Brendan Nyhan

Washington Post reporter Susan Schmidt has been in the news lately for soft reporting on the Jack Abramoff scandal. So I thought it was worth mentioning my own run-in with Schmidt, who first became notorious for her slavish devotion to publishing spin from Ken Starr’s office during the Monica Lewinsky scandal, which leads the website Media Whores Online to nickname her “Steno Sue.”

Back in 2002, I wrote an American Prospect Online article on Schmidt’s attempts to get two of her critics fired for sending her angry emails:

Andrew Rentschler, an employee of a college in Pennsylvania, assailed Schmidt as having a “fanatical obsession with Clinton,” said her work is that “of someone who has sold their soul to the devil,” and asked if she was being blackmailed. An associate at a prominent New York City law firm wrote to Schmidt: “You sicken me. One last article filled with lies, distortions and blatant right-wing propaganda.”

You get the idea — the e-mails were, as the associate put it, “highly uncomplimentary,” even abusive. But they did not threaten Schmidt in any way. These are the kind of garden-variety angry e-mails people in the political media receive all the time.

But after suffering through increasingly harsh criticism of her coverage of Clinton, Schmidt apparently snapped after receiving the emails, as MWO first reported (the story was then picked up by Jason Cherkis in the Washington City Paper).

According to both Rentschler and the associate, Schmidt researched the domain names the e-mails were sent from and forwarded their e-mails to their employers. While both have avoided repercussions, they are furious about what they regard as unprofessional actions from a journalist.

…What’s Schmidt’s side of the story? What’s the Post’s policy on this? I can’t tell you. When contacted by phone, an upset-sounding Schmidt said “I don’t have anything to say” and then “I’m sorry, I gotta go” before hanging up on me. Calls to Managing Editor Stephen Coll and National Editor Liz Spayd went unreturned, and the assistant to ombudsmen Michael Getler said he had been out of the country and couldn’t comment. Spayd, however, told Cherkis that Schmidt has been attacked by a “coordinated campaign” and that “[a]t some point, it can get annoying.”

A followup article explored the issue in more detail:

There can no longer be any doubt that Schmidt did send the e-mails in question. After a phone conversation with Getler in which he refused to confirm or deny the allegations, I received an e-mail stating the following:

As I said, The Post views this as an internal matter and is dealing with it that way. I deal with news issues involving material the Post has published. My understanding is that Ms. Schmidt did respond to two e-mails there [sic] were written on the electronic equivalent of letterhead stationery. I’m told that the Post has no formal or written policy on this, and my guess is that it had not come up before. I’m told that Ms. Schmidt has been told that she should not have contacted the e-mailer’s employers, and should not do it again, even though there was understanding of her feelings and her desire to let their employers know they were using the names of those organizations to attack her.

In addition, the supervisor of Andrew Rentschler, one of the readers, also confirms that she received an e-mail from Schmidt.

As I argued previously, while it may have been inappropriate for Rentschler and the other MWO reader (an associate at a prominent New York law firm) to send political email from their work accounts, Schmidt’s response is unsettling. Vitriolic email from readers is part of the job in the modern media age. Her first responsibility as a reporter is to basic principles of journalism such as serving readers and promoting open debate on issues before the public — not intimidating her critics into silence.

Moreover, the justification that Getler presents is misleading. What the ombudsman calls the “electronic equivalent of letterhead stationery” used by the two readers — Rentschler and the associate — was merely their work e-mail signatures, which were appended to the end of their e-mails. There is nothing about either reader’s signature to suggest that their views represent those of an institution.

Post Managing Editor Stephen Coll and Executive Editor Leonard Downie Jr. have failed to return phone calls and e-mails seeking to discuss the way the paper has handled the story. And even Getler, the reader’s representative, refuses to recognize this incident as being under his purview.

There’s an emerging consensus among Matthew Yglesias, Chuck Schumer, Noam Scheiber, and Dan Gerstein (sub. required) on the lesson of the Alito defeat: namely, that it is nearly impossible for a party that does not control any of the branches of government to defeat Supreme Court nominees (particularly given the Democrats’ structural disadvantage in the Senate), and that the way to win victories in the judicial arena is to win elections.

This analysis is precisely right. And it’s especially relevant right now, when many Democrats are bemoaning their defeat, rather than focusing on encouraging future trends. The key lesson of Erickson, MacKuen and Stimson’s Macro Polity is that the “public mood” shifts in the opposite direction of the president. As a conservative president takes the country to the right, the public shifts back to the left, and vice versa. We’re already starting to see this process take place, as Republicans are starting to realize. In fact, Dick Morris writes in The Hill that “the data are becoming overwhelming that the nation is moving left and is likely to stay that way through at least the 2006 election — and, if President Bush doesn’t adjust, for a lot longer.”

