misfire fallout

Slate.com has really good analysis of Cheney's latest misfire.

http://www.slate.com/id/2136128/?nav=mpp

John Dickerson writes:

Vice President Cheney shot a man in the head on Saturday, and 21 hours later you had to be looking at the Web page of the Corpus Christi Caller-Times to find out about it. (The victim has now suffered a heart attack as a result of being shot.)

He also writes that this could be espescially damaging for Cheney, because it fits into the perception of him that his detractors have been pushing for years.

...to wait so long only points out what we always have known about the vice president: He doesn't give a damn about the public or press' right to know.

And later:

...at some point Cheney's starchy behavior is also insulting... When you nearly commit manslaughter as a public official shouldn't the honor of your office compel you to stand up and explain yourself in some fashion, at least say something in a press release and not just whisper it to a Texas rancher?

http://www.slate.com/id/2136088/?nav=fix

Bruce Reed, former domestic policy advisor for Bill Clinton, also writing for Slate, is perhaps even more sharp.

"This happens, and my God, I've never seen a case of hard feelings," ranch owner and host Katherine Armstrong told reporters. "I bet this would deepen their friendship." No wonder Brokeback Mountain is bombing in the heartland. Real men don't surprise each other by falling in love. A true friend accidentally shoots you in the face.

He also ties the Cheney event to another misfire:

If Dick Cheney is the Bode Miller of American politics, it most likely will be for other reasons: one disappointing performance after another, a penchant for making things go downhill, and enough errant self-confidence to guarantee gold should hauteur ever become an Olympic event.

http://www.slate.com/id/2136206/nav/tap1/

Yet another excellent Slate piece, by Paul Burka, looks at the event from a hunting safety angle. According to the victim's hunting buddies:

It's the shooter's duty to know what he is shooting at and where his companions are. A shooting accident is always the fault of the shooter. Always.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/15/politics/15veep.html?hp&ex=1140066000&en=93350c91d2508caf&ei=5094&partner=homepage

Over in the N.Y. Times, David E. Sangerfocuses on how the Cheney shooting sparked tension between the President's and Cheney's staffs as Bush's camp was frustrated that it took Cheney 18 hours to make this public. The article also has an interesting story about Cheney learned early yesterday morning that the victim's injuries were turning more serious, but Bush Press Secretary Scott McLellan was never informed and actually joked about the incident at his morning briefing.

My take on all of this? Maybe sometimes it takes a huge, over-the-top incident like this to demonstrate to casual observers what Democrats have been saying for years. In one incident, we see how Cheney refuses to accept blame and distorts the facts to suit his view, disrespects the media and public, and tries to make his own rules even when it comes to dealing with the President (who may be the one person most people would assume Cheney would listen to). Because this is all in the context of a less complicated and overtly political issue than, say, whether we ever had justification to invade Iraq, this could be the last straw for those who might otherwise defend the VP; what he did was simple and clear-cut enough to generally understood as indefensible.

I mean, damn, he shot a 78-year old man in the face, kept it a secret for 18 hours, and then blamed the victim. It's hard to get around political bias in this country, but a series of events like that just might do it.