That assumes you believe his site. Where are the reports from the other reporters who were there, especially about the atheist comments?
I find that hard to believe. Bush was the sitting VP and leading candidate for the Republican nomination. I’m sure that he was followed constantly by a busload of reporters who recorded his every word, particularly during press conferences.
I’m speaking to CPL’s premises.
Seems to me that we’ve had trouble finding anything from that event from anybody. The event itself is not national news and I wouldn’t be surprised if there weren’t that many reporters there. We’re talking about a local event just for Republicans. It’s the VP and it’s an endorsement, but it’s a year before the nominating convention. Not something reporters will flock to from far and wide.
I actually directled this to John Mace when I should have directed it to you. It was 1987, a full year before the nominating convention and election. The campaign was not even close to full swing, and it was a local event. I don’t think GHWB would have been fullowed by a busload of anything at that point in time.
This objection remains, but the fact that no one has said he witnessed the interview, in the absence of knowledge that anybody has ever been asked, doesn’t prove much.
[/QUOTE]
My bad. It was a press conference - that wasn’t covered by the press. Or recorded by the press. Or commented on by the members of the press (save one). There is a total lack of evidence here.
I can tell you if Dick Cheney came into the Twin Cities and gave a press conference the local media would be all over it especially if he pulled some insane comment out of his ass. And Cheney is (thankfully) no contender to run for President - ever, let alone next year. And the whole press conference would be recorded.
Well, is that because the Twin City media is outstanding? Or is it that so few VPs bother to visit the Twin Cities that any visit is news?
Cheney came to Cleveland in December, 2003. He attended a fund raiser and held a quick press conference while he was in town. You can look up the event, but while you will find about a dozen stories about the traffic snarls, the police overtime, and the money he raised, you cannot find more than a single line on what he actually said while he was here.
Chicago is bigger than Cleveland or the Twin Cities and they may be just a bit more blasé about airport news conferences.
I have to agree with tom here. I don’t think anyone can use lack of major paper reports as an indication of much. IMHO.
I’m only saying that your expectations for the thoroughness of the coverage are, in my opinion, too high. Leaving aside the differences between 1987 and 2005, and between Cheney and Bush as Vice Presidents, I think you might want to reconsider how big a deal the Vice President visiting a group from his own party in a major city in an off-year really is.
Also, recall that VPs have a long tradition of acting as the White House pit bull, while the Prez stays above the fray.
GHWB’s remarks seem milder to me than the typical Agnew fare, for example.
Hot off the presses
You may recall that the Chicago Trib article, which corroborated Sherman’s claim that Bush was in Chicago on a certain day, was devoted to a fundraiser.
There was an aspect I missed last night: I neglected to look at the photo caption:
We have now confirmed that Bush spoke to a gaggle of reporters in O’Hare Airport on the day in question and that Barbara got it all on tape. Ok, maybe not all of it. Just to be clear, I don’t have the photo, only the caption. Note that we may also have a potential witness, Michael Fryer.
No, that’s not the case. Reputable news organizations generally prefer at least 2 independent sources, when the parties in question are not willing to go on the record.
Here, we do not have a case of anonymous sourcing.
Furthermore, when a reporter witnesses a speech or event, it’s my understanding that, unlike a lone police officer, he is not encouraged to call his superior for backup.
Easily disprovable. Oh. Let’s roll the tape again:
Allegedly: “No, I don’t know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.”
GHWB is not saying whether atheists were citizens: he was expressing his personal opinion about whether they should be. An opinion which was reiterated by C. Boyden Gray, counsel to the president, in a letter dated Feb 21, 1989: “As you are aware[sic], the President is a religious man who neither supports atheism nor believes that atheism should be unnecessarily encouraged or supported by the government.”
Of course, that’s not really the issue, is it? And gosh, you know that’s pretty insulting.
Q: Why didn’t the press pick up on this?
A: All sorts of people-with-a-cause, cranks, wingnuts and loons accost our leaders all the time. It’s not news, whether it is done by the LaRouche organization, the Tax the Churches League, or a scribe for the American Atheist’s newsletter.
[QUOTE=Measure for Measure]
Easily disprovable. Oh. Let’s roll the tape again:
Allegedly: “No, I don’t know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.”
GHWB is not saying whether atheists were citizens: he was expressing his personal opinion about whether they should be.
Should be considered by whom? The obvious inference is the government. This is a huge statement.
This is not a reiteration. It just says atheism isn’t supported by Bush and shouldn’t be supported by the government. It says nothing of citizenship or patriotism.
Listen, I’m not saying Bush respects atheism. Hell, it wouldn’t surprise me at all if he thought atheists were unworthy of America. I’m just saying this tale raises more red flags than May Day in Moscow. There is simply no corroborating evidence. We have a press conference in which no members of the press noticed this exchenage. No recordings. Nothing but one guy’s word on it. Sure Bush and Family are a bunch of fools, but that doesn’t make this true. Saddam is a murderous jackass, but that didn’t mean he was preparing WMDs to strike us with. If our standard of evidence is this low, we are going to be suckered into believing all kinds of things. I’ve got to have more than this.
-
We appear to have the corroborating evidence of GHWB placed at a small press conference at the time and location described. We also have correspondance from an attorney for the (then) VP which makes no charges of libel or slander against the individual nor organs who have repeated the remarks.
-
The “one guy” was a “member of the press” in this case.
-
We might have a recording via Barbara Bush, good luck to anyone in tracking that down.
