Posted by Dinah on February 18, 2006, at 10:17:31
In reply to Re: I gotta admit » Dinah, posted by zeugma on February 18, 2006, at 6:10:23
If the vice president had shot someone while in the course of his work, I would agree with you. If his secret service agents had shot any person in the course of their work, I would agree with you. If the vice president had committed a felony, I would agree with you.
However, I would feel no particular urge to tell the news media about an accident that I had as a private citizen just because I was also a public figure.
Of course I'm not advocating spies.
But I see no reason why transparency should have to extend to a public official's private life. It's bad enough that doctors release the particulars of a sitting president's colon polyps when said colon polyps do not affect the president's ability to govern.
If Cheney, the man shot, the owner of the ranch, or anybody there had decided to call the Washington Post (or the National Enquirer) to tell their stories, fine. And that's what happened. If the press chooses to circle the vacation spot of a vice president like they did the Princess of Wales, fine. They'd likely find out. But I see no duty for the vice president to call himself.
Any more than I felt it uncumbent upon President Clinton to inform the press the particulars of any encounters he might have had with whatever her name was. It escapes me at the moment.
poster:Dinah
thread:610592
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/poli/20060204/msgs/610854.html