March 2nd, 2017

Did all the Democrats stand for the Navy SEAL widow?

It seems they did, at least for a while.

If you want a quite detailed discussion of the photo analyses of the incident, see this. Now, you may not trust Snopes; I certainly don’t trust them on some things. But I have a feeling that on this one what they write is basically true, and that everyone stood—at least briefly.

10 Responses to “Did all the Democrats stand for the Navy SEAL widow?”

  1. Oldflyer Says:

    I saw a picture of Wasserman-Schultz and Ellison sitting on their keisters while all around them were standing. Maybe they stood for awhile; maybe not.

  2. Cornhead Says:

    But they regretted having to do it for the sake of appearances.

  3. neo-neocon Says:

    Oldflyer:

    You’d have to see a video; still photos are irrelevant because the timing isn’t clear. The Snopes article says people used photos from a different moment in the speech to try to prove that they never stood up, but that video shows they stood and then sat down early.

  4. J.J. Says:

    The using of citizens as props at the SOTU address is a cheap emotional ploy. But it has become the custom and both sides do it. So, I accept it as custom.

    That Trump is loyal to the military strikes a very strong response in me. I was in tears during the tribute to Ryan Owens. After having been spit on and called names by my fellow citizens during Vietnam, seeing people, especially our leaders, honor and appreciate the military, just fills me with positive emotion. While everyone was clapping for Ryan Owens, I was thinking to myself that the applause was also for my six squadron mates who didn’t make it home and all the others who gave all.

    I hope Van Jones and many others who are not Trumpsters can at least grasp the power and meaning of his support for the military. He is the C-in-C. Unlike Obama he loves his men/women. Very, very important!

  5. skeptic Says:

    Neo, you place your trust in Snopes at your own peril.

    According to this story on Hotair, the Snopes story has since been revised. The Hotair story gives the full details. Basically, it is one of the many times a “fact check” website calls a story false when they just disagree with someone’s conclusion but cannot show that the facts are incorrect.

    “Snopes revises misleading fact check on the standing ovation for Carryn Owens”

    http://hotair.com/archives/2017/03/02/snopes-revised-misleading-fact-check-on-the-standing-ovation-for-carryn-owens/

  6. neo-neocon Says:

    skeptic:

    I read the Snopes thing very carefully (I originally read it after it had already been revised, by the way), and they were saying that claims that the two Democrats sat for Owens were wrong, because they stood briefly when Owens was introduced, but sat for the standing ovation.

    I had seen a lot of claims on the right (blogs, comments on blogs) that they had sat, period, and never stood at all. Those were untrue. They stood at the intro and sat later (for the standing O).

    I have seen nothing that contradicts the Snopes report I was referring to. I do not put my faith in Snopes, ordinarily. But this report seems solid.

    My post is quite short; I didn’t think a full explanation was necessary. I explained a bit further in this previous comment.

    So: they stood at the outset, and then they sat for the rest. That’s what I read the Snopes article as saying.

  7. skeptic Says:

    Neo: “I had seen a lot of claims on the right (blogs, comments on blogs) that they had sat, period, and never stood at all. Those were untrue. ”

    Actually Snopes left out key parts of The Blaze and Ben Shapiro’s website, DailyWire, articles and smeared the conservative websites by calling the articles false. See the Hotair article.

    Are you also smearing these conservative websites as Snopes did with your unspecified “claims on the right” that “were untrue”?

  8. neo-neocon Says:

    skeptic:

    I’m not “smearing” anyone.

    I read a lot of comments and blog posts that said they didn’t stand. These commenters and bloggers were relying on reports that they didn’t stand. In fact, I didn’t write about it, but that was my impression as well. That is, I thought they didn’t stand at all because I read this in various places.

    Since I wasn’t planning to write a post on it, I didn’t take notes, and so I can’t document exactly who said it and where. But since I include myself as a person who had the impression that the two Democrats had not stood at all, I suppose I’d have to be “smearing” myself, too, if I’m “smearing” anyone.

    In other words, I have no idea whatsoever why you think that when I say someone wrote that they believed these two people never stood for Carryn Owens, that I was “smearing” the person who wrote that. That person was almost certainly relying on the same information I was relying on, which had led that person to believe that the 2 had not stood (and had led me to believe the same thing). Do you think I require that each person get hold of a video that showed whether they stood during any of that portion of the speech? I certainly didn’t get hold of such a video, nor did I think one was available to the public. I did not do my own analysis, nor would I expect them to do their own analyses, particularly bloggers and commenters. Newspaper reporters would have somewhat of an advantage in that they probably could get hold of some video that would answer the question, but I wasn’t referring to newspapers.

    Nor, by the way, were my sources any of those sources you named (The Blaze or Daily Wire) as far as I can recall.

    However, now that someone HAS done the analysis and reported on it, and reports seem to agree—the 2 stood briefly for the intro and then sat during the 2-minute standing O—why not just put the word out and correct the record? That was my intent here.

  9. Liz Says:

    One thing I noted was that members of the Supreme Court and the Joint Chiefs of Staff were standing and applauding during the various ovations. I think there were three ovations.

    Generally, these people do not stand or applaud during the SOTU or Joint Sessions since it would appear to be biased.

    So, I took the ovations to be in honor of the Navy Seal and his wife and not a political statement. So, sitting down during the ovations could be interpreted to be a pure political statement.

    This may have been mentioned in another post, but I am just catching up on my web browsing.

  10. Ymarsakar Says:

    This is like a theological test. If you don’t stand and honor the Pope, you class yourself the Heretic and will be burned.

    The Leftist alliance used it against Bush II, so I find it ironic that their religious patriotic fervor is now used against them, the original traitors to the United States.

Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>



About Me

Previously a lifelong Democrat, born in New York and living in New England, surrounded by liberals on all sides, I've found myself slowly but surely leaving the fold and becoming that dread thing: a neocon.
Read More >>






Monthly Archives



Blogroll

Ace (bold)
AmericanDigest (writer’s digest)
AmericanThinker (thought full)
Anchoress (first things first)
AnnAlthouse (more than law)
AtlasShrugs (fearless)
AugeanStables (historian’s task)
Baldilocks (outspoken)
Barcepundit (theBrainInSpain)
Beldar (Texas lawman)
BelmontClub (deep thoughts)
Betsy’sPage (teach)
Bookworm (writingReader)
Breitbart (big)
ChicagoBoyz (boyz will be)
Contentions (CommentaryBlog)
DanielInVenezuela (against tyranny)
DeanEsmay (conservative liberal)
Donklephant (political chimera)
Dr.Helen (rights of man)
Dr.Sanity (thinking shrink)
DreamsToLightening (Asher)
EdDriscoll (market liberal)
Fausta’sBlog (opinionated)
GayPatriot (self-explanatory)
HadEnoughTherapy? (yep)
HotAir (a roomful)
InFromTheCold (once a spook)
InstaPundit (the hub)
JawaReport (the doctor is Rusty)
LegalInsurrection (law prof)
RedState (conservative)
Maggie’sFarm (centrist commune)
MelaniePhillips (formidable)
MerylYourish (centrist)
MichaelTotten (globetrotter)
MichaelYon (War Zones)
Michelle Malkin (clarion pen)
Michelle Obama's Mirror (reflections)
MudvilleGazette (milblog central)
NoPasaran! (behind French facade)
NormanGeras (principled leftist)
OneCosmos (Gagdad Bob’s blog)
PJMedia (comprehensive)
PointOfNoReturn (Jewish refugees)
Powerline (foursight)
ProteinWisdom (wiseguy)
QandO (neolibertarian)
RachelLucas (in Italy)
RogerL.Simon (PJ guy)
SecondDraft (be the judge)
SeekerBlog (inquiring minds)
SisterToldjah (she said)
Sisu (commentary plus cats)
Spengler (Goldman)
TheDoctorIsIn (indeed)
Tigerhawk (eclectic talk)
VictorDavisHanson (prof)
Vodkapundit (drinker-thinker)
Volokh (lawblog)
Zombie (alive)

Regent Badge