A Care Package For The Media: Ten Examples Of Lieberman Vowing To Stay With Dems
(February 23, 2007 -- 1:31 PM EDT // link // )

Okay, so we've prepared a little Joe Lieberman care package for people to email to reporters and/or commentators when they talk about Lieberman switching parties.

Here's what's in it. We've compiled lots and lots and lots of examples of Lieberman swearing up and down to the voters of Connecticut that he'd stay with the Dems. And all this research can be yours -- for free!

As we've detailed here lots of times, we think the "will he switch" storyline is a crock. It seems apparent to us that he won't do this, mainly because the Dems are positioned to increase their majority in 2008 and if Lieberman switched he'd risk ending up in the minority for years, reducing him to irrelevance. Lieberman doesn't want to think of himself as irrelevant. He wants to think of himself as important. Yet when speculating on the question of whether he'll switch, the big news orgs simply refuse to address it with any basic skepticism, thus puffing up Lieberman's importance and telling the story precisely the way he wants it told.

No, the real reason to highlight Lieberman's switch talk is this: It shows that in the quest for attention Lieberman is cheerfully willing to threaten to break a promise he made to Connecticut voters again and again and again. Weirdly, the fact that he vowed repeatedly before Election Day to stick with the Dems is frequently absent from reports on his switch hints -- even though it's hard to think of a piece of information that's more vital to this topic. So, in view of the fact that Lieberman appears determined to keep this storyline alive, we're hoping that this modest care package will somehow find its way to reporters and commentators who are dealing with the subject. We stopped at ten examples.

So let's get started.

(1) Here's Joe Lieberman on CNN about a month before the primary:

"Let me make clear that I am a Democrat and I will remain a Democrat. I'm not gonna be unaffiliated if I have to petition my way on to the ballot. I'm gonna be a Democrat. And I will caucus with the Democrats, and look forward to caucusing with the Senate Democratic Majority."

(2) Here's Lieberman in an interview with New York magazine on August 7, 2006:

Lieberman thinks of going independent as a pragmatic ploy, not an abandonment of his party. “I’ve been a Democrat for 40 years, I’ll die a Democrat, I’ll probably be a Democrat after my death, I may still be voting Democrat in some cities in Connecticut postmortem,” he jokes.

(3) Here's Lieberman senior adviser Dan Gerstein, in an interview with me on August 15, 2006:

Here's the answer given by Lieberman senior adviser Dan Gerstein: "Senator Lieberman is a Democrat, will continue to be a Democrat and is committed to caucusing with the Democrats should he be reelected. If reelected, he is absolutely committed to supprting Senator Reid as leader, and he very much hopes it will be as majority leader."

The other seven after the jump.

Continue reading "A Care Package For The Media: Ten Examples Of Lieberman Vowing To Stay With Dems"

Rightie Pundit Who Published Faked Lincoln Quote Is Back -- But Lincoln Expert Smacks Him Down
(February 22, 2007 -- 4:57 PM EDT // link // )

Via this excellent column by Greg Mitchell, it looks as if Frank J. Gaffney Jr. is back on the Lincoln beat again. And the results, it must be said, are unsightly indeed.

You remember Gaffney. He's the prominent conservative Washington Times columnist who got roundly pilloried for publishing an infamously fake Lincoln quote last week in his Times column.

Now Gaffney's "back in the ring to take another swing," as the venerable ACDC lyric has it. In his latest column, Gaffney apologizes for the quote. But then he goes right ahead and continues suggesting that Lincoln's war conduct still nonetheless shows that current war opponents should be "held accountable" for their "dissent."

Given how often war boosters are throwing around the words of Lincoln these days, I thought it was time to check in with a real, live Lincoln expert. So I called up Harold Holzer, a Lincoln expert who's the author, most recently, of the book "Lincoln at Cooper Union: The Speech That Made Abraham Lincoln President."

Holzer's take? Gaffney's historically anology doesn't hold up. At all. It's wrong, wrong, wrong.

First, here's Gaffney's latest:

I regret the error and should, instead, have used the following, verbatim excerpt from a letter President Lincoln wrote in June 1863, as Robert E. Lee's army was on the march north to the fateful battle of Gettysburg. Mr. Lincoln wrote this letter after the arrest of a leading Confederate sympathizer legislator (or "Copperheads" as they were then known), U.S. Rep. Clement L. Vallandigham, Ohio Democrat. It forcefully explains the commander in chief's thinking about the latitude the Constitution affords to "silence" anti-war "agitators" whose conduct "damages the Army" and threatens to leave the nation without the military means to "suppress" its enemies...

It is fitting that we reflect carefully on Abe Lincoln's insights and strong words, not just because this is the time of year we celebrate his remarkable life and momentous presidency. His views are all the more salient as congressional "agitators" once again justify their vehement opposition to the incumbent president's war efforts with denunciations of "a wicked Administration of a contemptible Government." Now, as then, they threaten the adequacy of the military force needed to "suppress" a violent insurgency. Whether we choose to recognize it or not, today as in 1863, the very "life of the nation" hangs in the balance if we fail to defeat the coming nexus of weapons of mass destruction in the hands of Islamofascists...

Abraham Lincoln understood the difference between constructive dissent and treacherous agitation. There is no mistaking his determination to "silence" the latter through means he judged to be constitutional.

So what does Holzer, our expert, think of this? First, note Gaffney's application of the word "agitators" to current war critics. This inadvertently points to the most obvious difference between then and now: As Holzer points out, the Civil War took place here and the Iraq war constitutes a war abroad.. "This is completely different," Holzer says. "One is a state of rebellion, the other is a state of war. The Constitution has different provisions for a state of rebellion. Lincoln is always used as an example for those who want to argue for repression at home [now], but the context is completely different."

Holzer continued: "In fact, it's very hard to imagine another President or leader being as tolerant of dissent as Lincoln was. Lincoln is still the only head of state in the world to submit himself to an election during a revolution, during a rebellion, during a Civil War."

Finally, Holzer concludes, there actually were Congressional dissenters during the Civil War who went unprosecuted by Lincoln. "There was absolutely Congressional dissent during the Civil war. There was a Committee on the Conduct of the War that held hearings, complained about the war, issued disobliging reports. They weren't `silenced' by Lincoln.'"

One last thought from Holzer: "Lincoln had his own Murthas."

That's a good one.

Anyway, there it is. Have at it.

Update: Glenn Greenwald, who blew the whistle on the original Gaffney fakery, has much more on him today.

To visit the homepage of this blog, where you can see many more posts, click here.

GOP Pollster Says Poll Showing War Support Is Bogus
(February 21, 2007 -- 3:06 PM EDT // link // )

Conservatives are out there in full force trumpeting a poll that appeared on the front page of today's New York Post allegedly showing that there's much more support for the Iraq war than anybody thought.

The poll -- which was done by the big GOP firm Public Opinion Strategies and ran under the glaring headline "America Says Lets Win War" -- is being promoted heavily by wingnut talk show hosts, bloggers and others. They are aggressively using it to pump up GOP morale and to undermine Dems' resolve in advance of a showdown between Congress and the White House. Rush Limbaugh said that it's going to "shock the Democrats," while PowerlineBlog's Paul Mirengoff sagely observed that it shows that "the Democrats' defeatist approach to Iraq may not be a winning political strategy." Some liberal bloggers have already started to debunk the poll -- don't miss Steve Benen's skillful skewering of the survey right here.

But guess what: I've just asked another Republican pollster who says he originally supported the war -- let me repeat that, a Republican pollster who says he supported the war -- to analyze the poll. His take? He basically says the poll's a crock. The pollster, David Johnson, the CEO of the GOP firm Strategic Vision, tells me that some of the key questions were leading and designed to elicit the answers they got. "This poll is not the quality we've come to expect from national polling firms," Johnson tells me.

First, let's look at what the poll "found."

In a dramatic finding, a new poll shows a solid majority of Americans still wants to win the war in Iraq -- and keep U.S. troops there until the Baghdad government can take over.

Strong majorities also say victory is vital to the War on Terror and that Americans should support President Bush even if they have concerns about the way the war is being handled, according to the survey conducted by Public Opinion Strategies.

The poll found that 57 percent of Americans supported "finishing the job in Iraq" - keeping U.S. troops there until the Iraqis can provide security on their own. Forty-one percent disagreed.

By 53 percent to 43 percent they also believe victory in Iraq over the insurgents is still possible....

Only 25 percent of those surveyed agreed with the statement, "I don't really care what happens in Iraq after the U.S. leaves, I just want the troops brought home." Seventy-four percent disagreed.

Now let's look at the actual questions. They're here.

The first finding -- that 57 % support "finishing the job" -- is based on asking respondents whether they agree or disagree with the following statement: “I support finishing the job in Iraq, that is, keeping the troops there until the Iraqi government can maintain control and provide security for its people.” What does Johnson, the pollster I spoke to, think about this question?

"It's designed to elicit a positive response by putting respondents in the position of saying that they don't support `finishing a job,'" Johnson says. "It's not a straightforward wording at all. It's also put in the first person to personalize it. In polling when you use the first person you generally get a more positive response."

The next finding -- that Americans think victory is "possible" by 53%-43% -- is based on asking whether respondents agree or disagree with this: "Victory in Iraq, that is creating a young but stable democracy in Iraq and reducing the threat of terrorism at home, is no longer possible for the U.S." Pretty tricky, eh? Note that this question is framed as a negative -- forcing people to disagree with a negative. And it asks whether people think it's "no longer possible" to reduce the threat of terrorism at home -- something that's clearly worded that way because fewer would agree with it.

