Defending Cheney, Fox's Henneberg falsely claimed that vice presidents "rarely, if ever" hold press conferences
SUMMARY: Fox News correspondent Molly Henneberg claimed that vice presidents "rarely, if ever" hold press conferences. In fact, Vice President Al Gore conducted at least 15 press conferences while in office; Cheney has so far conducted three.
During live coverage on the February 15 edition of Fox News Live, Fox News correspondent Molly Henneberg, after reporting Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid's (D-NV) comment that "the vice president should have a press conference to talk about the [accidental shooting] incident in Texas," falsely claimed that "[v]ice presidents rarely, if ever, do that." In fact, Vice President Al Gore conducted at least 15 press conferences from 1993 to 1999, according to the Nexis "Transcripts" database. Eleven of those press conferences took place from 1993 to 1997, including one on March 3, 1997, in which he answered press questions about alleged campaign finance violations. By contrast, a similar search of Nexis transcripts found only three press conferences featuring Cheney, all of which occurred between February and April 2001.
From the February 15 (2 p.m. ET) edition of Fox News Live:
HENNEBERG: Here you see the vice president arriving at the White House this morning for a meeting with the president and congressional leaders. After that meeting, the top Senate Democrat, Harry Reid, told reporters he thought the vice president should have a press conference to talk about the incident in Texas. Vice presidents rarely, if ever, do that, but they sometimes do interviews, as Mr. Cheney is doing right now with [Fox News Washington managing editor] Brit [Hume].
vice presidents rarely, if ever, shoot other guys in the head.
More commonly, they send the army to do that, instead.
I'd lend you my "I'm Scared Hat" but I haven't taken it off since the last Yellow alert.
Well, it looks likes Tommy's gone and flagged others' comments again. After all, who else would have done it? They could only have embarrassed himself.
The man seemingly can't answer questions, can't read things in context, and can't respond to criticism. Must have something to do with the way he was raised.
Before you throw out accusations you are totally clueless about, get your facts straight. You just look foolish. I have never flagged one single post on these boards, ever.
Have a wonderful day.
Before you throw out accusations you are totally clueless about, get your facts straight.
You mean like, about how people were raised?
You are better than that but I will explain it to you anyway........making a blanket statement about the way one is raised is hardly the same thing as accusing someone of being a wimp and flagging posts because I can't handle criticism. If I can't handle it what the hell am I doing here? Ask yourself.
You know the difference, you're just being contrary for it's own sake...........it's all good.
If I can't handle it what the hell am I doing here? Ask yourself.
Tommy, I ask myself what the hell you are doing here all the time. Maybe I should just ask you. What the hell are you doing here?
I will answer. Unlike many of you, I don't need to surround myself with like opinions at all times - I don't need my opinions reinforced, and cheered, and applauded at every turn in order for me to feel confident in them or somehow validated. I don't get freaked out when my viewpoint is challenged, I like to mix it up with intelligent, well reasoned differing opinions. If mine is weak, I may learn something....
Admit it Rusty, some people here cannot cope with anyone who doesn't drink the same kool aid - they attack and insult and get personal. I may get sarcastic and make general snide remarks about the left or get smart on occasion too, but you have never seen me attack any particular person for an opinion they have. If that happens, let me know and I will apologize.
Being in the minority here you also know I take much more than I give out.........just the numbers alone bear that out. But who cares, it's only a website - not life or death.
Take out the baseless assumption about what many of us need to surround ourselves with, and that's a pretty good answer.
Sorry, that assumption based solely on my observation stands. Look around, you can't deny how many here get their panties in a major bunch when another point of view is voiced. That leads me to believe they either aren't used to it, or because they can't deal with it.
You tell me.
Tommy, I for one appreciate your posting to this site. While we may not always agree, you generally express your points cogently and do not simply spout Republican talking points.
Appreciate it.
Tommy, you accusing anyone else of "looking foolish" is like Cheney lecturing people on gun safety.
If you didn't flag it, then I apologize for the accusation. I do believe, however, that it was done on your behalf, in that someone was embarrassed for you, or embarrassed that you were dragging down the conservative cause. There's no other good reason.
Furthermore, let's not forget how this started: your self-pitying whine about how much you get abused on these boards, contrasting it with your own behavior ("I was raised better") was thoroughly rebutted by my post with quotes of several of your insults to others.
And your response? Did you acknowledge that you are an abuser, yourself? Did you promise to live up to the way you were raised? Hardly! You falsely accused me of saving all your posts and let that be its own insult ("What does that say about you?").
Well, I responded to that, and next time I looked the whole discussion had disappeared. Voila! Now, why would that be?
I've mentioned before that I never flag anyone's comments, feeling that the best way to deal with a foolish statement is to rebut it, not erase it. I believe most of my liberal brothers and sisters on this board would feel and react the same way.
Yet another example of the deflection tactics by the right.
"How dare you all make fun of the VP. He feels really bad for shooting his friend. Poor Dick. You should all be ashamed of yourselves!"
