everything but the girl

Sorry, Heidi, this time the AP was wrong, there's audio to confirm it and the AP has retracted the story.

-Meg

From:

sistermagpie.livejournal.com

That's a relief. Just what we need nowadays is more nasty rumors that aren't true.

From:

Yeah, unfortunately the rumors sell more papers than the truth does. Which is a sad statement about the world we live in.

-Meg

From: (Anonymous)

That’s a totally fallacious and erronious report! NBC showed video of the even and there were not only applause, but also "whoo's". The sound bite is here if you don’t believe me. http://homepage.mac.com/mkoldys/bush.mp3
There are also reports that Bush called Clinton from Air Force One as soon as he was notified to wish him the best.

I can't believe that those Liberals would go to such desperate links, so condescending, just to try and win an election.

-Nihaochan

From:

1. I can't believe that people are so blinded by the conservative media bias that they think the Associated Press is liberal.

2. I can't believe you've never misheard 'ooooh' as 'booooo', or, for that matter, 'bruuuuuuuuce' at a springsteen concert as 'boooooooo', like my mum has.

3. I can't believe you can't be arsed to get a livejournal; it would make your life easier, and they're free.

From:

One more thing - were you as horrified by Zell Miller and Dick Cheney's erronious and falacious reports about John kerry, where they claimed he said certain things about the UN, US security, weapons systems and terrorism that he didn't say, or that they took out of context?

What about Schwarzenegger's report that the austrian governments in the 50s or 60s (my bad, I forget now which decause he was referring to) were socialist, instead of conservative and anticommunist, which is what theuy actually were?

If not, why not?

From:

1. Well, I guess the AP must be pretty straight forward then if Conservatives think their too Liberal and Liberals think their too Conservative...

2. Have you seen the clip from the speech? Because I have and it is pretty darn clear (if not just by the applause -- and the amount of them) that they are cheering. If the reporter was unclear, they should have asked for a second or third opinion (and if they did and both or all three of them thought it was boo's then I'm quite frightened). You can't tell me that "the president did nothing to stop them." wasn't a bias opinion. Even if you somehow misunderstood the audience that's just bad journalism if you ask me.

3. All you had to do was ask. :)

As far as Zell Miller and Dick Cheney's claims, I have no reason, at this time, to believe they were lying or taking things out of context too much. But, then again I don't really doubt it. But because I wasn't alive and don't really have any facts about the situation, I don't think it's appropriate for me to say 'I'm mad at them' or anything. Although, I'll take your word on it and just for the record, it would be wrong of them to make such fallacious claims.

From:

1. Well, I guess the AP must be pretty straight forward then if Conservatives think their too Liberal and Liberals think their too Conservative...

Are you implying that I said they were too conservative? I don't think they are, and I never said that I thought they are; I think that part and parcel of their being a consortium of 1500 newspapers means that they, as a general rule, are middle of the road. If you want to read their code of ethics, you can find it here.

2. Have you seen the clip from the speech? Because I have and it is pretty darn clear (if not just by the applause -- and the amount of them) that they are cheering. If the reporter was unclear, they should have asked for a second or third opinion (and if they did and both or all three of them thought it was boo's then I'm quite frightened). You can't tell me that "the president did nothing to stop them." wasn't a bias opinion. Even if you somehow misunderstood the audience that's just bad journalism if you ask me.

No, I didn't see it. I was, as you may've seen from my other posts, in the middle of a hurricane. I did, however, hear it on the radio when they were doing a round-up of other stories in the really long long long wait for the storm to hit, and that's when I looked over the news sites on my sidekick and found the bit about it online. But as I don't have an audio-component on my sidekick, I couldn't listed to it again and again, and on that one listen, it did sound boo-ish to me.

As far as Zell Miller and Dick Cheney's claims, I have no reason, at this time, to believe they were lying or taking things out of context too much.

Really? Why don't you have any reason to believe they were lying? Is it because you only paid attention to the commentary on conservatively biased media networks like FOX, or to right-wing talk show hosts, who, according to MediaMatters, tended to gloss over the lies and contextualizations?

Here's a few facts for you, from MediaMatters and from conservative Andrew Sullivan's websites:

From MediaMatters, :

Jeff Greenfield to Miller
GREENFIELD: You also were, I would say, almost indignant that anyone would possibly call America military occupiers, not liberators, on at least four occasions. President Bush has referred to the presence of American forces in Iraq as an occupation, and the question is: Are you not selectively choosing words to describe the same situation the president of the United States is describing?

