Couric falsely claimed Democrats "really applauded" only the failure of Bush's Social Security proposal at SOTU
SUMMARY: NBC's Katie Couric falsely claimed that during most of the State of the Union address, "Democrats sat on their hands" and "really applauded" only when President Bush mentioned the failure of his Social Security plan.
On the February 1 broadcast of NBC's Today, co-host Katie Couric falsely claimed that during most of President Bush's January 31 State of the Union address, the "Democrats sat on their hands," and "[t]he only moment [they] really applauded was when the president talked about his failed plan to reform Social Security." But as video footage from the State of the Union address shows, Democrats "really applauded" at other times during the speech as well, giving standing ovations when Bush began the address by eulogizing Coretta Scott King, when he recognized the family of Marine Staff Sgt. Dan Clay -- who was killed in Iraq -- when he called for bipartisan support for the "war on terror," and when he asked Congress "to put aside partisan politics and work together" in resolving the financial challenges facing Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid programs.
From the February 1 broadcast of NBC's Today, which featured co-host Matt Lauer:
COURIC: And welcome to Today on this Wednesday morning, everyone. I'm Katie Couric.
LAUER: And I'm Matt Lauer. We're all a little bleary-eyed this morning --
COURIC: Yeah.
LAUER: -- because we stayed up for the speech and the analysis afterwards. The president faced a divided Congress during his State of the Union Address last night, and he took on a lot of issues that clearly had people butting heads.
COURIC: Well, you could see it, if you just watched the scene, Matt. I mean, the chamber erupted in applause 60 times, but during most of those times, Democrats sat on their hands. The only moment the Democrats really applauded was when the president talked about his failed plan to reform Social Security. We'll have a complete wrap-up of the speech, and as we mentioned, we'll talk with Senator John Kerry [D-MA], as well as NBC's Tom Brokaw and Tim Russert.
From President Bush's January 31 State of the Union address:
BUSH: Today, our nation lost a beloved, graceful, courageous woman who called America to its founding ideals and carried on a noble dream. Tonight, we are comforted by the hope of a glad reunion with the husband who was taken so long ago, and we are grateful for the good life of Coretta Scott King.
[applause]
BUSH: Staff Sergeant Dan Clay's wife, Lisa, and his mom and dad, Sara Jo and Bud, are with us this evening. Welcome.
[applause]
[...]
BUSH: Our own generation is in a long war against a determined enemy -- a war that will be fought by presidents of both parties, who will need steady bipartisan support from the Congress. And tonight, I ask for yours. Together, let us protect our country, support the men and women who defend us, and lead this world toward freedom.
[applause]
[...]
BUSH: So, tonight, I ask you to join me in creating a commission to examine the full impact of baby boom retirements on Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. This commission should include members of Congress of both parties, and offer bipartisan solutions. We need to put aside partisan politics and work together and get this problem solved.
[applause]
The conservative misinformation well must be getting really dry if this warrants mention. Couric clearly says "most of the time" Democrats sat on their hands and the only "really time" they applauded was due to Social Security.
I would say the same thing - a speech that lasts nearly an hour and the Democrats clapped a paltry 4 or 5 times out of 60.........they are entitled to hold their applause whenever they felt like it, but don't do it and then say you didn't.
Partisanship is alive and well in Washington.
this is a gratitious posting by MMFA. They're far better examples of conservative minsinformation than this. Katie Couric deserves to be raked over the coals re her misinformation about the Abramoff scandal. But this is a stretch.
Why is it that our standard media outlets simply talk about what the Democrats are doing? They, in fact, have no say at all anyway... What about some "critical analysis" of Bush's speech and how it contrasts with his track record to date? That would probably be too "newsworthy" I guess. This is MMFA's point...
Clapping for Bush is like clapping for an infantile adult who just learned how to go poo-poo without a pamper on the toilet for the first time
That the Democrats know how to join their rivals in responding to cheap applause lines? Sure, they would have applauded if Bush had declared his undying love for working mothers, puppies and rainbows. Who cares?
