Stifling "axis of evil" dissent (2/15)

By Brendan Nyhan

Last week, radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh turned President Bush's phrase "axis of evil" into a vicious attack on the "evil axis" of Congressional Democrats. So when Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D-SD) criticized Bush's use of the phrase Tuesday, it wasn't surprising that he was smeared by Limbaugh and former Reagan administration official Oliver North as an ally of the so-called axis of rogue states. This is the ugliest sort of anti-democratic rhetoric, used to stifle dissent by associating it nonsensically with hated figures or countries.

Here's what Daschle said Monday night on "Newshour with Jim Lehrer":

JIM LEHRER: Was the president right to label Iran, Iraq, and North Korea as being an axis of evil?

SEN. TOM DASCHLE: I don't think so. I think that it's important for us to look at each of these countries, Jim, as threats to this country clearly, as problems that we've got to address clearly, but I think we've got to be very careful with the rhetoric of that kind.

We've already seen the moderates in Iran scramble to draw distance between "us" and "them," and I think we've got to be very careful with how we approach all three countries.

Daschle moderated his comments in an article published Wednesday in the Washington Times, saying that "[t]here is no difference between myself and the president on the importance that we all put on dealing directly with these three countries." But Limbaugh and North were already off to the races, attacking Daschle by associating him with the countries labeled as the "axis of evil" - Iran, North Korea and Iraq.

On his radio show Tuesday, Limbaugh said that "Daschle's allies in this situation include the barbarians who run North Korea, the Islamic extremists who run Iran and the mass murderer Saddam Hussein who controls Iraq. That's the company Tom Daschle has joined" (Windows Media Player audio). "Now he's decided to roll the dice and align himself with Iran, North Korea and Hussein," Limbaugh continued. "In essence, Daschle has chosen to align himself with the axis of evil."

Later that night, on the Fox News show "Hannity and Colmes," Oliver North said that "Tom Daschle has now joined Ted Turner and the Ayatollah Khomeini and Saddam Hussein and Vladimir Putin, who are people who don't like the term 'axis of evil'." Colonel North also claimed Daschle is "setting the ground works for our adversaries to take on American soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines."

Limbaugh and North's statements are entirely non-rational. Criticism of a phrase used by the President does not mean Daschle - or anyone else - has made common cause with rogue regimes or dictators. Such tactics shut down the rational debate that makes democracy possible.

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

Related links:
-Limbaugh turns "axis of evil" into jargon (Ben Fritz, 2/7/02)
-Limbaugh's Daschle "devil" analogy (Brendan Nyhan, 7/21/01)
-The illegitimacy attack / Daschle-bashing (Brendan Nyhan, 5/25/01)

2/15/2002 07:46:59 AM EST |

Fritzkrieg! A Democratic senator lies about Enron to smear Bush (2/13)

By Ben Fritz
[First published on Salon.com]

Liberal pundits and Democratic politicians have been attacking the Bush administration over Enron's collapse for months now, often with little or no substance to back up their allegations. By far the worst offender on this count has been Sen. Ernest "Fritz" Hollings, D-S.C., who has lied about the administration's connections to the company, misrepresented the Bush budget and transformed the word "Enron" into a piece of jargon to attack the president.

Hollings' most appalling dissembling came in a Feb. 4 press conference, when he falsely claimed that a number of Bush advisors had been "on the payroll" of Enron, including Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill and Office of Management and Budget Director Mitch Daniels. As Rush Limbaugh pointed out on his show Monday, Hollings said, "Mitch Daniels [has been] on the payroll of Enron ... An Enron advisor ... He was on the payroll prior to coming here as secretary of the treasury: Mr. Paul O'Neill." Neither man, however, has even been an employee or paid consultant to Enron. This allegation is totally false.

In an appearance on "Face the Nation" this past Sunday, however, Hollings continued his dissembling. Asked about the Daniels allegation, he corrected himself and said he meant to say that Daniels served on the board of directors of pharmaceutical company Eli Lilly with Ken Lay. "I meant to say that Mitch Daniels was on the Ken Lay payroll rather than the Enron payroll." But simply serving on a board with Ken Lay, of course, hardly puts Mitch Daniels "on the Ken Lay payroll." Asked about O'Neill, Hollings denied even having made the accusation. "I don't remember saying that about the secretary of the treasury because I don't remember his connections at all," he stated. The tape of the press conference (which is getting play on Limbaugh's show) proves otherwise.

These false attacks are just part of a series of Enron-related dissembling from Hollings. He also said on "Face the Nation" that he had caught Daniels trying to hide the size of the federal deficit at a budget committee hearing. "[Daniels] said, 'Oh yeah. We hid it, but you found it,'" Hollings stated. "Now you've got that Enron accounting thing."

