The Red Pill

By NEDRA PICKLER

Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Democratic presidential candidates criticized President Bush's record on the economy and fighting terrorism in a debate Tuesday night, but some of their jabs left out important facts.

Sen. Joe Lieberman declared it would take a Democratic president to ``get this economy going,'' but the economy has been gaining momentum over the last several months since Bush's second tax cut took effect.

Weekly claims for unemployment insurance have fallen since April, and economic growth and productivity in the third-quarter reached 20-year highs.

Two of the candidates used a favorite attack line against Bush - Lieberman said ``3.5 million people have lost their jobs'' and Howard Dean twice cited the 3 million jobs lost under Bush - but their statements also ignored the improving economy.

It is true that about 3 million jobs were lost during the early months of the Bush presidency. But that trend has been reversing for several months as the jobless rate has dropped from a peak of 6.4 percent in June to 5.9 percent last month.

Kathleen Hall Jamieson, a University of Pennsylvania professor who studies political rhetoric, said the debate was filled with hyperbole and exaggeration typical of candidates trying to unseat an incumbent president.

``If you were trying to get facts from this debate, you are going to get confused,'' Jamieson said. ``You have the party out of power exaggerating the negative impact of the administration and ignoring the positive impact.''

Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry got off the mark when he told a story about a New Hampshire couple. As he told it, Lisa and Randy Denuccio can't drink their water or take showers because they live next to a lake that is contaminated with the gasoline additive MTBE.

But in a telephone interview Tuesday night, Lisa Denuccio said the couple now showers with the water from their town rather than the old polluted well. ``We can't do without that,'' she said of the showers. However, she says they still drink bottled water.

Several of the nine Democrats attacked the tax cuts Bush pushed through Congress. But none mentioned that Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, who has served both Republican and Democratic presidents, has cited those cuts as a reason for the recent growth of the economy.

North Carolina Sen. John Edwards boasted that he does not take money from Washington lobbyists because they have too much influence on politics - but he neglected to mention that his campaign manager, Nick Baldick, has been a registered lobbyist with clients like Blue Cross-Blue Shield and Burger King.

On foreign policy, Wesley Clark and Dean accused Bush of ``not fighting terrorism.''

Although al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden remains at large, the administration's war has substantially thinned the ranks of the terror network, including the arrest of Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed. The administration also has thwarted dozens of attacks through increased cooperation with allies.

On the Iraq front, Dean declared ``I think we need to bring in foreign troops,'' suggesting Americans have been going it alone.

While some big Western allies, like Germany and France, have refused to provide troops for Iraq, the campaign has received thousands of troops from the likes of Britain, Poland, Japan, Italy, Hungary, Denmark and Ukraine.

NATO countries have sent about 24,000 soldiers, compared to 130,000 U.S. troops.

Clark said it was a ``strategic blunder'' to go to war with Iraq, but in the past he has said he would have voted for the resolution authorizing Bush to launch military strikes against Saddam Hussein.

Even Ted Koppel, the ABC newsman who moderated the debate, waded into the gray area of truth when he declared that Dean had raised more money than anyone in the campaign.

While Dean's $25 million through September tops the Democratic field, it is dwarfed by the more than $100 million Bush has already raised as a Republican with no primary opponent.

BY BEN FRITZ
Wednesday, December 10, 2003 12:01 a.m. EST

In a June 6 speech about Medicare, President Bush said, "We must protect seniors from high medical costs that can rob them of their savings." And with the recently passed Medicare bill, which adds a prescription drug benefit to the government's health insurance program for seniors, the president claims to have done just that.

Yet according to a prominent liberal Web site, the Medicare bill is de facto proof of dishonesty by President Bush because it includes a provision supported by Democrats that forbids the government from using its purchasing power to negotiate lower drug prices. Does the objection prove that Mr. Bush was lying? Of course not. On the contrary, it's nothing more than the sort of ideological disagreement that is inherent to democracy.

Unfortunately, the Medicare example is just one of many false accusations of presidential dishonesty leveled by "The Daily Mislead," which accused Mr. Bush of deception due to the Medicare provision on three separate occasions (here, here and here). The Mislead is a new project of the increasingly influential liberal organization MoveOn.org, which claims to reach more than two million activists and recently received a donation of up to $5 million from philanthropist George Soros, who is working to prevent President Bush's re-election.

