Brendan Nyhan

  • What is Cass Sunstein talking about?

    I respect Cass Sunstein a great deal, but this statement by the Chicago law prof is just objectively wrong:

    “The Clinton impeachment was plainly unconstitutional, and a Bush impeachment would be nearly as bad,” said Cass R. Sunstein, a professor of constitutional law at the University of Chicago. “There is a very good argument that the president had it wrong on WMD in Iraq but that he was acting in complete good faith.”

    “[C]omplete good faith?” Anyone want to send him a copy of ATPS? There’s about 100 pages of evidence that that isn’t a “very good argument.”

    Update 3/26 8:58 AM: As SomeCallMeTim points out in comments, this statement of Sunstein’s is also terrible legal reasoning:

    Sunstein argues that Bush’s decision to conduct surveillance of Americans without court approval flowed from Congress’s vote to allow an armed struggle against al-Qaeda. “If you can kill them, why can’t you spy on them?” Sunstein said, adding that this is a minority view.

  • Conservatives: Media wants US to fail in Iraq

    As part of an offensive against media coverage in Iraq, several conservative commentators are claiming that the media is trying to undermine the US war effort, as Media Matters documents:

    O’Reilly, in turn, expressed his belief that “there is a segment of the media trying to undermine the policy in Iraq for their own ideological purposes,” as Media Matters for America noted.

    Beyond O’Reilly, many other Fox News hosts, analysts, and guests similarly attacked the media’s coverage of the war:

    • Radio host G. Gordon Liddy said that “those in the news media … would rather the United States lose a war than have history write that George W. Bush was a successful president.” [Hannity & Colmes, 3/20/06]
    • Host Sean Hannity said on his syndicated radio show that “the media is intent on undermining the president in this battle” and claimed there “has been a total and almost complete focus on all the negative aspects of the war”… [ABC Radio Networks’ The Sean Hannity Show, 3/22/06]

    This rhetoric goes beyond merely claiming that the media is too negative or liberal, but actively accuses the press of trying to make the US lose the war — virtually an accusation of treason. It’s just not acceptable.

  • O’Rourke contradicts Domenech

    One more Domenech claim goes out the window in today’s New York Times:

    [Domenech] explained the passage that appeared to be copied from Mr. O’Rourke’s book by saying that Mr. O’Rourke gave him permission.

    Contacted at his home in New Hampshire, Mr. O’Rourke said that he had never heard of Mr. Domenech and did not recall meeting him.

    “I wouldn’t want to swear in a court of law that I never met the guy, Mr. O’Rourke said of Mr. Domenech, “but I didn’t give him permission to use my words under his byline, no.”

    (For more on Domenech’s plagiarism, see National Review here and here, Salon here, Hotline’s Blogometer here, and the William and Mary student newspaper here.)

  • The end of the Domenech controversy

    He’s toast:

    In the past 24 hours, we learned of allegations that Ben Domenech plagiarized material that appeared under his byline in various publications prior to washingtonpost.com contracting with him to write a blog that launched Tuesday.

    An investigation into these allegations was ongoing, and in the interim, Domenech has resigned, effective immediately.

    When we hired Domenech, we were not aware of any allegations that he had plagiarized any of his past writings. In any cases where allegations such as these are made, we will continue to investigate those charges thoroughly in order to maintain our journalistic integrity.

    Plagiarism is perhaps the most serious offense that a writer can commit or be accused of. Washingtonpost.com will do everything in its power to verify that its news and opinion content is sourced completely and accurately at all times.

    We appreciate the speed and thoroughness with which our readers and media outlets surfaced these allegations. Despite the turn this has taken, we believe this event, among other things, testifies to the positive and powerful role that the Internet can play in the the practice of journalism.

    We also remain committed to representing a broad spectrum of ideas and ideologies in our Opinions area.

    Jim Brady
    Executive Editor, washingtonpost.com

    Still no word from the AP…

  • Howard Kurtz on Domenech controversy

    Howard Kurtz covers the Domenech controversy today in the Washington Post:

    Late yesterday, the liberal Web sites Daily Kos and Atrios posted examples of what appeared to be instances of plagiarism from Domenech’s writing at the William & Mary student paper. Three sentences of a 1999 Domenech review of a Martin Scorsese film were identical to a review in Salon magazine, and several sentences in Domenech’s piece on a James Bond movie closely resembled one in the Internet Movie Database. Domenech said he needed to research the examples but that he never used material without attribution and had complained about a college editor improperly adding language to some of his articles.

    Domenech is a board member and one of three founders of RedState.com, which bills itself as a "Republican community Weblog." Under his regular pseudonym, Augustine, he questioned President Bush’s decision to attend King’s funeral because she is a "communist."

    "I regret using the term because I think it’s been way overblown," Domenech said. But he said King worked with organizations affiliated with communists in the 1950s and 1960s. Brady called it "a silly comment" but said he is satisfied with Domenech’s admission of error.

    As Augustine, Domenech has engaged in numerous personal attacks, some of which were compiled by the blog Dragonfire. Domenech has called cartoonist Ted Rall a "steaming bag of pus"; said Teresa Heinz Kerry looks like an "oddly shaped egotistical ketchup-colored muppet"; called Pat Robertson a "senile, crazy old fool"; and described Post.com’s "White House Briefing" columnist Dan Froomkin as "an embarrassment."

    No mention of the supposed 2002 AP article, however. I have a call into AP corporate communications to try to confirm that it is not genuine. I’ll report more as soon as I have anything.

  • Media Matters on Domenech

    Media Matters, like Joe Conason, is on the Domenech story, including the phony AP quote:

    [W]ith each hour bringing new evidence of Domenech’s racially charged rhetoric and homophobic bigotry, the time has come for the Post to end its ill-conceived relationship with Domenech. Examples of Domenech’s views include:

    • In a February 7 post on RedState, Domenech wrote that he believed people should be “pissed” that President Bush attended “the funeral of a Communist” — referring to the funeral for Coretta Scott King. As you know, labeling the King family “communists” was a favorite tool of the racists who opposed them.
    • In another RedState post, Domenech compared “the Judiciary” unfavorably to the Ku Klux Klan.
    • In still another RedState comment, Domenech posted without comment an article stating that “[i]t just happens that killing black babies has the happy result of reducing crime” and that “[w]hite racists have reason to be grateful for what is sometimes still called the civil rights leadership” because black leaders “are overwhelmingly in support” of abortion rights.
    • In yet another, Domenech wrote that conservative blogger/journalist Andrew Sullivan, who is gay, “needs a woman to give him some stability.”

    Domenech has also been caught at least once apparently fabricating a quote. A June 20, 2002, Spinsanity.org entry demonstrated that Domenech made up a quote he attributed to Tim Russert in order to defend President Bush.

  • Conason on Domenech’s phony quote

    Salon’s Joe Conason has picked up the story of newly-hired WashingtonPost.com bloger Ben Domenech and the false quotation I exposed on Domenech’s personal blog back in 2002:

    [B]y Thursday bloggers had more than ideological reasons to oppose the Post’s move, as Atrios, Daily Kos and other sites uncovered brazen examples of plagiarism by Domenech when he was writing for a student weekly at the College of William and Mary. Ironically, the young right-winger was apparently fond of Salon’s arts criticism, at least, because he plagiarized film critic Stephanie Zacharek, and Mary Elizabeth Williams, writing about television.

    Neither Domenech nor Post editors replied to requests for comment, and as of this writing, it’s not clear whether those plagiarism revelations will be enough to end the right-wing blogger’s MSM career. His defenders may say Domenech was only a college student when he made those mistakes. But there’s at least one instance in his post-college career when the blogger was accused of another major ethical breach — a charge that he fabricated a quote by “Meet The Press” host Tim Russert back in June 2002, in an attempt to get his hero, President Bush, out of a political jam.

    Back then, the world of Washington journalism was roiled by a debate over whether President Bush had said during the 2000 campaign that despite his commitment to a balanced budget, he might permit federal deficits in time of “war, recession, or national emergency.” The president and his spokesmen insisted that he had referred to such a “trifecta” of disaster during a campaign stop in Chicago, but no text or recording existed to prove their point. (That was before the Iraq invasion, when Bush could still hope to maintain his reputation as a “straight shooter.”)

    As the “trifecta” dispute boiled up on the Sunday-morning talk shows and on blogs, Domenech leapt to Bush’s defense on his own blog, the Ben File. In a post dated June 16, 2002, he brashly upbraided two of the president’s critics on the deficit issue, Jonathan Chait of the New Republic and Tim Russert, NBC bureau chief and the host of “Meet the Press”:

    “The bigger issue,” wrote Domenech, “is that Russert and Chait both claim the President never made caveats about deficits during times of crisis, that he’s creating political cover out of thin air. They’re wrong. Indeed, President Bush expressed his deficit views very [word missing] during the first New Hampshire debate on January 7, 2000 — moderated by none other than Tim Russert: ‘This is not only no new taxes, this is tax cuts, so help me God’ — Bush said, brushing away the prospect that national emergencies, such as war, might get in the way. Such developments would be ‘extreme hypotheticals,’ he said. ‘If I ever commit troops, I’m going to do so with one thing in mind, and that’s to win,’ Bush said. ‘And spend what it takes? Even if it means deficits?’ asked the moderator, NBC’s Tim Russert. ‘Absolutely,’ Bush replied, ‘if we go to war.’” (AP, from Boston Globe)

    “Does that refresh your memory, Tim?” he concluded mockingly.

    Unfortunately for Domenech, his June 16 post drew the attention of Brendan Nyhan, one of the trio who then ran Spinsanity.org, the (now lamentably defunct) political fact-checking Web site. With a series of simple searches on Nexis and Westlaw, Nyhan learned that the electronic archives contained no such article. There were versions of an AP story that resembled the article cited by Domenech — but none of them included that crucial question attributed to Russert: “Even if it means deficits?”

    Challenged by Nyhan to produce proof that this story had ever been published, Domenech responded with a series of feeble non-answers.

    “For anyone who doubts the veracity of the original quotes I posted from the AP article, I’m not currently at a computer that has WestLaw access, so I can’t post the thing in its entirety at the moment (I’ve only got a printed copy),” he wrote. “And while it’s not like I have a taped copy of the debate to check the article against, I tend to trust the AP, especially when there’s no official MSNBC transcript.” Then came an update acknowledging that he may have misquoted Russert, blaming the AP: “I’ve listened to the online version of the [New Hampshire] debate now, and I don’t hear the second part of Russert’s question as printed in the AP article. Considering that most accounts of the debate don’t include this part of the question either, I’m close to believing that the AP article I have is inaccurate. I’ve been taken in by faulty reporting before, but never by the AP. Either way, I’ll post the article tonight.” Domenech then posted a second update that he claimed was a link to “the [Globe] article.” He added, “Still, I think that it’s an unreliable source.” He linked to another page on his site that showed a very peculiar version of what was supposed to be an AP article in the Boston Globe on the New Hampshire debate, dated Jan. 7, 2000.

    Among the various problems in this strange saga is that the Globe sent its own reporters, Jill Zuckman and Michael Kranish, to cover that New Hampshire debate. They filed a Jan. 7 story that accurately reflected what Russert had asked. Nexis shows no AP story in the Globe or anywhere else that includes the quote used by Domenech.

    Was this an honest mistake? Or did Domenech fabricate a quote in order to attack Russert and other Bush critics? As Nyhan noted the other day, readers can draw their own conclusions.

    But the examples of plagiarism that surfaced Thursday certainly add to the reasons to believe the earlier allegation. Even before the plagiarism story emerged, Media Matters was calling on the Post to terminate Domenech, because of the Russert quote-fabrication charge as well as an ugly post on Redstate.com referring to Coretta Scott King as a “communist” and other obnoxious commentary.

    The Post may be deaf to complaints about overheated rhetoric and insults to a civil rights hero, but the plagiarism and quote-fabrication charges can’t be ignored. It’s hard to imagine Domenech will survive this, but whatever happens next, the Post’s failure to adequately vet its new hire in its fretful search for “balance” could damage its credibility substantially. For now it looks like the paper hired the love child of Janet Cooke and Donald Segretti.

    I had no idea that a number of Domenech’s past articles were exposed as plagiarized today. Talk about a lack of due diligence by the Post. Will the newspaper investigate the plagiarism charges and the mysterious AP article? Or will they just fire Domenech and try to salvage what’s left of their reputation?

  • GOP pushes impeachment hype

    The Republican Party has apparently signed on to the desperation tactic of claiming Democrats will impeach President Bush if they take back the House in 2006.

    This tactic, which I first documented in a column from Paul Weyrich, has gained increasing attention in recent weeks as President Bush’s approval ratings decline into the 30s.

    Today, Ken Mehlman, the GOP chairman, sent an email to supporters (PDF) claiming the “Democrats’ plan for 2006” is to “[t]ake the House and Senate, and impeach the President”:

    The word is out. Their position is clear. Last week, Sen. Russ Feingold floated a reckless plan to censure the President, and some Democrat leaders have ecstatically jumped on Feingold’s bandwagon.

    And, if they gain even more power in November, they won’t stop there.

    Feingold says that censure actually represents “moderation” and calls the terrorist surveillance program an impeachable offense. Dick Durbin, the number two Democrat in the Senate, fails to rule out impeachment if Democrats retake Congress. Iowa Democrat Tom Harkin is talking “high crimes and misdemeanors.” And 31 House Democrats are calling for a committee to look into impeachment. Their leader? John Conyers, who would become House Judiciary Committee chairman under Democrat control.

    The Democrats’ plan for 2006? Take the House and Senate, and impeach the President.

    As I’ve written before, it seems unlikely that Democrats would actually impeach Bush in the last two years of his presidency knowing that the Senate will not remove him from office. But that doesn’t stop Mehlman from claiming it as fact based on some highly circumstantial evidence.

    Mehlman later suggests that Democrats don’t want to aggressively fight the war on terror:

    Democrat leaders’ talk of censure and impeachment isn’t about the law or the President doing anything wrong. It’s about the fact that Democrat leaders don’t want America to fight the War on Terror with every tool in our arsenal. Your immediate action will send these reckless Democrats a message and help preserve our Republican majorities.

    …The world is watching. Using every tool at our disposal to fight terrorists should not be a partisan issue. Democrats should to be focused on winning the War on Terror, not undermining it with political axe-grinding of the ugliest kind.

    When I criticize Republicans for suggesting dissent aids terrorists, their apologists frequently reply that Republicans are saying that Democratic opposition has the effect of aiding terrorists, not claiming that Democrats want to aid terrorists.

    Note in this case, however, that Mehlman is explicitly suggesting Democrats don’t want to fight the war on terror. He writes that “Democrat leaders don’t want America to fight the War on Terror with every tool in our arsenal,” and he later adds that “Democrats should to be focused on winning the War on Terror, not undermining it with political axe-grinding of the ugliest kind.”

    Apparently, desperate times call for desperate spin.

  • Pointless government secrecy in NC

    One of my fellow graduate students pointed me to a hilarious/disturbing local story about bizarre NC state government secrecy practices:

    Here are some words the N.C. Department of Labor thinks the public shouldn’t see: tomatoes, landlord, Mexicans, workers.

    The department recently released to News & Observer staff writer Kristin Collins its files on Ag-Mart, the Florida-based tomato grower that last year incurred the N.C. Department of Agriculture’s largest-ever fine for breaking pesticide rules.

    The Labor Department blacked out so much information that its files were nearly unintelligible.

    Included was a copy of a 2003 News & Observer story, written by Collins herself and another reporter, in which words or phrases were blacked out in 67 places.

    References to virtually any human being, including public officials, Ag-Mart executives and workers — even pronouns such as “their” — were missing. In some cases, random words such as “tomatoes” were hidden.

    If you click through, you can see a graphic of the article that’s annotated with the blacked-out words — it’s truly bizarre…

  • GOP hypocrisy on politicizing the military

    On Saturday, the Washington Times broke the news that Senate Democrats had distributed a memo suggesting holding town hall meetings on military bases. Such meetings are prohibited.

    But as I pointed out, President Bush holds obviously partisan events on military bases all the time. Rather than conceding this point, the Times simply asserted that the issue did not apply to President Bush because “[h]is remarks [at military bases] are generally limited to explaining his war policies and encouraging the troops” — a claim that I showed to be false.

    Today, the Times reports that Congressional Republicans are criticizing Democrats for the memo. In particular, Senator George Allen, the Virginia senator and presidential contender, let the vitriol fly:

    Republicans accused Capitol Hill Democrats yesterday of plotting to use military bases as props for political press events to criticize President Bush for his handling of the war in Iraq.

    “I think that is deplorable,” Sen. George Allen, Virginia Republican, said yesterday on Fox News. “It is pitiful. We are at war. This country needs to be unified and realize who the enemy is — it’s not fellow Americans.”
    Mr. Allen and others cited a memo distributed last week by the office of Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid that recommended Senate Democrats hold press events at, among other places, military bases.

    Notice that Allen is using the same tactic that I have documented over and over again since 9/11 — suggesting that any criticism of President Bush means that Democrats think the President is “the enemy” rather than terrorists. It’s a way to suggest Democrats are soft on terror and vaguely treasonous at the same time.

    In addition, as I wrote last week, President Bush has done more to politicize the military than any president in recent memory — a point that Harry Reid’s spokesman made in the article:

    Jim Manley, spokesman for the Nevada Democrat, dismissed the accusations and pointed to several examples of Mr. Bush and other Republicans using soldiers in uniform and military equipment for what he said was clear political gain. Among them was Mr. Bush’s 2003 fighter-jet landing onto an aircraft carrier adorned with a huge banner that read: “Mission Accomplished.”

    “President Bush and Republicans have perfected the art of politicizing our military, and they should think twice before they unfairly accuse Democrats of following in their path,” Mr. Manley said.

    In response, however, Republicans — like the Washington Times last week — simply deny that President Bush makes political remarks at military bases:

    Republicans say that the direct criticisms of Mr. Bush and Republicans in Congress is precisely why it’s wrong to stage the events at military installations, where political events are not allowed. When Mr. Bush makes a speech before the Naval Academy, they say, he does so as commander in chief and is careful to avoid overtly political rhetoric.

    However, as I wrote last week, Bush’s remarks at military installations are often incendiary. At the Tobyhanna Army Depot in November 2005, he said, “The stakes in the global war on terror are too high, and the national interest is too important, for politicians to throw out false charges. These baseless attacks send the wrong signal to our troops and to an enemy that is questioning America’s will.”

    Similarly, here’s what he said at Elmendorf Air Force Base that same month:

    Reasonable people can disagree about the conduct of the war, but it is irresponsible for Democrats to now claim that we misled them and the American people. Leaders in my administration and members of the United States Congress from both political parties looked at the same intelligence on Iraq, and reached the same conclusion: Saddam Hussein was a threat.

    Let me give you some quotes from three senior Democrat leaders: First, and I quote, “There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons.” Another senior Democrat leader said, “The war against terrorism will not be finished as long as Saddam Hussein is in power.” Here’s another quote from a senior Democrat leader: “Saddam Hussein, in effect, has thumbed his nose at the world community. And I think the President is approaching this in the right fashion.”

    They spoke the truth then, and they’re speaking politics now.

    The truth is that investigations of intelligence on Iraq have concluded that only one person manipulated evidence and misled the world — and that person was Saddam Hussein. In early 2004, when weapons inspector David Kay testified that he had not found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, he also testified that, “Iraq was in clear material violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441. They maintained programs and activities, and they certainly had the intentions at a point to resume their programs. So there was a lot they wanted to hide because it showed what they were doing that was illegal.”

    Eight months later, weapons inspector Charles Duelfer issued a report that found, “Saddam Hussein so dominated the Iraqi regime that its strategic intent was his alone. He wanted to end sanctions while preserving the capability to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction when the sanctions were lifted.”

    Some of our elected leaders have opposed this war all along. I disagreed with them, but I respect their willingness to take a consistent stand. Yet some Democrats who voted to authorize the use of force are now rewriting the past. They are playing politics with this issue and they are sending mixed signals to our troops and the enemy. And that’s irresponsible.

    As our troops fight a ruthless enemy determined to destroy our way of life, they deserve to know that their elected leaders who voted to send them into war continue to stand behind them. Our troops deserve to know that this support will remain firm when the going gets tough. And our troops deserve to know that whatever our differences in Washington, our will is strong, our nation is united, and we will settle for nothing less than victory.

    How can anyone claim this is not “overtly political rhetoric”?