11/09 Bryan: Pundits insinuate Democrats want a recession

In a column in last Monday's Washington Times, Donald Lambro reports Republican claims that Democrats are stalling the proposed stimulus package in order to prolong the current downturn and pick up additional Congressional seats.

On November 5, Lambro wrote:

For the first time, Senate Republican leaders accused Mr. Daschle of deliberately blocking any legislative action because a weaker economy in 2002 means the Democrats would likely stand a better chance of gaining seats in Congress.

"What's clear now is that the Democrats are dragging their feet on an economic recovery plan. They want to see Republicans suffer the blame of voters next November," a senior Senate Republican leadership official told me.

Speaking with the full approval of Senate Republican leaders, this official accused Mr. Daschle of "playing politics with the economy," hoping to benefit at the polls from a longer recession.

By the end of the article, Lambro is repeating the Republican spin as if it were fact: "The Democrats' stall-and-delay strategy is based on their politically self-absorbed belief that the longer the recession lasts, the better their chances of regaining control of Congress."

Larry Kudlow repeats the charge in an article in today's National Review Online, adding a few labels of his own:

Mr. Daschle relentlessly insists on turning the economic-recovery debate into a class-warfare campaign . . .

The partisan, class-warfare Daschle Democrats are stalling, a tactic that leads to the question: Do they truly want wartime economic recovery? Perhaps they'd rather stand pat and let unemployment rise in the mistaken belief that this will improve their chances of regaining total control of Congress.

Lambro and Kudlow twist Democratic objections to the Republican plan - that the Republican stimulus legislation is too tilted towards upper-income taxpayers and corporations - into an expression of bad faith. Neither writer provides any evidence of this other than speculation (which is why Kudlow prefaces his attack with the slippery "perhaps") - in fact, statements by leading Democrats have indicated that they oppose the GOP bill in part because they believe it will do too little to help the economy recover. That's why Democrats have introduced their own stimulus package, which they contend will do more to get the economy going. If this is some elaborate plan to delay legislative action and drag the country into a recession, Lambro and Kudlow have an obligation to provide evidence beyond the statement of an anonymous Republican official.

Most troubling of all is that, as Lambro makes plain, this is a coordinated attack on Democrats from their Republican opponents. Disagreeing with the Democratic stimulus proposal is one thing; accusing them of intentionally hurting the economy for political gain in the face of evidence to the contrary is quite another.

[Email this to a friend]     [Subscribe to our email list]

Related links:
-Daschle-bashing on the national radar screen (Brendan Nyhan, 7/27)
-Coordination Daschle attack admitted (Brendan Nyhan, 6/28)

11/9/2001 12:14:39 PM EST |

11/09 Brendan: Limbaugh whitewashes his Jennings misquotes

On September 12, conservative talk radio host Rush Limbaugh repeated an Internet rumor falsely claiming that Peter Jennings had made certain statements critical of President Bush during his coverage of September 11. Limbaugh was publicly chastised for spreading these falsehoods and issued a retraction of one of the two on the air. Yet when a New York Times story raised the issue again Wednesday, Limbaugh denied saying anything that was incorrect.

The Washington Post's Howard Kurtz offered this report on Limbaugh's comments on September 24:

Rush Limbaugh, relying on a friend's e-mail message, denounced Jennings -- "this fine son of Canada" -- for "insulting comments toward President Bush." He said that "Little Peter couldn't understand why George Bush didn't address the nation sooner than he did, and even made snide comments like, 'Well, some presidents are just better at it than others,' and 'Maybe it's wise that certain presidents just not try to address the people of the country.' " ...The radio host made a full on-air retraction after ABC protested.

Here is the key segment of Limbaugh's retraction, according to the respected Urban Legends Reference Pages (archived by Google):

Jennings made a comment along the lines of "Well, some presidents are just better at it than others," meaning addressing the people of the country as mourners-in-chief or comforters-in-chief or what have you. And then later on, practically immediately, we added on the website, in quotes, "Maybe it's wise that certain presidents just not try to address the people of the country." This caused some angst at ABC News, amongst Peter Jennings and his staff, because they claim he never said it.

We went and dug deep, trying to find out where we got it and thought that he had said it, and it turns out that it was said to me in an e-mail from a friend of mine. I did not see Peter Jennings say it. I had not seen any ABC coverage. They admitted the first statement, but flatly denied the second statement. Again, that statement being "Maybe it's wise that certain presidents just not try to address the people of the country." It turns out our mistake was putting that in quotes.

