Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Cheney Shoots Ducks (and a person) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Karen Lawrence who wrote (527)	2/16/2006 12:17:42 PM
From: Sedohr Nod	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1307

How did Mary Jo come out in that incident? Did she get all the possible help that was available? The part where teddy did all he could in her behalf seems to have slipped my mind.

To: Karen Lawrence who wrote (527)	2/16/2006 12:18:05 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1307

"but as in: Are the people running the country honest? Will they lie to officers of the law? Break the rules? Mislead the public? And - most critically in this case - is someone with an active drinking problem helping to lead the most powerful nation on earth?" This gets closer to non-partisan relevance for the average Jo/Jill. I would narrow it down even a little further to say ... Are the people 'representing us' honest. There are certain things I don't do but if other people want to them, I really don't care. I knew what a philanderer clinton was, for example, and I didn't care. >When someone representing me is dishonest (or appears to be) it is bothersome, and I want the issue resolved for my peace of mind; I certainly wouldn't vote for such a person. >When someone representing me is dishonest and attempts to involve me by expecting me to remain silent or actively support them in the deceit, it is intolerable. An elected representative is in office on the basis of 1) us lending our trust to them by voting, and 2) an oath to perform according to certain standards. Cover-ups (or the appearance of a cover-up) give the impression that they have violated one or both of those. When attempts to cover up are exposed it is always death to political careers. I don't see these 'factors' as established facts yet by-the-way in the Cheney case, but if we can substantiate any deceit by Cheney over this event, he will be toast. I don't consider him refusing to talk until the dust settled to be deceitful. Here are some of the "C" (for Chappaquiddick) factors in the Cheney shooting: 1. Someone with a documented history of drinking problems causes a serious accident, and then avoids the authorities for a period of time - one that happens to be long enough to get the alcohol out of his system. 2. The first stories of the accident are confusing and self-contradictory. (In this case, since Cheney didn't speak himself, the most glaring inconsistencies are Armstrong's. Specifically, she - and now Cheney - describe her as an eyewitness, although she told the Associated Press she thought at first Cheney had suffered a heart attack. That would mean she never saw the shooting.) 3. A powerful figure holds himself out as being above the law, and - at least for a time - appears to get away with it. 4. When the powerful person finally speaks, allegedly to 'come clean,' there are still inconsistencies and glaring contradictions in his story.