Cheney shoots trial lawyer who 'gets in his way'.

[jBirch]

All,

A present from your friends and neighbours up north: tin foil hats all 'round! Just in case.

James.

[D.O.A.R.]

Here is my attempt to get the thread back to its roots. Entertaining opinion piece. May need to scroll down if you go to the link. I put in bold portions I found funny or to the point.

http://hughhewitt.com/

The Press: Making a Bazooka Outta Some Birdshot
by Mary Katharine Ham
February 16, 2006 09:08 AM PST
Does it make me a total redneck that when I heard the VP had sprayed someone with birdshot, my first thought was, "Eh, it's birdshot. He'll be all right"?

Obviously, I hope and pray fervently that Harry Whittington recovers fully. His slight heart attack was a scare for everyone, but I'm glad to hear he's sitting up, talking, and working from the hospital, and that his heartbeat is normal again.

It's not at all that I think shooting someone is no big deal. Very big deal. It's just that there are degrees of seriousness that I think are lost on folks whose shoulders have never nuzzled the butt of a shotgun. Most of the press corps, I think it's safe to assume, are those kind of folks.

They aren't the hunting type. If they were, they'd know that birdshot, while dangerous just like anything propelled by a firearm, is designed to kill birds. In fact, it's designed to kill very tiny birds without doing a lot of damage to the very tiny bits of meat on said birds, so that the meat can later be prepared over a tiny fire with tiny bits of crushed herbs. And then comes the eatin'. The eatin' of tiny, delicious vittles.

So, when I heard the VP was quail hunting (read: tiny bird hunting) and sprayed his friend with birdshot, I was concerned for Whittington's safety, but also fairly certain that Harry'd be back to litigating pretty soon. From what I know and have learned in the past couple days, quail hunters generally use birdshot pellets between a size 6 and 8. Check out the picture to see how big those pellets are in comparison to a penny.

Whittington was 30 yards off when he was hit with those pellets. This is a serious matter, but it is not exactly the close-range, see-through-the-wound shotgun blast the press delights in implying that it is by offering as little perspective as possible.

I think the American public understands this. I think most of the American public knows that gun safety is very important, knows that there is some inherent risk in hunting, knows that accidents sometimes happen, and knows at least one uncle or cousin who's been sprayed with some kind of shot.

When Cheney sent Katharine Armstrong to the Corpus Christi Caller-Times, he was thinking he might be able to get the story to a reporter who had met up with the butt of a shotgun and could give the story some perspective. At this point, it's fairly obvious that he would have been better off if he had just had Armstrong call the AP. Then he wouldn't have incurred the tantrumy wrath of the primadonna press corps.

You know why they're mad, right? You know why David Gregory did everything but need a diaper change on national TV the other day?

It's because a small-town reporter at the Corpus Christi Caller-Times got the story before they did. David Gregory needs a binky because the adorable Kathryn Garcia got the story before he did.

The media coverage you're seeing now is a classic press corps vanity tantrum. The story is no longer about the Vice President or Harry Whittington or his injuries or any kind of perspective on the incident itself. It's all about how Cheney handled the press. The story is all about them--when they knew, how they were informed, how many people knew before them, how they can correct this so they'll know more in the future.

I'm looking forward to the info-graphic on NBC Nightly News, which shows exactly where David Gregory was as the shooting drama unfolded. Gregory will point out the trip he made to CVS at 1:15 p.m. on Sunday for shaving cream, which could easily have been postponed so that he could cover a major national story if he had only been informed!

In the meantime, the VP's friend is in the hospital, the VP is devastated that he put him there, and I think most of America gets that. They don't need an all-out press conference to understand that Cheney feels bad about shooting his friend. The press wants an all-out press conference for themselves more than they want to make sure the American people are informed.

Luckily, we have Bryan Preston and a PowerLine relative to inform where the press fails to.

I gave a little class in shotguns and birdshot vs. buckshot to a friend last night who's never touched a gun. She seemed reassured and surprised by what I told her. If the press had really been covering this story for the past couple of days, she wouldn't have been surprised. She would have known all this.

[Feltan]

Originally Posted by jeff

The posts by Feltan and DOAR strike me as misdirected...

...As far as the press not being 'spoon fed' - how the hell are they supposed to know about Cheney shooting somebody in a hunt held without press and on private property?...

Jeff,

I suppose it depends on perspective.

If you are the press, you feel uninformed.

If you are the VP, you could care less if the press is uninformed.

From my perspective, the press have an over inflated sense of self-importance. They got scooped by a local paper, and they are ticked.......the amusing part is they are indignint that the VP's office had the temerity not to go to them first! Why....why....how daaaaaaaaaare him not notify US!

Just keep this in mind when you see the next round table of journalists awash in self adjulation about being "investigative" journalists.

The White House Press corps got scooped; they feel foolish, and I understand that isn't a compfortable place to be. IMHO, they just happen to deserve it.

Regards,
Feltan

[Slim]

Originally Posted by jeff

Slim, this material came out during the Lott scandal - I remember seeing much of it. You're not implying that ess is conjuring it out of thin air, right? Spend a few fun minutes with Google and you should be able to find them all.

No, I'm not. It's pretty clear, at least to me, is that the tone in this list of "facts" is basically another blanket endictment. I'm interested in where this list was obtained because I doubt it was compiled from independent sources by the author of the post.

I'm quite sure I could find a similar list of fun facts about Robert Byrd. My original point is that as far as offhand comments and past history of issues dealing with race, there is a double standard. Dems get a pass. Dems of color get a free ride to say anything. Republicans are all cold, mean spirited suspected racists.

Anyways, this is getting WAY off track.

[jeff]

D.O.A.R. - good post about the relative risks of birdshot and yummy eating. I think that's why so many people responded in a disrespectful (why not) but jocular way, figuring that the guy wasn't seriously damaged. I totally disagree about the "press vanity tantrum". The Veep is the #2 public figure in the country. To sit on it overnight, and then let the hostess leak it to a friendly local source is inappropriate. Even figures in the Administration, Republican Party, and friendly media and analysts take that line. For example, the National Review, hardly a home for liberals. For example: http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200602131129.asp or http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200602150911.asp with "failure by the vice president to answer questions about the accident might allow such speculation to grow until it does significant damage to the administration. And if that happens, it will be the result of the vice president's failure to be forthcoming about the issue from the very start."

Feltan: they didn't get scooped. An accident happens on private property and then is told exclusively to local media. Are you expecting CNN to pop around Cheney's team every morning and ask he he did anything embarrassing the day before? And, he's the VP - a very public figure. If that bites for you, then maybe you shouldnt run for public office.

I doubt either of you would have been so generous about privacy if the person screwing up and hoping nobody would notice was named Clinton, Kerry, or Edwards.

Slim: It might be useful to speculate why Republicans have such a bad reputation about race. How about because they turned to a deliberate policy of race-baiting in this country to win the South (especially) and as many other white votes as they could. That's not speculation: the past chairman of the Republican Party has admitted it and said it was a shameful thing to do. In other words, there's more than a little bit of truth to it. As far as where ess got the cites from: who cares, as long as they can be independently researched and substantiated. I remember some of the stories myself from when it hit the fan. And yes, way off track (not that this has ever stopped any of us before!)

[achilleus]

I shouldn't be, but I'm amazed at the turns this discussion has taken...

On the somewhat original topic, I can't believe any of you would wonder why this is news. I mean, he's a public figure. He, during the campaigns, had his whole life scrutinized for any impropriety, and you think him being involved in an accident of this nature isn't news?

In addition, I don't really think Brad, Jen, and Angelina should be news, but guess what, they are.

I would imagine that Cheney is not stupid. He, and his people should have known that being a public figure that this incident was bound to get mentioned, and they had several options for handeling the situation. They messed up.

The incident was an accident. Accidents, unfortunately, happen despite our best efforts. Now, the more serious the accident the more trouble you get in, and this accident could have some serious consequences.

That said, how he handled that accident certainly tells us something about him and his people, and some would argue that the accident itself tells us something about him. While many would disagree, I know I would, I've have right wingers argue similar things about liberal politicians, and now it's the liberals turn to pick at Cheney. Plus it certainly opens the door for the ironic jokes about 'false intel.'

In addition, I find the Opinion piece above, very humorous. For one, the writer assumes that the journalists know nothing about hunting, and then assumes that the 'American Public' would know about bird hunting. Am I missing something here? Are journalists who are in most cases, educated and literate people not as knowledgable as the 'American Public?' Are we to assume that 'American Public' at large all know about bird hunting?

I guess I'm not a a member of the 'American Public', as I don't hunt, and no nothing of birshot. It was good to learn, but considering that guy had a heart attack, and was back in ICU last I heard, does little to lighten the gravity of the error.

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by jeff

As ess said, it would have definitely been newsworthy if Kerry shot someone.

It seems to have been newsworthy that he violated a cardinal rule of shooting, too, because it got quite a bit of press, at least in the hunting and shooting community. Especially since it happened while he was trying to show that he was "one of them".

Do you claim it wouldn't have been? Sauce for either goose or gander.

No, he was hunting quail.

Seriously, yes, it would have been bigger news. But if one accepts my proposition that his transgression was rooted in a violation of a cardinal rule of shooting, then it's the violation of the rule that's the issue, not the magnitude of the consequence. Two rules violated=two lapses of judgement. In Cheney's case he was unlucky enough to have someone in the way of his shot, but if there hadn't been it would still have been a lapse of judgement.

I've already mentioned how this reflects on judgement.

Again, in shooting, absolutely. As to the proposition that it extends to other things, alas, none too convincingly, I'm afraid.

Ham-fisted crisis management of something that needn't have been a crisis - well, that tells me he shouldn't be in charge of anything that might have consequences.

It doesn't "tell" you anything you didn't already believe, did it? Basically, you're just saying "A-HA!", right?

Passing off the event to the ranch owner long after the occurrence was at least passively trying to suppress it.

Can't agree.

Face it: it's Cheney's job (or part of it) to not do things that are embarrassing to himself and his administration, and the secondary loser in this escapade (the primary loser is still in hospital) is Cheney. He bungled this and embarrassed his administration.

True enough.

But we won't be content with that, will we? No, there must be cries of "Cover up!", and an investigation, and allegations that it somehow proves that his judgement in all circumstances is faulty...

When there's no press corps attached to the VP, and he's on a private hunt on a 50,000 acre ranch, just how do you expect the press to magically know that the VP shot somebody.

Oh, I don't know. Did Al Capone have a press corps attached to him, and conduct his depredations out in public? Yet somehow reporters managed to cover organized crime. Did Woodward and Bernstein break Watergate because a White House flack handed them a press release? How about Iran-Contra---was the press helped out by the subjects of their interest there?

All of the greatest news triumphs have been the result of hard work by reporters themselves, often in the face of fierce resistance. That's supposed to be their job. It's what reporters are supposed to do: sniff out news, and track it down and unearth it themselves. At least it used to be.

Pretending that this is a case of reporter laziness is simply absurd.

I can only shrug. I simply do not agree with that assertion. It is neither a pretense nor absurd.

It's rarely the incident itself that causes the trouble - it's the attempts to hush it up or ignore it (to keep a secret, or avoid embarrassment, or habit of secretiveness) that get 'em every time

Very often, yes. But since there was no 'cover up' this time, that is not the case here. At worst this may become the sort of thing that dogged Ted Kennedy, although without the death...and without the failure to bring in the authorities promptly. ( Failing to bring in ABC is not the same, IMO. )

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by esskreemr

The answer to the riddle involves the term 'Chickenhawk'. Look it up. Then read the neocons smear campaigns against veterans with proven service to their country.

Yes, "chickenhawks"---a "smear campaign" all of the liberals' own, complete with a Molly Ivins-esque sneering sobriquet. That certainly is taking the high road...

And all based on the ad hominem ( circumstantial ) fallacy: Those who have not served have no STANDING to question the actions or recommendations of those who have! As if not having served somehow means that they ought to keep silent, because they couldn't possibly have a salient point unless they'd been through Basic Training...

Then ask yourself why Cheney's company was doing business with Iran during an embargo while he was at the helm.

I really doubt that he will. You guys can hyperventilate plenty over that non-story on your own without our help.

[esskreemr]

Originally Posted by Slim

No, I'm not. It's pretty clear, at least to me, is that the tone in this list of "facts" is basically another blanket endictment. I'm interested in where this list was obtained because I doubt it was compiled from independent sources by the author of the post.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...h99/lott29.htm

Your King 'elect':
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLI.../lott.comment/

http://www.nationalreview.com/george/george121002.asp

I'd give you more, but reading over the website of the 'Council of Conservative Citizens' made me physically and mentally ill.

I'm quite sure I could find a similar list of fun facts about Robert Byrd. My original point is that as far as offhand comments and past history of issues dealing with race, there is a double standard. Dems get a pass. Dems of color get a free ride to say anything. Republicans are all cold, mean spirited suspected racists.

Don't bother. Byrd is a bigot. He has a history of racist ties. He probably refers to us North Centrals as Yankees. He wasn't exactly given a free ride...

Anyways, this is getting WAY off track.

Sure is...

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by jeff

the National Review, hardly a home for liberals.

But definitely a home for reporters. Circle the wagons, fellas, 'cause someone is trying to step on our perquisites!

[jeff]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

No, he was hunting quail.

Nah, Quayle was the other Bush's VP!

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Seriously, yes, it would have been bigger news. But if one accepts my proposition that his transgression was rooted in a violation of a cardinal rule of shooting, then it's the violation of the rule that's the issue, not the magnitude of the consequence. Two rules violated=two lapses of judgement. In Cheney's case he was unlucky enough to have someone in the way of his shot, but if there hadn't been it would still have been a lapse of judgement.

Quite - that's obviously the root problem. The 3rd rule violated was to try to keep quiet the embarrassing situation of the first 2.

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Again, in shooting, absolutely. As to the proposition that it extends to other things, alas, none too convincingly, I'm afraid.

Well, let's look at who the big loser is in this: Cheney himself, and secondarily the administration. It's not that 'he's a drunk with a shotgun', and therefore likely to do boneheaded things (his actual political record gives us that) it's 'when he screws up he fumbles how you handle it', That is absolutely part of political judgement for people in public life.
.

Originally Posted by Inquartata

It doesn't "tell" you anything you didn't already believe, did it? Basically, you're just saying "A-HA!", right?

From a partisan point of view, of course it's enjoyable, just as it would be for a right-winger if Clinton was caught with another intern. But that doesn't mean that the act wasn't stupid, it's my partisan reaction to it. If it was Kerry, say, I still would be saying "what a moron. How could you be so stupid!". Stupid regardless of who did it. Degree of enjoyment, solely, based on who did it.

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Can't agree.

Alas.

Originally Posted by Inquartata

True enough.

And that's the real point: that he flunked when in a hot spot and brought embarrassment upon himself, compounding it by not being forthright. All he had to do is have made the same interview, but 36 hours earlier and this would already have blown over.

Originally Posted by Inquartata

But we won't be content with that, will we? No, there must be cries of "Cover up!", and an investigation, and allegations that it somehow proves that his judgement in all circumstances is faulty...

That's partisan politics - expose your throat by something stupid, and your opponents will be on you. It happens all the time in politics, and on both sides for charges of lesser and greater seriousnes. If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen. If you screw up, take responsibility for it.

