Brendan Nyhan

Today the News & Observer attempts to explain an apparent discrepancy in the story of the alleged victim of a rape at a Duke lacrosse house. As I noted earlier, she said her father came to the hospital the night of the attack, but he later said he didn’t learn about the rape until contacted by a reporter.

As it turns out, he says that he thought she had been assaulted and was not told of the rape until the next day:

The father of the woman who said she was raped at a party near the Duke University campus said in an interview Tuesday that when he saw her the day after the party, her eyes and face were swollen, her arms were scratched, and she was complaining about her leg.

She told him she thought some part of her leg had slipped out of joint, he said.

The woman told her father that she had been dancing at a party and that someone had hit her. It wasn’t until the next day the woman told her father she had been raped, he said. “I think she was ashamed. … I just felt numb, angry,” the father said.

…In an interview March 25, the woman told The News & Observer that she hesitated to report her story to police but that thinking about her father helped her make the decision.

“I knew if I didn’t report it that he would have that hurt forever, knowing that someone hurt his baby and got away with it,” she said in the interview.

…The father said Tuesday that early on the morning of March 14, he went to Duke Hospital with his son and waited more than two hours to see his daughter. Doctors wouldn’t say why she was there, he said.

The father went home and waited for word from his daughter. Later that morning, she came to her parents’ house with her boyfriend.

“After she came home, that’s when I knew she had been beaten up,” her father said.

His daughter had kept private several details of the attack, he said. It was only through reporters and articles that he learned his daughter told police she had been threatened with assault with a broomstick and that fake nails police say were ripped off the victim’s fingers during the attack were found in a police search March 16.

Again, though, if “[i]t wasn’t until the next day the woman told her father she had been raped,” why did this story report that “The retired trucker who lives in Durham said he saw his daughter the day after the reported attack, but she didn’t say anything was wrong.”

In addition, there is a discrepancy in terms of the victim’s ability to identify her attackers. According to today’s N&O, “The father said his daughter can identify the men she says attacked her. ‘She said … ‘I’ll never forget those faces,’ he said.” But if that were the case, why are 46 DNA tests needed?

A Herald Sun report casts further doubt on this claim:

The alleged victim’s father told The Herald-Sun last week, and said again on national television this week, that his daughter did identify the assailants.

But a lawyer representing one of the Duke students, asking not to be named, quoted Nifong on Tuesday as saying he had not received reports of such an identification from the Police Department.

Absent a positive DNA match, identification by the victim, or some other piece of convincing evidence, this case may not even go to trial. And why is the father going on national television?

Update 4/5 1:20 PM: The author of today’s N&O story replied to an email I sent her, saying that the father told her that the Knight Ridder story (which came from the Charlotte Observer) was incorrect. I’ll check with the author of the original story.

In addition, it turns out the Charlotte Observer ran a story yesterday with more details:

In an interview with MSNBC’s Rita Cosby aired Monday night, the accuser’s father said his daughter had positively identified her three attackers as members of the lacrosse team.

Father: “And she ID’d them through the mug shot.”

Cosby: “Was she able to ID all three?”

Father: “Yes.”

Cosby: “Positively?”

Father: “Yes.”

Cosby: “No doubt in her mind it was those three?”

Father: “No, no doubt in her mind, she says those were the three that did it.”

Cosby: “Were all three members of the lacrosse team?”

Father: “Yes, I think they were.”

When an Observer reporter talked to the father last week, he discussed seeing his daughter the day after the alleged attack and noticing bruising, saying she wouldn’t tell him what was wrong.

In the MSNBC interview, the father said his daughter’s face was bruised and swollen so badly that she could barely open her eyes, she was scratched and her leg was injured so badly she couldn’t get out of the car.

It’s hard to know what to make of all this. As I’ve said, discrepancies in eyewitness accounts are to be expected, but if the victim could identify the three attackers, then why take DNA from 43 other people? If that were true, it seems like those people would have grounds to sue the district attorney.

Update 4/5 2:09 PM: I heard back from the Charlotte Observer. They are standing by their reporting of what the father said. So we’re at an impasse.

Update 4/6 11:48 AM: I’ve added a question mark to the title to reflect the uncertainty about who is correct – the Charlotte Observer or the victim’s father.

Hillary Clinton has been barraging her email list with fundraising appeals, supposedly to protect her against her hapless GOP opponents. And now I just got a call from “Friends of Hillary” asking for money.

Question: How many of her donors understand that this money is for her 2008 warchest, not her New York Senate race?

The latest grandstanding from Cynthia McKinney:

The Capitol Police said Monday that they were seeking a warrant to arrest Representative Cynthia A. McKinney for an altercation with a police officer last week.

In addition to the rarity of a member of Congress facing such an arrest, the case has also attracted national attention because Ms. McKinney has contended that, as a black woman, she was mistreated because of racial bias.

She held a news conference on Friday to denounce the actions of the officer, flanked by the entertainers Danny Glover and Harry Belafonte and surrounded by black schoolchildren holding signs that read, “Is Cynthia a target?”

Here’s a picture from CNN:

Congresswoman, don’t hide behind a bunch of kids. They don’t know if you’re a “target.” Someone (probably from your office) just gave them signs to hold.

Nathan Gonzales, the political editor of the Rothenberg Political Report, has written a disturbing report on the victim mentality of conservative Christians:

If you listen to some conservative evangelicals these days, we are all standing in the middle of the battlefield of a great war. The War on Terrorism you say? Nope. Bigger. It’s the War on Christians. Whose side are you on?

A recent conference sponsored by Vision America entitled, “The War on Christians and The Values Voter in 2006,” and another event, “Justice Sunday III” sponsored by Focus on the Family Action, have once again shown that some conservative Christians revel in their role as victims.

Some Christian leaders have stepped out of both appropriate and rational bounds in their attempt to label the current state of play in the United States a war.

It’s inaccurate and borderline offensive to equate the current “struggle” of Christians to African-Americans during the civil rights era, the plight of Jews during the Holocaust, and even the suffering of Jesus Christ himself on the cross. But that’s what this particular group of Christians has done recently.

During “Justice Sunday III” back on January 8, evangelical leaders like Dr. James Dobson of Focus on the Family and Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council sang “We Shall Overcome,” along with the congregation in attendance, drawing a comparison with blacks a half-century ago.

But back in the 1950s and 1960s, African-Americans were struggling to gain full voting rights, to use whatever bathroom they wanted, and to sit in a seat of their own choosing on a city bus. In comparison with today, Christians certainly have voting rights and even patted themselves on the back for reelecting a Republican president and electing majorities in both the House and the Senate.

During this week’s War on Christians event, conservative author Michael Horowitz, who is Jewish, said, “You guys have become the Jews of the 21st Century.” What? Some Christians may not like the moral direction of this country, but no one in the United States is being killed or sent to a concentration camp because they are a Christian.

Also during the conference, Vision America President Rick Scarborough introduced former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R), stating, “I believe the most damaging thing that Tom DeLay has done in his life is take his faith seriously into public office, which made him a target for all those who despise the cause of Christ.” I don’t seem to recall DeLay’s indictments or admonishments by the House Ethics Committee involving an account of his faith. And did almost 40% of Republican primary voters in DeLay’s own congressional district this spring vote against him because he was a Christian?

After DeLay’s speech, Scarborough offered a piece of encouragement, “God always does his best work after a crucifixion.” Wow. To equate DeLay’s legal, political, and electoral problems with Jesus’ crucifixion is simply offensive, and Christians should be outraged over the analogy. I guarantee if Jim Wallis of Sojourners compared the demonization of Sen. Hillary Clinton (D) at the hands of conservative media outlets to the crucifixion of Jesus, these same evangelicals would be livid.

