Brendan Nyhan

With more and more polls showing President Bush below 40 percent approval, the administration has launched its campaign-style offensive against critics of the war in Iraq, which started yesterday with a Bush speech that returned to the misleading claims and ugly attacks on dissent that were so prevalent from 2001-2004.

Let’s consider the key passage of the speech line by line. Bush began with this:

While it’s perfectly legitimate to criticize my decision or the conduct of
the war, it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war
began. Some Democrats and anti-war critics are now claiming
we manipulated the intelligence and misled the American people about why we
went to war. These critics are fully aware that a bipartisan Senate
investigation found no evidence of political pressure to change the
intelligence community’s judgments related to Iraq’s weapons programs.

This is true, but highly misleading, as TNR’s Jason Zengerle notes: “[T]he Senate Select Committee on Intelligence has yet to investigate what, exactly, the Bush administration did with the intelligence it received; how administration policymakers (and the administration-loyal intelligence chief, then-CIA Director George Tenet) responded to analysts who presented competing or contradictory intelligence; and whether the administration manipulated that intelligence to make its case for war.”

Bush continued:

They also know that intelligence agencies from around the world agreed with
our assessment of Saddam Hussein. They know the United Nations passed more
than a dozen resolutions citing his development and possession of weapons
of mass destruction. And many of these critics supported my opponent
during the last election, who explained his position to support the
resolution in the Congress this way: “When I vote to give the President of
the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm
Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of
mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our
security.” That’s why more than a hundred Democrats in the House and the
Senate — who had access to the same intelligence — voted to support
removing Saddam Hussein from power.

As Atrios notes (here, here), Bush’s claims about the degree of consensus behind his “assessment” of Iraq and lawmakers having access to the “same intelligence” are overstated. Knight Ridder points out that “the administration’s assertions about Iraq’s ties to al-Qaeda were not supported by U.S. intelligence agencies,” while the Washington Post states that “Bush does not share his most sensitive intelligence, such as the President’s Daily Brief, with lawmakers,” “the National Intelligence Estimate summarizing the intelligence community’s views about the threat from Iraq was given to Congress just days before the vote to authorize the use of force in that country,” and “there were doubts within the intelligence community not included in the NIE.” (For much more on the use of intelligence in promoting the war in Iraq, see chapter 8 of All the President’s Spin.)

Atrios also correctly notes that, after saying that “it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war
began,” Bush did exactly that, claiming that lawmakers “voted to support removing Saddam Hussein from power,” when in fact it authorized him to use the military to “defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.” Bush himself said at the time of the resolution that he had not made up his mind about invading Iraq.

Back to Bush:

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. 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 to 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.

This is the core demagogic attack — claiming that legitimate dissent “send[s] the wrong signal” to US troops and the enemy. By that logic, the only way to send the right signal is to not question Bush’s advocacy of the war or conduct of it. Bush and his allies have used this type of rhetoric again and again since 9/11 to try to silence their critics (see my Spinsanity column on the subject and chapter 6 of All the President’s Spin for more details).

In case the thrust of the strategy wasn’t clear, here’s a passage from earlier in the speech:

I’ve joined with the veterans groups to call on Congress to protect the
flag of the United States in the Constitution of the United States. In June, the House of Representatives voted for a
constitutional amendment to ban flag desecration. I urge the United States
Senate to pass this important amendment.

But the Washington Post explains (via TNR’s Michael Crowley) that while Bush has supported the proposed flag-burning amendment “for years,” he “almost never mentions in speeches.” Hey, it worked for his father when Dukakis was ahead in the polls, right?

Lest anyone miss the implication of Bush’s speech, White House press secretary Scott McClellan laid the demagoguery on even thicker in an attack on Ted Kennedy

Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Mr. Kerry’s fellow Massachusetts Democrat, also reacted angrily. “It’s deeply regrettable that the president is using Veterans Day as a campaign-like attempt to rebuild his own credibility by tearing down those who seek the truth about the clear manipulation of intelligence in the run-up to the Iraq war,” Mr. Kennedy said.

Scott McClellan, the White House press secretary, in turn accused Mr. Kennedy of exploiting the day in his remarks.

“It is regrettable that Senator Kennedy has chosen Veterans Day to continue leveling baseless and false attacks that send the wrong signal to our troops and our enemy during a time of war,” Mr. McClellan said. “It is also regrettable that Senator Kennedy has found more time to say negative things about President Bush then he ever did about Saddam Hussein.”

The implication, of course, is that Kennedy hates Bush more than Saddam.

And pundits, picking up on Bush’s cue, are jumping into the fray, with Glenn Reynolds stating (via Kevin Drum) that “Bush needs to be very plain that this is all about Democratic politicans pandering to the antiwar base, that it’s deeply dishonest, and that it hurts our troops abroad. And yes, he should question their patriotism. Because they’re acting unpatriotically.”

This signals a nasty turn in the debate over Iraq. The Bush administration is wounded and willing to try anything to get back on the offensive. What they’re going to discover, however, is that a president with a 35 percent approval rating is not very intimidating, particularly when he’s attacking critics of a war that more than 50 percent of Americans think was not worth the cost.

The New York Times Magazine ran a story a few weeks ago (Times Select subscription required) about Microsoft research into managing attention and distractions. The idea is to create artificial intelligence programs for determining when computers should interrupt your work to bother you. Some prototypes have already been developed, and the article suggests Microsoft may adopt some of the ideas into its new operating system:

So will Microsoft bring these calming technologies to our real-world computers? … The near-term answer to the question will come when Vista, Microsoft’s new operating system, is released in the fall of 2006. Though Czerwinski and Horvitz are reluctant to speculate on which of their innovations will be included in the new system, Horvitz said that the system will “likely” incorporate some way of detecting how busy you are. But he admitted that “a bunch of features may not be shipping with Vista.” He says he believes that Microsoft will eventually tame the interruption-driven workplace, even if it takes a while. “I have viewed the task as a ‘moon mission’ that I believe that Microsoft can pull off,” he says.

Sounds great, like most Microsoft rhetoric, but despite spending untold millions on R&D they execute like the Bush administration. As an illustration, two graduate students in my department had presentations interrupted this week because Windows is so stupid. One accidentally hit the power button during a Powerpoint slideshow, and the computer turned itself off without asking for confirmation — a distraction that required a five minute reboot. The other was told, also in the middle of a slideshow, that his automatic Windows update was complete and asked to reboot his machine. His only options were to “Restart now” or “Restart Later,” and if he hit “Restart Later,” the window popped back up five minutes later and did the same thing all over again. So during the course of a 40 minute presentation and a 45 minute Q&A, he probably had to turn it off 12 or 13 times. What if it he had been giving a job talk?

Mike Brady told us a hilarious story this morning about former New Jersey governor/EPA administrator Christine Todd Whitman’s appearance on Jeopardy in 2004.

The final Jeopardy question asked how many members of the Senate there were in 1958. Now, the only possible answers that make sense are 96, 98, and 100 given that the only two states that had not entered the Union by World War I were Alaska and Hawaii. Whitman’s guess? 46. Yes, that would mean there were 23 states in the Union in 1958 — something that was true in … 1820-1821. It doesn’t even make sense if she thought each state had one senator. (Correct answer: 96. Alaska and Hawaii entered in 1959.) Time to go back to civics class, Governor.

This is going to be frustrating:

Top White House officials say they’re developing a “campaign-style” strategy in response to increasing Democratic allegations that the Bush administration twisted intelligence to make its case for war.

White House aides, who agreed to speak to CNN only on the condition of anonymity, said they hoped to increase what they called their “hit back” in coming days.

The officials say they plan to repeatedly make the point — as they did during the 2004 campaign — that pre-war intelligence was faulty, it was not manipulated and everyone was working off the same intelligence.

They hope to arm GOP officials with more quotes by Democrats making the same pre-war claims as Republicans did about Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction.

It’s ridiculous that we’re even debating this issue. The evidence is all on the public record — see chapter 8 of All the President’s Spin ($11.20 at Amazon!). In addition, as a number of people have pointed out, the fact that Democrats thought Saddam had biological and chemical weapons is true but irrelevant. The administration not only distorted the evidence on biological and chemical weapons, but dramatically twisted it in hyping its claims about nuclear weapons and links to Al Qaeda.

Scott McClellan has lashed out again at members of the press.

A few weeks ago, when challenged by Helen Thomas, McClellan accused her of being “opposed to the broader war on terrorism.” During yesterday’s White House press briefing, he smeared Thomas and other members of the press, as WashingtonPost.com’s Dan Froomkin recounts:

Press secretary Scott McClellan was questioned repeatedly and persistently about what sort of exemption the White House is requesting from a proposed congressional ban on torture.

He wouldn’t say. And when the journalists in the room wouldn’t back off, he lost his cool.

When Hearst columnist Helen Thomas kept interrupting McClellan’s talking points and demanding a “straight answer” about the exemption, McClellan shot back: “You don’t want the American people to hear what the facts are, Helen, and I’m going to tell them the facts.”

After NBC’s David Gregory jumped in — again, asking McClellan to explain why the White House feels an exemption is necessary — McClellan accused his interlocutors of being, essentially, anti-American.

“Well, obviously, you have a different view from the American people,” McClellan said. “I think the American people understand the importance of doing everything within our power and within our laws to protect the American people.”

Moments later, he repeated the accusation: “This involves information that relates to doing all we can to protect the American people. And if you have a different view — obviously, some of you on this room — in this room have a different view, some of you on the front row have a different view.”

Demagoguery: the last refuge of a press secretary whose boss has an approval rating of less than 40 percent.

Back in June, I wrote this about Arnold’s slate of legislative initiatives:

I have to say that [I] think Schwarzenegger is going to go down in flames. California Democrats are up in arms and looking to channel their anti-Bush rage. He’s going to be the fall guy.

And that prediction, at least, came true:

In a stinging rebuke from voters who elected him two years ago, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s efforts to reshape state government were rejected during a special election that darkened his prospects for a second term.

Congratulations to the people of California for rejecting all eight propositions on the ballot. The initiative process is a disaster. Let’s hope this dissuades people from abusing it.

I’m also excited to see that Tim Kaine won the governor’s race in Virginia, both because I have a friend who worked on the campaign and because it signals that a Democrat can successfully talk about religion and win in a red state. That’s an important step toward making sure both parties represent people of faith.

Update 11/9: Via Dan Froomkin, the AP’s Ron Fournier is brutal:

Iraq, Katrina, CIA leak, Harriet Miers. Things couldn’t possibly get any worse for President Bush. Wait, they just did.

Bush put his wispy political prestige on the line in the Virginia governor’s race and lost Tuesday when the candidate he embraced in a last-minute campaign stop was soundly defeated. While there are many reasons for Jerry Kilgore’s defeat, chief among them his poor campaign, giddy Democrats said the Virginia race as well as a Democratic victory in New Jersey prove that Bush is a political toxin for Republicans.

Update 11/9: See Amy Sullivan’s post at WashingtonMonthly.com for more on the role of religion in Kaine’s campaign.

This tactic is all too predictable:

Sources tell Drudge that early this afternoon House Speaker Hastert and Senate Majority Leader Frist will announce a bicameral investigation into the leak of classified information to the WASHINGTON POST regarding the “black sites” where high value al Qaeda terrorists are being held and interrogated.

Said one Hill source: “Talk about a leak that damaged national security! How will we ever get our allies to cooperate if they fear that their people will be targeted by al Qaeda.”

As a prelude, per Josh Marshall, let’s hope our society is capable of making the moral distinction between “betraying the identity of [one] of the country’s own spies as a tool of government policy and revealing information about government policy to the press” — especially when that information is about a secret, outside-the-law network of detention centers where torture is inflicted on prisoners.

But I want to note something else. This is part of a long-term Republican strategy of reversing accusations back at their accusers, trying to confuse voters and tar Democrats as hypocrites. Republicans had been criticized for exploiting wedge politics, so they have increasingly accused Democrats of anti-Catholic/Hispanic/religious/women bias for opposing various judicial nominees. Republicans have been criticized for being on the side of the rich, so they have waged a decades-long campaign to portray Democrats as being the party of cultural/coastal elites. (Etc.) Now that the Libby indictment is starting to do serious damage to the administration, it shouldn’t be any surprise that the GOP is looking for a way to implicate Democrats in a security leak.

Anyone else hear Herman Melville turning in his grave?

By the time R. Kelly is done with his “Trapped in the Closet” saga, it may have more chapters than “Moby Dick.”

David Rohde, a senior professor here at Duke, pointed out an interesting Roll Call article from Oct. 20 (subscription required). Titled “Fate of GOP in ’06 Depends on Bush,” it presents data showing the correlation between presidential approval and mid-term swings in House seats for the president’s party. As you can see from this graphic, the relationship appears to be powerful:

(Statistical details: Presidential approval is significant at the .01 level in a bivariate regression. R-squared is approximately .65.)

Barry Burden has provided corroborating evidence in the form of a finding that President Bush’s approval influences that of Congress, but not the other way around — here’s a graphic he presented illustrating this point:

However, when you look at the Roll Call data more closely, the expected relationship appears to change over time, with smaller swings in recent years:

This changing relationship is what we would expect from the political science literature, which suggests that House elections have become increasingly less competitive over time, weakening the swings we observe in elections. Abramowitz, Alexander and Gunning report that “the reelection rate of incumbents and the reelection rate of House incumbents has increased from 87 percent between 1946 and 1950 to 94 percent between 1952
and 1980, 97 percent between 1982 and 2000, and 99 percent in the 2002-2004 elections” (PDF).

Here’s the point-counterpoint from the Roll Call article on this issue:

[Republican pollster Bill] McInturff stressed that the political dynamics leading to this statistical relationship are much less present now than in past cycles. Among the notable differences: the ability to use issue advocacy money in Congressional races that was not legally available to Democrats in 1994, and the post-2000 redistricting that lead to a large increase in safe seats.

And with just 18 House seats carried by the 2004 Democratic presidential nominee to defend and a GOP base that continues to approve of Bush’s job performance to the tune of 81 percent, Republicans are actually in pretty good shape heading into 2006, McInturff said.

…[Democratic pollster Geoff] Garin, without disputing McInturff’s caveats, said the predictor could be more accurate in 2006 because the Republicans control both the executive and legislative branches of government.

“Party control of Congress is not usually an important consideration in peoples’ minds,” he said. “But when people feel the country is going in the wrong direction, and one-party control is the explanation people bring to bear for that, then the issue of presidential approval ratings gets heightened in importance.”

What does this imply about the fate of Republicans in the 2006 election? Well, we can only speculate given that the election is a year away and the Roll Call data only includes eleven elections. But just for fun, let’s project the seat swing based on President Bush’s current approval rating of approximately 40 percent. A naive model in which the relationship between presidential approval and seat swings remains constant over time projects that the Republicans will lose approximately 47 House seats in 2006. And under a few different specifications I’ve tested, the predicted loss is always at least 36 seats, and usually many more.

In short, it seems like few people are taking the impact of Bush’s approval ratings seriously enough right now. Presidents with approval ratings below fifty percent during a midterm election have gotten hammered:
-Johnson in 1966: 49% approval, -47 seats;
-Ford in 1974 after Nixon’s resignation: 47% approval, -48 seats;
-Reagan in 1982: 43% approval, -26 seats;
-Clinton in 1994: 46% approval, -52 seats.

Even if the relationship between presidential approval and House seat swings has weakened, you can see why Republicans are running scared right now.

Update 11/8: For more on GOP fears about 2006 and a series of useful comparisons between 1994 and the current situation, see this Washington Post article.

Update 11/9: Westo makes an excellent point in comments about why we careful about extrapolating too much from the Roll Call data — no president in the dataset has ever had approval ratings as low as Bush’s are now going into a midterm election. We’re in unprecedented territory.

Deborah Solomon’s harsh questions in her New York Times Magazine interview column continue to make me uncomfortable, but sometimes, like this week, she says what needs to be said:

SOLOMON: But you can’t possibly blame President Bush for fear and paranoia in northern Italy.

LAWRENCE FERLINGHETTI: It’s the same with Silvio Berlusconi in Italy. Is it true that Bush believes that anyone caught reading books should be banned from government?

SOLOMON: That’s such a flaky, California thing to say.

FERLINGHETTI: I made it up.

Amen, Deborah. Speaking as a native Californian, all I can say is that she’s absolutely right. I’m sure Ferlinghetti’s wacky Bush-is-an-idiot humor is a hit at dinner parties in San Francisco.