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Oh, I don't know. Did Al Capone have a press corps attached to him, and conduct his depredations out in public? Yet somehow reporters managed to cover organized crime. Did Woodward and Bernstein break Watergate because a White House flack handed them a press release? How about Iran-Contra---was the press helped out by the subjects of their interest there?

All of the greatest news triumphs have been the result of hard work by reporters themselves, often in the face of fierce resistance. That's supposed to be their job. It's what reporters are supposed to do: sniff out news, and track it down and unearth it themselves. At least it used to be.

Do you really think that the activities of a major crime family, with open street violence, trafficing of illegal goods to the public and affecting millions, can be compared to a single incident of friendly fire in a secluded ranch? That and the other examples are completely different circumstances and the attempt to draw a line connecting them laughable. Unless you really want to equate Cheney with Capone and Nixon. In which case I'm all for it!

Originally Posted by Inquartata

I can only shrug. I simply do not agree with that assertion. It is neither a pretense nor absurd.

It's simply mistaken then. To blame the press for laziness in not having magically sniffed out an unreported accident on a remote ranch is silly.

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Very often, yes. But since there was no 'cover up' this time, that is not the case here. At worst this may become the sort of thing that dogged Ted Kennedy, although without the death...and without the failure to bring in the authorities promptly. ( Failing to bring in ABC is not the same, IMO. )

Yes.

[jeff]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

But definitely a home for reporters. Circle the wagons, fellas, 'cause someone is trying to step on our perquisites!

Nice try. Keep trying to spread the absurd story that this is a snit by the chattering classes, since it obviously won't wash that it's a liberal conspiracy if NR takes the same position. Since bloggers, Republicans (the Administration itself is tight-lipped in expression), Democrats, and even former White House staff blast Cheney as a chump in how he handled this (just Google on "cheney fitzwater" for revealing remarks) your claim that it's the Press's problem is obviously wrong. It's only the most ardent partisans who pooh-pooh this as a non-issue.

[D.O.A.R.]

Originally Posted by Slim

Like the entire WH press core. Let Helen Thomas take point.

Speaking of Helen Thomas..... I apologize for the length of this, however it goes to why the press corps is so outraged. For those who are not familiar with Hugh Hewitt, he is a smart guy with a sarcastic streak that I find very entertaining.

http://www.radioblogger.com/

May have to scroll down a bit to find it.

Helen Thomas hangs up on Hugh Hewitt.


The dean of the White House press corps, known lovingly around the Hugh Hewitt Show as Aunt Bethany...
appeared on the program a little while ago, and it didn't end well, with Ms. Thomas hanging up on Hugh. Here's how it went:

02-15thomas.mp3

HH: Now we welcome to the Hugh Hewitt Show Helen Thomas, longtime White House correspondent. Hello, Helen. Welcome to the program.

HT: Hi.

HH: Helen, what do you make of Dick Cheney's hunting accident?

HT: Well, I think it's a very sad situation all around, certainly for the man who got hit, and probably more wounded than we realized at first. And I think it was handled very badly by the White House and by Cheney himself, because he doesn't seem to understand he's a public figure, the number two man in the country, and so forth. And it should have been announced to the national networks, newspapers right off the bat.

HH: How soon after the shooting should it have occurred?

HT: Well, I think once Mr. Whittington was in the hospital and under good care, then they could have announced it Saturday evening, certainly.

HH: And what damage was done by the delay until Sunday?

HT: Well, it simply emphasized the penchant for secrecy. When anything happens to a top figure in this country, it's news. And when the Vice President shoots somebody, that's news. And you don't suppress it, because it always arouses suspicions. I don't know of any suspicions per se, but I do think that people will...I mean, the wonderment is why wait nearly a whole day?

HH: Again, I have been trying to figure out what was the harm in waiting 18 hours. What was the harm?

HT: The harm is that it indicates they will keep a secret a major, major event. And that in itself adds that this is a very, very secretive administration.

HH: How do you...

HT: And I don't think that government officials should keep those kind of secrets.

