Brendan Nyhan

On Friday, George Allen got ambushed twice in Staunton, VA, where attention continued to focus on his offensive “macaca” comments.

First, a UVA law student asked him some harsh questions during a visit to the Greater Augusta Regional Chamber of Commerce:

A man who identified himself as a law student confronted U.S. Sen. George Allen here today, demanding to know if the potential presidential candidate had ever used the n-word.

Mike Stark, in his early to mid-20s, also asked Allen, R-Va., why he had a Confederate flag and a noose in his office. The News Virginian confirmed that Stark is a first-year law student at the University of Virginia.

An Allen aide asked Stark to leave, while a staff person at the Holiday Inn in Staunton also told him to leave the premises.

The man paid $20 to attend a luncheon hosted by the Augusta Regional Chamber of Commerce. The man stood with reporters waiting to interview Allen, then fired him questions.

“Is this an interview?” Allen asked. “I’ll be glad to talk to you afterwards.”

Allen aide David Nepp, stepped in and asked the man to leave.

“Are you with the hotel,” the man asked.

A hotel employee asked man to leave.

Allen did say before the man left that the Confederate flag was a gift to him. The Republican previously has said the noose represented his tough-on-crime stance and long has been removed from his office.

Note Allen’s excuse — the Confederate flag was a gift to him (a detail I’ve seen in no other published report). But as Ryan Lizza showed in The New Republic, “Allen has either displayed the flag–on himself, his car, inside his home–or expressed his enthusiastic approval of the emblem from approximately 1967 to 2000.” Whether that particular flag was a gift is irrelevant. Moreover, even if it was a gift, Allen hung the flag in question in his living room — an obvious endorsement.

After receiving the unwanted questions at the Chamber of Commerce, Allen failed to appear at a scheduled downtown meet-and-greet, disappointing protestors who were waiting to protest his “macaca” comments:

Media Matters provides a damning timeline of George Allen’s various excuses for his “macaca” comments:

Allen did not know what
“macaca” means, and his use of the term was really intended as a
play on the word “'mohawk,' a term that his campaign staff had
nicknamed Sidarth because of his haircut,” which Sidarth
characterizes as “a mullet — tight on top, long in the back.”
Allen said he “'would
never want to demean him [Sidarth] as an individual. I do apologize if
he's offended by that. That was no way the point.” [The Washington Post; 8/15/06]

From Allen's statement
provided to CNN: “[M]y comments at Breaks Interstate
Park on August 11th
have been greatly misunderstood by members of the media. I … made up
a nickname for the cameraman [Sidarth], which was in no way intended to be
racially derogatory. Any insinuations to the contrary are completely
false.” [National Journal's
The Hotline weblog; 8/15/06]

Allen was calling Sidarth a
“mash-up” of terms that amounted to “shit-head.”
“[T]wo Republicans who heard the word used” claimed
“macaca” was a combination of ” '[m]ohawk,' referring to
Sidarth's distinctive hair, and 'caca,' Spanish slang for
excrement, or 'shit.'
” [The Hotline; 8/16/06]

“For folks to think that
I would know what sorts of genus of monkeys are in Eastern
Asia — ascribe
a lot more intelligence to me than I actually have.” [ABC's Nightline; 8/16/06]

From an August 19 memo Allen
campaign manager Dick Wadhams sent to Republican leaders and
the Allen campaign leadership: “[T]he news media created what they
call a 'feeding frenzy' … [l]iterally putting words into
Senator Allen's mouth that he did not say (by speculating, defining and
attributing meanings and motives that simply are not true). … [T]he
Webb campaign and the news media seeming [sic] worked hand-in-hand to
create national news over something that did not warrant coverage in the
first place. … Will the Washington Post hold it's [sic] candidate
for the U.S. Senate [Webb] to the same standard?” [Democratic
Senatorial Campaign Committee;
8/19/06]

From Allen's August 22
appearance on ABC Radio Networks' The
Sean Hannity Show: “I take full responsibility. I'm not
offering any excuses because I said it [macaca], and no one else said it
… It's a mistake. I apologize, and from my heart, I'm very, very
sorry for it.” [The Washington Post; 8/24/06]

Allen “realized how much
he offended [Sidarth] from the comments [Sidarth] made in the
media,” telling Sidarth he
is “sorry he offended” him, and that his apology
was “from his heart.” [The Washington Post; 8/24/06]

From Wadhams' interview:
“It's great to have the president [Bush] in Virginia, raising
substantial amounts of money so we can fight off the scurrilous attacks by
our opponent [Webb] and his leftist allies. … I think the [August
19] memo [blaming the media for “putting words into Senator
Allen's mouth”] speaks for itself.” [The Washington
Post; 8/24/06]

“Allen said he made the
name up, then said he recalled that he had a niece nicknamed 'Maca
Maca.' ”
[Los
Angeles Times;
8/24/06]

I’m happy to announce that I’ll be guest-blogging at The Horse’s Mouth, the American Prospect media criticism blog run by Greg Sargent, from Monday until Election Day. During that period, my media criticism will appear over there at least twice per day, while the rest of my posts will continue to appear here. I’ll be linking here to my writing over there, but I hope you will all read THM directly — here’s the RSS link for those who are interested.