What Hollings actually found, however, is that the Bush administration did not report as part of the government's operating deficit funds spent from the Social Security and Medicare surpluses on other projects. This is a common budget practice that has been used by every administration since the Social Security and Medicare trust funds started running surpluses. And Daniels did not attempt to hide it. He said to Hollings in the hearing, "You're correctly pointing out that when you also add to the operating deficit those accruing interest obligations we owe to various trust funds that the overall gross debt does increase by that amount." This isn't "Enron accounting," but an honest explanation of a complex budgetary issue. Fritz Hollings has proven he's more interested in connecting his political opponents and their policies to the much-hated Enron than engaging in honest and fair debate.

[This post was featured exclusively on Salon.com for two days. It is now available on our site. Please note that after an initial free period our articles will become part of Salon Premium, which requires a paid subscription of $6 a month, $30 a year or $50 for two years. We hope that you'll join through our affiliate link (also posted in the "Currently on Spinsanity" box) but you don't have to. After two calendar days, our content will always be available for free on our site.]

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

Related stories:
-Unfair Enron comparisons continue (Bryan Keefer, 2/6/02)
-Enron association game continues unabated (Bryan Keefer, 1/16/02)
-The "Enronomics" offensive (Brendan Nyhan, 1/15/02)
-Scandalous Rhetoric Before the Scandal: The Growing Enron Debate (Ben Fritz, 1/14/02)
-Spin works its way into liberal harping on Enron (Ben Fritz, 12/13/01)

2/13/2002 08:07:34 PM EST |

Daschle spins the Social Security surplus (2/13)

By Bryan Keefer

In an appearance on the "Newshour with Jim Lehrer" last Monday, Democratic Majority Leader Tom Daschle took liberties with the facts to imply that the Bush administration has been taking funds away from Social Security.

Daschle began by comparing the Bush budget plan for the Social Security surplus to the misdeeds of Enron:

What we saw with Enron was the use of retirement funds for purposes other than retirement to the point where all of the Enron employees lost virtually all of their life savings. What we're seeing in the budget right now is the use of Social Security money much like we used to do - a trillion and a half dollars over the next ten years of Social Security and Medicare dollars that will be used for other purposes, robbing really the trust fund of what we're going to need when the baby boomers retire, holding them accountable in ways that I think is very irresponsible.

The analogy, however, is a faulty one. Daschle's use of the tenuous Enron metaphor is designed to discredit Bush's proposals without addressing them on their merits. Moreover, his suggestion that Bush is "robbing" the surplus is a cheap, inaccurate attack. Bush's budget proposal does not steal money from the trust fund - in actuality, it proposes spending surplus Social Security funds on government programs rather than on debt retirement.

But the spin is just beginning. Daschle continues by suggesting that "under the Clinton administration we didn't use Social Security dollars. For the last three years we have not used one dollar of Social Security." This is simply false. During the later years of the Clinton administration, the Social Security surplus was used to pay down federal debt. This so-called "lockbox" did increase the government's ability to borrow in the future to meet its obligations to retirees under Social Security, but the money was still used, making Daschle's statement untrue.

As Lehrer quickly pointed out, Democrats want to spend the Social Security surplus, but in a different way than the administration does, using it to reduce debt instead of funding government programs. Either way, however, the money is spent and the Social Security trust fund is credited with bonds of the same amount. Daschle's spin distorts both the nature of the trust fund and the debate over what to do with the Social Security surplus.

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

Related links:
-The New Math: Fudging the Numbers in the Economic Blame Game (Bryan Keefer column, 1/28/02)
-Blurring the lines in the surplus debate (Brendan Nyhan, 1/11/02)
-Daschle and Bush spin debate on stimulus (Ben Fritz, 1/8/02)
-Spinning the Social Security Surplus (Bryan Keefer, 9/10/02)

2/13/2002 06:12:18 AM EST |

Mitch Daniels' fuzzy math (2/12)

By Brendan Nyhan
[First published on Salon.com]

OMB Director Mitch Daniels has displayed a disturbing tendency to make dishonest claims for political advantage on federal budget issues. The former business executive has turned a job once reserved for budget experts into one for an operative chosen for his political skills, particularly his ability to sell the administration's economic proposals in the media. With the debate about Bush's new budget now well underway, it's time to take a closer look at Daniels and his battles with the truth.

[This column was featured exclusively on Salon.com for two days. It is now available on our site through the link above. Please note that after an initial free period our articles will become part of Salon Premium, which requires a paid subscription of $6 a month, $30 a year or $50 for two years. We hope that you'll join through our affiliate link (also posted in the "Currently on Spinsanity" box) but you don't have to. After two calendar days, our content will always be available for free on our site.]

2/11/2002 05:13:24 PM 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