Reply
Sat 31 Jul, 2004 07:09 am
http://www.alternet.org/story/19389
BTW I would have posted this on the existing thread but that thread has gotten way off topic.
That's funny. The woman lost her composure, denied saying something she did indeed say and then couldn't leave well enough alone on top of it. But somehow, it's not her fault because the reporter works for a jerk? Please. Reporters can be an annoying lot, and the day won't come when that ceases to be the case. By now, she must know ignoring nasty reporters is the appropriate thing to do and she either chooses to talk out of turn, or she just can't help it.
During what is arguably the most important week of her husband's public life, she demonstrated a lack of self-discipline and common sense. There is an appropriate time and place for venting anger... and that was very definitely neither the time nor the place.
Hint: she did not say "unAmerican activities" which is far different than "unAmerican traits" within the context of the sentence in the speech. Her under the breath rebuke of the poor excuse for a reporter and her departure as show in the visual and audio record of the confrontation is far different than characterized in the press. It's been even more okay for reporters to distort something in trying to change the characterization ever since the tabloids took over the supermarket checkout.
To me, the only matter of significance in the matter is did she tell someone to "shove it" (no crime in my eyes) and did she deny it (the only "crime", if true).
I don't see a crime... I don't even see a big deal. I see a little deal. I like to run my mouth too... but sometimes it's more appropriate to just shut the hell up. This was obviously one of those times. I also think defending this kind of silliness will only serve to keep the spotlight on it longer.
OCCOM BILL wrote:I don't see a crime... I don't even see a big deal. I see a little deal. I like to run my mouth too... but sometimes it's more appropriate to just shut the hell up. This was obviously one of those times. I also think defending this kind of silliness will only serve to keep the spotlight on it longer.
Who cares about how long the "spotlight is on it?" What matters is that the truth is told. I realize that a lot of people would rather accept the distortions if it fits their point of view.
OCCOM BILL wrote:That's funny. The woman lost her composure, denied saying something she did indeed say....
BTW what exactly was funny. What's funny to me is you missed the part that Ms. Heinz-Kerry was indeed misquoted.
flyboy804 wrote:To me, the only matter of significance in the matter is did she tell someone to "shove it" (no crime in my eyes) and did she deny it (the only "crime", if true).
She was denouncing
Quote:"some of the creeping, un-Pennsylvanian and sometimes un-American traits that are coming into some of our politics,"
according to the article.
Then,
Quote:McNickle approached her and asked what she meant by "un-American activities," in effect accusing her of McCarthyism. Heinz-Kerry denied using the phrase "un-American activities" and stormed off. Yet when Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell pointed out to her that McNickle was a reporter from the Tribune-Review, Heinz-Kerry returned to him with a rebuke. "You're from the Tribune Review?" she asked McNickle with a face tightened with rage. "That's understandable. You said something I didn't say. Now shove it."
I see that as spunk! Now, perhaps she could have been more polite and
ladylike in her response, but I admire her for sticking up for herself.
My question is did she deny saying "shove it?" If so, are any of her supporters defending the lie?
the reincarnation of suzy wrote:No, I saw it on the first news report. She seemed to be denying saying "unAmerican" anything. But she did use the word.
[..] I understand why she did what she did, believe me. I also saw the entire last half of that altercation on my TV the very next morning.
She said "I did not say 'unAmerican'" a couple of times. He kept insisting that, indeed she did, and she repeated "I did not say unAmerican". She may have meant "unAmerican activities" but that's not what she said to the reporter. She simply claimed that she did not use the word unAmerican, period. I saw it with my own eyes.
How many threads are we going to go round this non-issue of a topic on?
She also used the word "un-American"
in the 60 Minutes interview - to describe what it was, in her opinion, to ask a candidate about his and his wife's wealth. I think she'd better quickly delete the word from her vocabulary.
Quote:Next Teresa took a swing at the wealth question [..] "I find it un-American for people to criticize someone and say they're not deserved for any position whether because they have too much or too little, or because they're black or they're white. That's un-American," she snarled. First, to call someone un-American is the nuclear bomb of U.S. politics: If it's only July and already Teresa Heinz is going nuclear against her critics over a perfectly fair question, this is not an auspicious omen. Second, to pretend that questions about money are like questions about race is wacky.
Harper wrote:OCCOM BILL wrote:That's funny. The woman lost her composure, denied saying something she did indeed say and then couldn't leave well enough alone....
BTW what exactly was funny. What's funny to me is you missed the part that Ms. Heinz-Kerry was indeed misquoted.
What's funny, IMO, is pretending that the story would exist absent Teresa Kerry running her mouth at an inappropriate time and place. She could have corrected him or ignored him. Instead;
Quote:Yet when Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell pointed out to her that McNickle was a reporter from the Tribune-Review, Heinz-Kerry returned to him with a rebuke.
Wrong time. Wrong place.