Brendan Nyhan

During an interview with the New York Times Magazine, Senator Chuck Schumer is the latest person to repeat the meme that Hillary is more experienced than her chief Democratic rivals:

Q: Will you be supporting Obama for president?

A: I’m supporting Hillary. I’ve worked closer with Hillary and, on experience, I would have to give her the edge. I think she’s terrific. When you see her work up close, she is really smart, she asks the right questions and has a good sense of how to balance things.

But as I’ve written, it’s actually not clear that Hillary has more actual legislative or executive experience than her rivals — unless you count being First Lady as experience:

Clinton has no executive experience, no experience managing a large bureaucracy, and less experience as an elected representative than Obama. Just because she’s famous and has lots of experience in national politics doesn’t make her more qualified to be commander-in-chief than her rivals.

Power Line’s John Hinderaker has a post with the title “President Bush’s support holding steady” that cites a Rasmussen poll showing Bush’s approval at 42 percent. But if you look at the polls as a whole, as Charles Franklin does, it’s obvious that Bush’s support isn’t holding steady. In fact, his approval numbers have dropped substantially — Rasmussen is an outlier:

Jonathan Chait on how conservatives interpret failure, 6/13/06:

The liberal author Rick Perlstein once said of the right’s mindset, ‘Conservatism never fails. It is only failed.’ Bush has failed. Therefore, he cannot be a conservative.

Jeb Bush, 1/27/07:

It’s important for us to realize we lost, and there are significant reasons that happened, but it isn’t because conservatives were rejected. But it’s because we rejected the conservative philosophy in this country.

Bob Somerby has been an invaluable critic of misleading reporting and commentary at his Daily Howler website, particularly during the 1999-2000 smearing of Al Gore. But today’s post botches a couple of points about Hillary Clinton’s poll numbers.

First, Somerby calls Andrew Sullivan “an ardent dumb-ass” for saying Hillary’s polling numbers are “absolutely dead straight-line”:

But then, omigod! It semi-happened! Howard Fineman almost mentioned the relevant facts! And he did cite that latest Newsweek survey:

FINEMAN (continuing directly): In fairness to her, after, after the roll-out she had this week, the numbers in our poll—the Newsweek poll and others—were very positive, very powerful actually. Cooties notwithstanding.

In fact, Clinton led McCain by seven in the Newsweek poll back in early December, long before last week’s events. And Fineman didn’t say the thing it kills pundits to say; Fineman didn’t specifically say that Clinton was ahead of McCain and Giuliani in several major polls. Viewers were left to puzzle about what sort of polls had been so powerful. But at least he made a first small step toward interjecting some relevant information. Not that it made a bit of difference to one ardent dumb-ass:

SULLIVAN (continuing directly): If you look at her polling all these years, it is absolutely dead straight-line. People who don’t like her are not going to change their minds. And they’re about, over 40 percent.

But Clinton’s polling isn’t straight line—although, to be perfectly fair to Sullivan, he’s probably too clueless to know that.

Actually, Sullivan is making a perfectly accurate claim. The graphics produced by University of Wisconsin political scientist Charles Franklin, which both Sullivan and I linked, show remarkable stability in her favorable/unfavorable numbers. Her head-to-head trial heat polls against top Republican contenders are much more noisy, but that’s because the election isn’t for almost two years!

Somerby goes on to claim that Hillary “has been ahead of McCain for months”:

Where do Dem voters, including Iowa “party activists,” get the idea that Clinton can’t be elected? In part, from endless TV propaganda, and from reports like Balz’s. People who watched the Matthews Show heard a pundit aggressively say that Clinton’s polling has been “dead straight-line;” no one in the panel managed to say that she’s has been ahead of McCain for months. This is how a nation of voters gets the press corps’ preferred ideas in their heads. This is how our “party activists” end up reciting the RNC’s points.

However, the majority of polls actually show Hillary trailing McCain. For instance, when considering polls taken in December or January that are listed in the pollingreport.com 2008 polling archive, Hillary is leading in the Newsweek and ABC/Washington Post polls, roughly tied in Time’s and CNN’s, and losing in the Diageo/Hotline, Cook, Investor’s Business Daily, Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg, NBC/Wall Street Journal, NPR, Fox News, WNBC/Marist and GW Battleground polls. And in general, older polls show her doing worse. It’s simply not true that she has been ahead of him “for months”.

I don’t Huckabee.

During an interview on “Meet the Press” yesterday in which he announced the formation of a presidential exploratory committee, the former Arkansas governor became the latest Republican to suggest that opposition to President Bush endangers US troops:

MR. RUSSERT: If you were in the Senate or the House, would you vote to oppose the president sending more troops to Iraq?

GOV. HUCKABEE: I think that’s a dangerous position to take, to oppose a sitting commander in chief while we’ve got people being shot at on the ground. I think it’s one thing to have a debate and a discussion about this strategy, but to openly oppose, in essence, the strategy, I think that can be a very risky thing for our troops.

Notice how sweeping Huckabee’s language is — it’s “a dangerous position” to “oppose a sitting commander in chief while we’ve got people being shot at on the ground.” But we’ve had people “being shot at on the ground” since October 2001. Should we suspend our democracy? For how long?

This kind of anti-democratic rhetoric has got to stop. We’re going to have troops in harm’s way for years. And it’s especially disturbing from a man who wants to be president. If he wins, is he going to tell us it’s “dangerous” to oppose him while troops are in the field?

Huckabee’s language is also a case study in the anti-democratic misuse of the term “commander-in-chief” that Garry Wills criticized in a New York Times op-ed Saturday:

The president is not the commander in chief of civilians. He is not even commander in chief of National Guard troops unless and until they are federalized. The Constitution is clear on this: “The president shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States.”

When Abraham Lincoln took actions based on military considerations, he gave himself the proper title, “commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States.” That title is rarely — more like never — heard today. It is just “€œcommander in chief,”€ or even “commander in chief of the United States.” This reflects the increasing militarization of our politics. The citizenry at large is now thought of as under military discipline.

I’ve added Huckabee’s statement to my timeline of GOP attacks on dissent since 9/11, which is below the fold.

(more…)

Very, very bad. Here’s a disturbing fact mentioned in passing during a NPR report that aired on Monday about kidnappings in Iraq:

Some people now tattoo telephone numbers on their arms, so if they are killed their families can be contacted.

And here’s Vice President Cheney on CNN two days later:

Bottom line is that we’ve had enormous successes [in Iraq] and we will continue to have enormous successes.

It must be fun to live outside the reality-based community.

Sadly, new Defense Secretary Robert Gates has become the latest Republican official to attack dissent as emboldening the enemy:

Whatever their intentions, lawmakers pushing for resolutions against President Bush’s troop buildup are encouraging America’s enemies, Defense Secretary Robert Gates says.

Gates, in his Pentagon post just over a month, said Friday he was certain supporters of measures criticizing the president’s plan don’t intend to harm U.S. interests in Iraq. “But that’s the effect,” he said.

“It’s pretty clear that a resolution that in effect says that the general going out to take command of the arena shouldn’t have the resources he thinks he needs to be successful certainly emboldens the enemy and our adversaries,” Gates said in his first Pentagon news conference.

“I think it’s hard to measure that with any precision, but it seems pretty straightforward that any indication of flagging will in the United States gives encouragement to those folks,” he said.

