New York Times Again Falsely Claims Audience Shouted 'Let Him Die!' During GOP Debate
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.
- Clay Waters's blog
- Login to post comments
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.
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)
The Huckster...
Submitted by almostacowboy on Mon, 07/09/2012 - 11:29pm.
...raised AR taxes more than any D before or since.
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!
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
Jer
Submitted by stratman on Mon, 07/09/2012 - 5:07pm.
Where did you get your quote from? Link please.
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
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.
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
Rubber vs Glue Doesn't Work Here
Submitted by stratman on Mon, 07/09/2012 - 10:18pm.
Here's a suggestion for you, Jer. Don't post your daily affirmations. We already know this about you.
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
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.
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
Zactly
Submitted by Boudin on Tue, 07/10/2012 - 1:52pm.
What I meant
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.
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
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..
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
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.
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
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
I then repeated the word hypothetical to make it clear.
I then bring your quote where you dropped the fictional, fake, hypotheticalness of the fake, fictional, hypothetical victim.
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.
I then bring your fake headline where you once again drop the fake, fictional, hypotheticalness of the victim.
I then finish off with a joke paragraph riffing on the race that is known as the Hypothetical race.
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.
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
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?
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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