For the life of me I don’t understand why it’s so hard to believe that a politician from a party with extensive religious ties would make disparraging remarks about a disorganized and widely feared/hated religious minority (in 1987 there was still a Soviet Union don’t forget), let alone one not generally inclined to vote for that party from the start. I suspect that many members of the better-known (since “mainstream” or “actually existing” appears to be too low a standard for some) press felt these comments unworthy of reporting as a major story because they were simply to be expected. Ho-hum, Republicans don’t think much of atheists as citizens.
In other news: cat catches mouse, temperatures rise in Summer, traffic moves slowly in rush hour…
I don’t think the lack of slander charges proves much. Bush and his campaign would have no chance whatever of prevailing in a civil action against the atheist. I, for one, would reject the notion that the Swift Boat Veterans should be presumed to be truthful because the Kerry campaign never sued them for libel.
Well, he had a press pass, that’s true. So, one might add, did Jeff Gannon and Jason Blair.
True. But also true is that, if Bush cared, now or then, what this obscure atheist was saying, and still had the tape, he could easily disprove it. Which implies that he doesn’t have the tape, doesn’t care much, or both.
A professional politician like Bush? Saying something like this? I suppose it is possible, but not (IMO) very likely. What I find hard to believe is that none of the other reporters at this press conference even noticed that he said it, and cannot corroborate now that he did. My expectation is that their ears would have perked up like a dog at the dinner gong - and it would have led the news for the next week straight.
Frankly, it sounds a great deal more like something some one might make up about a politician he hated and feared - sort of an involuntary parody. Something you believe he would have said, if he were honest about his feelings.
Sure, it is still possible. But based only on the word of this one guy? Sorry.
Regards,
Shodan
It wouldn’t be hard to believe if it were reported in the mainstream press. How many times does that have to be said? I would be suspicious of anything this guy Sherman writes.
Also, for the 3rd time I am going to request a link to the UPI and FREE INQUIRY story. Three strikes and you’re out, ambushed.
I’m not certain to what extent there was a formal “Bush campaign” at the time of this visit. Regardless, I didn’t say that anyone would have to sue anyone else necessarily, which is time consuming and costly. The letter from the lawyer didn’t suggest in any fashion that any assertion of GHWB’s statements were inaccurate in either formal legal or informal langauge. If this story were outright untrue, I’d expect the letter to reflect that opinion coming from the Bush side.
That being the case, why are you drawing a big line between well-known mainstream media and outlets you haven’t heard of? You can’t argue that both ways.
Are you seriously contending that politicians never either misspeak nor phrase things non-diplomatically when off script? Try Googling “Dan Quayle.” Or Reagan himself, announcing that “the bombing begins in five minutes…” (Not to suggest that Democrats also don’t regularly insert feet in mouths also.)
Again, the US is an almost uniquely religious society in the Western World & a conservative politician making a negative statement about atheists on a Republican-meeting centered trip to the Midwest during the Cold War simply isn’t news for most people. It’s “Dog Bites Man,” not “Man Bites Dog.”
That might hold water if we were talking about "the word of one guy"vs a number of people contradicting him, but what we actually have is “the word of one guy” vs absolutely no one who was there contending he’s lying or inaccurate. In fact Bush’s own lawyer is acknowledging that he did make statements of a negative nature regarding atheism at this venue at that time.
Emphasis added. Keep in mind that none of us has seen the letter! We only know what Sherman tells us. I still have doubt that the letter says what he claims.
What are we to believe that Item # CF01193-002 at the GHW Bush Presidential Library is? And why would Sherman be encouarging people to try and see or obtain a copy of the letter if it cotradicts him?
Bluffing? I don’t know, but either way, you do have to admit that nobody actually has the thing in front of them.
I don’t know where to begin…
-
The moral majority was a key component of Reagan’s base. If anything, reports that Bush had slurred atheists would have helped him in the upcoming primary. Remember, in August 1987, Bush is not focussed on the general election. He is concerned about perceptions that he’s a wimp. Furthermore, generally speaking[sup]1[/sup] reporters don’t play gotcha until there are only a couple of contenders left standing. Sad, but true.
-
a. Search the New York Times archives for pre-1992 references to atheists. You will indeed find such references. But it simply wasn’t a very hot topic.
2b. Since then, the internet and the blogsphere have provided a platform for atheists and the like. If George the Younger said something like this, the result would have been rather different.
- Furthermore, I must emphasize that mainstream reporters don’t really like the fringe media. This was especially true in pre-internet days. Perhaps this is the key disagreement that I have with John Mace, Shodon et al. They think this Bush snafu is news. I don’t. There were whole books devoted to GHWB’s gaffes. This simply doesn’t register as a high quality one.
(Old Joke, c. 1988: The first tax that the new administration will do away with will be syntax.)
- I basically agree with SteveG1: “We have the purported quote, but I think we all agree that it is not ironclad proof, and the sources could fairly be called less than neutral. If it had been a few of the more well-known and mainstream newspapers I would be more confident. Without any consideration as to what we each think of either individual Bush, or what we think either one might say, I was just hoping for something more indisputable and concrete.”
Me too. I look forward to an investigation at the Bush library. I note that, to his credit, Sherman’ allegations have been specific and falsifiable. John Mace et al have (AFAIK) offered no proof whatsoever regarding Sherman’s alleged dishonesty. (I don’t dispute, however, that there is the whiff of fanaticism about the guy.)
Furthermore, at least some of his facts have checked out. Obsession doesn’t necessarily imply dishonesty in a reporter.
- Captain: "Should be considered by whom? The obvious inference is the government. This is a huge statement. "
No it’s not. Anybody with a brain knew that Bush wasn’t seriously proposing a change to the 14th amendment: he was telling an annoying fringe reporter to sod off.
[sup]1[/sup]Gary Hart notwithstanding.