George Allen’s ugly “macaca” comments were publicized on August 14, and they’re still punishing him both in Virginia and across the country.

The main problem is that Allen is trying to have it both ways. As a Roanoke Times editorial points out, he is making repeated, grovelling apologies for his statements (which Dana Milbank mocks in today’s Washington Post), while his campaign manager issued a memo blaming the press for the controversy (“Never in modern times has a statewide officeholder and candidate been so vilified”). These contradictory messages seem to be inciting even more press coverage of the incident.

Meanwhile, national commentators are using the story to write exaggerated trend pieces about “Youtube politics”, further damaging Allen’s presidential prospects. President Bush did attend a fundraiser for Allen, but the reason his spokesperson provided for his attendance was weak and defensive:

“Senator Allen has made an apology,” said Dana Perino, a White House spokeswoman. “It is in all of our best interest who work in politics and work to improve the tone and the discourse that when apologies are offered they are accepted.”

Moreover, the fallout from the incident continues to tar both Allen and Bush. For instance, a widely distributed online article about Bush’s attendance at the fundraiser summarizes the “macaca” comment as a “racist remark.” (It is attributed to Internet Broadcasting Systems but based on an Associated Press story.)

In other news, Ryan Lizza, the author of two damning pieces about Allen’s past, has published a helpful compilation of the relevant tidbits from a book by Allen’s sister about their childhood, which she is now trying to disavow — here are the highlights:

We all obeyed George. If we didn’t, we knew he would kill us. Once, when Bruce refused to go to bed, George hurled him through a sliding glass door. Another time, when Gregory refused to go to bed, George tackled him and broke his collarbone. Another time, when I refused to go to bed, George dragged me up the stairs by my hair. George hoped someday to become a dentist. George said he saw dentistry as a perfect profession–getting paid to make people suffer. Instead, George became a lawyer and went into politics. (pages 21-22)

Ever since my brother George held me over the railing at Niagara Falls, I’ve had a fear of heights. (page 43)

My brother George welcomed him [Jennifer’s new boyfriend Flynn] by slamming a pool cue against his head. (page 178)

Finally, the best anecdote about the incident comes from the Washington Post, which describes the way that S.R. Sidarth, the UVA student who was the target of Allen’s comments, got admitted to a political science class on campaigns and elections

Back at school in Charlottesville now, Sidarth has taken his new, unwanted fame with him.

Larry J. Sabato, an oft-quoted political pundit who teaches a small, popular seminar on campaigns and elections, said he asked students to write an essay as part of the admission process. Eighty people applied for the course, including Sidarth. His essay was just three words long — but it was enough to clinch one of the 20 coveted spots in the class.

“I am Macaca,” he wrote.

The New York Times has written a 5,000+ word article reviewing the facts of Duke lacrosse case, including new evidence that has not previously been disclosed in the media. The reporters, Duff Wilson and Jonathan D. Glater, conclude that the prosecution’s case is not as weak as defense leaks have suggested. However, this conclusion depends crucially on the notes of a single police sergeant, which the defense is contesting:

By disclosing pieces of evidence favorable to the defendants, the defense has created an image of a case heading for the rocks. But an examination of the entire 1,850 pages of evidence gathered by the prosecution in the four months after the accusation yields a more ambiguous picture. It shows that while there are big weaknesses in Mr. Nifong’s case, there is also a body of evidence to support his decision to take the matter to a jury.

Crucial to that portrait of the case are Sergeant Gottlieb’s 33 pages of typed notes and 3 pages of handwritten notes, which have not previously been revealed. His file was delivered to the defense on July 17, making it the last of three batches of investigators’ notes, medical reports, statements and other evidence shared with the defense under North Carolina’s pretrial discovery rules.

In several important areas, the full files, reviewed by The New York Times, contain evidence stronger than that highlighted by the defense:

Defense lawyers have argued that the written medical reports do not support the charge of rape. But in addition to the nurse’s oral description of injuries consistent with the allegation, Sergeant Gottlieb writes that the accuser appeared to be in extreme pain when he interviewed her two and a half days after the incident, and that signs of bruises emerged then as well.

The defense has argued that the accuser gave many divergent versions of events that night, and she did in fact give differing accounts of who did what at the party. But the files show that aside from two brief early conversations with the police, she gave largely consistent accounts of being raped by three men in a bathroom.

As recounted in one investigator’s notes, one of the indicted players does not match the accuser’s initial physical descriptions of her attackers: she said all three were chubby or heavyset, but one is tall and skinny. In Sergeant Gottlieb’s version of the same conversation, however, her descriptions closely correspond to the defendants.

The sergeant’s notes are drawing intense scrutiny from defense lawyers both because they appear to strengthen Mr. Nifong’s case and because they were not turned over by the prosecution until after the defense had made much of the gaps in the earlier evidence.

Joseph B. Cheshire, a lawyer for David Evans, one of the defendants, called Sergeant Gottlieb’s report a “make-up document.” He said Sergeant Gottlieb had told defense lawyers that he took few handwritten notes, relying instead on his memory and other officers’ notes to write entries in his chronological report of the investigation.

Mr. Cheshire said the sergeant’s report was “transparently written to try to make up for holes in the prosecution’s case.” He added, “It smacks of almost desperation.”

Yes, this man blurbed our book (via Wonkette). What’s next — Jon Chait on Survivor?

In all seriousness, Tucker is a really nice guy and was a great friend to Spinsanity, but there must be a better way to get viewers on MSNBC…

Today’s New York Times does a wonderful job of summing up the priorities of our nation’s press corps.

We get a 500-word article correcting a trivial misstatement by President Bush that he “may be” the first president to fail to carry the state in which he was born (he isn’t).

Meanwhile, during the same press conference, Bush was finally confronted by a reporter at yesterday’s press conference for his latest attempt to link 9/11 and Iraq — a tactic he has used repeatedly over the last few years with little challenge from the press.

Here’s the key exchange, which begins with Bush justifying his decision to invade Iraq by vaguely referring to 9/11:

THE PRESIDENT: Now, look, part of the reason we went into Iraq was — the main reason we went into Iraq at the time was we thought he had weapons of mass destruction. It turns out he didn’t, but he had the capacity to make weapons of mass destruction. But I also talked about the human suffering in Iraq, and I also talked the need to advance a freedom agenda. And so my question — my answer to your question is, is that, imagine a world in which Saddam Hussein was there, stirring up even more trouble in a part of the world that had so much resentment and so much hatred that people came and killed 3,000 of our citizens.

You know, I’ve heard this theory about everything was just fine until we arrived, and kind of “we’re going to stir up the hornet’s nest” theory. It just doesn’t hold water, as far as I’m concerned. The terrorists attacked us and killed 3,000 of our citizens before we started the freedom agenda in the Middle East.

Q What did Iraq have to do with that?

THE PRESIDENT: What did Iraq have to do with what?

Q The attack on the World Trade Center?

THE PRESIDENT: Nothing, except for it’s part of — and nobody has ever suggested in this administration that Saddam Hussein ordered the attack. Iraq was a — the lesson of September the 11th is, take threats before they fully materialize, Ken. Nobody has ever suggested that the attacks of September the 11th were ordered by Iraq. I have suggested, however, that resentment and the lack of hope create the breeding grounds for terrorists who are willing to use suiciders to kill to achieve an objective.

But unlike the claim about Bush not carrying his state of birth, the incident is only briefly mentioned in the middle of a long Times story summarizing the news conference. Here is the full extent of the fact-checking of Bush’s claim:

When Mr. Bush referred to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on Monday in reference to a question about Iraq, a reporter pressed him, “What did Iraq have to do with that?”

“Nothing,” Mr. Bush responded somewhat testily, adding, “Nobody has ever suggested in this administration that Saddam Hussein ordered the attack.”

Leading up to the invasion in March 2003, Vice President Dick Cheney did call attention to the theory, since discredited, that one of the Sept. 11 hijackers might have met in Prague with an Iraqi intelligence officer.

There is far more to this story than Cheney’s pre-war efforts to promote the discredited Atta meeting in Prague, however.

Before the war, as we show in All the President’s Spin (pages 177-84), the administration also suggested that Al Qaeda operatives were living “within” Iraq when they were actually in Kurdish areas outside Saddam Hussein’s control and exaggerated intelligence evidence about connections between Al Qaeda and Saddam’s regime.

In addition, the Times ignores the administration’s post-war efforts to suggest ties between Al Qaeda and Iraq using vague rhetoric and tenuous evidence, which we also documented (pages 207-216). On May 1, 2003, for instance, Bush said that “The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11, 2001 — and still goes on.” Administration officials also continued to refer to terrorists who were in Kurdish areas outside Saddam’s control as being present in Iraq before the war and to promote the discredited Atta meeting in Prague.

When will the media get its priorities straight?

A new statewide poll in Virginia suggests that the controversy over George Allen’s “macaca” gaffe has devastated his poll numbers:

Senator George Allen leads his opponent Jim Webb by 48% to 45% in a News-7 poll conducted by SurveyUSA.

