Blogger defenses of "trifecta" don't make the cut (6/20)

By Brendan Nyhan

Blogger Ben Domenech claims to have proof that President Bush said he would run deficits in times of war during a debate with other candidates for the Republican nomination, but it's not true -- and even if it was, it doesn't negate the "trifecta" lie Bush has been pushing. Blogger Bill Quick highlights Bush telling Paula Zahn he might run a deficit during a recession, but again it's not close to sufficient.

First, Domenech. Here's his key quotation:

"If I ever commit troops, I'm going to do so with one thing in mind, and that's to win," Bush said.

"And spend what it takes? Even if it means deficits?" asked the moderator, NBC's Tim Russert.

"Absolutely," Bush replied, "if we go to war." (AP, from Boston Globe)

But if you read the full transcript of the debate, you'll see that Russert never asks "Even if it means deficits?" (Jason McCullough beat me to this point.) If you want verification, watch the C-SPAN video or read the Boston Globe account. This question is absolutely fictitious. There is no match for Bush AND Russert AND "even if it means deficits" in the entire Nexis database, and I can't find the AP article in question in a Westlaw search for Bush AND "even if it means deficits" either (though Domenech claims it came from Westlaw).

And on top of all that, Domenech dismisses the fact that no one can find evidence of the Chicago campaign statement. But Bush has said at least seven times that he made this statement in Chicago (October 3, March 27, March 28, April 30, May 14, May 20 and June 14). Any partially exculpatory statements made at other times (if they exist) do not get the President off the hook, and the vague memories that Domenech cites do not count as evidence. If Bush said this, why hasn't the White House produced evidence of it despite repeated requests?

Moreover, contrary to Domenech's claim that "the comments were hardly worth reporting," Bush himself has stated quite clearly that they were. Here's what he said on April 26, for example, about how he "told the American people" of these exceptions:

I remind -- I want to remind you what I told the American people, that if I'm the President -- when I was campaigning, if I were to become the President, we would have deficits only in the case of war, a recession or a national emergency.

As for Quick, he features this quote from Bush during a September 22, 2000 interview with Paula Zahn:

Well, first, I don't anticipate the economy turning south. As a matter of fact, that's one of the reasons people ought to elect me, is to—is because I got a plan to keep the economy from turning south.

Secondly, if the economy turns south, that's a reason to accelerate the tax cut. See, I come from the school of thought that during a recession, it's important to give people more money back faster. Now, that may cause us to run a short-term deficit, but the fundamental question is: How do you cause the economy to grow?

Al Gore has said at one time that if the economy turns south, he would raise taxes, which would accelerate and deepen a recession, and that would be the absolute wrong public policy.

But Tim Russert has already dealt with the point -- in his question to Mitch Daniels on June 9, he said this:

Now, we have checked everywhere and we’ve even called the White House as to when the president said that when he was campaigning in Chicago, and it didn’t happen. The closest he came was he was asked, “Would you give up part of your tax cut in order to ensure a balanced budget?” And he said, “No.” But no one ever talked about a war, a recession and an emergency, the trifecta.

Again, here are the facts: there should be some record of Bush telling the American people about all three exceptions in Chicago. But there is not. Yet Domenech in a new post accuses me, Russert and The New Republic's Jon Chait, among others, of "standing on very thin factual ice". Nice try.

Update 6/20 3:40 PM EST: Domenech is pulling back: "I've listened to the online version of the NH debate now, and I don't hear the second part of Russert's question as printed in the AP article. Considering that most accounts of the debate don't include this part of the question either, I'm close to believing that the AP article I have is inaccurate. I've been taken in by faulty reporting before, but never by the AP. Either way, I'll post the article tonight."

Update 6/24 11:09 PM EST: Domenech hasn't produced the alleged AP article despite requests from me by email and via comments on his site. You can read me debating this issue in the comments on Domenech's original post, or in the comments below Quick's post.

Update 7/2 3:09 PM EST: Dana Milbank of the Washington Post has unraveled part of the mystery of the "trifecta". It turns out that Vice President Al Gore listed the exceptions in three 1998 speeches. When questioned about Gore's statement by the Post's Glenn Kessler, Bush economic advisor Lawrence Lindsay said the exceptions would apply to Bush as well. But there is still no evidence that Bush "told the American people" this during the campaign as he has claimed, either in Chicago or in general.