Some may say that the courts can still impose their will. But if the public shifts left and Democrats win elections, it will largely hamstring Alito and the Court. Recent political science scholarship shows that the Court is highly responsive to Congress and the President (JSTOR sub. required) and public opinion (PDF). Alito and Roberts may still do damage around the margins, but they are far less likely to engage in major reversals of precedent in a liberal political climate.

The latest attack on dissent comes from a Wall Street Journal editorial on January 7, which casually suggests that opponents of warrantless wiretaps want to help Al Qaeda. Its subtitle: “Bush critics seek war-powers loopholes to benefit terrorists.”

The text of the editorial includes a similar suggestion:

No one would suggest the President must get a warrant to listen to terrorist communications on the battlefield in Iraq or Afghanistan. But what the critics are really insisting on here is that the President get a warrant the minute a terrorist communicates with an associate who may be inside in the U.S. That’s a loophole only a terrorist could love.

According to the WSJ, “only a terrorist could love” the position taken by the President’s opponents. This is unbelievably nasty stuff.

I’m continually stunned at how routine the smearing of dissent has become in our political debate. Most of the items I post on this subject are never mentioned anywhere else. Have we lost our capacity for outrage?

Update 1/17: Jon Henke has posted a trenchant comment on the very real phenomenon of “outrage inflation” that I want to highlight:

Have we lost our capacity for outrage?

No. There’s just too much to get to. It’s like sweeping the floor in a dirt hut. We’ll never get to the bottom.

I think it probably doesn’t help that, for the past few decades — and especially with the rise of the Permanent Campaign — outrage has become Standard Operating Procedure. When critics — from every side — are outraged at everything in sight, it becomes difficult to discern the outrageous from political differences.

There’s been outrage inflation; a decline in the buying power of outrage.

That is, I think, ultimately destructive to everybody involved.

Via Atrios, Harry Reid has gone overboard in a Houston Chronicle op-ed, comparing the Abramoff/DeLay corruption scandal to organized crime:

In 1977, I was appointed chairman of the Nevada Gaming Commission. It was a difficult time for the gaming industry and Las Vegas, which were being overrun by organized crime. To that point in my life, I had served in the Nevada Assembly and even as lieutenant governor, but nothing prepared me for my fight with the mob.

Over the next few years, there would be threats on my life, bribes, FBI stings and even a car bomb placed in my family’s station wagon. It was a terrifying experience, but at the end of the day, we cleaned up Las Vegas and ushered in a new era of responsibility.

My term on the gaming commission came to an end in 1981, and when it did, I thought I had seen such corruption for the last time. Unfortunately, that has not been the case. It is not quite the mafia of Las Vegas in the 1970s, but what is happening today in Washington is every bit as corrupt and the consequences for our country have been severe.

Our nation’s capital has been overrun by organized crime — Tom DeLay-style.

The gangsters are the lobbyists, cronies and lawmakers who have banded together and abused their power to serve their own self-interest. The casinos are the Capitol, which has had its doors thrown open for special interests to waltz in and help themselves, and the victims, of course, are the American people.
There is a price to pay for the culture of corruption, and we can see it in the state of our union.

Yes, the alleged corruption is awful, and must be rooted out. But there is as yet no evidence that the alleged crimes compare to those of the Mafia in scope or magnitude. (An obvious example: no one has tried to murder Reid.) The goal of the minority leader’s guilt-by-association is to embarass DeLay in his hometown paper.

Update 1/17: Via Josh Marshall, Reid used the mob metaphor again today:

The idea of Republicans reforming themselves is like asking John Gotti to clean up organized crime. I thought I’d seen the last of corruption when I helped clean up Las Vegas thirty years ago. But, while its not quite the mafia of Las Vegas in the 1970s, what is happening today in Washington is every bit as corrupt and the consequences for our country have been just as severe.

[Disclosure: I worked for Ed Bernstein’s 2000 US Senate campaign in Nevada.]

After making the groundless suggestion that Al Gore would attack the Bush “police state” during his speech in Washington, DC today, Matt Drudge is now running the prepared text of Gore’s speech, which does not include the phrase “police state.” Unsurprisingly, Drudge fails to note the discrepancy.

Update 1/16: Thanks to Jon Henke for pointing out in comments that I attributed a quote to Drudge that Joe Conason and others have apparently taken out of context. The post has been corrected; apologies for the error.