Since an identical SurveyUSA poll released June 28th, Allen has lost eight points and Webb has gained eight points. Allen’s lead has shrunk from 19 points to three points. Interviewing for this poll began Friday, one week after Allen singled out a Webb campaign worker at an Allen rally and referred to him as “Macaca.”

Allen has lost support across all demographic groups, but in particular, among younger voters, he has gone from Plus 23 to Minus 17, a swing of 40 points. In Southeastern VA, Allen has gone from a 2:1 lead to a tie, a 31-point swing.

Meanwhile, Brendan Miniter of the Wall Street Journal’s OpinionJournal.com writes the toughest commentary on Allen that I have seen from a conservative. After recounting Allen’s ugly racial history, Miniter writes:

These are not the actions of a politician who understands legitimate sensitivities over his state’s racial history–a history that includes slavery, Jim Crow and, more recently, resisting integration of its public schools in the late 1950s. Nor are they the actions of a politician who is working fastidiously to overcome this history. Indeed, as governor, when leadership on race issues required political courage, Mr. Allen was noticeably absent from the fight…

A legacy of the South’s long struggle with racism is that today its elected officials must take a stand on racially sensitive issues. What Mr. Allen is finding out is the same thing Trent Lott learned a few years ago: that Southern politicians who don’t appreciate the sensitivity of race issues may pay a political price.

The Los Angeles Times wrote an even more harsh editorial titled “The Un-American Senator”:

The best possible interpretation of Sen. George Allen’s twice pointing at an Indian American videographer at a campaign rally and sneeringly calling him “macaca” is that, in the words of Allen’s own spinmeisters, the Virginia Republican and putative 2008 presidential contender was just playfully combining the words “Mohawk” (to mischaracterize the cameraman’s haircut) and, well, “caca.” As an Allen staffer explained to the National Journal’s Hotline blog, he was “an annoyance.”

That’s the best spin, mind you. The worst — and more believable — is that “macaca” is an Americanized version of the similarly pronounced French racial slur “macaque,” which literally refers to a species of stub-tailed monkey, but is figuratively used to insult North Africans and other people with dark skin. It’s the French equivalent of “darkie,” making all decent people who hear it shudder. Allen’s mother is French, from the North African country of Tunisia. He speaks the language well.

Here’s what a smiling Allen said to his laughing supporters Aug. 11: “This fellow here, over here with the yellow shirt, macaca, or whatever his name is. He’s with my opponent. He’s following us around everywhere. And it’s just great…. Let’s give a welcome to macaca, here. Welcome to America and the real world of Virginia.” The object of Allen’s ridicule was in fact born in the United States, but the senator’s Confederate-tinted understanding of this country apparently has no room for people of color.

Allen grew up not in the “real world of Virginia,” but on the tony Palos Verdes Peninsula. There, despite his French mother and Midwestern father (who coached the Rams), Allen developed a curious affectation for what he imagined to be the mores of the South. He began a lifelong embrace of Confederate symbology — lapel pins, bumper stickers and, until recently, flags — while exhibiting some worrying behavior toward African Americans.

According to a damning May profile in the New Republic, Allen once spray-painted something like “Burn, Baby, Burn” on his own high school just before the mostly black Morningside High basketball team from Inglewood came to play Palos Verdes High. Since taking public office, Allen has decorated his workspace with a noose hanging from a tree, opposed dedicating a federal holiday to Martin Luther King Jr., and now employed a vile slur to attack a political opponent.

There is no room for that kind of racism in American politics. We’re not in the habit of telling Virginians how to vote, but an Allen defeat this November would send the right message to race-baiting politicians: Welcome to America. Now go home.

Will this controversy damage Allen’s prospects as much as it seems? Futures market prices on an Allen win in 2006 and a 2008 GOP presidential nomination have only dipped by a few points since the “macaca” incident:

Does anyone believe that the reason that Mary Matalin joined George Allen’s campaign is his “fluency in foreign affairs”? Time’s Mike Allen apparently does — he cited it as a fact in the Washington Post:

Allen embarrassed himself in January by replying “For what?” when a New York Times reporter asked his opinion of the nomination of Ben S. Bernanke, which had been announced three months before and was coming to a Senate vote. (Hint: His predecessor was Alan Greenspan.) Then again, Mary Matalin, a key Bush political adviser, was so impressed by Allen’s fluency in foreign affairs that she has signed on as treasurer of the George Allen Victory Committee, which will support his reelection campaign.

Why would we accept this? Matalin is a professional spinner. We have no idea why she joined the campaign even if she claimed Allen’s foreign affairs “fluency” was the reason.

This has nothing to do with politics, but Dateline Hollywood, the satirical entertainment news website co-edited by my friend Ben Fritz, has put up a very funny video of their fake film critic, Woody Wittman, interviewing the stars of “Snakes on a Plane” at its premiere: