Brendan Nyhan

Amy Dickinson, the advice columnist in the Chicago Tribune, offered what might be the world’s worst marriage advice in a January column that was quoted in The New Yorker this week:

For fun and to try to mix this up a little, you two might develop a verbal or visual cue that is more subtle than simply asking for sex. For instance, when one of you mentions Vice President Richard Cheney, that’s your code.

Is she trying to kill their marriage?

The only thing worse than pandering is obviously insincere pandering, which means John McCain is in trouble.

Jon Chait flags what has to be the most awkward interview transcript in recent memory — an account of a series of questions asked of McCain about his positions on condom distribution and HIV prevention in Africa, including a twelve second pause:

Reporter: “Should U.S. taxpayer money go to places like Africa to fund contraception to prevent AIDS?”

Mr. McCain: “Well I think it’s a combination. The guy I really respect on this is Dr. Coburn. He believes – and I was just reading the thing he wrote– that you should do what you can to encourage abstinence where there is going to be sexual activity. Where that doesn’t succeed, than he thinks that we should employ contraceptives as well. But I agree with him that the first priority is on abstinence. I look to people like Dr. Coburn. I’m not very wise on it.”

(Mr. McCain turns to take a question on Iraq, but a moment later looks back to the reporter who asked him about AIDS.)

Mr. McCain: “I haven’t thought about it. Before I give you an answer, let me think about. Let me think about it a little bit because I never got a question about it before. I don’t know if I would use taxpayers’ money for it.”

Q: “What about grants for sex education in the United States? Should they include instructions about using contraceptives? Or should it be Bush’s policy, which is just abstinence?”

Mr. McCain: (Long pause) “Ahhh. I think I support the president’s policy.”

Q: “So no contraception, no counseling on contraception. Just abstinence. Do you think contraceptives help stop the spread of HIV?”

Mr. McCain: (Long pause) “You’ve stumped me.”

Q: “I mean, I think you’d probably agree it probably does help stop it?”

Mr. McCain: (Laughs) “Are we on the Straight Talk express? I’m not informed enough on it. Let me find out. You know, I’m sure I’ve taken a position on it on the past. I have to find out what my position was. Brian, would you find out what my position is on contraception – I’m sure I’m opposed to government spending on it, I’m sure I support the president’s policies on it.”

Q: “But you would agree that condoms do stop the spread of sexually transmitted diseases. Would you say: ‘No, we’re not going to distribute them,’ knowing that?”

Mr. McCain: (Twelve-second pause) “Get me Coburn’s thing, ask Weaver to get me Coburn’s paper that he just gave me in the last couple of days. I’ve never gotten into these issues before.”

McCain has a habit of winking and nodding at reporters to signal to them not to take his partisanship too seriously. But in this case he’s making it especially clear that his transformation to social conservatism is bogus and that he neither knows nor cares much about it. And on a substantive level, he’s saying he’s not sure that whether condoms prevent the spread of STDs! It’s not what I would call straight talk.

Despite all the publicity the phony madrassa story received, only six percent of voters wrongly identify Barack Obama as Muslim. That’s good news — I thought the number would be significantly higher.

Charles Krauthammer, a Washington Post columnist who was trained as a psychiatrist, correctly denounces an article by Michelle Cottle in The New Republic that speculates Vice President Cheney is suffering from cognitive decline caused by his heart problems. One of the greatest pathologies of modern political discourse is the constant suggestion that political opponents are mentally ill.

Ironically enough, however, Krauthammer can’t resist suggesting mental illness on the part of Cottle and other liberals, ending the column with this paragraph:

If there’s a diagnosis to be made here, it is this: yet another case of the one other syndrome I have been credited with identifying, a condition that addles the brain of otherwise normal journalists and can strike without warning — Bush Derangement Syndrome, Cheney Variant.

And as Matthew Yglesias notes, Krauthammer himself has a history of suggesting that his opponents are mentally ill — a practice that is particularly inappropriate given his clinical training. Here’s what I wrote for Spinsanity in 2004:

[T]he most disturbing of these accusations came from Charles Krauthammer, a columnist for the Washington Post and psychiatrist with a history of inappropriately trading on his expertise for political ends. During an appearance on Fox News Channel’s “Special Report” last week, Krauthammer said “it looks as if Al Gore has gone off his lithium again,” citing a drug used to treat bipolar disorder.

This was not the first time Krauthammer has offered a phony diagnosis of a political antagonist. In 2003, he suggested former Vermont governor Howard Dean was mentally ill based on a quotation the columnist had heavily altered using ellipses. And the year before, Krauthammer also attacked Gore for his criticism of the conservative media, saying, “I’m a psychiatrist. I don’t usually practice on camera. But this is the edge of looniness, this idea that there’s a vast conspiracy, it sits in a building, it emanates, it has these tentacles, is really at the edge. He could use a little help.”

Krauthammer is particularly fond of mocking his opponents as having bipolar disorder:

-“The media could use some lithium. Not since I studied bipolar disease 25 years ago have I seen such dramatic mood swings as in the coverage of the first week of the war.” (Washington Post, 3/28/03)

-“Well, it looks as if Al Gore has gone off his lithium again.” (Fox News Special Report, 5/26/04)

Physician, heal thyself!

Hear that? No? It’s the lack of outrage over the fact that Glenn Beck called Hillary Clinton “the stereotypical bitch,” as Garance Franke-Ruta pointed out on Tapped. Here’s what Beck said on his nationally syndicated radio show (he also has a show on CNN Headline News):

Hillary Clinton cannot be elected president because — am I wrong in feeling, am I the only one in America that feels this way? — that there’s something about her vocal range. There’s something about her voice that just drives me — it’s not what she says, it’s how she says it. She is like the stereotypical — excuse the expression, but this is the way to — she’s the stereotypical bitch, you know what I mean? She’s that stereotypical, nagging, [unintelligible], you know what I mean? And she doesn’t have to be saying — she could be saying happy things, but after four years, don’t you think every man in America will go insane? Is it just me?

Regardless of how you feel about Hillary, there’s no excuse for this kind of misogyny.

(On his show the next day, Beck added, “I never said that Hillary Clinton — excuse the language — I never said that Hillary Clinton was a bitch. I said she sounded like one.”)

While interviewing Chuck Schumer at his favorite Chinese restaurant, The New Yorker’s Jeffrey Goldberg runs into Dennis Kucinich, who sums himself up in two perfect sentences:

One night last week, as Schumer sat down for dinner, the only other diners were a group of out-of-town electric-company executives and Representative Dennis Kucinich, of Ohio, who is running for the Democratic Presidential nomination. “I believe I’m going to win New Hampshire,” he said, adding, “The tofu here is very good.”

And that’s all you need to know about Dennis Kucinich!

How unpopular is the war in Iraq? Tim Russert is featuring the director of the group Win Without War on Sunday’s “Meet the Press”:

[N]ext week marks the start of the 5th year of the war in Iraq. After four years, has it been worth the cost in life and treasure? And should the U.S. send more troops or begin a withdrawal?

We will be joined exclusively by former Rep. Tom Andrews (D-ME), the director of the anti-war coalition “Win Without War”; former House Majority Leader Rep. Tom DeLay (R-TX), now author of the new book “No Retreat, No Surrender”; Richard Perle, the former Chairman of the Defense Policy Board and now a Resident Fellow of the American Enterprise Institute; and Rep. Joe Sestak (D-PA), a retired Vice Admiral of the U.S. Navy who is the highest ranking former military officer to serve in the House.

When was the last time Russert had an anti-war activist on MTP? Has he ever?

Sadly, it looks like the political career of my least favorite politician is not over. The Washington Times
reports that George Allen is considering running for Virginia’s other Senate seat and might also run for governor again:

Inside the Beltway has learned that former Sen. George Allen, Virginia Republican, will host a private dinner in Old Town Alexandria in the coming days to discuss whether to seek the Senate seat now held by senior Republican Sen. John W. Warner, if the five-term incumbent were to step down in 2008.

Mr. Allen lost his seat in November to Democrat James H. Webb Jr. Speculation of late also had Mr. Allen considering a run for Virginia governor in 2009, a post he also previously held.

Let’s hope Virginia Republicans have the good sense to knock him down in the primary. Remember “macaca”! (Via Atrios/Think Progress/Political Wire.)