If it were up to me, the Democrats would have left the room the second he opened his mouth. He lies as he breathes.
This would be the first, and probably the last, time I will have to agree with TOMMY the troll. Why waste your valuable time on this one? The conservative misinformation machine is in full gear after the SOTU and this is the best you can come up with? How about all the specious claims that Bush reached out across the isle, when in fact he called criticism of his policies irresponsible?
This is misinformation because Democrats and Republicans both applauded fiercely when the president acknowledged the bravery and sacrifice of our service men and women. The entire congress gave a long standing ovation to Coretta Scott King. Both sides also applauded the call for peace in the middle east, energy independence, improved math and science education, Sandra Day O'Connor, and many other points in the speech.
I don't know which SOTU Katie Couric was watching. Katie Couric is increasingly seeing the world through partisan Republican eyes. This is just another example of her taking a cheap shot to attack Democrats. Here she is trying to prop up the discredited stereotype that Democrats are unpatriotic obstructionists.
Well said. I'm curious as to whether anyone at MMFA has followed up by reviewing the address and counting the number of times that at least half of the Democrats applauded. I would be unsurprised if more than half of the interruptions were joined by at least some Democrats. Then newKatie (the one who has begun taking her own views too seriously without supporting them with factual reporting) would complain "Yeah, but they didn't applaud as loudly as Republicans, so they were really hostile." Personally, I thought that when President Bush raced through five consecutive lies about why he was justified in NSA spying, there should have been a lot of booing...which MMFA has addressed in another link.
sorry, those of you who feel this is a stretch, but I believe that there is an important point here - Couric is attempting to make the Democrats look rude and obstructionist. Slanting party image of the Democrats is as much misinformation as the flat out BS in Bush's SOTU speach. He's given the same basic speech for 5 years, adds some bold initiative he's not actually going to do anything about, and never explains exactly how he's planning to fund any of it. It should have been called the "State of Disaster Address" - that would have been a more appropriate title
There was no mention by anyone here, including Couric or other reasonable posters, that holding their applause was being rude or obstructionistic by the Democrats.......however, you infer that - why?
The point was Couric said most of the time - doesn't 4 times out of 60 meet that threshold? Of course it does. It is not uncommon for the opposition party not to clap at every pause in the SOTU speech, so what? What is a little silly is to try and spin it otherwise.
Paranoid much!
Your analysis is flawed. "Most of the time," is an ambiguous phrase, it could mean anything, it could mean 90%, 80%, 30% and down to 1%. Trying to frame that into an argument is flawed because there is no defined defintions of the phrase.
Applause is the issue of debate here, and it will get no where because applause is ambiguous as well. Does it mean sustained applause? The actual number of times both hands come together? The percentage in the audience that whistled? what is it?
Again this counts as misinformation, because the statement Couric made is a logically invalid statement. It is important to note because Couric runs this off as both being materially truthful and logically sound.
You keep harping on Katie's comment of "Most of the time" but you seem to ignore this "The only moment the Democrats really applauded was when the president talked about his failed plan to reform Social Security. " Are you trying to claim that is accurate? Or is it just that with your single digit IQ you can only handle one thought at a time?
that is the obvious implication.
IF the dems 'really' applauded for King and the sacrifice of our troops then how is this NOT misinformation:
The only moment the Democrats really applauded was when the president talked about his failed plan to reform Social Security.
The only moment the Democrats really applauded was when the president talked about his failed plan to reform Social Security.
Of course, the Democrats offered no alternatives and the problem still exists. Maybe they were applauding the fact that nothing got done?????
BTW, Unemployment rate down to 4.7% and over 300,000 new jobs added in last two months!!!!
