By Ben Fritz and Brendan Nyhan
In the thick of partisan battle, pundits are always on the hunt for any evidence they can use to make a point, especially quotes from their opponents that can be used against them. To understand the fair meaning of a quote, however, context is everything. And in several cases recently, quotes have been taken far out of context by partisans seemingly more eager to score points than get their facts right.
Many critics of the Iraq war argued that the Bush administration justified the invasion of Iraq by falsely claiming it was an "imminent threat" (as we have pointed out, this analysis is not backed up by a full consideration of the White House’s arguments for war). The Center for American Progress, a new liberal think tank, revisited this debate yesterday with its "Daily Progress Report," an email sent out to subscribers. One of the pieces of evidence cited by CAP analysts David Sirota, Christy Harvey and Judd Legum was a quote from White House spokesman Scott McClellan. As CAP wrote, "But almost exactly a year ago, it was McClellan who said the reason NATO should go along with the Administration's Iraq war plan was because 'this is about imminent threat.'"
This is not at all what McClellan was saying. In fact, he was saying that NATO member nations should invoke the organization's charter to defend Turkey in case it was threatened during the Iraq war, as the context of his quote demonstrates:
QUESTION: What about NATO's role? Belgium now says it will veto any attempt to provide help to Turkey to defend itself. Is this something the administration can live with, or is it a major obstacle?
MR. McCLELLAN: Two points. We support the request under Article IV of Turkey. And I think it's important to note that the request from a country under Article IV that faces an imminent threat goes to the very core of the NATO alliance and its purpose.
QUESTION: What can you do about this veto threat?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, again, I think what's important to remind NATO members, remind the international community is that this type of request under Article IV goes to the core of the NATO alliance.
QUESTION: Is this some kind of ultimate test of the alliance?
MR. McCLELLAN: This is about an imminent threat.
Similarly, an editorial in yesterday's Wall Street Journal (free registration required) misrepresented a quote from a memo sent to Senator Dick Durbin, D-IL, about strategy on judicial nominations. "As one memo to Illinois Senator Dick Durbin put it," the Journal wrote, "Miguel Estrada had to be defeated because 'he is Latino.'"
As we have noted before, however, the memo did not say Estrada, a since-withdrawn nominee to the US Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, "had to be defeated" because he is Latino. In context, that phrase reads, "[Liberal interest groups] also identified Miguel Estrada (D.C. Circuit) as especially dangerous, because he has a minimal paper trail, he is Latino, and the White House seems to be grooming him for a Supreme Court appointment." Some may be offended by the inclusion of Estrada's ethnicity in the reasons that he is "especially dangerous." However, it is not clear Estrada's ethnicity was being cited as a reason to oppose his nomination, as the Journal's highly selective quotation implies -- Durbin's spokesperson claimed the list of reasons was "a list of what the groups saw as dangerous positives."
And in an e-mail to supporters yesterday, Mary Beth Cahill, the campaign manager for Senator John Kerry, D-MA, a leading candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, denounced a recent speech by Republican National Committee Chairman Ed Gillespie, saying he "made another desperate attack on the patriotism of John Kerry. The Republicans have used the same Lee Atwater/Karl Rove attack plan book for decades, and today marks just the beginning of their plan to smear John Kerry."
This is an extension of Kerry’s strategy of anticipating and denouncing imagined attacks on his patriotism before they happen. As Fred Barnes pointed out in the Weekly Standard, Kerry said in a speech at the Council on Foreign Relations criticizing Bush's foreign policy that "I know what the Bush apologists will say to this – that it is unpatriotic to question, to criticize, and to call for change. They are already broadcasting television ads which say just that. But I believe that flag does not belong to any President or any political party."
Cahill's accusation goes even further, construing legitimate criticism of Kerry’s positions on national defense as an attack on his patriotism. In fact, Gillespie's speech does not impugn Kerry’s patriotism in any way. Introducing a list of positions in Kerry’s record that he disagrees with, Gillespie simply said, "John Kerry’s record of service in our military is honorable. But his long record in the Senate is one of advocating policies that would weaken our national security."
It's not only political opponents whose words are being distorted. Robert Novak, a conservative syndicated columnist, misrepresented a statement by President Bush in a column last week, writing that Senator Hillary Clinton, D-NY, was "on her best behavior" during Bush’s State of the Union address, but "[s]he retrogressed into eye rolling and head shaking, however, when the president claimed 'dozens of weapons of mass destruction' had been 'identified' in Iraq."
But Bush did not claim that weapons of mass destruction had been identified – he actually said 'the Kay Report [issued by former Iraq Survey Group director David Kay] identified dozens of weapons of mass destruction-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations" (emphasis ours). "Weapons of mass destruction-related program activities" are not "weapons of mass destruction." Indeed, the White House has recently backed away from the claim that weapons of mass destruction will eventually be found in Iraq.
Quotation is a powerful political tool. But as with all power, those who wield it must do so responsibly, which means representing opponents’ statements fairly and in context.
By Ben Fritz, Bryan Keefer and Brendan Nyhan
Published in the Philadelphia Inquirer
[From the editors:With the publication of this piece, Spinsanity is proud to announce a new affiliation with the Philadelphia Inquirer, one of the nation's largest and most respected newspapers. Each Thursday through the end of this year, the Inquirer will run a column on its commentary page by the editors of Spinsanity. These columns will include original analysis and some original evidence, but readers may recognize some content that was previously published here. We will link to our Inquirer articles as soon as they become available and post them in full when they move into the Inquirer's paid archive. And of course, we will continue to publish timely original content here on the Spinsanity website.]
Column summary: In recent weeks, debate about anger on the left has centered on two incidents: the now-infamous post-Iowa speech of Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean and ads posted on MoveOn.org comparing President Bush to Adolf Hitler. A focus on these incidents obscures a more important recent development for those concerned about the state of American political debate - the increasing amount of vitriolic rhetoric directed at the Bush administration from the Democratic presidential candidates. (Read the whole article here.)
By Bryan Keefer and Ben Fritz
During the debate between Democratic primary candidates last week, Gov. Howard Dean stated that President Bush "cut 84,000 kids off Pell Grants in order to pay for the tax cuts for people like Ken Lay." Yet Dean's contention is doubly flawed; the 84,000 figure was an estimate of future changes in eligibility, not an actual cut, and the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts were at most only indirectly responsible for the potential cuts.
Dean has made similar allegations on a number of occasions, including a December 18 appearance in Conway, New Hampshire; a November 13 press release stating that "To pay for his reckless tax cuts, President Bush's administration had to cut Pell Grant funding for 84,000 students"; and a teleconference the same day suggesting that Bush was "cutting 84,000 people off Pell Grants in order to finance his tax cuts for big corporations."
The controversy stems from a decision last year by the Department of Education to update the state tax information it uses to determine eligibility for Pell Grants. The Department, though required by a 1992 law to annually update its information about state tax rates, had not previously done so, instead relying on information from 1988. Since state tax rates have generally declined since then, current data would make fewer students eligible for the grants. A Congressional Research Service study suggested that if the new state tax data were used, 84,000 students eligible for the program would potentially lose their eligibility if the changes went into effect in 2004-2005. The program changes were never implemented, however, and the federal appropriations bill currently awaiting the President's signature blocks the changes from going into effect.
Dean has every right to object to this proposed change, but his phrasing suggests that the cuts have already been made, when they were never actually implemented. In addition, while he may speculate that administration decided to conduct the legally required analysis (which would have saved roughly $270 million) at this particular time to offset some of the revenue loss from the Bush tax cut, this is merely a supposition and not the direct cause/effect relationship he suggests.
Dean's statements turned a hypothetical study of a regulation that never went into effect into a definitive statement of fact. No student was "kicked off" of the Pell Grant program because of the Department of Education decision. With the 2004 budget having resolved the issue for the moment, let's hope this myth is laid to rest.
A case study in the use of language as a political weapon
By Brendan Nyhan
Since Sept. 2003, the Republican Party has been attacking Democratic presidential candidates for "political hate speech," the latest in a long line of catchphrases such as "political correctness," "media bias" and "class warfare" popularized in recent years by pundits and political operatives. As these terms - which draw on a set of associated stereotypes - gain wider use, they are often used in an increasingly vague and logically nonsensical manner. In this way, "political hate speech" and other bits of political jargon are used to trigger an emotional reaction without making an argument as to why the term applies to a specific case. (Read the whole column.)