Claiming that the "mistake was putting that in quotes" is a euphemistic way to say that the "Maybe it's wise..." quote was completely fictitious. And, though Limbaugh denies the substance of the misquote was inaccurate, the "some presidents are just better at it" quote is actually an out-of-context paraphrase of this Jennings statement: "The country looks to the president on occasions like this to be reassuring to the nation. Some presidents do it well, some presidents don't." Even the conservative Media Research Center (MRC) reported that Limbaugh "misconstrued" the statements and that the second quote is "not an outrageous observation".

Yesterday, the New York Times ran a story on conservative criticism of the media. It included the following passage, which references Limbaugh's inaccurate quotations of Jennings but inexplicably details only the less egregious of the two:

... ABC News has now emerged as the leading target [of conservative critics]. This became evident early in the coverage when Mr. Limbaugh reported, erroneously, that the ABC News anchor, Peter Jennings, had been highly critical of the president on Sept. 11 for not returning to Washington immediately after learning about the attacks. ABC was flooded with complaints.

Though Mr. Limbaugh reported that Mr. Jennings had said, "Maybe it's wise that certain presidents just not try to address the people of the country," Mr. Jennings had actually made a general statement about presidents. "The country looks to the president on occasions like this to be reassuring to the nation," Mr. Jennings had said. "Some presidents do it well, some presidents don't."

Mr. Limbaugh corrected the report...

In his response to this passage of the Times article yesterday (Windows Media Player audio [begins at 8:04 in the clip] / text article based on his comments on RushLimbaugh.com), Limbaugh made this statement: "It was not erroneous. What I said concerning what Mr. Jennings said was not erroneous."

First, Limbaugh incorrectly claims that the Times story says he made his statements on September 11 and then knocks down that straw man, saying "I wasn't working that day". Because he was not working on September 11 and ABC had already received angry email that day, he claims that he "had nothing to do with whatever grief ABC was getting", even though he repeated the rumor to his vast audience the next day. In fact, however, his role was important enough that the MRC report mentioned him specifically.

From there, Limbaugh goes on to misconstrue the inaccurate quote and leave out the completely fictitious one, consciously ignoring the fact that he apologized for the inaccuracy of the latter:

[reads from the story] "Though Mr. Limbaugh reported that Mr. Jennings had said, 'Maybe it's wise that certain presidents just not try to address the people of the country,' Mr. Jennings had actually made a general statement about presidents. 'The country looks to the president on occasions like this to be reassuring to the nation,' Mr. Jennings had said. 'Some presidents do it well, some presidents don't.'"

There's no difference. There's no difference, which is why I say that what I said was not erroneous. He actually made a general statement about presidents, not Bush, that's their caveat - "I wasn't talking about Bush, I was talking about presidents in general".

While Limbaugh is known for his repeated inaccuracies, this attempt to whitewash his record so soon after his on-air retraction is particularly outrageous.

[Email this to a friend]     [Subscribe to our email list]

11/8/2001 09:28:15 PM EST |

11/08 Ben: Opponents of federalizing airport security spin the unions

In presenting their case against making airport security personnel federal employees, some conservative pundits have hit upon a simple scenario that fits stereotypes about Democrats and their supporters. As this story goes, unions are anxious for the security officers to be added to the federal payroll because they have had more success at unionizing government employees. And because unions usually support the Democratic Party, one can therefore conclude that Democrats are in favor of federalization in order to reward them. This tale, however, is an oversimplification that ignores an actual diversity of opinions amongst unions.

A good example of this can be found in an editorial from yesterday's Wall Street Journal:

Unions have had a hard time organizing private sector workers for years, but government employees have been their saving grace. If baggage screeners become government employees, that will mean 28,000 more dues-paying members for some union, if not AFSCME itself then another affiliated with the AFL-CIO. And a large portion of those nonvoluntary dues will go to finance political ads and organizing to elect Democrats.

An editorial from the next issue of The National Review (previewed on the Web) offers a similar line. It claims that "rather than debate [the case against federalizing airport security personnel], Democrats (and, too often, the press) are accusing Republicans of putting a lower priority on Americans' lives than on their narrow partisan interest in keeping public-sector unions from growing." Note that National Review frames opponents of federalization as Democrats and the press, when all 50 Republican senators also voted for it. This fact doesn't fit National Review's spin, however, as many of these Republicans are not supported by unions. Even ignoring that, however, the conservative argument is flawed in its fundamental premise that "unions," as an entity, support federalization.

In fact, the Service Employers International Union (SEIU), the largest union in the AFL-CIO, supports keeping security officers private. As outlined on a web site it runs, www.flysafernow.com, SEIU wants to organize private airport security workers, presumably on the belief that it can organize them and bargain for better wages, benefits, and safety conditions. While SEIU's preferred position does not fully mesh with the legislation that passed the House with Republican support, it clearly supports the House Republican position of keeping airport security workers private. A recent Associated Press article quoted SEIU director of security organizing Jono Shaffer saying that federalization "would be a massive undertaking that nobody is saying could happen fast. We think there is a much more streamlined way to make changes that would result in dramatic improvements very fast."

It is true that, for obvious reasons, some public sector unions support making airport security officers federal employees. But the position of unions as whole is far from uniform. Conservatives looking to spin a simple tale of Democrats following the union line are blurring the real diversity of opinions on this issue in their zeal to condemn one set of enemies - Democrats - by associating them with another -- unions.

(Disclosure: Spinsanity co-editor Bryan Keefer is an employee of SEIU.)

[Email this to a friend]     [Subscribe to our email list]

Related links:
-More nastiness on airport security (Brendan Nyhan, 11/2)
-Lowey and Armey invoke higher values to avoid debate (Ben Fritz, 10/24)

11/8/2001 11:44:40 AM EST |

11/06 Bryan: Norquist goes inflammatory on Foer

In the November 12 print edition of the New Republic, Franklin Foer documents conservative activist Grover Norquist's connections to several Muslim organizations who have refused to condemn the September 11 attacks. According to Foer, Norquist has been a key organizer helping to bring Muslims into the Republican Party, and has lobbied for Qatar, a country which has officially condemned US attacks on Afghanistan.

While Foer's article is tough on Norquist, it pales in comparison to Norquist's response in an open letter on conservative commentator Andrew Sullivan's web site. Norquist begins by attacking Sullivan (who approvingly linked to Foer's article): "Shame on you for regurgitating the lies of the left without bothering to find the truth." He then defends his outreach efforts to Muslim groups, never specifically refuting the substance of Foer's article except to claim that he and Karl Rove were misquoted and that Foer unfairly characterizes Norquist's positions on various issues.

Norquist concludes by launching into this tirade, a study in the new political jargon:

Foer says that some Muslims hate capitalism, view envy as a legitimate political agenda, show disrespect for the religious values of others and oppose a strong American military and foreign policy. This is true. This is also true of many Methodists. And there is a political party for people like that - the Democrat party.

Norquist begins with a brutal distortion of Foer's article: the Muslims Foer cites as holding those views have stated their positions publicly, and nowhere in his piece does Foer suggest anything about Muslims beyond a few specific individuals. Next, Norquist twists Foer's words with a spurious comparison: "This is true. This is also true of many Methodists." This is an attempt to create an association with Methodists, a group with positive connotations for most people, in order to break the negative association between Norquist and radical Muslims created by Foer's article. Finally, Norquist concludes by attaching the group he's manufactured and its negative values to "the Democrat party". Norquist can't be bothered with the fact that the values and groups described above have nothing to do with the policies of the Democratic party - but then, his tirade isn't exactly burdened by logic.

Norquist's mechanical distortions are textbook examples of how the rhetorical tactics of public relations have been borrowed by political actors. Norquist may not like Foer's article; he may not agree with its conclusions, and he may (as he claims) have been misquoted. But none of these are an excuse for an irrational, inflammatory attack against Foer, nor for Norquist's unfair attacks on Democrats more broadly.

[Email this to a friend]     [Subscribe to our email list]

11/6/2001 08:08:12 PM EST |

11/05 Brendan - Manufacturing dissent: Chomsky dissembles on Afghan hunger

MIT professor Noam Chomsky is one of the most influential leftist critics of the United States. Since September 11, he has condemned the war against the Taliban and its effects on food aid to Afghans at risk of starvation. But a basic review of his argument shows that much of his criticism ranges from inflammatory rhetoric to outright deception.

Chomsky made his case against the US in an October 18 speech at the MIT Technology and Culture Forum. With millions in Afghanistan at risk of starvation before September 11, he claims the situation is now far worse as a result of the US demanding that Pakistan "[eliminate] truck convoys that provide much of the food and other supplies to Afghanistan's civilian population." This, he claims, is a "demand to impose massive starvation on millions of people".

In fact, it's nothing of the sort. First, that conduit would not have fed those millions of people in the first place, as Chomsky should know. The reason for the US demand is that truck convoys from Pakistan passed through Taliban-held areas, and the Taliban were likely to divert the shipments. Taliban confiscations of food supplies held by relief programs in Kandahar and elsewhere have borne this out. Chomsky also fails to mention that the US has been working to bring in food aid from the countries north of Afghanistan, allowing access to areas held by the Northern Alliance, as well as dropping food from the air.

Are these efforts sufficient to prevent widespread starvation? Probably not. But, as Chomsky himself acknowledges, millions were already at risk of starvation before the war, and the US has been intensifying its efforts to deal with the looming humanitarian crisis. The United Nations World Food Program (which gets the majority of its funding from the US) said it reached two million people in October, but needs to reach six million. Clearly, the war has made such relief efforts more difficult, but it is extremely deceptive to depict a shutdown of truck convoys from Pakistan as a desire to "impose massive starvation on millions of people".

Another tactic he employs is to harp on the failure of the US press to cover these concerns:

Yesterday [October 17] the major aid agencies OXFAM and Christian Aid and others joined in that plea. You can't find a report in the New York Times. There was a line in the Boston Globe, hidden in a story about another topic, Kashmir.

For the record, here's an excerpt from a story in the October 17 New York Times, the day before Chomsky's speech:

The situation prompted Raymond C. Offenheiser, president of Oxfam America, to call today for a halt in the airstrikes. "The bombing has demonstrated that we cannot get food to hungry Afghan people in relative safety," he said. "We've run out of food, the borders are closed, we can't reach our staffs and time is running out."

Chomsky concludes his section on food aid with more incredibly inflammatory rhetoric:

...Looks like what's happening is some sort of silent genocide. It also gives a good deal of insight into the elite culture, the culture that we are part of. It indicates that whatever, what will happen we don't know, but plans are being made and programs implemented on the assumption that they may lead to the death of several million people in the next few months...

Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary Online defines genocide as "the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group". It is a grave charge that Chomsky completely fails to prove. The lack of food aid to starving Afghans is neither deliberate (if it was, why would the US be increasing its food aid efforts?) nor systematic (most of the lack of food aid is attributable to the Taliban blocking its distribution).

Moreover, the "genocide" is not "silent". On October 9, shortly before Chomsky's speech, USA Today, the Los Angeles Times and the Washington Post, among other papers, all ran stories on relief officials who believed the US airdrops of food were inadequate. This coverage has continued in the mainstream US press. In fact, the Washington Post recently reported that an international food airlift is now being planned to bring greater supplies into remote regions of the country.

Millions of Afghans are undoubtedly at risk, creating real moral dilemmas. Unfortunately, Chomsky's deceptive and inflammatory rhetoric adds little to the debate.

Retraction/update 11/15 10:15 AM: It appears that the ZMag transcript linked above is inaccurate. I urge readers to rely on the audio file instead. An alert reader caught an important mistake - the "You can't find a report in the New York Times" line in the transcript that I criticize is incorrect. Chomsky actually says this: "You find a report in the NY Times". We regret the error.

Another reader pointed out that the transcript says "plans are being made, and programs implemented on the assumption that they may lead to the deaths of several million people in the next couple of months" but the correct quote is actually "couple of weeks" (which is even more overstated, in all likelihood).

Finally, I insufficiently elabored my logic on the point about convoys from Pakistan. It was this - first, they were not sufficient to feed "millions of people" and that therefore their cessation does not constitute a "demand to impose massive starvation on millions of people". Also, bringing food into Afghanistan via other routes would not necessarily solve the hunger problem in the parts of the country reached by Pakistan aid convoys, as I implied. This premise was based on Northern Alliance advances and bringing food shipments across Taliban lines (admittedly unlikely given the Taliban's treatment of aid workers). With recent victories, there are now encouraging signs that the aid community will be able to re-establish a base in Mazar-i-Sharif and reach the areas of Afghanistan with the worst hunger problems. This is of course partially 20/20 hindsight, but the point is (once again) that the US is not trying to impose starvation on millions of people.

[Email this to a friend] [Subscribe to our email list]

11/5/2001 09:10:57 AM EST |

This website is copyright (c) 2001-2005 by Ben Fritz, Bryan Keefer and Brendan Nyhan. Please send letters to the editor for publication to letters@spinsanity.org and private questions or comments to feedback@spinsanity.org.

Comments by YACCS