On FOX, Kondracke and NPR national political correspondent and FOX News contributor Mara Liasson made the same point. "Well, look, look, we in a sense are occupiers," Kondracke said. "President Bush has said that," Liasson said. "The president has referred -- has said that the Iraqis don't want us to be 'occupiers' -- don't want their country 'occupied'," Kondracke continued.

From Sullivan's website:

Cheney, at the time defense secretary, had scolded Congress for keeping alive such programs as the F-14 and F-16 jet fighters that he wanted to eliminate. Miller said in his speech that Kerry had foolishly opposed both the weapons systems and would have left the military armed with "spitballs." During that same debate, President George H.W. Bush, the current president's father, proposed shutting down production of the B-2 bomber -- another weapons system cited by Miller -- and pledged to cut defense spending by 30 percent in eight years. [Emphasis mine]
Though Miller recited a long list of weapons systems, Kerry did not vote against these specific weapons on the floor of the Senate during this period. Instead, he voted against an omnibus defense spending bill that would have funded all these programs; it is this vote that forms the crux of the GOP case that he "opposed" these programs.
On the Senate floor, Kerry cast his vote in terms of fiscal concerns, saying the defense bill did not "represent sound budgetary policy" in a time of "extreme budget austerity."

From:

Now, the most prominent, to me, contextualization in Cheney's speech was regarding Kerry's comment which included both "sensitive" and "war on terror" in more or less the same breath.

MediaMatters looks into Bush's own statment about the need for sensitivity in the war on terror, and contrasts it with what Kerry said.

Bush used the word as recently as August 6 -- the day after Kerry used it in a speech and drew attacks from the Bush administration and from numerous conservative pundits.

But then again, I feel like I'm asking for consistency from the same people who blast John Edwards for being a litigator, yet don't have the same concerns or complaints about Senate hopeful Mel Martinez.

But, then again I don't really doubt it. But because I wasn't alive and don't really have any facts about the situation, I don't think it's appropriate for me to say 'I'm mad at them' or anything. Although, I'll take your word on it and just for the record, it would be wrong of them to make such fallacious claims.

You weren't alive in the early 90s when George HW Bush and his sec of defense Dick Cheney requested the Senate cut certain weapons systems? Or were you too young to remember it? I was in college and studying media and politics under Frank Luntz back then, so I think I have a pretty good understanding of what the Republicans were doing in political decisionmaking at that time, given that I heard one or the other of them speak in my class each week, and spent some time in DC on a project for that class in late 1991 where we learned directly from both Republican and Democratic consultants about the reasons for certain decisionmaking they were doing. And please, recall that this was about a year after the first Gulf War, so it's not like the government was full of peacenicks at the time - these were the same men who had just won us a war with a broad international coalition, yay.

Now, to address something you brought up elsewhere in the comments: I have been on sidekick-only since Thursday afternoon, when I packed my desktop up to higher ground in expectation of Hurricane Frances. I can't edit LJ posts on my sidekick, even to turn them "private" - it is just not possible, and believe me, I have tried in the past. I did edit it this morning, of course, as it was the correct thing to do.

I'm sure you can understand the complexity of a proper response to you, as I had to call on facts, articles, quotes, etc., and given that I can only have one browser window open at a time while on the sidekick, it was well on impossible to properly reply to you until I was back on a real computer. I do apologize for the delay.

From:

One last thing (may, I am posting a lot!) - you should read Slate Magazine's breakdown of Miller's speech for a point by point explanation of the misinformation behind his claims on military issues, among other things. Interesting article - and all the points are googleable and re[resent facts, not spin.

From:

>>Are you implying that I said they were too conservative? I don't think they are, and I never said that I thought they are...

Well you did say "I can't believe that people are so blinded by the conservative media bias that they think the Associated Press is liberal." The AP is a media outlet and since you said there is a conservative media bias then that must make them a little Conservative.

>>it did sound boo-ish to me.

Well it just must be me, because when I first heard it I heard one key element that made me believe, right away, that the audience was agreeing with the president. What was that? Clapping. That should have gave it away to the AP reporter (but that's just my opinion, you have your right to your differing one). I feel that it was bad reporting; not your fault.

>>Really? Why don't you have any reason to believe they were lying?

#1 reason to assume that they weren't lying is because one is the Vice President of the United States and the other is a Governor in the United States. Besides I had no information to prove they weren't telling the truth. You gave me some links that I'll have to check out. And just FYI - I was watching CNN's coverage of the Convention - that's all I had in the hotel room.

>>You weren't alive in the early 90s when George HW Bush and his sec of defense Dick Cheney requested the Senate cut certain weapons systems? Or were you too young to remember it?

I don't remember. I was young and not caring about politics.

It's interesting you bring up Republicans doing away with weapons and military... Take a look at this post (http://node-3.net/index.php?p=101) from my site. Seems like Clinton did away with a lot too. So they say... I'm going to have to look into Zell's speech a little more before I could definitively say "Yes, Kerry didn't vote for that". But actually, I really don't care. I'm not basing who should be president these next four years on Vietnam or if Bush was in all of his medical exams. I'm basing on who I think will keep me safer. That man is George Bush. And who gave us tax breaks this year. That man is George Bush. Kerry wants to take back my tax breaks.

>>I'm sure you can understand the complexity of a proper response to you...

Yep, I understand. I was a little jumpy.

From:

Well you did say "I can't believe that people are so blinded by the conservative media bias that they think the Associated Press is liberal." The AP is a media outlet and since you said there is a conservative media bias then that must make them a little Conservative.

Uh, no, I was saying that you'd been led by the conservative media to believe that AP was liberally biased.

Well it just must be me, because when I first heard it I heard one key element that made me believe, right away, that the audience was agreeing with the president. What was that? Clapping.

Well, it's kind of difficult to tell on a recording if the same people are clapping and booing - I don't think anyone said that everyone was booing, just that there *was* booing. So I don't think the presence of clapping is indcative of anything, one way or another.

#1 reason to assume that they weren't lying is because one is the Vice President of the United States and the other is a Governor in the United States.

No, Miller is a senator. Do you automatically believe everything said by every senator, or even every senator from the Democratic party? Because if you do, I have a great book by my senator for you to read! And if you automatically find things said by a vice-president of the United States truthful, then I'm glad to hear that you wouldn't've been like Scott McClellan and say, in reference to Al Gore's criticism of Cheney, "Well, look at the source." I mean, Al's being vice president didn't stop Bush campaigners calling him a liar last time.

Besides I had no information to prove they weren't telling the truth. You gave me some links that I'll have to check out.

They're interesting stuff - hope you found it as well-detailed as I did.

It's interesting you bring up Republicans doing away with weapons and military... Take a look at this post from my site.

I looked over your site, and saw that you have posted the email that Bush supporters send around about Kerry, and which found its way into Miller's speech. Snopes, which is the most respected Urban Legends cosolidator in the world, calls the claims an urban legend. Also, FactCheck.org, which is a website created by the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania, a division of the Annenberg School of Communications, where I studied for my communications major in college in the 80s and 90s, said:

Republicans go too far when they claim that Kerry voted against such mainstay weapons of today's military as the M-1 Abrams tank, the Bradley Fighting Vehicle, and the Patriot missile. (See this Republican National Committee "fact sheet," for example.) These claims are misleading because they rest on Kerry's votes against the entire Pentagon appropriations bills in 1990 and 1995. Kerry also voted against the Pentagon authorization bills (which provide authority to spend but not the actual money) in those years and also in 1996. But none of those were votes against specific weapons systems. Kerry's critics might just as well say he was voting to fire the entire Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps.

Seems like Clinton did away with a lot too.

Actually, a president cannot cut the military budget. While the president can suggest that Congress do things, and certainly has the power of veto over anything Congress does, Clinton spent most of his administration with a Republican House of Representatives, and with a registered Republican, William Cohen, as his secretary of defense. So any cuts made during his administration were, by definition, bipartisan.

From:

I'm not basing who should be president these next four years on Vietnam or if Bush was in all of his medical exams. I'm basing on who I think will keep me safer. That man is George Bush.

Are you sure? I mean, 911 happened on his watch, whereas on Clinton's watch, in contrast, the Millenium Plot in LA was foiled. And Doug Bandow, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, who served as a special assistant to President Reagan and was a visiting fellow at the Heritage Foundation, wrote in Salon Magazine this week that while the "administration correctly targeted the Taliban in Afghanistan, [they] quickly neglected that nation, which is in danger of falling into chaos. The Taliban is resurgent, violence has flared, drug production has burgeoned and elections have been postponed." Sounds like that Reaganaught thinks that Bush has made the world more dangerous, not safer. And you can read more from people like Tucker Carlson, William Buckley and Andrew Sullivan on that topic in that article; I don't need to quote the whole thing.

And who gave us tax breaks this year. That man is George Bush. Kerry wants to take back my tax breaks.

Wow! You make more than 200,000$ a year? And you were too young to pay attention to politics in the early 90s? Cool for you to be so successful! Personally, I enjoy voting against my own personal pocketbook and in support of noblesse oblige, because I think it's a moral imperative to support those who have fewer advantages than I do. But that's just me, and I realise that reasonable people do differ on this, and some people just want to vote with their pocketbooks, rather than with concern for other elements in the world. Your call. But remember that Bush needs 60 votes in the Senate to extend his tax cuts, and given the way the deficit has ballooned under Bush, that is, at present, very unlikely.

From:

We need more bipartisanship in this country. We need someone who can unite, and not divide, as Bush promised and failed at so miserably. We need the spirit of Barak Obama's speech to permeate the country, but that will not happen as long as those on the right pick fights based on misinformation promulgated by the administration. It just has to stop; we need dialogue, not battles.

From:

>> 911 happened on his [Bush's] watch, whereas on Clinton's watch, in contrast, the Millenium Plot in LA was foiled.

First of all, if we wanted to blame foreign attacks on the President, lets see about Clinton's "watch"... First Trade Center Bombing, USS Cole bombing? Both linked back to Osama. Didn't see Clinton doing anything. In fact, if you want to really read into Clinton on National Security, try Robert Patterson's eyewitness account (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0895261405/qid=1094843442/sr=8-1/ref=pd_cps_1/002-7303415-7628811?v=glance&s=books&n=507846). Quote from Amazon.com: It is a "frank indictment of his obvious—to an eyewitness—failure to lead our country with responsibility and honor." Lt. Col. Patterson offers a damning list of anecdotes and charges against the President, including how Clinton lost the nuclear codes and shrugged it off; how he stalled and lost the opportunity to launch a direct strike on Osama bin Laden at a confirmed location... [bold from me]

But, I don't go around blaming Clinton, Bush, or any US President for September 11th. I don't see that logic with these attacks. As always, if you do, be my guest, but I doubt you'll be changing my mind.

Wow! You make more than 200,000$ a year?
God, no. Not THAT much! :) [But, Bush did give a wide variety of tax relief (i.e. Child Tax Credit (”http://www.taxfoundation.org/bushtaxplan-families.html”))]

From:

First of all, if we wanted to blame foreign attacks on the President, lets see about Clinton's "watch"... First Trade Center Bombing, USS Cole bombing? Both linked back to Osama. Didn't see Clinton doing anything.

Really? Did you blink for a few months and miss the conviction of those who planned the WTC attack? Because they're all in prison serving life sentences right now.

And the Cole? That happened at the tail end of his presidency (Oct. 12, 2000) and guess what? It was not proven that al Qaeda was involved until after the election. And Clinton, according to a Time magazine article from 2002, gave a plan to Condi Rice and Bush's other incoming security people, which they did not reexamine for months. Had the Clinton administration attacked without consulting the incoming Bush administration, they would have gone against a long history of communication between outgoing and incoming administrations. It was not within the sole purview of the Clinton administration to decide what to do. What would you have thought if Clinton had attacked, as a lame duck, without consulting the incoming administration?

Bush did give a wide variety of tax relief (i.e. Child Tax Credit)]

Well, yeah, but you were saying that Kerry was going to take away your tax cuts, but the only one he's said he's going to take away is the one on people who make over 200,000/year. In fact, he wants to provide more tax cuts for the middle class, including:

A tax credit on up to $4,000 of college tuition
A tax credit to help small businesses and vulnerable workers pay for health care and buy into John Kerry's new Congressional Health Plan.
A tax credit on $5,000 of child care expenses

Don't those sound great?

From:

I heard the sound bites.

Don't jump on Heidi though, she was just reporting what she saw.

I doubt it was a Liberal plot. Probably just one reporter missing what he or she heard.

From:

Oh come on. Heidi said "Americablog said it best - Bush supporters want Clinton to die. So tacky." That's clearly, in my mind, an agreement with the article.

If it wasn't an agreement, she should still made an amendment to the post saying "Oh, turns out to be false. They were actually cheering at this rally -- the reporter misunderstood." I know that if on my blog I would have linked to a site that misquoted John Kerry and supporters and was told otherwise in the comments, I would immediately amend the post. Especially with proof that these claims were erroneous.

From:

I think Heidi is currently without sound as she's in Florida. She was linking to a text of the story.

Give her a chance, she's really a wonderful person, despite our different political views.

From:

I know, I don't doubt it. I love her work and to read this blog. Just a little friendly political debate. :)

From:

Just making sure.

Debate's a wonderful thing.

-Meg

From:

Just saw this - so if they didn't boo at the rally, there was some virtual booing online.

From:

That's horrible. No one should be happy someone's ill. With the possible exception of my one professor from medical school.

Glad you guys are safe by the way.

From:

Thanks, the good wishes are all appreciated. But we're almost out of food and I don't really want to go into the rain unless/until I have to...

From:

*sends gummy worms* It's all I have to offer, I am behind on going to the grocery store too.

From: