Skip to main content
  • CNSNews.com
  • MRC TV
  • Biz & Media
  • Culture & Media
  • Take Action!

Join Us @:
Facebook
Twitter
Amazon Kindle

Free email alerts!

NewsBusters logo
June 20, 2013
  • Home
  • Blogs
  • About
  • Forum
  • Take Action
  • Contact
  • Donate
  • Search
  • RSS

Hot Topics

  • Obama ScandalWatch
  • IRS Targets Tea Party
  • Censoring the News
Home » Blogs » Clay Waters's blog
  • MSNBC: Obama and Merkel Are the New 'Ronnie and Maggie'; Matthews Sees Conspiracy to Push Hillary 2016
  • NBC's Todd Excuses Obama's Poor Speech Performance: Crowd Too Small, 'It Was Hot'
  • Chris Matthews Whines About Sun Harming Obama's Berlin Speech
  • MSNBC's Hayes Slams 'Shameful Spectacle' of 'Anti-Food Stamp Jihad' by Republicans
  • The Inconvenient Suffering of China’s Laogai Prisoners
  • Serena Williams Slams French Taxes: 'Seventy-Five Percent Doesn't Seem Legal'
  • Bozell Column: Censoring the 'Anti-Gay' Viewpoint
  • Martin Bashir, Who Compared Conservatives to Hitler, Now Decries Nazi Comparisons

New York Times Again Falsely Claims Audience Shouted 'Let Him Die!' During GOP Debate

By Clay Waters | July 09, 2012 | 14:14

A  A

Former Arkansas governor and Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee talked to Andrew Goldman for the New York Times Magazine, who used a media myth to give Huckabee a platform to call the Republican Party "hyperorthodox" and excessively ideological: "Mike Huckabee Likes Romney. Really."

Goldman's opening question basically begged Huckabee to bash the GOP: "During the Republican primary debates, audience members booed a question from an active serviceman who was gay and shouted, “Let him die,” about a hypothetical gravely ill patient without insurance. Is this different from the party that you know and love?"

Huckabee obliged by smacking the slow pitch: "Very much. It’s one of the reasons that I did not think this was a good time to run. The atmosphere was so toxic that it would not be an atmosphere in which I would breathe well. There is almost a hyperorthodoxy that is gripping the party that you have to go out and prove that you can be tougher, meaner, more hard-line than anybody else on the stage. It may lead to effective campaigning if the goal is to be the most ideological puritan on the platform, but the ultimate goal is more of what I’d call a true Reagan model. Not the Reagan model that has been invoked -- but Ronald Reagan who understood that governing is an art."

One problem: No one shouted "Let him die" at the Republican debate televised on CNN and hosted by Wolf Blitzer. As Times Watch reported back on September 23, 2011 after the paper first forwarded this falsity as fact: "It was debate moderator Wolf Blitzer who actually used the words 'let him die,' when asking candidate Ron Paul a loaded question about letting a hypothetical man die for lack of health insurance. There is no auditory evidence anyone at all in the crowd shouted such a thing...."

ABC News gave a more accurate presentation of what happened.

About the Author

Clay Waters is the director of Times Watch, an MRC project tracking the New York Times. Click here to follow Clay Waters on Twitter.
  • 2012 Presidential
  • Debates
  • Andrew Goldman
  • Mike Huckabee
  • New York Times
  • ObamaCare
  • TimesWatch
  • Clay Waters's blog
  • Login to post comments
  • Printer-friendly version
Stop George Soros

Comments

It is not the policy to rely

Submitted by pilgrim4jc on Mon, 07/09/2012 - 2:26pm.

It is not the policy Of the NYT to rely on facts, when their agenda is in jeopardy.

You're not alone!
  • Login to post comments

Huckabee's response

Submitted by Newsbusterbrown on Mon, 07/09/2012 - 2:44pm.

Huckabee's response illustrates why he isn't a real conservative. Not that he's a RINO, mind you (that word gets tossed around here too much to the point it has lost its meaning, IMO), but a Reagan or Palin would never have gave a response like that.

“There are no easy answers, but there are simple answers. We must have the courage to do what we know is morally right.” - Ronald Reagan (1964 Republican Convention)

  • Login to post comments

The Huckster...

Submitted by almostacowboy on Mon, 07/09/2012 - 11:29pm.