The Washington Times’ Inside the Beltway column (free registration required) touts PoliticalDerby.com’s subjective power rankings of the 2008 presidential contenders. Notably, the site ranks George Allen #1 among Republicans based in large part on Ed Gillespie’s support:

News that uber political guru Ed Gillespie has joined Team Allen has given the Virginia senator a significant boost as the story carried well beyond just the Commonwealth. Chatter suggests that Ed is too savvy to align himself with someone so early unless he is supremely confident.

Similarly, Hotline editor and NationalJournal.com columnist Chuck Todd also singled out Allen as surging (subscription required):

2008 Republican Presidential Candidate Who Had The Best Year
George Allen
The guy’s still in single digits, but the Republican intelligentsia mentions his name more as a “co-front-runner” than any other Republican not named McCain or Giuliani.

Research by a group of political scientists at UCLA suggests that elite support is crucial in securing a party nomination. However, it’s interesting that the futures markets on Tradesports.com haven’t registered the Gillespie news — here’s the price history of the share for Allen winning the nomination, which corresponds to a 16 percent chance of victory:

Meanwhile, the John McCain shares seem overpriced given the obstacles he faces in winning the Republican nomination:

Charlie Cook, the campaign guru, writes on NationalJournal.com about a recent poll he conducted with RT Strategies on McCain’s prospects (subscription required):

[R]espondents were read the following question: “Some people say that McCain would be a good candidate for president because he has demonstrated a great deal of personal integrity%u2026 he has a strong military background and he has independent political views; while other people say McCain would not be a good candidate for president because at age 72 (his age in the fall of 2008) he is too old to run for president, he is too stubborn in his issue positions and he does not always represent Republican views on the issues.” … “Which of those two statements comes closer to your point of view on John McCain running for president in 2008?”

Among all adults, 48 percent were pro-McCain and 35 were anti-McCain. Among registered voters, 49 percent were pro-McCain and 34 percent were anti-McCain. But among Republicans, just 41 percent agreed more with the pro-McCain statements, while 45 percent favored the anti-McCain arguments. Among Democrats, it was 47 percent pro-McCain, 32 percent anti-McCain. Among independents, a whopping 55 percent agreed with the pro-McCain option and 29 percent agreed with the anti-McCain option.

Among the Republicans and independents who say they usually vote in GOP primaries, it was better for McCain — 48 percent agreed with the pro-McCain position, and 39 percent agreed with the anti-McCain position, though this may well overestimate the true participation rate of independents in party primaries and caucuses. Among hardcore Republican primary voters, he ran about even — 45 percent pro-McCain, 43 percent anti-McCain. In short, McCain has a real problem among Republican voters who seem, in [pollster Lance] Tarrance’s words, to be “ambivalent about whether he is a good Republican.”

So who’s right? It’s possible that the Tradesports.com shares aren’t reflecting available information very well since most people aren’t following the race and trading volume is relatively low. If the legality of trading in their markets were clearer here in the US, I’d be putting my money where my mouth is and buying Allen shares.

Interestingly, Cook and RT Strategies also asked respondents about Hillary Clinton, and the pattern was virtually the opposite from McCain:

Respondents were read the following statement: “Some people say Clinton would be a good candidate for president because she has White House experience in her husband’s administration, as the first woman president she would bring in new ideas and she is personally a strong and charismatic leader; while other people say Clinton would not be a good candidate for president because she is too tied to all the problems of her husband’s administration, she is too liberal to win a national election, she voted for the war in Iraq.”

Among all adults, 42 percent chose the pro-Clinton option and 52 percent the anti-Clinton option. The numbers were almost identical among registered voters, with 42 percent choosing the pro-Clinton option and 51 percent the anti-Clinton option.

But as with McCain, the real story is in the party breakouts. A huge 66 percent of Democrats agreed with the pro-Clinton statement, with just 29 percent opting for the anti-Clinton package. But among independents, just 41 percent of independents chose the pro-Clinton case, with 51 percent favoring the anti-Clinton arguments. Not surprisingly, among Republicans, 76 percent opted for the anti-Clinton arguments and 18 percent opted for the pro-Clinton.

Among Democrats and those independents who usually vote in Democratic primaries, 60 percent chose the pro-Clinton package and 34 percent chose the anti-Clinton arguments, while among the hardcore Democratic primary voters, it was 65 percent pro-Clinton, 28 percent anti-Clinton. In Tarrance’s eyes, Clinton has a “brand image problem.” The negative brand of being “too liberal” is an enormous albatross around her neck among independents and Republicans.

Thus, it makes sense that Hillary’s share price is still huge at approximately a 45 percent chance of winning (though Mark Warner is impressive at 20):

It’s going to be a fascinating year as the candidates position themselves for the pre-primary fundraising and name recognition sprint in 2007 — we’ll see how the insiders and prediction markets react.

Apparently, the dream will never die — here’s another email from an Andrew Sullivan reader pining for a third party (see the first here):

I’ve always voted for Democrats, but like you, I’ve grown distrustful of the current direction of the party. I’ll never be a Republican (the religious fundamentalists are anathema to me), but as your blog continually asks, I wonder/hope if there can’t be a third way in American politics? Not a Bill Clinton “Third Way,” but a true, grass roots, independent third party that combines some of the old-school conservatism of what used to be the GOP (fiscal sanity, foreign policy realism etc.) with the best of the Democratic party (inclusiveness, domestic competence, worker’s rights etc.). Or more simply: Fiscally conservative, socially liberal.

Sullivan adds:

My dream too. And my book is an attempt to make the case more systematically than a blog can.

Once again, this will not happen (for my many posts explaining why, click here). It’s a dream and nothing more. However, the threat of a third party, or of disenchanted moderates switching parties, can move the two major parties around. That’s Sullivan’s best hope.

Here’s a case study in the workings of the conservative echo chamber.

Today, Human Events Online published a story headlined “Al Gore to Attack Bush ‘Police State.’” By putting the phrase in quotes, Human Events suggests that Gore used it or is going to in his speech. However, the article itself, which quotes from a MoveOn.org press release, never documents Gore (or anyone else) using the term “police state.” (The term does not appear anywhere in the release.)

Nonetheless, Matt Drudge is currently running an angry-looking photo of Gore above the headline “Al Gore To Attack Bush ‘Police State’” (PDF of page):

The point of the tactic, of course, is to discredit Gore in advance by associating him with strident rhetoric — even if the former Vice President didn’t actually say it.

Update 1/14: Drudge demoted the Gore item at some point. He hasn’t changed the headline, but the photo is gone and the link now points to the MoveOn release rather than the Human Events story. Again, the phrase “police state” does not appear anywhere in the release, which makes the headline/link combination especially nonsensical.

Erwin Chemerinsky, the Duke law professor who I’m TAing for this semester, testified in the Alito hearings today — here’s the summary on the Washington Post’s nomination blog:

Erwin Chemerinsky, a professor at Duke University Law School, then addressed the impact on the Supreme Court of Alito replacing Sandra Day O’Connor, particularly on crucial questions of assertions of executive power.

He said he has carefully read Alito’s memos, speeches and decisions and “they all point in one direction . . . great deference to federal authority.” He cited Alito’s support, in the Solicitor General’s office, of absolute immunity for the attorney general in wiretap cases; his support, in speeches, of the “unitary executive” theory (under which presidential powers would be greatly expanded, he said).

“Over and again he comes down on the side of law enforcement,” Chemerinsky said. As have other critics, he highlighted Alito’s deference to law enforcement in the case involving the strip search of a 10-year-old girl.

Update 1/14: The New York Times published an excerpt from Chemerinsky’s testimony today (full transcript here), along with a bizarre angled picture of Chemerinsky’s image on a television:

I don’t usually make a big deal out of unflattering news photography (and I understand the point the photographer was trying to make), but that’s pretty wacky.

A Washington Post poll released Wednesday shows slightly more positive results than the AP poll I mentioned earlier:

11. Would you consider this wiretapping of telephone calls and e-mails without court approval as an acceptable or unacceptable way for the federal government to investigate terrorism? Do you feel that way strongly or somewhat?

           ------Acceptable------      ------Unacceptable------      No
NET  Strongly  Somewhat     NET  Somewhat  Strongly      opin.
1/8/06     51      35        15        47      14        33           2

For the sake of comparison, here are the AP results again (PDF):

Should the Bush administration be required to get a warrant from a judge before monitoring phone and
internet communications between American citizens in the United States and suspected terrorists, or should
the government be allowed to monitor such communications without a warrant?

Should be required to get
a warrant…………………………………… 56
Should be allowed to monitor
without a warrant……………………….. 42
Not sure………………………………….. 2

Given the more positive framing of the Post question, it’s not surprising that support for warrantless wiretaps increased. But the Post still didn’t come close to the results of the awful Rasmussen question I slammed before:

Should the National Security Agency be allowed to intercept telephone conversations between terrorism suspects in other countries and people living in the United States?

As I pointed out, the question does not mention warrants, which artificially pushed approval up to 64 percent — far higher than the Post or AP.