Novak and Limbaugh repeat economic conspiracy myth (12/11)

By Ben Fritz

Robert Novak and Rush Limbaugh won't let their theory of a conspiracy hatched by the Clinton Commerce Department die -- even though it was discredited the first time they spread it.

In August, Novak charged in his column for the Chicago Sun Times that the Clinton administration intentionally hid bad economic news to make the economy look better and support Al Gore's election chances. "Hidden in the morass of statistics [released by the Commerce Department], there is proof that the Clinton administration grossly overestimated the strength of the economy leading up to the 2000 election," he said. "Did the federal government join Enron and WorldCom in cooking the books?"

Novak based this accusation on a revised estimate issued in July by the Commerce Department's Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) for corporate profits and economic growth in the past few years. The numbers showed that the profits were substantially lower than had been initially estimated. As we pointed out at the time, though, the early estimates were done via a transparent process described on the BEA website, making any manipulation virtually impossible.

Syndicated columnist Bruce Bartlett also slapped down Novak and the several pundits who followed his lead in making this accusation, including Rush Limbaugh, Martin Hutchinson, and the Washington Times, for their error. Some of them didn't get the message, though. On last night's edition of CNN's "Crossfire", co-host Novak repeated the charge. "You know, Paul [Begala, co-host], the recession really started during the Clinton administration," he stated. "The Commerce Department cooked the books to disguise it."

Limbaugh also repeated the falsehood in the November issue of his magazine "The Limbaugh Letter" and even did Novak one better, misstating the figure he's distorting, calling it "profit the government took in" (an economic concept that doesn't exist) instead of corporate profits:

Besides, now we know that much of the hype about the Clinton years was a sham, especially at the end ... Revised numbers this August from the Commerce Department Bureau of Economic Analysis showed that Clinton-Gore exaggerated the profit the government took in by almost one third. Far be it from me, ladies and gentlemen, to suggest that the purpose of this deception was to help Gore hold the White House.

Rather than attempting to turn a normal government data revision into a conspiracy to fool the public, Novak and Limbaugh need to revise their story and start telling the truth.

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

12/10/2002 09:31:47 PM EST |

Barnes answers "myths" with distortions (12/10)

By Bryan Keefer

In an article published Monday in the Weekly Standard, Fred Barnes repeats two discredited political fictions even as he claims to be debunking "Democratic myths."

"Myth one," according to Barnes, "is the abuse of Daschle." "How was he abused?", he asks, referencing Daschle's comments about the conservative media. "[S]ince when did the term "obstructionist" become a trigger word, spawning violence? . . . Daschle wasn't abused or 'demonized.' He was called to account because so many House-passed measures piled up on his desk."

There's a good deal more to the attacks on Daschle than simple charges of obstructionism, however. Influential talk radio host Rush Limbaugh launched a number of aggressive broadsides during Daschle's tenure as Senate Majority Leader, including explicitly comparing him to Satan. Limbaugh has also suggested that Daschle's criticism of the conduct of the war on terror means that "[i]n essence, Daschle has chosen to align himself with the axis of evil." Most recently, Limbaugh accused Daschle of "an attempt to sabotage the war on terrorism for [his] own personal and [his] party's political gain," suggesting that Daschle's nickname could be "Hanoi Tom" or "Tokyo Tom". While Limbaugh has been the most vocal commentator in this vein, Daschle has also been subject to attacks from a number of others, including incoming Republican House Majority Leader Tom DeLay's suggestion that Daschle and Democrats "will do anything, spend all the time and resources they can, to avoid confronting evil." Barnes is simply wrong to claim that Daschle was not "abused or 'demonized.'"

Barnes also misfires when he suggests that Democratic claims that Georgia Senator Max Cleland lost because his opponent Saxby Chambliss questioned his patriotism constitute another myth. Barnes writes, "In one TV ad, [Chambliss's] campaign said of Cleland: 'He says he supports President Bush [in the war on terror] at every opportunity, but that's not the truth.' Chambliss cited Cleland's opposition to a homeland security bill co-sponsored by his Georgia colleague, Democratic Sen. Zell Miller. Meanwhile, the Veterans of Foreign Wars endorsed Chambliss. The Wall Street Journal asked, 'Was the VFW also questioning Mr. Cleland's patriotism?' No, and neither was Chambliss. But he did question Cleland's record."

