Brendan Nyhan

In a New Yorker piece about a book that will remain nameless, David Remnick makes a welcome point:

If Senator Clinton does make a run for the White House, there will be every reason to size up her character, along with her grasp of policy, her record on health care, her work in the Senate. There will be reasons to ask, as well, how we can continue to instruct the world in democratic processes when we are moving toward a system of popularly elected dynasties, an alternation of the House of Bush and the House of Clinton, which then lectures the House of Saud.

Electability plus dynasty need to be the talking points for the next two years, or she will win the primaries.

In its Notebook section, The New Republic suggests that Hillary Clinton took a stand against the loathsome flag-burning amendment on principle (subscription required):

Hillary Clinton has had a curious week. There was the release of a “biography” that ambitiously sets out to unmask the senator as a heartless, Machiavellian, asexual, Vince Foster-shagging lesbian… And then, dwarfed by the commotion, there has actually been something that mattered: another attempt by Republicans to pass a constitutional amendment against flag-desecration, a fight in which Clinton had to pick a side. Did the senator pass this test of patriotism?

As it turns out, yes. “I don’t believe a constitutional amendment is the answer,” Clinton announced. “Those few who would destroy a flag are not worthy of the response of amending our founding document.” Some editorial writers might appreciate this, but, for the most part, Hillary Clinton has little politically to gain from it. Her supporters would forgive her for backing the amendment; her opponents would be denied a political weapon against her. In other words, the senator’s behavior seems to be based on something suspiciously resembling, well, principle.

But as my friend and former Spinsanity co-editor Ben Fritz pointed out, here’s what USA Today reported about her actual statement:

It will not be an easy vote, as evidenced by the carefully worded statement issued by New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton. “I support federal legislation that would outlaw flag desecration, much like laws that currently prohibit the burning of crosses, but I don’t believe a constitutional amendment is the answer,” she said, adopting a position similar to the one taken by her husband, former President Clinton, when he was in office.

Her aides said there is no contradiction in being against the flag-burning amendment and for a flag-burning law.

They say she believes a federal law would not trample First Amendment rights because, like laws against cross burnings, it would ban flag desecration that is deemed to pose a threat to others — and not acts of political expression that are protected by the First Amendment.

However, a law like the one proposed by the senator would likely be challenged in courts because Congress has no clear right to outlaw flag burning. That is why supporters of the ban want to add a one-line amendment to the Constitution that says, “The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States.”

Principle my ass — that’s a politically motivated attempt to split the difference between two sides of an issue if I’ve ever seen one. Ben gets this exactly right:

Can’t you just see the Republican ad now? Hillary Clinton: “I actually voted for an anti-flag burning law before I voted against it.”

How can Hillary Clinton possibly vote for a law but not the authority to let Congress pass that law? At least John Kerry had the advantage of being technically correct when he said he voted against the $87 billion in troops funding before he voted for it. Hillary isn’t even being intellectually honest here. So even the liberal elite press who pay close attention to these matters will massacre her. And rightfully so.

Just like Hillary’s refusal to make a pledge to serve out her next term as senator, this perfectly sets up the upcoming Republican attack on her as a slippery, opportunistic politician. I recognize that Clinton, like all Democrats, has to be concerned about appearing to be weak or unpatriotic in any way (a special concern, sadly, for a female candidate). But this hedge won’t satisfy anyone, and it is arguably more damaging to her than opposing flag burning because it reinforces people’s stereotypes of her as an ambitious careerist.

(For more, see my many previous posts on Hillary 2008.)

In an action alert email Friday, Feminist Majority president Eleanor Smeal is the latest anti-Bush figure to spread the myth that the upcoming Supreme Court nominee is going to overturn Roe v. Wade:

This is it! The worst has happened with the resignation of Sandra Day O’Connor. Let there be no mistake about it: Sandra Day O’Connor was the 5th vote that was saving Roe v. Wade. Abortion rights, access to birth control and women’s rights are on the line. O’Connor was also the key vote for educational opportunities, Title IX, and affirmative action.

There’s nothing worse than people saying “Let there be no mistake” and then making a mistake. As I already pointed out, five other justices currently on the court support the core finding of Roe. Smeal is wrong.

…Let there be no mistake about it. The case most likely to be reversed or pivotal in the coming Supreme Court nomination fights is Roe v. Wade. But even some of our progressive friends tend to marginalize the abortion issue. We must rally the millions of women and men who care if Roe is to be saved.

After the repetition of the phony “let there be no mistake about it” language, Smeal again suggests Roe will be reversed, saying that it is the case most likely to be “reversed or pivotal” in the “coming Supreme Court nomination fights” (though the “or” logically implies that Roe could be pivotal but not be reversed).

…We must build the machinery so the Court cannot be stacked against women for a generation. A filibuster of a presidential nomination only takes 41 Senators. There are more than enough pro-choice Senators to make the difference. No Senator can say she or he is for women’s rights and then allow the Court to reverse a woman’s fundamental right. We must make that very clear.

For a third time, Smeal suggests that the Court is going to reverse Roe. She also conflates a senator supporting a nominee with “allowing” the Court to reverse Roe. The Senate doesn’t “allow” the Supreme Court to do anything. It’s an independent branch of government! All the Senate does is approve Supreme Court nominees (though Congress can pass laws to reverse Supreme Court rulings on non-constitutional matters).

Between Smeal and Ralph Neas, my head already hurts. For some better perspective on the Court fight, see this Minneapolis Star-Tribune article by Eric Black, which does a good job of cutting through the hype.

Update 7/6: Here’s a PDF (128K) of Smeal’s full email.

Update 7/6: In comments, Xlrq draws out a point that I should have made more explicit — namely, that Smeal appears to be citing O’Connor’s role in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, where she was one of five justices upholding Roe. But Smeal’s phrasing clearly implies that O’Connor was the fifth vote “that was saving” Roe up until her retirement. That is false because, as a reader pointed out in Josh Marshall’s correction of this mistake, Byron White, who voted against Roe in Casey, was subsequently replaced by Ruth Bader Ginsberg, who supports Roe.

From a math textbook I was reading recently — the legendary philosopher in action:

[A] proof containing a single error in reasoning cannot be considered “nearly correct”; we can derive any conclusion from a single false statement. Bertrand Russell (1872-1970) once stated this in a public lecture and was challenged to start with the assumption that 1=2 and prove that he was God. He replied, “Consider the set {Russell, God}. If 1=2, then the elements of the set are one element, and therefore Russell=God.”

That may be apocryphal, but if true, it’s a hell of a line to come up with off the top of your head.

Update 7/5: In comments, Michael Koplow directs us to a demonstration of the same principle in Zero: The Biography of a Dangerous Idea. The author, Charles Seife, intentionally divides by zero to show that it allows him to prove that Winston Churchill is a carrot. Here’s the Amazon Search Inside the Book link so you can read it for yourself.

In a New York Times report on preparations for the upcoming Supreme Court battle, Ralph Neas, the president of People for the American Way , is quoted making this irresponsible statement:

[Neas] declared that his group was not “looking for a fight” with Mr. Bush. But, referring to Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia, he also said, “I’m sure that if he one more time chooses confrontation over collaboration and, say, if he replaces a mainstream conservative like Sandra Day O’Connor with someone like Thomas or Scalia, a right-wing ideologue, that would mean a constitutional crisis.”

First, it’s ridiculous to say Neas is not “looking for a fight” with the White House. How do you think PFAW raises money? With high profile fights like this one.

More importantly, the nomination of a conservative ideologue would not be to his liking (or mine), but it would not be a “constitutional crisis.” Watergate was a constitutional crisis. A conservative Supreme Court nominee doesn’t come close. And pretending that it would just encourages more extremism and hyper-partisanship.

Today’s New York Times corrects a June 10 story by Anne E. Kornblut as follows:

An article on June 10 about criticism of Howard Dean, the Democratic Party chairman, over several derogatory remarks he made about Republicans paraphrased incorrectly from his comment during an appearance in San Francisco. He said that the Republican Party was “pretty much a white, Christian party” – not that it was made up “only” of white Christian conservatives.

Here’s the original quote — it’s remarkably inaccurate: “Dr. Dean has tossed several other sweeping barbs at Republicans in recent days, saying that the party is made up only of white Christian conservatives who are intolerant of diversity and that he hates what they represent.” Dean says such crazy things already; why does Kornblut feel the need to overstate them?

I went and checked if other people have dropped the “pretty much” modifier, and there are several other examples from prominent newspapers. In particular, on June 10, the San Francisco Chronicle opened an editorial condemning Dean with this: “Howard Dean’s statement that the Republican Party is made up of nothing more than ‘white Christians’ is wrong, reckless and offensive.” Not only did the Chronicle fail to quote Dean accurately, but it put “white Christians” in quotes as if those were the words he used in the statement in question.

Like most people, I don’t appreciate what Dean said, but that doesn’t mean the press should exaggerate it.

