The Pelosi barrage (11/16)

By Ben Fritz

The Democrats elected a new leader this week, choosing Nancy Pelosi, D-CA, as minority leader in the House of Representatives. In the world of pundits, of course, a new political figure means only one thing: a new round of fierce jargon attacks.

The attacks on Pelosi mirror those of the past two years on Senate majority leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D. As the country's most powerful Democrat, Daschle was the target of nasty attacks, with Rush Limbaugh even comparing him to Satan. Now, with Daschle’s importance diminishing as Republicans retake the Senate, these pundits are focusing their jargon on the newest Democratic leader.

As many observers have noted, pundits including Sean Hannity, David Broder and Thomas Sowell have been calling Pelosi a "San Francisco liberal," turning the phrase into vague jargon with allusions to radical left wing politics, the city's large and vocal gay community, and other issues where San Francisco is considered outside the mainstream. But that pales into comparison compared to some of the fiercest jargon used against her.

A number of the attacks came on the op-ed page of the conservative Washington Times. Donald Lambro described Pelosi as "genetically hostile to the business community’s agenda." And in a bizarre and particularly mean piece, Balint Vazsonyi attempted to associate Pelosi with dictators such as Hitler and Stalin based on the fact that she belongs to the progressive caucus of the House, whose membership list and statement of purpose was once listed on the website of the Democratic Socialists of America. "Exactly 40 years ago, the 'Manchurian Candidate' was a movie," he writes, referencing the film where American soldiers are brainwashed to become assassins by communists. "Could it be that Thursday it will become reality?"

Cal Thomas took his turn on the Times’ op-ed page to use Pelosi's election and the Republicans' election gains as justification for a lengthy barrage of jargon against Democrats:

The first victory, on Election Day, gave Republicans control of Congress and the White House for the first time in half a century. The second will come with the election of Mrs. Pelosi as minority leader. It will allow Republicans to again invoke the image of Democrats as the big-government, high-taxing, overregulating, entitlement-establishing, unaccountable, irresponsible, gun-confiscating, totalitarian-coddling, peace-at-any-price, American Civil Liberties Union card-carrying, same-sex-marrying, unrestricted-aborting, anything-goes philosophy of the Dukakis-Mondale-McGovern extreme left wing of their party.

Writing in the National Review Online, Hadley Arkes took Pelosi's opinion that the U.S. should not go to war in Iraq without U.N. approval as proof that, "Nancy Pelosi has apparently absorbed the notion that there are no objective truths on matters of moral judgment."

Like Vazsonyi, Rich Galen, former press secretary to Newt Gingrich and Dan Quayle, also drew a connection between Democrats and Communists in his influential e-mail newsletter, "Mullings." In the most recent edition, Galen notes that Pelosi’s election occurred one day after the Chinese Communist party elected a new leader. "So now not only have the Democrats chosen a leader who is three years OLDER than the new Chinese Community party chief," he wrote, "but one who is politically to the Communist’s left."

As happens all too often, the harshest attack came from radio host Rush Limbaugh, who yesterday compared Pelosi to Republican majority leader Tom DeLay, noting that they were both their party’s whip in the last Congress. After observing that DeLay’s nickname is "the hammer" for his ability to round up votes, he said, "They never called her the hammer. She had the same job DeLay did. She’s the hummer. Whatever she is. Now she’s the top dog. No, I can’t say that."

Nasty jargon attacks like these serve no purpose but to demonize without substance. The attacks on Daschle were some of the meanest in recent memory. Now conservative pundits have a new target and it looks like it may not be long until the anti-Pelosi jargon hits the same level.

Correction - 11/17: The original version of this post incorrectly stated that Hadley Arkes' article appeared in the Washington Times. It has been corrected to indicate it was in National Review Online.

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

Related links:
-Spinsanity's coverage of attacks on Tom Daschle

11/15/2002 09:09:39 PM EST |

Keillor smears Coleman (11/14)

By Brendan Nyhan

Garrison Keillor, a well-known writer and the host of Minnesota Public Radio's "Prairie Home Companion," is quickly making a habit of smearing Minnesota Senator-elect Norm Coleman.

First, he offered some nasty innuendo about Coleman's personal life on Salon (Premium subscription required):

St. Paul is a small town and anybody who hangs around the St. Paul Grill knows about Norm's habits. Everyone knows that his family situation is, shall we say, very interesting, but nobody bothered to ask about it, least of all the religious people in the Republican Party. They made their peace with hypocrisy long ago.

If Keillor believes that Coleman's personal life is a legitimate subject of public debate, he should offer evidence in place of suggestions and make a serious argument as to why such facts are relevant. Instead, he broadly alleges hypocrisy, offering flimsy references to "Norm's habits" and his "very interesting" family situation.

Then, in an even more vitriolic followup calling Coleman's alleged exploitation of Sept. 11 "evil", Keillor threw out more irresponsible insinuations (Premium subscription again required):

I personally don't believe he [Coleman] had anything to do with the crash of Paul's plane. Plenty of people suspect he did. I don't.

Again, Keillor is floating unsubstantiated allegations without taking responsiblity for doing so. There's absolutely no evidence that Wellstone was murdered, and to suggest that it's even plausible that Coleman was linked to the crash without evidence is beyond irresponsible. This rumor-mongering simply has no place in the public debate.