This kind of rhetoric encourages the administration’s enablers in the press, who are echoing its insinuations of treason and disloyalty. Here is an excerpt from yesterday’s “Special Report with Brit Hume” in which Fred Barnes said the Congressional resolution against President Bush’s troop increase plan “helps the enemy” and that Democrats “don’t support the mission,” aren’t “for victory,” and don’t support the troops:

BARNES: I wanted to follow up on what Charles [Krauthammer] said about this idea that Nancy Pelosi and these anti-war Democrats and anti-war Republicans support the troops. You know, they don’t support the mission. They’re not for victory, which is what the troops want. General Petraeus said that passing a resolution in Congress and the House and the Senate that says — that opposes the surge in troops could only encourage the enemy. Now, if you vote for that resolution and all these Democrats and a lot of Republicans are committed to it, it helps the enemy, how can you still say you support the troops? The fact is they don’t.

An updated version of my timeline of Republican attacks on dissent since 9/11 is below the fold:

(more…)

Hotline On Call notes Republican Senator Chuck Hagel, the latest subject of third party presidential hype, floated the idea during an interview with the Washington Post:

Hagel said in a wide-ranging interview this week that he is discussing his options with his family and other confidants and will make a decision in the next six weeks.

He said one possibility is forming a presidential exploratory committee and — despite his outcast position within his party — seeking the Republican nomination. Or he may seek a third Senate term. Then again, he might take a more creative path.

Hagel joked during the interview about teaming up with New York Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, a moderate Republican, and also floated the possibility of joining a bipartisan unity ticket with a Democrat — with his name first, of course.

As Hotline points out, the “bipartisan unity ticket” Hagel referenced is code for Unity ’08, the third party group I mocked back in December. Will he go through with it? I’m skeptical. Posturing as a maverick in the Senate is easier than putting your career on the line by challenging your own party’s nominee.

Update 1/27 7:00 PM: The Washingtonian adds more silly hype:

If the 2008 presidential election turns out to be close, a few thousand votes here or there could sway the results—so both parties are working to stop a third-party bid.

Democratic strategists are concerned that a challenge from the left might undermine a centrist Hillary Rodham Clinton candidacy. Republican strategists are equally worried that if Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, or John McCain becomes the nominee, he might face a challenge from a right-wing anti-immigration candidate.

Who might play the role of spoiler in 2008?

Republicans around McCain have been watching CNN’s Lou Dobbs, who has been gaining popularity on TV with his anti-immigrant, anticorporate comments and segments like “Broken Borders” and “Exporting America.” It isn’t lost on political watchers that Dobbs is urging his viewers to switch their affiliation to “independent” to protest the corporate backing of both parties.

Author/globalization expert Ted Fishman says Dobbs is offering “the most direct assault on American big business by an establishment figure since Dwight D. Eisenhower took on the military-industrial complex.”

New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg is another strong contender for a center-right independent bid—he could write any size check to fund a campaign, and a bipartisan team at Unity ’08 is working to line up ballot access that might ease the way for a third-party run. Bloomberg has been reaching out across the aisle to Democrats like Al From, who heads the centrist Democratic Leadership Council.

On the left, rebel union leader Andy Stern, head of the powerful Service Employees International Union that led the breakup of the AFL-CIO, could leave the Democrats if he feels workers aren’t being represented. Stern’s made no secret of his disdain for both parties, and his 1.8 million members would provide the army for a grassroots outside-the-system bid. In a not-so-subtle warning, Stern is scheduling a trip to New Hampshire and Iowa at the end of January as part of a book tour.

Why would Stern enter knowing that he would be guaranteeing Republicans a victory? That’s ridiculous. The same with Bloomberg — the businessman in him will realize that he would spend hundreds of millions and still lose. And Dobbs would have to give up his show on CNN, which I assume he is loathe to do.

Via the Freakonomics blog, here’s a hilarious recording (MP3 audio) of a reader ranting about redundant language in a San Francisco Chronicle subhed. Definitely worth a listen — I’ve already played it twice.

Update 1/30 6:51 AM: Don’t miss the remix.

Glenn Beck denounced the NPR report I criticized last night as “a hatchet piece” on his syndicated radio show this morning and claimed his comments were taken out of context. The NPR story suggested Beck was criticizing Limbaugh without explaining his own controversial statements — and now Beck is alleging that it did so under false pretenses. As I said, David Folkenflik is usually an excellent reporter, so I’m reserving judgment.