...raised AR taxes more than any D before or since.

  • Login to post comments

Another Palin moment?

Submitted by c5then on Mon, 07/09/2012 - 2:48pm.

Where "you can almost see Russia from parts of Alaska" became "I can see Russia from my window" thanks to SNL.

Or is this closer to the NBC edited 911 call of Geo. Zimmerman?

 

Madison and Jefferson and Franklin built a Republic - Roberts killed it! 

  • Login to post comments

This would have been a factual statement:

Submitted by Jer on Mon, 07/09/2012 - 3:28pm.

GOP debate moderator, Wolf Blitzer, posed a hypothetical about a gravely ill patient without insurance, then asked candidate Ron Paul whether we should just "let him die"?

Before Paul could respond, several audience members immediately shouted "Yeah!"

 

Whew! I am so relieved the sense of decorum, compassion and basic humanity of those who agreed the suffering victim should be left to die has now been restored.

Jer

  • Login to post comments

Jer

Submitted by stratman on Mon, 07/09/2012 - 5:07pm.

GOP debate moderator, Wolf Blitzer, posed a hypothetical about a gravely ill patient without insurance, then asked candidate Ron Paul whether we should just "let him die"?

Before Paul could respond, several audience members immediately shouted "Yeah!"

Where did you get your quote from?  Link please.

  • Login to post comments

strat:

Submitted by Jer on Mon, 07/09/2012 - 5:17pm.

From the link embedded in Clay's September 23 link.

I didn't represent it to be a quote--it isn't--but rather an accurate statement, which it is.

Jer

  • Login to post comments

Jer

Submitted by stratman on Mon, 07/09/2012 - 7:18pm.

You presented your italicized text in an ambiguous manner that could be construed as accurate, prompting me to check all the links provided in the article. None of them used the word 'several'. In fact, I heard two, not several, people yell out an affirmative response.

Compared to the overwhelming evidence of violent exhalations on your side of the aisle, with numerous death exaltations and exhortations as witnessed on Zombietime.com alone, let alone your beloved leadership's depraved indifference in suggesting elderly to take a pill (Obama) than seek restorative treatment or covert and sinister support for actual death panels (Berwick - Liverpool Care Pathway, Ezekial Emanue - Complete Lives System), you have no leg to stand upon the soapbox and lecture us.

The Left likes to talk their talk but prefers others to walk their walk for them.

  • Login to post comments

Here's a suggestion, strat...

Submitted by Jer on Mon, 07/09/2012 - 7:50pm.

Instead of shifting the focus to a comparative analysis of bad behavior and a determination of which and whose exhalations and exhortations have been more opprobrious, why don't we just stick to the issue at hand.

Personally, I heard more than two affirmative responses from the audience.  So we'll have to agree to disagree on the number and whether or not "several" is an appropriate characterization.

Here is an excerpt from fact-checker Wemple's article:

The voices that can be heard in the video — perhaps two or three of them — don’t constitute an “audience” reaction. There were 1,100 people in the crowd. The episode is the clumsy work of a few loons or meatheads in the audience.

A fine headline would read: “Debate hecklers cheer death of uninsured.”

Do you find his headline wording acceptable?  How would you phrase it?

Jer

  • Login to post comments

Rubber vs Glue Doesn't Work Here

Submitted by stratman on Mon, 07/09/2012 - 10:18pm.

Here's a suggestion, strat...

Submitted by Jer on Mon, 07/09/2012 - 7:50pm.

Instead of shifting the focus to a comparative analysis of bad behavior and a determination of which and whose exhalations and exhortations have been more opprobrious, why don't we just stick to the issue at hand.
 

Here's a suggestion for you, Jer.  Don't post your daily affirmations.  We already know this about you.

  • Login to post comments

Well you can take this any way you wish...

Submitted by Jer on Tue, 07/10/2012 - 2:39am.

but I've always tried to address your questions in an honest and straightforward manner as well as comply to be best of my ability with your not infrequent requests for links.

Unfortunately, in recent months it seems my providing links has merely served as a trigger for you to respond with snark and derision. [I note that you completely ignored my questions relating to the Wemple excerpts I posted.]

So, if you would like to have civil and productive discussions, I'm all for it. I've always been for it. But until you agree with that approach, please don't trouble yourself or me with any further requests for links. They'll be disregarded.

Jer

  • Login to post comments

Seems pretty obvious to me

Submitted by Boudin on Tue, 07/10/2012 - 7:35am.

That it was excited Paul fans. Anyone who has ever been around more then 3 at a time knows what I mean.

Seek Truth, Defend Liberty
  • Login to post comments

Yes. We do.

Submitted by The Vet on Tue, 07/10/2012 - 7:51am.

For all we know, they could have just been excited King Paul actually got a question, or that King Paul's name was mentioned, or that King Lizard Paul* just swallowed a rat. Yeah baby! Yeah!

* V

  • Login to post comments

Zactly

Submitted by Boudin on Tue, 07/10/2012 - 1:52pm.

What I meant

Seek Truth, Defend Liberty
  • Login to post comments

Wait. I.... Oh my, I.... I can't... I.... Oh my lord no, I....

Submitted by The Vet on Mon, 07/09/2012 - 10:38pm.

Uncle Jer:..posed a hypothetical about a gravely ill patient without insurance..."let him die"?

A HYPOTHETICAL.

Uncle Jer: ..who agreed the suffering victim should be left to die...

The suffering HYPOTHETICAL victim. Oh dear, a hypothetical, prolly nude with a 105 degree temp was left on the side of the road to die!

Uncle Jer: ...fine headline would read: “Debate hecklers cheer death of uninsured.”

No. No. Cheered the death of one of those damn hypotheticals? You know, that race that was responsible for killing the Aztecs, dodo birds, dinosaurs, banking industry, and legal fireworks in 34 states. Big whoop. Oh wait, isn't one of Uncle Jer's seven ex-wives that are suing him a hypothetical from Hypothermia City? Dang. Mouth. Foot. Entering. Taste. Shoe leather. Ugh.

  • Login to post comments

Vet, I don't know what you're talking about...

Submitted by Jer on Tue, 07/10/2012 - 2:42am.

please use American syntax.

Jer

  • Login to post comments

Waking up still drunk? And the sadness continues....

Submitted by The Vet on Tue, 07/10/2012 - 7:47am.

You are crying over, and asking us to cry over, a hypothetical, HYPOTHETICAL person.

A person that does not exist.

A person that is fictional

Crocodile tears over a figment of imagination.

Holy crap, I usually understand what you say, despite your odd use of the linguistic crutch, smileys. What, did my use of your own quotes confuse you? Here is a clue, If it starts with "Uncle Jer:", I am quoting you..

  • Login to post comments

And I usually understand what YOU say...

Submitted by Jer on Tue, 07/10/2012 - 5:45pm.

even when your point is camouflaged with near-inscrutable VetSpeak.

Now here's a clue for you:   When I state "Here is an excerpt from fact-checker Wemple's article:"

...and follow that with the bolded A fine headline would read: "Debate hecklers cheer death of uninsured."

...the words are--and the headline is--Wemple's, not Uncle Jer's.

And Wemple's article is highly critical of the mischaracterizations and misrepresentations of the debate audience reaction, i.e. he agrees with the position of Clay Waters and NewsBusters.  So if you have a problem with Wemple's "fine headline", take it up with him.

Jer

  • Login to post comments

Sorry. Do you think I am stupid after all these years?

Submitted by The Vet on Tue, 07/10/2012 - 9:33pm.

Do you?

,,,compassion and basic humanity of those who agreed the suffering victim should be left to die has now...

That was your words. Your words. Your words. Yours. You said them.

And your fake headline missed that the dead uninsured victim.was entirely fictional.

  • Login to post comments

On the contrary, I think you are extremely bright...

Submitted by Jer on Tue, 07/10/2012 - 11:43pm.

It's just that you occasionally act stupid for reasons which aren't that readily apparent.

And my "fake headline" explicitly noted it was hypothetical. In other words, it wasn't a real person and a real event that was being described in the question posed.

Jer

  • Login to post comments

Yes. Why am I explaining this for the fourth friggin' time?

Submitted by The Vet on Wed, 07/11/2012 - 12:21am.

My first quote from you set up that is was a hypothetical

Uncle Jer:..posed a hypothetical about a gravely ill patient without insurance..."let him die"?

I then repeated the word hypothetical to make it clear.

A HYPOTHETICAL

I then bring your quote where you dropped the fictional, fake, hypotheticalness of the fake, fictional, hypothetical victim.

Uncle Jer: ..who agreed the suffering victim should be left to die...

I then make a joke, turning the word hypothetical into a noun as though the fictional, fake, hypothetical was part of some race or class of people.

The suffering HYPOTHETICAL victim. Oh dear, a hypothetical, prolly nude with a 105 degree temp was left on the side of the road to die!

I then bring your fake headline where you once again drop the fake, fictional, hypotheticalness of the victim.

Uncle Jer: ...fine headline would read: “Debate hecklers cheer death of uninsured.”

I then finish off with a joke paragraph riffing on the race that is known as the Hypothetical race.


No. No. Cheered the death of one of those damn hypotheticals? You know, that race that was responsible for killing the Aztecs, dodo birds, dinosaurs, banking industry, and legal fireworks in 34 states. Big whoop. Oh wait, isn't one of Uncle Jer's seven ex-wives that are suing him a hypothetical from Hypothermia City? Dang. Mouth. Foot. Entering. Taste. Shoe leather. Ugh.

It should have been a simple throw away post that was a take-off on the people getting bent all out of shape because the Paulbots possibly did not care that a fictional character died. I just happened to use your quotes as a jumping point. But as usual, you feel some great injustice or harmful insult was intended where none was present.

  • Login to post comments

Vet...

Submitted by Jer on Thu, 07/12/2012 - 4:13pm.

I'm not insulted. I don't feel victimized by some great injustice.

I AM moderately frustrated that you still seem unaware of the fact that the headline: "Debate hecklers cheer death of uninsured"...is not MY headline--you refer to it as "your [Uncle Jer's] fake headline"--but one composed and offered by WEMPLE.

Jer

  • Login to post comments

Ahhhhh.

Submitted by The Vet on Fri, 07/13/2012 - 12:35am.

Can't use actual quote marks, those little quote thingies on the very same line that you find the bold button, italics, or the big orange letters that indicate a link back.. Four different ways to indicate these are not your words. But yeah, it must be frustrating when people get confused by you quoting someone and not using some accepted internet method of indicating it is the words of someone else.

I feel for you. Frustration. I really do. Touch me. You can feel my feeling.

Too bad you can't feel for me. For the 7th time. The quotes from you were just indications that YOU and YOUR non-quoted quotation referred to the person as though he/she, the hypothetical, was an ACTUAL LIVING BREATHING person. It was not about who was quoting who else when and where.

But continue to focus on that part, huh?

  • Login to post comments

Jer, How are those two

Submitted by LAM SON 719 on Mon, 07/09/2012 - 3:35pm.

Jer,
How are those two hundred dead mexicans working out for you? They were people, not some hypothetical image manufactured by some activist.

Non, je ne regrette rien. "You aren't angry because I might be a racist, you're angry because you know I'm right".
  • Login to post comments

Jer, How are those two

Submitted by LAM SON 719 on Mon, 07/09/2012 - 3:35pm.

Jer,
How are those two hundred dead mexicans working out for you? They were people, not some hypothetical image manufactured by some activist.

Non, je ne regrette rien. "You aren't angry because I might be a racist, you're angry because you know I'm right".
  • Login to post comments

Jer, How are those two

Submitted by LAM SON 719 on Mon, 07/09/2012 - 3:36pm.

Jer,
How are those two hundred dead mexicans working out for you? They were people, not some hypothetical image manufactured by some activist.

Non, je ne regrette rien. "You aren't angry because I might be a racist, you're angry because you know I'm right".
  • Login to post comments

I'm centering my response, LAM SON...

Submitted by Jer on Mon, 07/09/2012 - 5:03pm.

Tragic.

Not sure what it has to do with the subject-matter of this blog however.

Jer

  • Login to post comments

Jer, How are those two

Submitted by LAM SON 719 on Mon, 07/09/2012 - 3:36pm.

Jer,
How are those two hundred dead mexicans working out for you? They were people, not some hypothetical image manufactured by some activist.

Non, je ne regrette rien. "You aren't angry because I might be a racist, you're angry because you know I'm right".
  • Login to post comments

Jer, How are those two

Submitted by LAM SON 719 on Mon, 07/09/2012 - 3:37pm.

Jer,
How are those two hundred dead mexicans working out for you? They were people, not some hypothetical image manufactured by some activist.