The TODAY Show draws a big audience (in comparison to, say, The Situation Room). Couric, I think, has a lot of credibility among a cross-section, politically-speaking, of viewers. When she portrays Democrats as "sitting on their hands"-which they were not doing-, it registers. So it is vital that Media Matters point this particular bit of false information out. Good catch.
The Democrats were not sitting on their hands??? Where were they then? Out shopping for gloves?
Couric described it accurately, get over it.
And so are you. Get over it.
You're twisting and denying a simple fact only further shreds your sinking credibility........
My advice to you is to get over that, for your own good.
Couric said Democrats sat on their hands. That's not true, as shown above by Media Matters.
Couric said the only time they really applauded was for the Social Security line. That's not true-again, as shown above.
You agree with Couric. Fine for you, Tommy. I don't.
You clearly don't understand the concept of "truthiness" (origin credited to Stephen Colbert). Something does not actually have to be literally true to be "truthy". So when Couric says this:
"The only moment the Democrats really applauded was when the president talked about his failed plan to reform Social Security. "
And of course this statement is completely false, and a perusal of the video of the SOTU shows that there were 4 other times when the Democrats applauded.
That is why Tommy prefers more "symbolic" types of statements uttered by Couric, like "most of those times" and "sat on their hands", which lend themselves better to truthiness, because the former is vague and the latter is metaphorical. Thus, their meaning can be stretched to fit.
Couric described it accurately, get over it.
As MMFA showed, Couric did NOT describe it accurately.
Well MMFA is wrong on this one - read it for yourself..........you know, this is why Democrats can't get elected dog catcher is national politics anymore - they get tied up in knots over silly stuff like this and wonder why the majority finds them out of touch.
I'll say it again, if this is MMFA's idea of conservative misinformation they had better either rewrite their mission statement to include hair splitting idiocies or put stuff like this under "We're just kidding folks"
I did read it. MMFA is right, and you are wrong.
Slapped down by a left wing partisan ideologue......take off your blinders and read the item again.
"The only moment the Democrats really applauded was when the president talked about his failed plan to reform Social Security. "
Go ahead, Tommy, explain how that particular statement is accurate. Keep in mind that some of us have the SOTU on video.
I have said it over and over, but you omit the part when Couric said most of the time - which is accurate, considering 4 out of 60. And then she includes the word "really" - which is also accuarate because it goes to their emphasis and enthusiasm. If she had left out the word "really" then she would be factually incorrect.
Do you realize how silly all this semantic arguing is anyway??? I go back to my original point, what is the big deal? You can't be serious if you think this rises to the level deserved of any attention here? I am all for exposing misinformation from both sides, but if these are the kind of battles you think are worth it, go right ahead.......you just look foolish and desperate.
The statement is a patent falsehood, and it is not any truer because she said some other things that are vague enough to lend themselves to interpretation. You're the one playing with semantics here. And of course, because you are clearly wrong you decide the argument is silly. Nice try at spinning it!
I have said what I wanted to say here, so have you and we disagree.
You want to quibble about something so absurd, fine.
If you think this item serves this website and it's mission proudly, fine. On the contrary, items like this only fuel those that believe that pettiness here is the rule - thus undermining this website's credibility.
It may satisfy your insatiable appetite, but that's about it.
That's pretty funny. Do you always write with such pomposity when you are wrong about something?
Uh...yes he does.
"I mean, the chamber erupted in applause 60 times, but during *most* of those times, Democrats sat on their hands"....*MOST* certainly indicates that they did NOT applaud very often. BUT certainly indicates they applauded MORE than ONCE. Is anyone here disputing THAT?
HOWEVER Couric then adds:
"The *only moment* the Democrats *really* applauded was when the president talked about his failed plan to reform Social Security"...*ONLY MOMENT* indicates ONLY ONCE, though *REALLY* as used here does seem to indicate "emphasis". Another words they clapped "politely" several times-- BUT really erupted with emphasis&enthusiasm just ONCE.
The problem here is that Couric made two statements that seem (on the surface) contradictory. Though at closer examination, it's a tough call...
=====
That said, ALL Katie Couric was really doing was confirming Matt Lauer's observation that : "The president faced a divided Congress during his State of the Union Address"
Is THIS supposed to be a BIG SECRET?? :-O I wouldn't exactly call THIS Conservative Misinformation...I mean anyone with even just SOME interest in the world around them KNOWS both sides aren't exactly agreeing on much these days.
Couric may have misspoke, BUT I don't believe she did so out of some partisan motive.
The phrase "sat on their hands" is meant to make the Democrats look petulant and uncooperative, as is the reference to the only time they "really" applauded being in connection with an admission of Bush's failure.
I truly don't think the issue is whether Couric is deliberately being partisan, sometimes those in the media just find it to be a more pleasing story if they can stretch the truth just enough to create more drama.
Hey wanderwoman, I didn't really see the phrase "sitting on their hands" as being any more or any less "negative" than saying they "didn't applaud" But maybe that's just me. I didn't EXPECT much applause from the Democrats during THIS speech and in fact would have found it disingenuous on their part had they not "sat on their hands" more often than not.
I didn't watch the speech BUT have seen clips of it here&there...Personally I thought it was AWESOME when the Democrats applauded Bush's FAILED Social Security Plan...THAT showed me some backbone! Bush's plan was a joke. And I for one was pleased it went nowhere :-)
While MMFA is usually pretty accurate in pointing out BLATANT misinformation, I think this thread is showing just a bit of paranoia on their part. Couric was simply agreeing with Matt Lauer's observation that : "The president faced a divided Congress during his State of the Union Address". That's NOT Conservative Mis-Information...it's the truth. And the phrase "sitting on their hands" is just a MORE creative way of saying "didn't applaud". I honestly don't think they were TRYING to leave a bad "impression".
it indicates a pattern.
Jeter, if you haven't read through the archives of the Daily Howler, I recommend it highly. It's author does a good job of describing the cumulative effect of this type of spin on public discourse. While little digs like this one by Couric may not seem important, they are part of a bigger picture of how our media are failing us in public debate.
We would be better off if two things would happen (but I'm not holding my breath). First, Rusty's suggestion that we go back to the president presenting the SOTU in writing and not in a shamelessly exploitative public display(and I'm not singling out Bush here, Clinton was a master at exploiting these). Second, we would be much better off if the media would stop these "spin sessions" that follow such events. Couric's attempts to be picturesque in her description are part of the problem here. And if you doubt it, just take a look at Another American's comments in another part of the thread. I know you are more fair-minded than most, but whether you percieve the spin here or not, AA certainly picked it up and ran with it.
The Daily Howler
...if these are the kind of battles you think are worth it, go right ahead.......you just look foolish and desperate. - Tommy, in his seventh post on this topic.
Tommy's trustigiousness?
"I have said it over and over, but you omit the part when Couric said most of the time - which is accurate, considering 4 out of 60. And then she includes the word "really" - which is also accuarate because it goes to their emphasis and enthusiasm."
You're going wrong in two different ways here, I think. First, I believe the "4 out of 60" is misleading. From the examples MMfA provides, it sounds like we're talking about standing ovations. There weren't 60 standing ovations, were there? I don't believe that even if there were that the ratio was that lopsided. I think much of the applause "explosions" were while seated, and much of that was from both sides. If there are actual statistics on this, I'd like to see them, but I think "most" is somewhat misleading. Secondly, the applause for the SS debacle was the most emphatic and enthusiastic, but that doesn't automatically mean that was the only incident that can be judged so.
Are the only two options available sitting on hands or shopping for gloves? I mean if they werent shopping for gloves than the only possible option is they were sitting on their hands? If that isnt so your post makes NO SENSE.
thank you for injecting some gravity to the thread: Tommy high-jacked it for awhile there. bring it down to earth...
The point is, Couric, with BIASED language, reported in such a way to imply that Democrats refused to clap out of some display of indignance. This is just plain silly. Nowhere is it written that everytime Bush says "freedom" does the entire chamber need to erupt into a standing-O.
Now, we're forgetting that REPUBLICANS leapt out of their chairs 60 times!!!! for what?? Bush did not say very much that he has not said before, many times, in many places, in front of many pre-screened audiences.
When Bush said something worthy of response, many Democrats did indeed clap, though they may not have rose to their feet with such dramatic displays of fervor as the REPUBS.
I think Bush is just trying to outpace George H.W.'s record of standing-O's from the post-Gulf War I speeches. That the Dems are out of line for not playing the game is a ridiculous editorial from the morning-show-Barbie-girl.
Actually I prefer Great Britain's parlimaentary Q&A session. It's not dignified, but its far more authentic. Before being chastised let me say I realize we're not England and our SOTU is a more of a pomp and circumstance kind of deal. But just imagine if you could ask the President real questions.
Even when I have been happier with a president's policies, I have always found the SOTU to be just an empty show.
It's the DC red carpet moment, they all ought to wear tuxes and gowns. I can just see it now the reporters asking Hiliary Clinton ' and who are you wearing?
The jack-n-the-box antics of the Republicans during the SOTU speech reminded me of the game I played in elementary school. On raining days, when recess was restricted, we played Stand Up - Sit Down. Obviously, the Republicans know the rules – but the Democrats took their cues as well.
Perhaps if congress stopped with the calisthenics during SOTUs we might hear more substance and less vacuous, pep-talk one-liners. Of course, listening to the speech and offering a standing ovation (or not) at the end would make for dull TV. So why not emulate the British, their rowdy partisan outbursts in Parliament of, ‘hear-hears’ and jeers seem more honest, democratic and unscripted (now there’s a TV concept) than the Up-Down, Sit-Down game play by our congressional…‘Leaders?’
...go back to the days when the president submitted his message to Congress in writing. These televised, choreographed non-events are pointless, no matter who's in office.
[link to www.rasmussenreports.com]
Hahaha,
I do get a kick out of some of you defending the 4 out of 60. Hahaha.. go ahead.
The fact is that the Dems wildly applauded President Bush's statement that Congress failed to pass Social Security reform last year.
If one recalls, last year, the official position of the Democratic Party was not only that they opposed President Bush's Social Security reform, they argued there was no crisis -- no major problem that required rectification.
(In fact, Social Security has $4 trillion of unfunded liability, and if major changes are not made quickly, we will only be able to pay the retired baby boomers about 70 cents for each dollar of promised benefits.)
So the Democrats only showed themselves (again) to be proud of obstructing reform. They should have taken no joy in that. But instead, they tried to make a cheap political point that backfired.
Yes, maybe the Dems did applaud 4 times. But the other times were overshadowed because they saved their biggest applause for defeating reform.
It is the same mindset that Harry Reid let slip out when he gleefully said, "We've killed the Patriot Act."
The Dems might as well rename themselves as "The Obstructionist Party" and change their mascot to an ostritch.
When you believe something is wrong, you should obstruct it. Calling it "obstruction" is not the insult you seem to think it is. But the official RNC false dichotomy is "reform" vs. "obstruction" so I don't hold it against you for parroting it.
You may be proud of being an obstructionist, as are your elected leaders, but it sure looked bad.
You mean, "...it looked bad to me and some other Republicans." Frankly, I can live with that.
Some people call it "playing to the base". It works for you but I wonder if it turns off the moderates and indpendents as much as it did this Republican.
Anyway, thanks for expressing your take on my take.
:-)
Well, I'm a moderate and it didn't turn me off. I can't speak for the other moderates. I would doubt that something as innocuous as the Democrats' choice of when to clap would turn off moderates, although apparently it did turn off Republicans.
:^)
(In fact, Social Security has $4 trillion of unfunded liability, and if major changes are not made quickly, we will only be able to pay the retired baby boomers about 70 cents for each dollar of promised benefits.)
Well, according to the CBO, “extending the life of the trust fund into the 22nd century, with no change in benefits, would require additional revenues equal to...only about one-quarter of the revenue lost each year because of President Bush's tax cuts.”
Of couse, I have yet to have anyone explain to me how borrowing $15 trillion, if not more, will help us meet $4 trillion in obligations - a worst-case scenario from the SS Trustees, by the way; the CBO's projection is considerably less.
What's the Democrats' plan? Same as always - pay down the deficit. Which they did in 1993 - without ONE Republican vote.
Are you actually talking about 1993 when the debt grew from 4.06 trillion in 1992 to 4.41 trillion in 1993, or 1994 when it went from 4.41 trillion to 4.69 trillion? Just curious.
...i'm sure what ellington meant was that the economic plan by clinton in 93, passed without a single republican vote and predicted to lead to an economic disaster by those same republicans, turned the deficits clinton inherited around in a couple years and produced surpluses. bush came into office and we went back to deficits, in spite of the republicans promise that they wouldn't occur. am i moving too fast for you?
Take it easy on poor Oscar. I think he went to the pharmacy to see if he could find a jock strap and cup.
Well thought out response on your part. You are hereby advanced to the second grade. Just pointing out, that no matter what Government plans/projects, national debt keeps growing (even through the "budget surpluses" of the late 90's.
clinton eliminated deficits, they came back under bush.
The 60 applause interruptions during this speech (and other SOTUs from other administrations) is part of what makes them so unwatchable. Applause should be held-as a rule-until the end of the speech.
Dave,
I agree... ;-)
there weren't sixty standing ovations.
amazing how repugs can deny the obvious. it's like when you played cowboys and indians, and you'd sneak up and "shoot" someone, then they denied till they were blue in the face that you shot them.
Katie is misrepresenting the facts.
There weren't sixty standing ovations.
Focusing on the Decoycrats is just trying to cover for Bush, to take attention away from his speech.
For a journalist, this can only be seen as highly unprofessional... but she's not a journalist, she's a hack. Just like the Repug posters here.
I was in total agreement with you until you mentioned this point:
"It is not uncommon for the opposition party not to clap at every pause in the SOTU speech, so what? "
Then why did Ms Couric deem it necessary to mention it? The game of misinformation is what is alive and well in Washington and at the moment the Right had been doing a great job of it with a very complicit Press Corp. This is in the same vain of their insistance to paint the Abramhoff scandal as being bi-partisan. The lobbying scandal and the earmarking scandal and (fill in the blank for anything that the Pols in washington have lost their way on) are bi-partisan...but Abramhoff is the Republican cross to bear. So although this point might not be the best in the world to make with all the other stuff going on MMFA works hard at pointing out even the smallest of infractions of a Press Corp that has lost its way
however it is the pattern of the current crop of Media Personalities that allow these small things to grow into bigger things that I think MMFA is committed to exposing. Such as when the Adminstration want to change from calling it Domestic Spying the Terrorist Surveilance.....words have a meaning and consequence and the press must be vigilant not to buy into either parties attempt at spinning.
to Clinton's last SOTU address and count how many times the Repubs sat on their hands - and call them obstructionists. But I'll bet that won't ever be noted in our "liberal" media . . .
Remember when the Republicans obstructed health care reform back in the early '90s? The American health care system needed reform, and the Republicans just obstructed and obstructed it! They must not have known how bad it looked.
the phrase "sitting on your hands" has nothing to do with clapping.
on the same program, answering the sotu. and as usual katie gave him the raised voice, skeptical, i know you're lying attitude she gives to democrats. these "mistakes" of hers are a regular practice.
Virtually the only way to attract attention is to appeal to the 2nd grader in many. Couric is not alone in her dramatization of partisanship in the interest of 'enticement'.
