get away with things we cannot.
Cheney fucked up. He will get away with it unless he lies under oath.[/quote]
Agreed on that one Zap. Ted Kennedy should definitely be behind bars