Also, I've been alerted that Domenech posted the alleged AP article (apparently slightly before the above update). I’ve found two AP articles that mirror parts of his in Nexis, but the key passage, including the fictitious question from Russert, does not appear in any articles in Nexis or Westlaw. Domenech has failed to respond to requests for a Westlaw search that can be duplicated proving its existence, and has not engaged in a serious effort to respond to many other questions raised by myself and others. Given the criticism he initially leveled at others based on this alleged source, this is irresponsible, especially from someone who writes professionally.

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

Related links:
-Losing the "trifecta" (Brendan Nyhan, 6/18/02)
-The mystery of the trifecta (Brendan Nyhan, 5/15/02)

6/20/2002 07:54:20 AM EST |

An obviously false Heritage media bias claim (6/19)

By Brendan Nyhan

The retailing of exaggerated or false liberal media bias claims is a full-time job for some these days. Of course, there's no question that conservatives are sometimes covered unfairly, but attacks on bias have been so successful politically that a cottage industry has grown up to promote them, often with a reckless disregard for the facts.

Nowhere is this more pronounced than the issue of selective labeling - whether conservatives and conservative groups are labeled as such more often than their liberal counterparts, as many on the right claim. (There are additional debates about whether distinctions should be made between different types of groups and when labels are appropriate to use, but we'll leave those aside.)

Proponents have generally done little empirical research to verify these anecdotal claims, many of which have not held up under scrutiny. Geoffrey Nunberg recently published an American Prospect article and web follow-up showing that liberals were generally labeled as such at least as often as conservatives in major newspapers. And Bernard Goldberg's primary example of selective labeling in his book Bias was debunked (and aggressively denounced) by Bob Somerby.

Despite this, a Heritage Foundation spokesperson pushed the labeling issue in a Washington Post item yesterday on media requests for information from a Heritage researcher:

The right-thinking think tank is working hard to win friends in the media, which Heritage thinks have tended to view it with suspicion if not outright hostility. "When [ABC "This Week" commentator George] Stephanopoulos credited us on the air, he called us the 'Heritage Foundation' -- the first time ABC has called us anything other than the 'conservative Heritage Foundation,'" said tank spokesman James Weidman.

While Weidman may have meant his comment to be sarcastic, it's still blatantly false. Just to take one example, on October 3, 2001, "Nightline" host Ted Koppel referred to a guest as "director of the Center for Legal and Judicial Studies of the Heritage Foundation". He did not call it the "conservative" Heritage Foundation.

If we take a closer look at ABC News transcripts in the Nexis database, we find that Heritage has been described as conservative by ABC reporters and commentators five times since January 1, 1993 -- three of these were generally neutral in tone, one was a reporter calling it one of several “highly conservative groups” using “scare tactics”, and one was conservative commentator Bill Kristol calling it “the most conservative, you know, prominent think tank in town”. Individual experts were also identified as conservatives three times.

But over that same period, reporters or commentators mentioned Heritage seven times without offering any clear partisan or ideological description (including the Koppel example above). And at least eight other times soundbites from Heritage experts were shown without them being labeled as conservatives. (An ambiguous case is a reporter showing a Heritage expert talking about the Republican Party.) Weidman's claim is obviously untrue.

None of this means that liberal media bias doesn't exist or that conservative politicians and groups are never labeled disproportionately. But in this case, it's clear that Heritage's pattern of PR-driven inaccuracy continues.

[Note: Weidman wrote a critical letter to Salon.com that was not published about my previous post on Heritage.]

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

Related links:
-Creaky foundation (Brendan Nyhan, 5/10/02)

6/19/2002 10:56:38 AM EST |

Bad facts in criticism of Bush OSU speech (6/18)

By Brendan Nyhan

Restrictions on protests during President Bush's commencement address at Ohio State University (OSU) Friday sparked widespread outrage on high-profile liberal Internet sites. But criticism of what happened has been plagued by inaccuracy and a reliance on incorrect and sketchy reports.