Shanagins of this nature are one small step away from a Jerry Springer-ish format & they do our democracy a grave-grave disservice. I have to wonder how many in the public eye begin to believe the distortions they proclaim on either side right/left/ or center. worldasmaya-
Rusty wrote: "Remember when the Republicans obstructed health care reform back in the early '90s? The American health care system needed reform, and the Republicans just obstructed and obstructed it! They must not have known how bad it looked."
I don't seem to recall, (correct me if I'm wrong,) the Republicans applauding the defeat of the health care reform during the SOTU.
I don't know about you, but the Dems looked like they were simply gleeful that they defeated a Bush reform. They might just as well have all put a thumb on their nose, wiggled their fingers and yelled, "Na na nana na". It was juvenile.
I'm no fan of Katie, but she got this one right. ;-)
Yes, I'm sure those classy, classy Republicans from the early '90s - who were SO respectful of Clinton - would have never applauded their bullheaded obstruction of a failed reform he was attempting. (Then again, for all we know they did - you just assume they didn't.)
If Bush was really interested in "fixing" Social Security, he'd work with both sides of the aisle. As usual though, it's his way or the highway. And his way isn't flying with the American people.
" "really applauded" only the failure of Bush's Social Security proposal at SOTU ".
First let me say the defeat of Bush's Social Security proposal should be appaulded, mainly by Bush and the Republicans. If it would have gotten through, as that other brillant idea the Drug Prescription Plan did, Democrats would not even has to run for office. They could have just took their seats in Congress in 2006. If I was a Democratic candidate I could run 2 or 3 elections on these ideas alone -- let's not get started on "health savings accounts".
"Really" is the key word here -- not how many times the Democrats appaulded. Basically, Couric -- the media whore she is -- is implying that the Democrats did not really clap for that soldiers parents. Implying some form of hypocrisy or that they hate the families of fallen soldiers. Although I am sure it was Republicans who set the rules making sure that family members of other fallen soldiers got thrown out (Cindy Sheehan) so I say the hypocrisy is theirs (although I don't like Cindy Sheehan for reasons other than her war stance) or maybe they just hate the troops and their families unless they do as they are told. Anyway, I don't like Sheehan's political allies by and large but she is an American citizen and it is the "People's House" not Congress or the President's she had a ticket she should have been allowed to stay as long as she did not interrupt the proceedings. And before every body, by which I mean the Cons, get all heady about her protesting, she was not protesting there, and now the charges are dropped. So the Congressional Police Force rough up and cuffed a woman then had to drop the charges because the charges would not have stood up in court. Frankly, I would sue for unlawful arrest.
This is the problem with the US, right now, and this present government regime dissention even quietly can not abided. Yeah and they let her go. Next time maybe they won't let the person go and the way it is going they may be able to hold them indefinitely without trial. This could be viewed as a foundling dictatorship testing the limits of the people and if people would not have been so bothered they would have done what they wanted to. It is this groups MO and that is the danger as always not what you do today but what it makes you think you can get away with tomorrow.
I can remember when Couric marched her sister on to the Today show when Emily first ran in this "Average Joe/Jane Runs for an Office" bit. I was livid, as I thought and still do it gave her an even more unfair advantage over other candidates -- real average people -- who did not have a famous sister with rich friends. But it turned out Emily was bright and progressive and a good State Senator. I can't speak for either of the Courics but I wonder what each would think about the other's politics now?
Dems stood to honor troops, support affordable healthcare, and many other times... they didn't stand for bad ideas that benefit only the rich... what show was Katie watching?
I'm about as lefty as they come, but this is a little nit picky. Democrats were noticeably more worked up in their protest over Bush's Social Security 'plan'. It was the only time Democrats applauded when Republicans didn't.
Couric isn't saying that Democrats didn't applaud at other times. She said that they were silent during 'most of those times' that Republicans were applauding, which is true.
I love your site, but you've got to let this one go.