Bang! Out go the lights!

jrittenhouse points to this piece in Editor and Publisher about Cheney's adventurous weekend.

Interesting quotes and revelations to this observer are right up in the lead paragraphs:

"The more than 18-hour delay in news emerging that the vice president of the United States had shot a man, sending him to an intensive care unit with his wounds, grew even more curious Monday with word from the White House that President Bush had been informed of the incident Saturday but not Dick Cheney's role until the next day.

Earlier, E&P had learned that the official confirmation of the shooting came about only after a local reporter in Corpus Christi, Texas, received a tip from the owner of the property where the shooting occurred and called Vice President Cheney's office for confirmation."

Further down:

"The (Houston) Chronicle also reports Monday that hunting accidents are very rare in Texas. In 2004, it said, the state's one million-plus hunters were involved in only 29 hunting-related accidents (19 involving firearms), four of which were fatal."

Call me a skeptic, but my first questions are along these lines: Does this seem a bit closer to Chappaquiddick than you'd think most Republicans would like? Also, given it seems the story came out because a local reporter had a relationship with the property owner, how many other times has Cheney shot someone up in the field, only to have it silenced after the fact?

Glenn Greenwald wears my t-shirt

(and, I suspect, pecunium's)

Greenwald had a post yesterday, that makes a very cogent point about supporters of Jorge vs. small-c conservatives:

"It used to be the case that in order to be considered a "liberal" or someone "of the Left," one had to actually ascribe to liberal views on the important policy issues of the day – social spending, abortion, the death penalty, affirmative action, immigration, "judicial activism," hate speech laws, gay rights, utopian foreign policies, etc. etc. These days, to be a "liberal," such views are no longer necessary.

Now, in order to be considered a "liberal," only one thing is required – a failure to pledge blind loyalty to George W. Bush. The minute one criticizes him is the minute that one becomes a "liberal," regardless of the ground on which the criticism is based. And the more one criticizes him, by definition, the more "liberal" one is. Whether one is a "liberal" -- or, for that matter, a "conservative" -- is now no longer a function of one’s actual political views, but is a function purely of one’s personal loyalty to George Bush."

So, how did the allegedly right-wing blogosphere (though more properly, Bush loyalist blogosphere) respond?

By calling Greenwald a "liberal."

Mild problem with that, as Greenwald points out in his reply:

"Almost invariably, bloggers told their readers that what I wrote can be disregarded because I’m just a "leftist" and a "lefty" and a "liberal" spewing forth the "KosHuff" party line...

So, they label the argument and the person making it "leftist" and "liberal" and - presto! - no more need to address the arguments or consider its substance because it’s all been shooed away with one fell swoop of name-calling cliches.

I mention all of this because it illustrates what I think is an important point. I’ve been blogging for just over 3 months now. It’s almost certainly the case that the only views of mine that bloggers at LGF and RWNH know are, at most, my opposition to the Administration’s various theories entitling them to violate Congressional laws and my belief that the Administration manipulates terrorist threats for domestic political gain.

In other words, they don’t actually know my political views on most issues in controversy. All they know, at most, is that I am a critic of the Bush Administration’s approach to terrorism policies and the Administration's insistence that it need not abide by the law -- opposition which, in their eyes, is more than enough to qualify me as a "leftist" or "liberal" despite not knowing if I actually subscribe to liberal views on virtually any issue. Mere opposition to the Administration, by itself, is enough to qualify one as a "leftist" or "Liberal" – which, I do believe, was one of the principal points of my post."

Read it. Read 'em both. Read it all.

PS: And, in a delicious coincidence, the New York Times has an article out today. Title? "An Outspoken Conservative Loses His Place at the Table". Lead?

"What happens if you're a Republican commentator and you write a book critical of President Bush that gets you fired from your job at a conservative think tank?

For starters, no other conservative institution rushes in with an offer for your analytical skills."