"This wording is completely unprofessional," Johnson says. "It's designed to confuse the respondent. People are being asked whether two different things can be accomplished -- establishing democracy in Iraq and reducing the threat of terrorism at home -- and [the question] doesn't clarify which one people are talking about."

Finally, let's look at the finding that only 25% agree with the statement, "I don't really care what happens in Iraq after the U.S. leaves, I just want the troops brought home."

"That's a leading question," Johnson says. "It's forcing people who want the troops brought home to say they disagree, because it's forcing them to say they don't care what happens if they're pulled out. Most Americans don't want the troops there but they're also concerned about what will happen if they're pulled out." Asked if he was merely badmouthing a competitor, Johnson said that they were "not often" in competition because his firm does state polls while Public Opinion Strategies focuses on national ones.

So what's the response of the author of this poll to all this? I called Public Opinion Strategies' partner and co-founder Neil Newhouse, and he got back to me. While declining to get into specifics, he said: "He's entitled to his opinion. So he's got a problem with the way the questions are worded? At least we laid them all out there for everyone to see. This shows a much more nuanced view of how voters are looking at the war. This is a significantly different way to look at attitudes."

To visit the homepage of this blog, where you can see many more posts, click here.

Tony Snow: Bush's Public Concern For Troops Ends Where Damage To White House Begins
(February 20, 2007 -- 6:55 PM EDT // link // )

There was an extraordinary moment at Tony Snow's White House press briefing today. Snow was pressed pretty hard by reporters over the Walter Reed army hospital scandal, and at one point, he assured reporters that President Bush cares deeply about the troops in a moment you'll want to watch for its sheer theatrical value:

In that exchange, Snow spoke of Bush's concern for the troops as follows:

I can tell you that the President feels passionately about them, and you should have no doubt about it -- you've been at enough events where when he looks these people in the eye there is a commitment, a strong, profound emotional commitment to the people who serve this country. And it is one where the President is committed to doing right by the men and women who serve. There should be no doubt about that.

But at another point, Snow was asked if the President would ever be saying anything about Walter Reed, and the answer was startling:

QUESTION: The White House doesn't want to be on record with a more emphatic expression of amazement and upset about this?

MR. SNOW: No. David asked where the outrage -- of course there's outrage that men and women who have been fighting have not received the outpatient care -- if you read the stories, there are many who are happy with it, some who are unhappy, and it's important that we show our commitment to the people who have served. I don't know what more you want me to do.

[...]

QUESTION: Do you think the President is going to say something about this later?

MR. SNOW: No.

Am I wrong for finding this extraordinary? Bush has a "profound emotional commitment" to the troops. But Snow was unequivocal: The White House has no plans whatsoever to say anything -- ever, not even through a spokesperson, no matter what we learn -- about something which bears directly on their actual mistreatment. If you read through the whole press conference, it's just one long exercise in evasion and the too-clever-by-half sloughing off of responsibility on to someone else -- in this case, the Department of Defense. It seems obvious that the overriding concern in play is that saying anything at all about this risks linking the White House to the Walter Reed scandal.

In other words, Bush's public concern for the troops ends where the mere potential for political damage to the White House begins. Watch how Bush feels about the troops -- not what he says or does. When it comes to things that actually effect the troops, the buck stops anywhere but at the Oval Office -- but while we're on the topic, please give the President credit for having profound feelings about them. In a way, that's the story of this Presidency in a nutshell, isn't it?

To visit the homepage of this blog, where you can see many more posts, click here.

GOP Rep. Who Pushed Pelosi Plane Story Admits He Didn't Know -- Or Care -- If It Was True
(February 20, 2007 -- 2:26 PM EDT // link // )

The bogus Pelosi plane story has already been killed off multiple times and is at this point nothing more than a piece of journalistic roadkill. Still, you won't want to miss this one -- because it provides a backstage look at the extraordinary dishonesty that drove this whole non-story from the very beginning.

Today's Tampa Tribue is carrying a profile of one of the key drivers of this tale: Florida GOP Rep. Adam Putnam. As chairman of the House Republican conference committee, Putnam plays a key role in pushing the GOP's message in the media, and he aggressively pushed the plane story from the start. But now he's cheerfully admitted to the Tribune that not only did he have no idea whether the plane story was true, he didn't particularly care, either.

From the Tribune story by reporter Billy Townsend:

Putnam, the third-ranking House Republican, had pushed the Pelosi story aggressively the day before, both in print and on television.

"This is not about having secure communications and secure aircraft available to her. It's about an arrogance of extravagance that demands a jumbo jet that costs $22,000 an hour to operate to taxi her and her buddies back and forth to California," Putnam told Fox News.

