McAuliffe's week of jargon (3/8)

By Bryan Keefer

The past week was a busy one for Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe. Between discussing political strategy with Al Gore over lunch on Monday and appointing Gore campaign manager Donna Brazile to chair of the DNC's Voting Right Institute yesterday, McAuliffe found time to launch a pair of manipulative attacks against a judicial nomination and Social Security privatization.

On Tuesday, McAuliffe issued a press release attacking the nomination of Charles Pickering for a seat on the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. He claimed that "[b]y nominating Pickering to a Court that presides over a region heavily populated with minorities, Bush is attempting to disenfranchise this community." While McAuliffe has every right to raise questions about Pickering's record, his suggestion that Bush is trying to deprive people of color of the right to vote is irresponsible. If he wishes to make an argument about the judiciary and the Voting Rights Act, he should make it, rather than impugning the motives of the President with loaded rhetoric.

McAuliffe, however, was just getting started. On Wednesday, he launched a preemptive strike against plans to privatize Social Security:

The President wants to turn Social Security into Social Insecurity, by pursuing a privatization plan that would cut benefits and expose our retirement savings to the whims of a volatile stock market. Anyone who thinks private retirement accounts are a good idea should talk to Enron employees.

By re-framing privatization in terms of "Social Insecurity," McAuliffe attacks the plan with a silly catchphrase. Worse yet, McAuliffe tries to tie "private retirement accounts" to Enron, a popular political strategy in recent weeks. The 401 (k) plans held by Enron employees, however, differ substantially from most privatization plans, in part because Enron employees who lost the most were heavily invested in a single company's stock (Enron's) -- a practice which likely would not be allowed under a privatized Social Security system. Moreover, the crude phrasing of the attack appears to suggest that 401 (k) plans are not a "good idea" in general, even though they are a widely-used vehicle for retirement savings supported by both political parties.

This sort of attack is nothing new for McAuliffe. In an embarrassing speech in August, McAuliffe suggested that:

Congress has delayed and obstructed on a Patient's Bill of Rights. . . . [Republicans'] approach to a Patients' Bill of Rights makes you wonder: what would the original Bill of Rights look like if George W. Bush and Republican leaders had been with the Founding Fathers at the Constitutional Convention? Would they have supported freedom of speech and religion? Would they have protected Americans from unreasonable searches and seizures?

Aside from a fundamental factual error - the Bill of Rights was drafted after the Constitutional Convention - McAuliffe's extrapolation from fact (Congress had not passed HMO reform) to spin ("delayed and obstructed") to groundless speculation (Bush and Republicans would oppose the Bill of Rights) is deeply flawed and manipulative.

Such a pattern of intellectual sloppiness and nasty invective speaks poorly of the head of one of the nation's two major political parties.

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

Related links:
-Washington Times continues Daschle spin (Bryan Keefer, 1/23/02)
-Terry McAuliffe's ridiculous extrapolations (Brendan Nyhan, 8/9/01)

3/8/2002 01:49:18 PM EST |

Distorting criticism of attempts to suppress dissent (3/7)

By Brendan Nyhan

Over the last week, Bryan and I have criticized a number of Republicans and conservative pundits for trying to suppress dissent against the war on terrorism. We have been joined in this argument by commentators from across the political spectrum and several newspaper editorial boards, most notably the Washington Post. Now comes a deceptive counter-claim: that this response in itself constitutes an attempt to silence criticism of those raising questions about the war.

The Washington Times made this argument Tuesday in a vitriolic attack on Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle and Senator John Kerry:

One of Mr. Daschle's Senate colleagues, John Kerry of Massachusetts, accused Republican critics of Mr. Daschle of seeking to "muzzle legitimate inquiry" under "the false cloak of patriotism." But nobody is questioning the patriotism of Messrs. Daschle or Kerry. Now, their judgment is another matter. The reality is that these modern-day McGovernites want to silence anyone who questions their carping criticism of the president's efforts to run the war.

Ramesh Ponnuru of National Review echoed this yesterday on The Corner, National Review Online’s collaborative weblog:

[W]hy is it perfectly fine for the Democrats to express differences of opinion with the administration on the war but terrible for Republicans to say that their differences will be an issue in the fall elections? If Democrats can criticize the administration, surely Republicans can respond. True, this may inhibit Democrats since the vast majority of Americans are likely to side with the GOP. But there’s no rule of political propriety that says you can’t speak your mind just because your position is popular.

The central problem with these arguments is that they miss the distinction between responding substantively to criticism and attempting to silence it. Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott, Rep. Tom Davis and others tried to stifle Daschle's criticism of the conduct of the war by insinuating that his actions were unpatriotic and hurt the country. They did not offer a rational and substantive response, as the Times and Ponnuru imply.

Moreover, no one has argued that Lott and others cannot criticize Daschle; what we, the Post and others have said is that trying to shut down debate by attacking the legitimacy of dissent is unacceptable. Republicans have every right to rationally criticize the substance of Daschle’s statements; indeed, we hope they will do so.

In short, we have no problem with substantive responses to criticism of the war. But serious people on both sides of the aisle have a duty to condemn demagogic attacks that attempt to cut off open debate on any issue.

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

Related links:
-Bully brigade (Brendan Nyhan, 3/5/02)
-Quieting the homefront (Bryan Keefer, 3/1/02)

3/7/2002 02:33:53 PM EST |

Bully brigade (3/5)

Limbaugh, Novak and Hannity smack down dissenters: Dare to disagree? You're helping the enemy!
By Brendan Nyhan
[First published on Salon.com]

No one should be surprised by last week's attacks on the legitimacy of criticizing the war on terrorism. Since Sept. 11, pundits and government officials have repeatedly attempted to suppress dissent by arguing it helps the enemy. While the attacks on Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., and other Democrats were widely repudiated over the weekend, efforts to stifle open political debate continue and may even grow, following a U.S.-led attack in Afghanistan that left at least nine Americans dead Monday.

[This column was featured exclusively on Salon.com for two days. Starting next week, our weekly column and approximately one post per week will be exclusively available to members of Salon Premium, which requires a paid subscription. We hope that you'll join through our affiliate link (also posted in the "Currently on Spinsanity" box) for immediate access to our newest work and to all the other good stuff on Salon.]

3/4/2002 08:12:54 PM EST |

NY Times also duped by Ken Lay/Lincoln Bedroom myth (3/4)

By Brendan Nyhan

An astute reader has pointed out that the New York Times also printed the falsehood that Ken Lay stayed overnight at the Clinton White House, adding one of the country's leading newspapers to the list of those duped by the claim.

Alison Mitchell's February 1 article, which focuses on an ad criticizing North Carolina Senate candidate Elizabeth Dole for attending a fundraiser held by Enron CEO Ken Lay, concludes with the following paragraph:

Enron was a major donor to the Democratic National Committee in the Clinton years. Mr. Lay played golf with Mr. Clinton and stayed overnight in the White House.

The clear implication is that Lay stayed at the White House during the Clinton administration, when in fact his overnight stay came under George H.W. Bush.

Although the Washington Times and Chicago Tribune (among others) have been forced to issue highly publicized retractions of this claim in recent weeks, Mitchell said in a phone call today that this was the first she had heard of the issue and that she would look into it further. Hopefully a correction will be forthcoming soon.

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

Related links:
-An update on the Ken Lay/Lincoln Bedroom myth (Brendan Nyhan, 2/28/02)
-Another bedroom farce (Brendan Nyhan, 2/21/02)
-New Enron lies target Clinton (Ben Fritz, 2/19/02)

3/4/2002 12:25:51 PM EST |

Hollings keeps on spinning (3/3)

By Ben Fritz

It seems that Sen. Ernest "Fritz" Hollings, D-SC, just keeps on spinning and spinning and spinning…

Two and a half weeks ago, I pointed out that Hollings falsely accused Office and Management and Budget Director Mitch Daniels and Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill of having been "on the Enron payroll." In its most recent issue, however, the Weekly Standard notes that in the same breath, Hollings falsely stated that Securities and Exchange Commission Commissioner Harvey Pitt was an "Enron advisor." This is just as false as the other accusations.

The Standard also points out that, more recently, Hollings insinuated that the Bush administration's policies helped to cause the terrorist attacks of September 11. He correctly points out that the Bush administration did not crack down as strongly on offshore tax havens as President Clinton. He then outrageously states that "And so [the Bush administration] immediately this time last year closed down the … effort, and you've had 9-11."

There is no proof, however, that the money that funded the terrorist attacks came through offshore tax havens. In fact, some press reports have stated that intelligence shows the funds did not come from these sources.

If Hollings is aware of evidence to the contrary, he should present it. Otherwise, one can only take these statements as part of his ongoing pattern of dissembling about the Bush administration.

Sadly, few in the media seem to have caught onto the continuing lies from the chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, one of the most senior Democrats. Besides the piece in the Weekly Standard and my original article, which was published on Salon.com, the topic was discussed on Fox News "Special Report with Brit Hume" on February 27 , on the Rush Limbaugh radio show on February 11 and by Chicago Sun-Times columnist Richard Novak on February 21.

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

Related links:
-Fritzkrieg! A Democratic senator lies about Enron to smear Bush (Ben Fritz, 2/13/02)

3/3/2002 09:58:27 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