What Barnes leaves out is that one of Chambliss's ads included video footage of Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, which played while a voice-over suggested, "As America faces terrorists and extremist dictators, Max Cleland runs television ads claiming he has the courage to lead. Max Cleland says he has the courage to lead. But the record proves Max Cleland is just misleading." The images were subsequently deleted from the ad. Chambliss also issued a press release accusing Cleland of "breaking his oath to protect and defend the Constitution" based on an obscure 1997 vote in favor of an amendment to the chemical weapons treaty. The amendment, which passed with bipartisan support, deleted a clause banning weapons inspectors from a number of countries from being part of inspection teams in Iraq. While it is impossible to say whether or not these attacks cost Cleland the election, they did imply questions about his patriotism and must be a part of any fair analysis.

Barnes should check the facts before claiming to debunk so-called myths. Instead, he ends up perpetuating several of his own.

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

Related links:
-Spinsanity on attacks on Tom Daschle
-Spinsanity on Rush Limbaugh

12/9/2002 08:40:33 PM EST |

Taliban comparisons continue (12/8)

By Bryan Keefer

Unable to resist the temptation to compare their political opposites to terrorists and the Taliban, pundits continue to use emotionally charged shorthand in an effort to unfairly discredit their foes.

Last Monday, William Rasberry drew such a comparison in a Washington Post column. After a vague, loaded suggestion that Attorney General Ashcroft's motivations are similar to the those of the Taliban, Raspberry invokes a famous quote referencing the Holocaust, suggesting that if John Aschroft and the religious right control the government they might come arrest "loony liberals", among others:

People for whom religion is the source of wisdom and truth, whose religious and civic lives are seamlessly connected, and who hold governmental authority must be greatly tempted to do what they can to place truth on the throne. . . .

But isn't that just the effort that was made by the Taliban? Doesn't that urge, or something like it, drive the religious zealotry that, ultimately, justifies much international terrorism? Aren't those right-thinking clerics in Nigeria who want to stone that allegedly adulterous woman to death (but who seem willing to look the other way with regard to her sexual partner) acting out of their sense of truth? . . .

Is it silly to fear that if religious-based political conservatism holds power for a few more years, we will have more crises, more erosions of civil liberties and a deadened sense of resistance? Will some latter-day Pastor Niemoller have to record that they came for the terrorists . . . the sympathizers . . . the loony liberals . . . while good people did nothing?" [ellipses in original]

Rasberry's use of rhetorical questions and slippery constructions such as "that urge, or something like it" to compare Ashcroft to the Taliban reveals how vague and poorly reasoned his comparison is. However, his allusion to Niemoller's famous quotation about the Holocaust is far worse, suggesting that Ashcroft is intent on arresting those who disagree with him politically and leveraging the emotional associations of Nazi Germany. This loaded attack is unfair in the extreme.

On the opposite side of the political spectrum, former Bush speechwriter David Frum suggested in the National Review Online on Monday that Massachusetts Senator and Presidential hopefully John "Kerry is running as a Wahhabi Democrat, demanding a return to ancient orthodoxies on everything from foreign policy (all he is saying is give peace a chance - again) to energy (the Incan empire ran on solar power - why can't America?)." To his credit, Frum retracted the comparison on Tuesday exactly because of its inflammatory nature: "[W]ith the accumulating evidence that our enemies in the war on terror are inspired by the teachings of Wahhabi Islam, "Wahhabi" has ceased to be an epithet to throw around lightly. The readers are right and I was wrong - and so for the sake of civility, I apologize to them and to the Senator."

Others, however, have been substantially less civil. On CNN's "Crossfire" last Tuesday, co-host Paul Begala echoed Rasberry's allusions to the Taliban and the religiously motivated stoning of a woman in Nigeria. Making reference to the Bush administration's response to comments by former policy advisor John DiIulio in "Esquire," he suggested that "It has been a year, of course, since Afghanistan was liberated, but Taliban justice lives on in the Bush White House." Begala concluded sarcastically that "Dilulio went on to say he's being treated well by his captors and he regrets speaking to the great Satan of Esquire. For their part, the Bush aides promised not to stone him."

Such attacks have become an omnipresent feature of the post-September 11 political landscape, even reaching into several recent political campaigns. It seems many are unable to look past the opportunity to take cheap shots using such viscerally charged language.

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

Related link:
-Spinsanity on Taliban labels and terrorist comparisons

12/8/2002 07:33:31 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