The original furor was sparked by this AP story filed Friday morning:

Bush was invited to speak at the Ohio State commencement by representatives of the graduating class. But immediately before class members filed into the giant football stadium, an announcer instructed the crowd that all the university's speakers deserve to be treated with respect and that anyone demonstrating or heckling would be subject to expulsion and arrest. The announcer urged that Bush be greeted with a "thunderous" ovation.

Buzzflash and Media Whores Online (MWO) sprang to life in the afternoon and over the weekend, denouncing Bush based on the AP report and an alleged first-hand account by an anonymous poster on the Democratic Underground website. Buzzflash claimed a "whiff of fascism" and wrote "[c]all him Francisco Franco Bush", while MWO dissembled about what took place:

As predicted by MWO, the Media Whores have said nothing about the arrests, official threats, and other crack-downs on free speech at Ohio State University during George W. Bush's commencement address... The Columbus Dispatch, as well as Josh Marshall and MWO, have reported on the official threats and on the arrests of those who tried peacefully -- indeed, silently -- to protest Bush's appearance at the O.S.U. commencement.

In fact, no protestors were arrested, according to the Dispatch (note: registration required to view story). "The only arrest was of a 42-year- old Marion man who, OSU police said, refused to put out his cigarette in the stadium, where smoking is prohibited."

Here are the accounts we have of what actually happened, which are still sketchy and conflicting. The Lantern, OSU's student newspaper, reported that only three graduates and six audience members turned their back on Bush (note: registration required to view story). The Turn Your Back on Bush website has pictures of protests and interviews with three protestors who were inside the stadium -- two who say they were not challenged by police and the Democratic Underground poster who claims he was escorted out of the stadium. And Amy Murray, a university spokeswoman, told me that no one was removed from the stadium. She said that two students and four to six other protestors were asked not to obstruct the view of others and in response stepped into the aisle while continuing to keep their backs to the President until he was done speaking.

In addition, we now know that the original AP report was incorrect - a later version of the story corrected the description of the announcer asking for "thunderous" applause, which was actually requested for university President William Kirwan, not Bush.

This correction has not been acknowledged by Buzzflash, MWO or even the left-liberal media critics at Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, who quoted the original, incorrect report in their critique of the Washington Post's coverage of the speech yesterday.

People have every right to oppose OSU's policies toward protests at commencement, of course. But they have an obligation to get their facts straight.

Update 6/18 2:16 PM EST: Just to be totally clear, I want to explicitly note that the AP report quoted above accurately described the warning issued at the start of the event (a similar warning was given at a graduation rehearsal) -- hence my references to "[r]estrictions on protests" and "OSU's policies toward protests at commencement".

Update 6/19 6:47 PM EST: Media Whores Online says that the alleged removal of the anonymous poster constitutes an arrest. Since I'm not a lawyer and we don't know what happened (if anything), I'll reserve judgment on this issue. But my description of them as having "dissembled" stands -- they asserted twice that there were "arrests" of protestors, citing three sources that absolutely did not support such an assertion. And my statement that "no protestors were arrested" also stands until I'm convinced that someone was actually removed from the stadium and that this removal constituted an arrest.

Update 6/20 11:23 AM EST: MWO has gone down the road of rhetorical misdirection in a new post that totally fails to refute my previous update above. They write that "MWO did in fact report on both arrests and threats". Not true. The reality is that they originally wrote about one alleged arrest under their own definition, as I wrote above -- but they have inflated that report into the plural twice, the first time apparently for effect and now to try to defend themselves against my criticism.

They also offer a strange interpretation of my statement above that they "[cited] three sources that absolutely did not support" their claim of "arrests":

It's possible Spinsanity read MWO's comment to mean that each one of these sources mentioned [Josh Marshall, the Columbus Dispatch and MWO] commented on both issues [threats and arrests].  An honest misreading of our intended meaning, although we would have hoped they'd have made a better effort toward ensuring there was no such miscommunication.

Of course, I know what the sources wrote and that is obviously not how I read their comment. My point is that none of the sources support the claim of "arrests", as I've been arguing since the beginning.

Update 6/21 12:45 PM: Sorry to post yet another update, but I should have noted earlier that FAIR issued a correction in an email to their list after this post went up Tuesday. They also corrected the online version of the action alert.

Update 6/25 8:36 PM: New York Times columnist Paul Krugman repeated the original, incorrect AP report in at least one edition of the Times today, writing that "students at Ohio State were threatened with explusion and arrest if they heckled him, and were instructed to offer 'thunderous' applause instead." Later editions, including the online version, omit the latter phrase, ending the sentence with "heckled him".

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

6/18/2002 05:12:31 AM EST |

Losing the "trifecta" (6/18)

The president tries to defend his deficit spending through a little campaign revisionism.
By Brendan Nyhan
[First published on Salon.com (Salon Premium subscription required)]

It takes a brazen politician to make up a story that can be proven false and then to keep lying about it after being busted repeatedly. A case in point is President Bush's repetition last week of a story about a fictitious Chicago campaign statement, just days after his budget director was called on it by "Meet the Press" host Tim Russert.

As the New Republic's Jonathan Chait first reported and Spinsanity, among others, also covered, Bush's claim that during a 2000 Chicago campaign stop he listed three exceptions under which he would run deficits -- war, national emergency or recession -- is blatantly false. No one has found any evidence that Bush made such a statement, and the White House has pointedly failed to provide any.

What makes this revisionist history so egregious is that Bush had actually promised that he would protect the Social Security surplus and not support deficit spending. But, as Chait recounts, when federal revenue projections declined in August 2001, Bush and his aides began listing exceptions the president had "always" supported that justified dipping into the Social Security surplus. Then, in October, Bush began using the mythical Chicago statement to defend himself against criticism of the overall budget deficits that seemed imminent.

In February, Bush submitted a budget to Congress that accepted deficit spending. And with the likelihood that red ink will persist until at least 2005, the president has honed the Chicago story into his rather unfortunate "trifecta" joke, which is designed to defuse the issue politically. Here's what he said in Iowa on June 7, for example:

"I remember -- I remember campaigning in Chicago, and one of the reporters said, Would you ever deficit spend? I said only -- only in times of war, in times of economic insecurity as a result of a recession, or in times of national emergency. Never did I dream we'd have a trifecta."

The White House Web site offers 12 other examples of Bush using the trifecta formulation going back to Feb. 27 of this year. It's clear Bush is not referring to some unrecorded private conversation with a reporter. He has described the statement as "what I told the American people ... when I was campaigning."

Questions about the story are growing. Last week, Russert confronted Bush budget chief Mitch Daniels, saying, "We have checked everywhere and we've even called the White House as to when the president said that when he was campaigning in Chicago, and it didn't happen." Daniels avoided the question, saying he's "not the White House librarian" and thus hasn't "made a personal search" himself, but that he's "heard the president say it privately and publicly, over and over, for a long time."

And yet Bush repeated it again during remarks at a White House technology forum Thursday:

"You know, we -- these are extraordinary times. I remember campaigning and somebody said, Would you ever deficit spend? I said, only if there was a war, or a recession, or a national emergency. I didn't think we were going to get the trifecta."

Then he repeated it yet again Friday at a fundraiser for Texas Gov. Rick Perry:

"You know, when I was one time campaigning in Chicago, a reporter said, Would you ever have a deficit? I said, I can't imagine it, but there would be one, if we had a war or a national emergency or a recession. Never did I dream we'd get the trifecta."

For now, Bush appears to think it is politically expedient to repeat this story to defend his budget plans. But the record doesn't lie -- and neither should the president.

Update 6/25 8:48 PM EST: This post was cited by Dana Milbank in a the Washington Post article on the "trifecta" today (middle of the story).

Update 7/2 3:49 PM EST: Milbank has unraveled part of the mystery of the "trifecta" in a followup piece. It turns out that Vice President Al Gore - not Bush - listed the exceptions in three 1998 speeches. When questioned about Gore's statement by the Post's Glenn Kessler, Bush economic advisor Lawrence Lindsay said the exceptions would apply to Bush as well. But there is still no evidence that Bush personally "told the American people" of his support for the exceptions during the campaign as he has claimed, either in Chicago or in general.

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

[This post was available exclusively to Salon Premium subscribers on Salon.com. If you're not already a subscriber, we hope you'll consider signing up through our affiliate link for immediate access to our newest work, as well as all the other good stuff on Salon Premium.]

6/17/2002 08:28:11 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