The transcript below is transcribed from archived audio of this morning’s program on Beck’s website (Real audio; subscription required). It begins with Beck describing a conversation with a staff member:

“[A]nother article just broke.” I said, “What’s the other article?” “Apparently NPR has done an article with you taking down Rush Limbaugh.” And I said, “Wow! Really? I don’t remember doing an interview with NPR where I took down Rush Limbaugh.” “Yeah, that’s the way they shaped the story.”

Now I’m going to give you the history of this one, and then I’m going to give you the story. And you just tell me if this sounds like anything anybody in their right mind would ever do. It starts with a conservative doing an interview with NPR! Does that sound like anything anybody in their right mind would ever do? This is 100 percent my fault and, quite honestly, Rush Limbaugh’s fault as well because he did an interview with them as well. But I’m assuming they lied to Rush Limbaugh as much as they lied to me.

After recounting a previous experience with NPR, Beck describes his meeting with staff about the recent interview:

I get back to the office… So I go in and there’s like this team of PR people. And I walk in and I’m like, “Guys – NPR. Are you out of your mind?” They all start “No, no, Glenn, we know this reporter”… “No, we have it on the highest assurances that this is not going to be a hatchet piece.” I said, “Really? National Public Radio told you that, huh?” “Yes, not going to be a hatchet piece.” “What is the piece going to be on?” “Well, it’s going to be on talk radio.” “And you don’t think that’s going to be a hatchet piece?” “No, it’s not.” “Ok, alright, I think I pay you guys too much money. In fact, I think I should be paying you zero if you really don’t think that would be a hatchet job.” And then I got this speech. “Glenn, look, I have a relationship with these people and they wouldn’t burn us.”

…So I do it. Well, because of that relationship, that individual was exactly right. They didn’t burn me; they burned Rush Limbaugh instead and used me as the tool to do it. I was the fire that burned Rush Limbaugh… So I wrote Rush a letter last night, said, “Rush, uh uh. Didn’t say this. Not about you, brother. Nothing to do with you.”

…[Rush and I are] co-workers for the love of pete. Now, according to NPR, we’re rivals. That’s weird because I precede him on the same network. We work for the same company. We’re on hundreds of the same stations.

…[after reading from the NPR story] This is supposed to be about talk radio, I thought. When I was doing the interview, it was about talk radio. This seems to be “building bipartisanship, not Limbaugh’s problem.” This is a hatchet piece on Rush Limbaugh. This has nothing to do — I spent half the interview talking about people on the left and Air America. I talked about how people are being divided not because they actually believe it — and in fact I said good things about Limbaugh and Franken because they actually believe these things.

…Now listen to this. This is where Glenn becomes the hatchet man. “Limbaugh says — listen carefully – ‘I’m just using humor to make a point.’” Now do I agree or disagree with that? This is where context matters. Do I agree or disagree with using humor to make a point? I was shocked last night to find out I not only disagree, I vehemently disagree. “But rival conservative talk show host Glenn Beck says such severe rhetoric only drives people apart,” which is weird, because there’s no quotation marks around that, which is very strange. Quote, “I truly believe it’s going to be the death of us. It’s going to be the death of us, the death of our country, if we don’t stop dividing ourselves like this. It’s just not right.”

Wait a minute – what’s not right? Dividing ourselves, or using humor to make a point? I’m not sure. I know when I was talking in the interview about that point it wasn’t about Rush Limbaugh. It was about politicians separating us. It was about politicians using people to separate people. I believe in that same quote I quoted George Washington. I can guarantee that I didn’t quote Rush Limbaugh. I can guarantee that Rush Limbaugh’s statement that “I’m just using humor to make a point” was never even mentioned.” Because if it would have been mentioned, I would have said, “Well, I agree with that. That’s the soul of our show.”