According to Wall Street Journal editorial board member Kimberley A. Strassel, the Bush administration’s purge of US attorneys was just an attempt to fulfill his mandate from the voters:

The administration’s ineptitude has given the left an opening to claim the White House is politicizing justice. It matters little that many voters put Mr. Bush in office precisely because they expected his administration to take a harder line on voter fraud or pornography rings. The administration will now find it harder to maneuver in this area.

How many people actually voted for Bush “precisely because they expected his administration to take a harder line on voter fraud or pornography rings”? (my italics) Almost none. But Strassel uses the weasel word “many” in conjunction with the phrase “put in office,” which allows her to suggest Bush has a mandate to stamp out “voter fraud and pornography rings” without making such a claim directly.

More generally, the piece is a study in obfuscation. Strassel never acknowledges — let alone addresses — the key charge that at least some of the prosecutors were removed after investigating Republicans or failing to prosecute Democrats. Instead, she suggests that the dispute concerns “philosophical differences” between the administration and the fired attorneys. If only.

PS This passage is a hilariously awkward attempt to sound contemporary:

Call the administration’s handling of the eight fired U.S. attorneys what you will (and many adjectives come to mind), at bottom this is a story of a White House and Justice Department that have yet to understand how rocked is their world.

“[H]ow rocked is their world?”

The New Republic’s Jon Chait has written the best piece to date on the problems with using flip-flops as a metric of authenticity. Here’s the core of his argument:

The Talmudic exercise of counting flip-flops, though, tells you little about a politician’s ideological malleability. Anybody who spends enough time in elected politics will rack up a flip-flop or two. George W. Bush started out pro-choice and Dennis Kucinich pro-life. Both switched sides eventually, but nobody would accuse either of being an ideological weathervane. This is problem number one with the flip-flop obsession: Things that count as flip-flops often have no broader significance.

Problem number two is that changes that do have deep ideological significance often don’t count as flip-flops. In 1992, Romney voted for Paul Tsongas in the Democratic primary. Two years later, Giuliani publicly endorsed Mario Cuomo. Romney isn’t running on an anti-Tsongas platform today, but he’s clearly running as the sort of man who would never vote for Tsongas, or any Democrat. Likewise Giuliani, whose conservative tribal appeal is based primarily on how much he hates liberals.

In McCain’s case, his one or two flip-flops don’t even begin to convey the enormity of his ideological metamorphosis. Over the last few years, Republicans and Democrats have both been downplaying his recent liberal history–Republicans, because they consider him a strong potential nominee whom they don’t want to torpedo in the primaries; Democrats, because they consider him a strong potential nominee whom they do want to torpedo in the general election. As a result, nearly everybody has forgotten just how far left he moved a few years ago…

In particular, Chait correctly points out that standards used to judge candidates’ authenticity are completely arbitrary:

The truth is, politicians at the serious-presidential-contender level are all willing to compromise to achieve larger goals. Flip-flopping really reveals less about a candidate’s character than about his circumstances. Romney and Giuliani both hail from very liberal places. Going from mayor of New York or governor of Massachusetts to GOP presidential nominee without some flip-flopping would be impossible.

McCain, on the other hand, comes from conservative Arizona. Why, then, has he flip-flopped so much? Because he can. Everybody “knows” McCain is authentic. McCain knows everybody knows that. (“I would argue that I have not changed any of my positions, and if I did really change my positions on issues, that I would lose what is probably one of the greatest attractions that people have for me, and that is as a person who stands up for what he believes in.”)

Conversely, everybody “knows” Hillary Clinton is phony. Therefore, Clinton can’t budge an inch on her Iraq vote, and McCain has a license for a total ideological makeover. Does that mean Clinton has more character than McCain? No, just less room to maneuver.

Last week, I made a similar point in the context of a New York Times article that framed Hillary Clinton as ultra-calculating:

The problem with this kind of coverage is that every politician is in some sense calculated. Their public persona always evolves over time and varies by context. But as a result of the conventional wisdom about authenticity, some politicians have their every move framed as calculated (Hillary, Gore) and some don’t (McCain). It’s completely arbitrary.

Sadly, reporters aren’t usually reflective enough to understand this point. They’re frequently captured by the conventional wisdom about candidates, and end up skewing their coverage to reinforce silly pre-existing narratives.