HH: So 18 hours versus...

HT: That's a long, long time. You of all people should not be asking even that question, because you operate on instancy. And we all do.

HH: Yes, but again, I don't think 18 hours is secret keeping, and especially when they release it.

HT: Oh yeah. I'm sorry, in the news business, it sure is.

HH: Now, what other...

HT: And for it to come in a different way, you know...they should have announced it. It would have really simplified everything...

HH: But again, what I don't understand Helen, I really don't understand...I'm talking to Helen Thomas, longtime UPI reporter and now with the Hearst Newspapers, what the damage was by waiting, I guess...

HT: The damage was to their reputation for secrecy.

HH: But you don't really care...

HT: And continuing...oh, yes, yes. I'm sorry, it can extend to anything, and it's part and parcel, it's their penchant for keeping everything secret. He should have announced it, his office should have announced it. It could have cleared the decks right off the bat.

HH: But Helen...

HT: If you don't the value of that, I can't understand you.

HH: You don't like him to begin with, and you would never believe they were being transparent to begin with, do you, Helen?

HT: No, no, no. That has nothing to do with it. Don't be silly.

HH: But you don't like him, do you?

HT: I don't like the way he's operated, leaking classified documents, defending torture, in fact, working very hard against any ban on torture. I don't know if you saw the photographs today that were first shown on the Australian TV...

HH: But...

HT: I mean, it's so desecrating to our country, our reputation, our sense of decency.

HH: I have not seen those photographs, but...

HT: Well, I commend them to you. You should see them.

HH: But I'm getting back to the point that you and your colleagues in the press room, you really don't like Dick Cheney or George Bush at all, do you?

HT: I didn't say that. I certainly respect the presidency. I don't like their...what they've done. I don't like the war per se. I certainly don't like torture. I don't like the degradation of America.

HH: Helen, but you don't like them, do you? I mean honestly.

HT: What the hell's that got to do with it?

HH: I think it matters...

HT: No, I consider myself a very straight and fair reporter.

HH: Well, I didn't say you weren't.

HT: I judge these people on their actions. Do you?

HH: Well, I don't say you're not. I'm just asking a simple question.

HT: I'm asking you. The fact that you like him...are you angry that people are critical?

HH: Helen, we've been watching the White House press corps for the last two days get very angry at Scott McClellan, and I've seen you rassle with him for a...long years, a lot of presidents. But this one, it just seems to me, that this White House press corps doesn't like this president or vice president more than most.

HT: I don't think...I think it's a very valid story of asking why they waited 18, 20 hours.

HH: But that's not what I'm...I'm asking if you like him?

HT: I don't think that has anything to do with it.

HH: But why not tell me if you don't?

HT: What does it matter?

HH: Well, it might affect your reporting.

HT: Why isn't...that...because that isn't the way reporters operate. We operate on the news and on the facts.

HH: And you have no bias?

HT: No.

HH: No anti-Bush bias at all?

HT: Look. I take everything that he does with a grain of salt, because I've already seen...I think he was wrong to take us into the war...

HH: Do you think he lied to us about that?

HT: Where are the weapons of mass destruction? Where are the ties...

HH: That's a question to a question.

HT: ...where are the ties to al Qaeda?

HH: Do you think he lied to us about that?

HT: I think he's still looking for the weapons of mass destruction. Are you?

HH: But do you...do you think...

HT: Do you care whether...do you care whether a president says there are weapons of mass destruction that can destroy you, destroy us in 45 minutes?

HH: But Helen, did you think that he knew going in that they weren't there?

HT: Yes.

HH: And so you do think he lied going it? He deceived us all?

HT: I think that he had...there were facts, they've cherry picked the facts, they wanted a war.

HH: Do you think he should be impeached?

HT: No.

HH: No?

HT: No.

HH: Why not, if he lied to us about taking us into war?

HT: Well, very few presidents tell all the truth.

HH: So it's okay for presidents to lie?

HT: No, it's not okay. But I'm telling you it's par for the course.

HH: Now you voted for Kerry, right?

HT: I didn't say that, and I don't understand your line of questioning.

HH: I'm getting at why the White House press corps is so mad at Dick Cheney for 18 hours. I think it's because you guys hate him.

HT: Are you a journalist?

HH: Yes.

HT: Do you think we should know the news when it happens? And are you interested in the news?

HH: Yes, yes.

HT: Then why would you think it's best to wait 18 hours, affecting a public figure, who could make decisions for our country, war and peace?

HH: Because in the 16 hour difference between what you wanted him to do and what I think he did, I don't see any significance.

HT: Okay, so we differ. Let's go on to another subject.

HH: Well, that's what I want to get to. Why does...given that it's this 18 hours...

HT: I told you that it's news when it affects a public figure and he shoots somebody.

HH: Okay. Let me approach it this way, Helen...You've been how long in the White House press corps?

HT: Since 1961.

HH: All right. So you've been there since Jack Kennedy. This is the angriest that press room has ever been. I think it's angrier than when Nixon...

HT: Oh, I don't think...no, no, no, no. It's not the angriest. No, not at all. It's because everything's televised now.

HH: Well, yes. But I mean, it's the angriest I've seen. When was it angrier?

HT: Well, Watergate was very angry.

HH: It was, it was.

HT: Yes, indeed.

HH: I think this is angrier than Watergate, because of the...

HT: We didn't have total television every day.

HH: And you guys took out Nixon, didn't you?

HT: What do you mean?

HH: I mean, you got rid of Nixon.

HT: He took out...he took out himself.

HH: Oh, come on. Woodward and Bernstein helped, didn't they?

HT: Every reporter helped to find out the truth.

HH: Right.

HT: Are you against that?

HH: No, I'm just...

HT: Who are you?

HH: I...

HT: Who am I talking to?

HH: Hugh Hewitt.

HT: Am I talking to a journalist?

HH: Yes. Yes, for a long time. I'm just curious about what's gone wrong...

HT: Tell me about your career. What have you really done?

HH: Well, it's not nearly as impressive as you.

HT: Where did...yes, it's...it's very important to me. Where did you work?

HH: PBS for ten years.

HT: PBS?

HH: Yes.

HT: Well, that's a good credential.

HH: There you have it. See? I'm...

HT: But then you decided to switch over?

HH: To switch over to what?

HT: God knows what you are.

HH: No, I'm just asking questions.

HT: No you're not.

HH: This is so interesting to me, Helen. Journalists never answer questions like who they voted for and why they're mad at the president...

HT: And I don't think they should.

HH: Why?

HT: Because...

HH: Why should you guys have a special position in the White House press corps that you don't have to answer questions?

HT: Because in journalism, you're supposed to play the story straight, whatever the facts are, and we're doing that.

HH: Well, that doesn't go to why you should...you know, who made you folks queens and kings that you don't have to answer who you voted for, what you...do you own a gun, Helen?

HT: Are you kidding?

HH: No.

HT: Are you kidding?

HH: No. I think it's an interesting question. Do you support abortion rights?

HT: Do you own a gun?

HH: No. Got a cannon, but no gun. No, just joking.

HT: (laughing)

HH: Helen, I just wonder, why do journalists...

HT: Do you support abortion...

HH: ...get all upset when...

HT: Do you support abortion rights?

HH: No, I don't. I'm a pro-lifer.

HT: Ahh. I see.

HH: But now Helen, my question is why don't the White House press corps answer these questions? Why do you guys presume to have the right to just be above it all and be gods of the public good?

HT: Because we really are trying to get to the truth, and it has nothing to do with us personally.

HH: Helen, I don't believe that. I don't think you're trying to get to the truth.

HT: Okay, you don't have to believe it. Why are we fighting?

HH: Because if you in fact...

HT: Why don't you ask some legitimate questions?

HH: Well, if in fact...would it be significant if you had voted for John Kerry, Al Gore, Bill Clinton, Bill Clinton, Mike Dukakis, Walter Mondale and Jimmy Carter? Would that be significant?

HT: No. No, because I...

HH: You did vote for them, didn't you? I got it right.

HT: I...I worked for United Press International for more than fifty years, and I wrote straight copy. I was never, never accused of bias.

HH: But you did...

HT: I did not bow out of the human race. I permitted myself to care, to believe, to think. But I assure you, I assure you that it did not get in my copy. And can you say the same thing?

HH: But Helen, I'm saying. You did vote all those years, didn't you?

HT: No, but you're bias has come through. You're not asking legitimate questions.

HH: Why am I...

HT: You are bating people.

HH: Why is this not legitimate?

HT: Why don't you...why don't you try to find out what is really going on in this world?

HH: Why isn't it legitimate to know who you vote for?

HT: (laughing) Pardon me?

HH: Why isn't it legitimate to know who a long time White House reporter has voted for...

HT: It's none of your business, because it has nothing to do with my copy and my work, and you've called me because I'm a journalist.

HH: But wouldn't it be significant if you were in fact a card-carrying, long time Democratic...

HT: No, it would not. I told you that I wrote straight copy for more than fifty years until I became a columnist.

HH: And...but I understand that. And that can be perfectly true...

HT: And it's very possible. Have you been a straight reporter?

HH: Yes. I did reporting for PBS for ten years, but I'm a conservative.

HT: Even with what you believed and so forth?

HH: Of course.

HT: Were you able...

HH: I'm just transparent.

HT: Were you able to do it?

HH: Of course, Helen.

HT: In a factual way?

HH: Do you think that what makes you a journalist is the fact that you won't tell people who you voted for?

HT: Did I say that? I told you that I was a straight, factual reporter for more than fifty years.

HH: And now you're an opinion columnist.

HT: That's right.

HH: And so now you can tell us who you voted for.

HT: And I don't think it's your business who I voted for.

HH: All right.

HT: And I don't think you have the right to ask anybody that question.

HH: Why not? It's a free press, isn't it?

HT: Well, it's not a fair question. It's...

HH: You want to censor my questions?

HT: It's a secret ballot.

HH: Of course. You don't have to answer, but why should you censor my questions?

HT: Because you are looking for trouble, that's why. You're not asking legitimate questions. That has nothing to do with the current situation. That's why.

HH: It's actually just...

HT: You have an undercurrent campaign going on in your own mind.

HH: An undercurrent campaign? No, I actually have a very open campaign to suggest that the White House press corps is biased and liberal. I mean, that's just my belief. I believe I have lots of evidence for that. Do you know any conservatives in the White House press corps?

HT: God yes.

HH: Who?

HT: And anyway...

HH: Who?

HT: I don't have to name names.

HH: There aren't any. I mean, any big names, like you think...

HT: What's wrong with being liberal?

HH: Bill Sammon...well, there's nothing wrong with being liberal.

HT: Okay, well why are you attacking?

HH: I'm not attacking.

HT: Why don't you just act like a journalist and quit all this stuff, you know?

HH: Well, that would be to...you want me to join the guild.

HT: Why don't you stick to the news and the facts?

HH: You want me to join the guild and just go along...

HT: Did I say that?

HH: Well, yes. You want me to ask the questions you're comfortable being asked.

HT: Look, look. I'm a liberal. And I'm a columnist. And I wrote straight news, I told you, for fifty years. Get that in your head.

HH: Oh, I believe that. But now Helen, why...

HT: Okay.

HH: Why don't you like George Bush?

HT: I don't like people who want a war.

HH: And you just think he really just decided to go to war...and is Iraq better off today than it was four years ago?

HT: No. Watch...I want you to read...I want you to look at these pictures of these detainees and prisoners of war. And you will really be so disturbed. Why don't you...

HH: What did we do?

HT: Why don't you look at the pictures and call me back, okay?

HH: No, but