New GOP ad misconstrues criticism (11/21)

By Brendan Nyhan

In addition to its efforts to silence President Bush's critics by claiming they are engaging in "political hate speech", the Republican National Committee is now suggesting that they oppose fighting terrorism.

A new RNC ad that will begin running in Iowa next week features video of President Bush interspersed with on-screen text, including the claim that "Some are now attacking the president for attacking the terrorists."

This is political jargon intended to create a hazy, non-rational impression that Bush's critics oppose efforts to fight terrorism. It does so by confusing distinctions between critics and lumping together the Iraq war and efforts to fight Al Qaeda as "attacking the terrorists," a combination that is certainly open to debate. The reality, of course, is that nearly every mainstream American political figure, including all of the leading contenders for the Democratic presidential nomination, supported the war in Afghanistan to remove the Taliban regime, which harbored Al Qaeda. In addition, several of the leading Democratic presidential contenders actually supported the October resolution authorizing military action in Iraq, and almost all of them support efforts to fight the remnants of Saddam Hussein’s Baathist regime and the undetermined number of foreign terrorists who are attacking coalition forces in Iraq today.

But confusing these logical distinctions is, of course, the whole point. The increasing sophistication with which our political system twists language must surely be a cause for concern.

Update 11/22 12:50 AM: This post originally reversed the order of a statement by Bush and the on-screen text in the RNC ad. We regret the error. For clarity, the paragraph describing the ad has been edited to focus solely on the on-screen text, and a link has been added to a page on a Republican website featuring video of the ad and a transcript.

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

Related links:
-The Republican assault on "political hate speech" (Brendan Nyhan, 11/13/03)

11/21/2003 12:41:07 PM EST |

The ugly "Neanderthal" battle (11/19)

By Brendan Nyhan

The dispute over several of President Bush's federal judicial nominees, already tense in the wake of Senate Republicans' thirty-hour "Justice for Judges" event protesting Democratic filibusters against them, has escalated. As in previous debates over judicial nominations, the actual merits of the nominees have fallen by the wayside in a politically charged atmosphere filled with emotionally laden rhetoric and accusations of bigotry.

Last Friday, Senator Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., made this comment:

[W]hat has not ended is the resolution and the determination of the members of the United States Senate to continue to resist any Neanderthal that is nominated by this President of the United States for any court, federal court in the United States.

Without question, Kennedy's comment is unfair. He is trying to suggest that the ideological stances of Bush's nominees are so retrograde as to make them comparable to Neanderthals, which is a cheap shot by any definition. Kennedy simply privileges his own ideological views, while labeling those he opposes as primitive or outdated.

However, conservatives eager to take political advantage of Kennedy's comment have insinuated that it was directed specifically at those nominees who are women or racial and ethnic minorities, although there is no indication that this is the case. (To date, six of Bush's nominees have been filibustered - two white men, two white women, one African American woman and one Latino man [Miguel Estrada, whose nomination was later withdrawn].)

Introducing a segment on Fox News Channel's "Hannity & Colmes" on Friday, Sean Hannity played Kennedy's quote and then said: "An African-American woman, Janice Brown -- Janice Rogers Brown; Miguel Estrada; Priscilla Owens. If a Republican said that, Susan [Estrich, a Fox News political analyst], what would be the reaction in the country today from Democrats?" Edwin Meese, who served as Attorney General under President Reagan, said on MSNBC's "Scarborough Country" the same night, "I think we had a recent example there of Teddy Kennedy, for example, calling three ladies, including a black lady, Neanderthals." And on Monday, radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh added: "So I see that Ted Kennedy called a bunch of highly respected minorities Neanderthals."

Then, on Monday's "Scarborough Country," WABC radio host Curtis Sliwa said, "what about what Ted Kennedy said about the black candidates for higher judicial office?" and later claimed, "He called them Neanderthals. A white man says to a black woman, you're a Neanderthal." Scarborough added later in the show that "Ted Kennedy took to the floor and called minority women Neanderthals, not just on their positions, but said, these people are Neanderthals."

Finally, syndicated columnist Joseph Farah, founder of the WorldNetDaily website, claimed today that "Kennedy was referring to men and woman like Miguel Estrada, a Hispanic, Texas Supreme Court Justice Patricia Owen, a woman, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Carolyn Kuhl, a woman, and California Supreme Court Justice Janice Rogers Brown, a black woman," naming only women and minority nominees. He then suggested that "Kennedy is speaking in racist code language here. Could 'Neanderthal' be the new 'N' word he and his colleagues use to discuss minorities who are disloyal to their Democratic Party patrons and others who leave the 'progressive plantation'?"

This is an extension of the strategy various Republicans have employed of accusing Democrats of being, as the Washington Post reported, "anti-Catholic, anti-South and anti-Hispanic" for opposing various judicial nominations, reversing charges of bigotry and discrimination that have mostly been leveled by Democrats in the past. Recently, syndicated columnist Thomas Sowell picked up on this tactic, claiming a "lynch mob atmosphere" has "prevailed during confirmation hearings for judges." Senator Zell Miller, a Democrat from Georgia who has endorsed Bush's 2004 candidacy, then equated opposition to the nomination of California Supreme Court Justice Janice Rogers Brown, who is African American, to being "lynched" during a floor speech during the "Justice for Judges" session:

The Democrats in this chamber refuse to stand and let her do it. They're standing in the doorway, and they've got a sign: Conservative African-American women need not apply. And if you have the temerity to do so your reputation will be shattered and your dignity will be shredded. Gal, you will be lynched.

Kennedy's comments were clearly unreasonable. Yet the reaction to his comments has only fanned the flames. Opposing nominees who happen to be women and/or minorities does not in itself constitute proof of bigotry; nor is disagreement with a candidate's political views grounds for dismissing them with equally loaded charges. Such vitriolic attacks only confuse the issues at stake.

Update 11/20 6:00 PM EST: This post has been modified to better explain the connotations of Kennedy's use of the term "Neanderthal" in context.

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

Related links:
-Spinsanity on judicial nominations

11/19/2003 06:44:55 PM EST |

The $43 million myth persists (11/18)

By Bryan Keefer

Recent repetitions of the discredited claim that the United States gave $43 million in aid to the Taliban government of Afghanistan illustrate just how difficult it is to quash these sorts of myths once they become part of the media's collective memory.

The myth, spawned by Robert Scheer in May 2001 and widely repeated since, suggests that the United States gave $43 million in aid directly to the Taliban in 2001 as a reward for the government's ban on opium poppy cultivation. In fact, the $43 million was given to food aid and food security programs administered through non-governmental organizations and the United Nations to help relieve famine in Afghanistan. The myth was debunked at the time by Leftwatch.com and later by us. However, the Taliban's relevance after the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks sparked a surge of repetitions, which we and others have continued to debunk.

Despite these efforts, the story lives on. The most prominent recent repetition came from Fox News commentator Alan Colmes, co-host of "Hannity and Comes." In his new book Red, White and Liberal, Colmes states that "the Bush administration gave $43 million to the Taliban in May 2001 as a reward for its ban on growing opium poppies. Can you show me a conservative who has made this point? Meanwhile, Bill Clinton, who is still accused of doing nothing to fight terrorism, signed an executive order that froze $254 million in Taliban assets in the United States." [page 144]

A number of lower-profile repetitions also reveal how the myth survives as a part of public consciousness. Mostly recently, Glenn Scherer asked in a column on the liberal website Commondreams.org, "Why, Mr. President, did you give $43 million in foreign aid to the Taliban in Afghanistan less than six months before 9/11, when you knew they were the most virulent anti-American violators of human rights in the world, and also knew that they harbored the training camps of terrorist Osama bin Laden and the Al Qaeda?" The myth also popped up in a November 8 letter to the editor in the Sacramento Bee, a November 3 feature in Variety magazine (which suggested the aid made "the U.S. the largest supporter of Bin Laden's cause"), and a letter to the editor of the Philadelphia Daily News on September 22.

The continued repetition of this well-debunked myth illustrates how difficult it is to put a stop to these fictions once they make their way into the public record. Some commentators, most recently Michael Moore, have finally started getting their facts right. Others should do the same.

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

Related links:
-Stupid white lies (Ben Fritz, 3/25/03)
-Ted Rall's faulty questions (Ben Fritz, 8/14/02)
-The myth that won't die (Brendan Nyhan, 2/27/03)
-Scheer responds, but doesn't rebut (Ben Fritz, 10/10/01)
-Scheer Deception (Ben Fritz column, 10/8/01)
-The Taliban aid trope re-emerges (Brendan Nyhan, 9/17/01)
-Scheer propaganda (Brendan Nyhan, 6/12/01)

11/17/2003 09:23:20 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