Correction - 11/20 2:37 PM: "Prairie Home Companion" is distributed by Public Radio International, not National Public Radio as this post originally stated.

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

11/14/2002 08:43:54 AM EST |

Liberal commentators refine post-election attacks (11/13)

By Bryan Keefer

While Democrats deal with the aftermath of last week's election and choose a new leader in the House, a number of liberal commentators have let loose a barrage of attacks on President Bush and his party featuring dire claims about what will happen when Republicans take control of Congress.

The attacks started immediately after last Tuesday's election. Writing in the American Prospect Online, Harold Meyerson claimed that "Only the filibuster now stands between the nation and the unchecked rule of the most rightwing, xenophobic and belligerent administration in the nation's history." In today's St. Paul Pioneer-Press Fran Sepler echoes this strategy, suggesting that the results of the midterm election mean that "America has, as a people, affirmed an administration that surpasses any in the past for its secrecy and brutality."

Both Meyerson's and Sepler's claims are intellectually flaccid historical speculation presented with no evidence. As written, they are so vague that they amount to no more than irrational emotional attacks. Meyerson's suggestion that the Bush administration is the most "xenophobic" in history is especially factually suspect; the Bush administration has done nothing that would equal such brutally restrictive pieces of immigration legislation such as the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1892. His suggestion that the Bush administration is the "most rightwing" in history is equally questionable, given that Bush embraces a vision of the federal government that is far more expansive than even the most liberal administrations of the 18th and 19th centuries.. The facts, of course, are not the point for Meyerson or Sepler, whose pieces are ad hominem attacks designed for their emotional appeals rather than their substance.

Bill Moyers made an equally outrageous claim about conservatives last week on his television show "NOW with Bill Moyers" and a syndicated print column. Moyers suggested that "[F]or the first time in the memory of anyone alive, the entire federal government - the Congress, the Executive, the Judiciary - is united behind a right-wing agenda for which George W. Bush believes he now has a mandate. . . . It includes using the taxing power to transfer wealth from working people to the rich." Moyers claim is absurd: even after last year's tax cut the federal tax system remains progressive, with the higher-income earners paying both higher dollar amounts and a higher percentage of their income than lower-income taxpayers - hardly a "transfer of wealth" from the poor to the rich.

Moyers continues by invoking the bogeyman of theocracy, claiming that "And if you like God in government, get ready for the Rapture. These folks don't even mind you referring to the GOP as the party of God. Why else would the new House Majority Leader say that the Almighty is using him to promote 'a Biblical worldview' in American politics?" Moyers's broad allegations about "these folks" and his rhetorical question framing it as the only explanation add up to nothing more than an inflammatory emotional appeal.

Finally, in today's San Francisco Chronicle, Maria Elena Martinez and Joshua Karliner claim that "Sitting at the apex of world power, George W. Bush and Dick Cheney form an axis of oil with the industry." While the term "axis of oil" has been used by protestors, Greenpeace, and Martinez and Karlinger themselves in an earlier version of their op-ed on the left wing website CorpWatch.org, this appears to be the first time it has surfaced in a major print publication. Playing on Bush's "axis of evil" slogan, the term is the latest nonsensical but catchy buzzword from the left to make its way into political discourse.

Taken together, these inflammatory, factually impaired attacks represent an especially vicious assault on Bush and Republicans. Commentators hoping to help the Democrats reassess their agenda should find a better way to do so than penning emotional and manipulative screeds against the opposition.

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

11/13/2002 06:18:05 PM EST |

Card revives the trifecta (11/12)

By Brendan Nyhan

Providing further evidence of the Bush administration's serial dissembling, White House chief of staff Andrew Card repeated President Bush's discredited "trifecta" claim Sunday -- months after Bush abandoned it under criticism.

Between October 2001 and June 2002, Bush claimed repeatedly to have publicly listed a set of exceptions under which budget deficits would be acceptable during a campaign stop in Chicago (the so-called "trifecta"), but there is no record of him ever making such a statement. It eventually emerged that Vice President Al Gore listed the exceptions, not Bush, although a Bush advisor did indicate that he would support them as well. As press interest in the matter grew, Bush abandoned the claim, reportedly at the request of his advisors. (See my column from last week for a summary or our archive of my articles on the matter for more details.)

When asked about budget deficits by Tim Russert on NBC's "Meet the Press" Sunday, Card tried to recycle the claim that Bush had previously listed the exceptions (as Bob Somerby first noted), apparently forgetting that Russert confronted White House budget chief Mitch Daniels about it back in June:

CARD: [Bush] said that if we were in a recession, if we were in a war, and we are in a war against terrorism, and if we had a national emergency, he would not be afraid to deficit spend.

RUSSERT: He never said that in the campaign.

CARD: We are deficit spending because we’ve had that trifecta of challenges to this country and the president has provided the right kind of leadership.

Credit Russert with cracking down immediately on the dissembling. Let's hope this is the last time the "trifecta" card is played.

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

Related links:
-Making Bush tell the truth (Brendan Nyhan, 11/8/02)
-Spinsanity on the "trifecta"

11/12/2002 10:08:27 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