Instead of addressing the issue of:
--Dick Cheney shooting someone. --Dick Cheney not allowing local law officials to talk to him for 14 hours. --Dick Cheney not wanting to release this to the media for an unusually long time. --Dick Cheney giving conflicting reports about the involvement of alcohol.
Wow! "Brit" interviewing the veep that couldn't shoot straight. Talk about hard-hitting journalism. I'm sure our fair and balanced correspondent will cut right to the chase and everyone's questions will be answeredonce and for all. (Edited) film at 11...
He would have chosen NBC's Dave Gregory.
This isn't just a complaint with Cheney. Was there ever a time when politicians were confident enough to answer anybody's questions?
... if it's "SWEEPS" time for the networks? I mean, this story is being given "EXCLUSIVELY" to FOX, who are playing it as a MUST SEE, giving snippets throughout the afternoon.
It's indeed a "ratings coup", and it's been gifted to FOX by, it must be said, OUR GOVERNMENT.
It's a no-bid contract awarded to a friendly advocate of the administration, so not only will it help FOX, it will help Cheney as well. Everybody's happy, except the American People who might expect their government to quit playing cronyism when there is an instance such as this demanding tough questions.
Another instance of total contempt for the public by this administration.
Despite all your projections with regards to Cheney's angst, (this "human being after all who has just accidentally shot his 78 year old friend.") the VP has yet to utter a single word of remorse; 1st, 2nd or 3rd person, much less asknowledge that he has committed a crime (not exactly a novel approach). Am I the only one who noticed, that nowhere in the article was the victom's name mentioned. The Neo-Con pundits seem to be frog-marching him off the public stage, double time!
So Gore had 11 press conferences in the time that Cheney has had 3, why is that not considered rarely? The Vice President is only there to cast the tie breaking vote in the Senate (and protect the space-time continuum) so how often does the average American want to hear from him?
I know most people on this site want him to answer questions on lots of issues but this is to address the title of the article.
It's "rarely, if ever", the difference is important. The suggestion is that it would be somehow inappropriate or unprecedented for Cheney to have a press conference over the matter, which is ludicrous. It's not very common, but it's certainly not in the realm of "if ever", by any stretch of the imagination.
I understand your response to be (paraphrased) sure it is rare but hey it has happened so it is improper to say "if ever". If MMFA wishes to show how it is common for VPs to have press conferences then why not have a chart going back the last 80 years and show how many press conferences each VP has had. This is a sample size one problem. Is it common? We don't know as yet. That is what they should have shown if this is misinformation.
Why is all that necessary, just to show that such an event is not so rare that someone could legitimately suggest that one should not occur after the VP has shot a man in the face with a shotgun? That suggestion is utterly ridiculous, and we don't need 80 years charted to recognize that.
It's not just misinformation;the item is noteworthy because it's an example of the media making a truly absurd excuse for the Administration, beyond any reasoned thinking, and that demonstrates bias. As long as one recognizes that a press conference is allowed, then I think one can safely say that shooting a man in the face is an occasion when the VP might want to explain to the public through such means. What Henneberg is doing is creating an excuse for Cheney not to face legitimate questioning on the manner, and that excuse fails in the face of both the facts and rational thought.
I hope that adequately addresses your concerns.
If someone is going to tell me that item A is misinformation then I would wish to see evidence of that. I am not saying that the VP should or should not have a PC, I am saying it has not been sufficiently proven that such an event (the PC not the hunting accident) is not rare.
First off, you seem incapable of looking at the entire phrase "rarely, if ever", which is very much different from just "rarely". That implies that it's so uncommon that one is not sure if it's ever happened at all. You almost paraphrased my point correctly, it's essentially "you don't have to define rare, because the implication of the comment is absolutely false, due of the 'if ever' part" - the "if ever" defines exactly what Henneberg meant by it, and that definition is obviously misinformation.
Secondly, I guess I was being too subtle for you. Even if it was exceedingly rare for VP's to have press conferences, by any standard, this is obviously a very unusual circumstance. This was most people's first thoughts when they read this story, I think, and that's reflected by the comments. Nobody can seriously claim that shooting someone in the face does not warrant such an event, and that was the clear implication of Henneberg's comment. That's why it's more than misinformation, even if you want to be so picky.
If you really think "rarely, if ever" is fair, as is the implication that shooting someone in the face does not warrant even a "rare" event, then I would say your standards are indeed "different".
Is that Aaron Burr failed to hold a press conference after he shot Alexander Hamilton. Maybe he was afraid to face Helen Thomas. >:]
My point was that they did not prove their point. Two VPs had press conferences in the past. I don't know if it is misinformation until I know it is not true. They are just sloppy on this one.
but somehow I'm not surprised you didn't get it.
Do you really still not get it, or did you just want MMfA to spell it out to you the way I did? Henneberg defined "rarely", and that definition is contradicted by the facts. It doesn't matter even if only Cheney and Gore had them.
I don't understand the mental difficulty you are having with this, if that is the case.