It turns out there's no evidence Pelosi requested any such thing. A day after Snow's remarks, the nonpartisan House sergeant-at-arms released a written statement explaining that for security reasons he asked for a plane that could carry Pelosi nonstop to her home in San Francisco, a much longer distance than former Speaker Dennis Hastert, of Illinois, had to cover.

Putnam now acknowledges he had no personal knowledge of any Pelosi request. He said he was commenting on an anonymously-sourced story in The Washington Times and additional coverage from CNN.

"This was a classic case where the media got out in front of us," Putnam said. "Did we jump on it? Yes."

And he is unapologetic about that. He calls the Pelosi plane story, whatever its legitimacy, "the first break [Republicans] have had from the media in driving our message since before the Mark Foley story broke."

And these days, as chairman of the House Republican conference committee, it is in Putnam's congressional job description to care intensely about that.

I'm not sure it gets any clearer than that. Putnam had no idea whether the story was true or not. Yet based on an anonymously sourced Washington Times story (and allegedly based on CNN, though what exactly CNN had added to the story at that point is unclear), he happily attacked Pelosi for "arrogance" and "extravagance." More important, he is still "unapologetic" about the fact that the story turned out to be false, because, well, it's not his job to care about such things. It's his job to "drive" the GOP's "message."

Look, of course Putnam is going to lie. But what of the media? This story was all over the airwaves and newspapers for days and days and days -- even well after it had been discredited. Can we all agree that this sort of occurrence is a bad thing for journalism, for politics, and for the state of our discourse? Can we all agree that it would be desirable to avoid this sort of thing? Agreed?

I think I hear a few cries of "yes" out there somewhere. So now that we know that one of the officials who's key to driving the GOP message in the media couldn't care less whether what he's saying is true or not, you'd think that we'll be seeing a bit more media skepticism the next time a similar GOP attack is launched from the same quarters. You'd think. Wouldn't you?

To visit the homepage of this blog, where you can see many more posts, click here.

Little Green Footballs Readers: Kill Them All Now!
(February 19, 2007 -- 2:14 PM EDT // link // )

Okay, so Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs has responded to my post below. I had noted that Johnson appeared to have advocated the assassination of foreign leaders in this post yesterday. Now Johnson has responded, accusing me (with striking originality) of -- yawn, yawn, yawn -- aiding and abetting America's enemies:

Greg should spend a bit more time cultivating a sense of humor and a bit less defending the honor of open, avowed enemies of America.

Hey, I thought my post was kinda funny! Didn't you catch the gags about Ann Coulter and Howie Kurtz? Oh, well -- we can't all be as witty and clever as Johnson is, alas.

Incidentally, it's going to come as a crushing disappointment to his readers that Johnson was joking about targeting foreign leaders, as he appears to be saying. Those readers, after all, took him very seriously indeed. If you can stand it, check out some of the reader comments on his original post:

Johnson does say one thing that deserves a quick reply, though. He writes of my post: "He even put up a screenshot, as if he thinks I’m going to be so humiliated by his exposure of my bloodthirsty wingnuttitude that I’ll immediately delete my post and try to hide the evidence of my transgression."

Nope -- wrong again. This blog actually makes it a policy to use screen grabs in place of blockquotes where possible for the purposes of illustration. Examples here and here. What's more, the joker's original post was basically nothing but a picture -- of course one would screen-grab it. Believe me, no one who's familiar with the constant flow of bigotry, jingoism and bloodthirsty war-shrieking of LGF would ever make the mistake of imagining that Johnson has the capacity to be embarrassed by anything he posts.

To visit the homepage of this blog, where you can see many more posts, click here.

Popular Wingnut Blogger Appears To Advocate Assassination Of Foreign Leaders
(February 19, 2007 -- 11:02 AM EDT // link // )

Check out this screen grab of a post that was put up yesterday on wingnut Charles Johnson's popular and well-trafficked Little Green Footballs blog:

Yeah, so the title of the post really was

Definition of a Target-Rich Environment

...those targets, of course, being Iranian supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Syrian President Bashar Assad, and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Johnson, incidentally, has been feted by the mainstream media. He was recently named number 20 on Forbes's "Web celeb" list. Perhaps more such posts about targeting foreign leaders will move him up into the top ten and get him the sort of regular network booking Ann Coulter enjoys.

In fact, maybe it's time for Howard Kurtz to do a long profile of Johnson, just as he did of Michelle Malkin the other day, reserving the stuff about foreign leaders for the 18th paragraph. Oh, wait -- the Washington Post already profiled Johnson! My bad.

Update: Johnson has now responded; my response to his response is here. Don't miss all the bonus assassination calls from his readers!

To visit the homepage of this blog, where you can see many more posts, click here.