I’m not a big fan of the lefty media critics at Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, but they are right to condemn this nutty and offensive monologue from aging talk radio personality Paul Harvey:

“We didn’t come this far because we’re made of sugar candy. Once upon a time, we elbowed our way onto and across this continent by giving smallpox-infected blankets to Native Americans. That was biological warfare. And we used every other weapon we could get our hands on to grab this land from whomever.

“And we grew prosperous. And yes, we greased the skids with the sweat of slaves. So it goes with most great nation-states, which–feeling guilty about their savage pasts–eventually civilize themselves out of business and wind up invaded and ultimately dominated by the lean, hungry up-and-coming who are not made of sugar candy.”

Who knew our only choices are being “made of sugar candy” or genocide and slavery? And people say talk radio is simplistic!

(According to FAIR, Harvey also appeared to suggest we should have used nuclear weapons in Iraq and Afghanistan.)

I neglected to note that George Allen headed up to New Hampshire a week ago Saturday for some early 2008 campaigning after passing his anti-lynching resolution. Luckily, he didn’t escape questions about his ugly racial history. Here’s the Richmond Times-Dispatch report:

Kathy Sullivan of Manchester, chairwoman of the New Hampshire Democratic Party, said she knew little about Allen, other than his father was a good football (Washington Redskins) coach, but “what’s with the noose in his office?”

While practicing law in Charlottesville, Allen at one point kept a noose in the office. He said this merely was in keeping with the western motif of the office.

Two weeks ago, Allen helped lead the Senate in issuing a formal apology for lynching. Southern Democrats had used the filibuster for decades to block the apology.

Allen said the black activist and comedian Dick Gregory persuaded him to issue the apology.

And here’s the Virginian-Pilot:

Allen has taken deft steps to shore up his conservative credentials and address concerns about his racial sensitivity. Normally loath to reveal his inner thoughts, Allen delivered an uncharacteristic series of speeches this year professing the importance of faith in his life. Criticized in Virginia for defending Confederate symbols and once displaying a noose in his law office, Allen won appreciation from many blacks this month by co-sponsoring a Senate resolution apologizing for lynchings that claimed the lives of more than 4,700 Americans.

It’s interesting that neither reporter gives any credence to Allen’s disingenuous claim that the noose was “more of a lasso.”

Update 7/4: Speaking of the noose, I just found a question from a June 13 press conference that almost sounds like someone was messing with Allen:

QUESTION: Senator Allen, this is an important move, but a symbolic one. The symbol of the noose continues to terrorize people, sometimes in their workplaces or near their homes. What should be done perhaps to strengthen hate crimes about showing nooses and intimidating people with them?

Obviously, Allen didn’t commit a hate crime or use the noose to terrorize people, but a question about the symbolic power of the noose has obvious implications for him. (His answer didn’t get into anything related to his history on this issue.)

First I saw a Kucinich 2008 bumper sticker in Chapel Hill last week, then yesterday I saw a Boxer 2008 bumper sticker in Durham. Given that neither one of them is a declared candidate and the election is more than three years away, it seemed a little strange. Turns out there are a bunch of websites selling these 2008 stickers for a wide range of progressive politicians. I guess it’s therapeutic for the aggrieved Democrat to start thinking about replacing Bush already.

One thing that was interesting is who they sell the bumper stickers for. Obviously the only people putting 2008 stickers on their cars now are liberal activist types. So the potential candidates on Irregulartimes.com, for example, are a mix of hopeless liberal protest candidates from 2004 (Kucinich, Al Sharpton, Carol Moseley Braun), prominent liberal non-candidates (Boxer, Barack Obama, Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi), and establishment candidates who liberals tend to like (John Edwards, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry). But Bill Richardson? Name one liberal in the entire country who is going to put a Bill Richardson 2008 sticker on their car right now. He’s too moderate for the liberals and too scandal-plagued for the moderates. I’m baffled as to who they think is going to buy that bumper sticker, let alone support Richardson whenruns for president.

Update 7/4: Yes, there are Republican bumper stickers too — here are links for George Allen and Bill Frist. It’s never too early to make an uninformed decision!

Matthew Yglesias has a Tapped post making a point I’ve been meaning to make: namely, five judges on the current court besides O’Connor support the core finding of Roe v. Wade, which means that O’Connor’s retirement does not place basic abortion rights in direct jeopardy. Liberals are going to get this wrong by the thousands over the next month or two. Atrios and Josh Marshall already did so, though to their credit both posted corrections (Marshall’s is in a separate post here).