Non, je ne regrette rien. "You aren't angry because I might be a racist, you're angry because you know I'm right".
  • Login to post comments

Finding facts to advance a

Submitted by ray johnson on Mon, 07/09/2012 - 4:39pm.

Finding facts to advance a narative doesn't have to be hard...just make 'em up. All the lib readers will just nod their collective heads, but will never check the information. The writers definitely know this and don't ever bother to be certain of their bogus storyline...because - you know - Republicans are baaaaaaaaaad and libs/dems are gooooooooood.

  • Login to post comments

Only Liberals don't have to

Submitted by Free Stinker on Tue, 07/10/2012 - 11:29am.

Only Liberals don't have to do any self-examination when they are reduced to lying in the war of ideas.

 

   /// Sarah Palin Fan since July 11, 2007 ///    خال

  • Login to post comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Stop Censoring The Gosnell Trial!

Editors' Picks

  • The regulated states of America infringe on pursuit of happiness (Niall Ferguson)
  • The rationale for wind power won't fly (Jay Lehr @ WSJ)
  • President Obama parrots false 'equal pay' statistic (Bader @ OpenMarket.org)
  • Whose war on women? (FRC)
  • Romney's revenge (Avik Roy @ NRO)
  • Relax, the Arizona voter registration ruling was narrowly drawn by Scalia (Hans von Spakovsky)
  • Snowden loses his moral authority with dangerous leaks (Rothman @ Mediaite)
  • Rapper Lil' Wayne stomps on American flag (Rare)
  • Apple releases information about data requests from NSA, other agencies (LA Times)
  • Five myths about privacy (Solove @ Washington Post)
Chuck Norris's picture
Chuck Norris
Chuck Norris Column: The Superman of Dads and Grads
Cal Thomas's picture
Cal Thomas
Cal Thomas Column: Broadcast Nets, Ailes Is What's Good for You
Ann Coulter's picture
Ann Coulter
Coulter Column: If the GOP Falls for 'Immigration Reform' Ruse, It Deserves to Die
Walter E. Williams's picture
Walter E. Williams
Walter E. Williams Column: Let People Sell Their Organs to Sick, Needy Recipients
Michelle Malkin's picture
Michelle Malkin
Malkin Column: Anthony Weiner's Underage Girl Problem
More >

RSS FeedAmazon KindleFacebookTwitter

Stop Censoring The News!

Audit the Man of Steel?!
more cartoons
  • NewsBusters Interview: Amity Shlaes on Coolidge, Media, and Neo-Keynesianism
  • Slate Says Lack Of Emotionalism Sunk Gun Control Bill
  • O’Reilly: Obama Could Be Impeached If Evidence Shows Intel Agency Read Emails Without Warrant
  • Christie: Obama’s ‘Charm Offensive Should Have Started January 2009’; ‘Bit Late in Dating Game’
  • Howard Stern to Jimmy Fallon: ‘How You Got The Tonight Show I Don't Know. You Barely Beat Craig Ferguson’
More >
NewsBusters

Executive Editor
Matthew Sheffield

Editor at Large
Brent Baker

Senior Editors
Tim Graham
Rich Noyes

Managing Editor
Ken Shepherd

Associate Editor
Noel Sheppard

Contributing Editors
Tom Blumer
Geoffrey Dickens
Dan Gainor
David Limbaugh
Mithridate Ombud
Clay Waters
Scott Whitlock

Senior Contributor
Mark Finkelstein

Contributing Writers
Matthew Balan
Michael M. Bates
Erin R. Brown
Jack Coleman
Kyle Drennen
Douglas Ernst
P. J. Gladnick
Stephen Gutowski
Matt Hadro
D. S. Hube
Kathleen McKinley
Dave Pierre
Amy Ridenour
Julia A. Seymour
Terry Trippany
Rusty Weiss
Brad Wilmouth

Publisher
Brent Bozell

Site Design
Dialog New Media

 

  • Home
  • Blogs
  • About
  • Forum
  • Contact
  • Donate
  • Search
  • Account
  • rss
  • CNSNews
  • MRC TV
  • Biz & Media
  • Culture & Media
  • Take Action!
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Amazon Kindle
  • Advertise
  • Jobs

Copyright © 2005-2013 NewsBusters.
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use