Taylor Marsh – TaylorMarsh.com – News, Opinion and Weblog on Progressive Politics

… Cheney himself should make a public appearance
on the matter, and the sooner the better. He should get himself with a respected
national anchor — perhaps Brit Hume of Fox News — as
soon as this evening to express his regret and explain in his own words what
happened. He should stop relying on press aides who were not present at the
accident to tell his side of the story. Not talking only feeds speculation,
and aids the cause of those who want to lampoon and smear him. Let's hear
from the vice president. NRO

update…. Queen Kate, “bite me” video.

You obviously have a line to the throne, since the king's man responded
to your editorial and called Mr. Hume, prince of the president's press realm.
So, I have a couple of things to say to you, oh humble, we the people subject that I am.

First, if you're going to quote Madame Mary, the Queen of Carville, when you hold court
on cable, using her talking points straight from the king's man, please just
send her instead. Sure, she's just one of the many conservative cliteratti
ladies in waiting, but at least she's amusing. She also doesn't stutter or
lose her train of thought as much, nor does she have that curl your lip condescension
pretension. She simply rolls her eyes and clucks her teeth, which is not nearly
as scary to we subjects.

I also want to thank you for giving the king's man such
trusted royal advice, your majesty. Going on Fox “News” and talking to the prince of the
president's press realm sent the message we subjects have been
receiving for a long time. Only on such a palacial story it sent it even clearer,
so even the most lowly will get the king's message.

It was also interesting, Queen Kate, when you shrieked, though not very queenly, today
that “it's not true” the king's man didn't do the interview
of his own volition. I'm still sort of curious about your palace source. You simply
stated, “It was his decision to meet.” One of your favorite subjects, C. Matthews, asked how you
knew this, to which you answered, the king's man's staff.
But then you said something that really got me.

“Why wouldn't he be willing to meet and answer these questions?”
But like the ever efficient Queen Kate you are, you answered your own query
with “he was.”

But subject David, of Ignatius, man of the free press without a presidential
realm pass, was finally given access to the court to ask his question. “Why
wasn't he willing to immediately discuss the fact that he'd shot a man? Why
did he wait a day to have somebody in his name tell a small Texas newspaper?
I'm sorry, if he was so eager to talk about it he would have done it immediately.”

It was one of the only times poor David was allowed to speak
to you, Queen Kate, because after all it is your court on cable. At least subject David, of Ignatius, said he was sorry.

However, your majesty, when you said the king's man was only
worried about taking care of the injured man, not talking to the press, it
made me sad. Surely your majesty knew that the king's man didn't even go
to the hospital, but instead went to dinner, to fete himself first. Surely you aren't trying to mislead
us, your majesty. That's when you began quoting Mary, Queen of Carville, yet again. She must be such a big help to you, the king and his man, not to mention the palace staff.

Then David of Ignatius spoke up again, without warning. “But Kate, we'll never know whether if the owner of the
ranch hadn't decided on her own to notify the Texas paper whether this would
have been disclosed at all. We'll never know that. We will not know it.”

He called you Kate, I'm sorry, your majesty. It must have come
as quite a shock, because your stuttering and stammering became a sort of
tick, not wholly magisterial at all. If you don't mind, your majesty, I've heard that botox might relieve that symptom, the tick, that is.

But then you talk about “conflicting accounts on Saturday
night,” “there was no independent corroboration,” being the
reasons the king's man didn't talk earlier. You also speak about needing to
“practically get the entire AMA to verify whatever the medical news is,”
and they wanted a “sheriff's report if possible, a corroboration if possible,
another eye witness, if possible.”

However, when you talk about not understanding why the king's man
should tell the king himself, well, Queen Kate, I just don't understand.
He is the king, your king, the king you put in the palace.

Then you say that we the public don't care how the king's man
got the information out that he shot one of your own subjects.

Queen Kate, methinks you've been inside the castle too long.