In the spirit of Ted “it turns my brains to mush” Koppel, syndicated columnist/commentator Mark Shields is embarrassing the nation’s press corps. Bob Somerby skewers Shields for a ridiculous misinterpretation of a Pew poll question:

Prepare to avert your gaze in shame as Shields completely misreports the results of this familiar type of question [on PBS’ Newshour]:

SHIELDS (3/24/06): What has happened—in Andy Kohut’s Pew poll, they asked a wonderful question: "What single word would you use to describe George Bush as you see him, how you feel about him?" And "honest" had been the top word, 38 percent, two out of five voters, basically. Then it fell to third, and “incompetent” was second—this was over the last year and a half actually, since January of 2005.

And now “incompetent” is number one, and “honest” has fallen all the way to sixth. Only 14 percent say “honest” is the word that comes to mind. This is a real problem for the president; in between are words like "idiot" to describe him. So the president’s effectiveness in communicating, there’s a sense that he’s locked in, that he’s locked in, in a way—that he’s locked into this policy.

“They asked a wonderful question,” Shields gushed. But good God! He then completely misreported the answers—in a way Pew specifically warns about. No, there never was a time when 38 percent of respondents said “honest” when asked for one word about Bush. The real facts? In February 2005 (Shields had the month wrong too), 38 respondents—out of 761—had used that word for Bush. That was five percent of respondents, not the 38 percent Shields reported. Shields completely misunderstood—and misreported—these basic data, in a manner so predictable that Pew specifically warns against it. That’s right! If a scribe bothers to check the Pew data, he’s handed the following warning:

PEW: Figures show the actual numbers of respondents who offered each response; these are NOT percentages.

The Pew folk even went to all caps, trying to stop this kind of bungling! But so what? This problem has persisted for years, as hapless pundits lazily put their Millionaire Values to work.

Kevin Drum offers a staggering statistic:

Right now, nearly a thousand Iraqis are dying every month, the per capita equivalent of about 100,000 deaths per year if this were taking place in the United States.

If sectarian strife was leading to the violent deaths of 100,000 people per year in the US, do you think people would attack the media for not reporting enough good news?

Apparently, Charlie Cook doesn’t think much of Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist:

Charlie Cook, an independent political analyst, in an interview derided [Frist] as a neophyte.

“The most classic case of the Peter Principle I’ve ever seen in American politics,” Mr. Cook said, in an uncharacteristically brutal assessment. “In a business where eloquence and rhetoric is important, he is a man of no talent whatsoever.”

Tell us what you really think!

On a more serious note, Cook is right. Frist is a biography in search of political talent. It’s refreshing to hear someone acknowledge the truth.

Commenter John points out that the woman who has claimed she was raped at a Duke lacrosse party has an inconsistency in her story: when she told her father about the attack.

According to a March 25 News and Observer story, the alleged victim said, “My father came to see me in the hospital,” adding, “I knew if I didn’t report it that he would have that hurt forever, knowing that someone hurt his baby and got away with it.” But in a March 31 story, her father is described as saying that he learned his daughter was the victim from a reporter:

The father of the woman who has accused members of the Duke lacrosse team of sexually assaulting her said he didn’t find out that his daughter was the reported victim – and that she is an exotic dancer – until a reporter visited his house.

The retired trucker who lives in Durham said he saw his daughter the day after the reported attack, but she didn’t say anything was wrong. She even left her car at the house for several days because he said she didn’t want to drive it.

Her father, a quiet man who tinkers on cars as a hobby, said he saw news reports about the attack.

“I didn’t know it was my daughter,” he said.

This is a relatively minor detail, so it’s impossible to know whether the inconsistency is a sign of larger problems with the victim’s account.

Election analyst Stuart Rothenberg thinks John McCain is in good shape for the 2008 GOP presidential nomination:

It’s still a long time until the Iowa caucuses formally kick off the 2008 race for the White House. But it’s hard not to conclude that events are lining up perfectly for Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), should he decide to make another run.

A weakened President Bush and a damaged Republican Party are more likely than not to convince GOP activists around the country — including some conservatives and party regulars who ordinarily would not warm to McCain — that the Arizona Republican is the only man who can carry the party’s banner in 2008.

The threat of a Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) presidency has always been McCain’s ace in the hole. Even conservatives who worry about McCain’s independent streak — including the Arizona Republican’s support for campaign finance reform and his co-sponsorship (with Massachusetts Democratic Sen. Edward Kennedy, no less) of a guest worker program — might well find McCain preferable to a Clinton victory.

Even if Democrats bypass the New York Senator and turn to an allegedly “more electable” moderate such as former Virginia Gov. Mark Warner, many Republicans may come to believe that only McCain can keep the White House in GOP hands.

What nobody has yet commented on, however, is how the 2006 midterm elections now seem all but destined to boost McCain’s presidential prospects.

Democrats are headed for significant gains in both chambers of Congress in November. Even if they fail to win control in at least one chamber, they are likely to be seen as the clear winners and Bush and his party as the clear losers on Election Day.

That result, no doubt, would produce a wave of stories about the GOP’s troubles, with columnists, politicians (Democratic and Republican) and TV talking heads yammering on about the Republican Party’s demise. There would be plenty of talk about infighting within the party, and there would be even more punditry about how the Republicans are in a sorry state just two years before the next presidential election.

The election results, in other words, are likely to increase panic among some Republicans, who will fear that the Democrats’ success in running on a message of change during the midterm elections is an omen of things to come in ’08.

This kind of reaction from Republicans and the media is likely to enhance McCain’s attractiveness as a presidential candidate. The more gloom and doom surrounding his party, the better McCain looks. The more the GOP needs to counterpunch with its own message of change, reform and leadership, the more attractive McCain appears to Republicans, independents and even some Democrats.

Even Republican critics of the Arizona Senator agree that McCain has broad general election appeal, and his primary foes would have a harder time rallying their fellow Republicans against him if the only thing standing between Democratic control of the entire federal government is McCain.

Rothenberg is probably right that bad news for the Republicans is good news for McCain. But will conservatives roll over just because the party is in trouble?

Why is Howard Dean accusing President Bush of scapegoating immigrants? He’s been predicting that Bush would do so since last year, but the fact is that Bush is taking major flak within his party for not supporting a punitive, enforcement-only approach.

Nonetheless, Dean is doing his best to blur the line between Bush and House Republicans:

Democratic Party chief Howard Dean accused President Bush and the Republican Party on Friday of exploiting the immigration issue for political gain by scapegoating Hispanics.

Dean and Bush agree on the legislation at the heart of the debate. Both support a Senate bill that would expand guest-worker programs for an estimated 400,000 immigrants each year.

However, at a speech in an Oakland union hall, the 2004 Democratic presidential candidate sought to tie Bush to a much tougher House bill that would tighten borders and make it a crime to be in the United States illegally or to offer aid to illegal immigrants. Bush does not back the House bill.

“This is a nonsensical proposal put out by far right-wingers in the Republican Party who have been endorsed for re-election by the president of the United States,” Dean said. “The president has a moral obligation to rein in the right-wing extremists in his party and stop this divisive rhetoric about immigrants.”

Dean devoted much of his short speech here to the immigration debate, which has taken center stage in Washington this election year and touched off mass demonstrations elsewhere…

Bush has spent his political career courting Hispanic voters, the nation’s fastest-growing voting bloc, and he has helped double the GOP’s share of the Hispanic vote since 2000.

Nevertheless, Dean accused Bush and fellow Republicans of demagoguery in the immigration debate, saying it fit with a long-standing pattern. He cited the president’s opposition to the University of Michigan’s affirmative-action program and Bush’s decision to “pick on” homosexuals – an apparent reference to the gay marriage issue in the 2004 election.

“In 2006 it’s immigrants. That’s what their strategy is on the Republican side: divide people, scapegoat them, set them aside, point the finger at them,” Dean said. “Well, that may be good for the Republican Party, but it’s bad for America, and we’re not going to do that.”

Did Bush exploit the gay marriage issue in 2004? Yes. Is it possible that Republicans will demonize illegal immigrants in 2006? Yes. As I’ve written, 2006 may be the year of Wilfredo Horton. But there’s just no evidence that President Bush is exploiting the issue. Dean is grasping at straws.