The Daily Mislead claims that it provides "an accurate daily chronicle for journalists of misrepresentations, distortions and downright misleading statements by President Bush and the Bush Administration," but in most cases since its first issue on Sept. 15, it has done nothing of the kind. Instead, despite numerous examples of actual deception by the Bush administration, the Mislead has generally presented a series of partisan accusations of dishonesty based on nothing more than political disagreement. Like too many participants in the media bias debate, MoveOn is churning out a series of analyses designed to support a preconceived agenda--whether the facts fit the case or not.

In short, with The Daily Mislead, MoveOn has become the leader of a new school of liberal criticism that seeks to brand every policy disagreement with President Bush as a broken promise or lie. These loose accusations trivialize charges of dishonesty, reducing them to little more than another partisan spin tactic.

The most frequent way in which The Daily Mislead unfairly accuses the Bush administration of dishonesty is to present evidence of a vague promise made by the president and attack him for betraying this promise by not supporting some favored liberal policy (such as spending more money on the issue).

For instance, on Nov. 20, the Mislead made this accusation: "President Bush unveiled his energy plan in May 2001, vowing to 'make this country the world's leader in energy efficiency and conservation in the 21st century.' But the energy bill under final consideration by the Senate and supported by the President devotes less than ten percent of the $25.7 billion in tax breaks to energy efficiency."

But why is 10% not enough? How much would be enough? MoveOn never says, because it's too busy engaging in partisan attacks posing as objective analysis of dishonesty. It later points out, "The bill allocates only $1.5 billion over ten years in new energy efficiency spending, $300 million less than for 'clean coal' technology, considered by environmentalists to be an oxymoron." But why are environmentalists right about "clean coal," and why isn't $1.5 billion enough? It further states: "Around $14.5 billion of the tax breaks, about 62%, go to fossil fuels and nuclear power subsidies." Nuclear power, of course, produces no air pollution and is supported by some as an environmentally friendly power source. MoveOn may disagree, as it does with the Bush administration's spending on energy efficiency, but it provides no evidence as to why this disagreement is evidence of dishonesty.

Similarly, on Oct. 21, the Mislead attacked Mr. Bush for not requesting as much for veterans' health as the American Legion, a veterans group, would like and for not engaging in emergency spending approved by Congress that included extra funds for veterans' health. The Mislead's evidence that this position was dishonest? An extremely vague statement by the president in which he said, "Veterans are a priority for this administration . . . and that priority is reflected in my budget."

The examples of "dishonesty" that consist of little more than vague statements and partisan disagreement go on. On Oct. 17, the Mislead said the Bush administration's campaign to promote the success of the Iraq war was dishonest because troop morale is low. On Oct. 7, it attacked the president's statement that education would be his "top priority" after he proposed only a small increase in funding for federal educational programs. And on Oct. 30, it accused the president of being deceptive when he promised to make the national park system the "crown jewel of America's recreation system" because of a dispute over funding for park maintenance and the fact that some parks have long waits for student groups to visit.

In other cases, The Daily Mislead has made accusations of dishonesty that might be serious, but the only evidence MoveOn marshals for its cause is highly subjective.

The Oct. 14 Mislead opens with the following statement: "Despite President Bush's rhetorical claim that 'the best safeguard against abuse is full disclosure,' Republican Senator Arlen Specter compares the lack of candor from the Administration about the Patriot Act to 'a big black hole.' " Why should we believe Mr. Specter's accusation? MoveOn doesn't tell us. It also notes that "fellow Republican Senator Chuck Grassley says 'it's like pulling teeth to get answers' from Attorney General John Ashcroft about whether the Justice Department may be using the Act to justify wrongful handling of Americans detained simply on suspicion of terrorist connections." The Mislead then notes that Mr. Ashcroft has testified before Congress three times since early 2002, while Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld did so 12 times, but fails to grapple with potential reasons for the difference, such as the war in Iraq.

These are subjective accusations against the president, not serious analyses of dishonesty. The Oct. 1 Mislead makes a similarly absurd claim, stating, "On Tuesday members of the Iraqi Governing Council contradicted Secretary of State Colin Powell's optimistic timetable for self-government, saying it could take up to 18 months to ratify a constitution, thus extending the U.S. occupation into 2005. This is far longer than senior administration members suggested just last week but is exactly what President Bush's father warned might happen." That the Bush administration disagrees with the Iraqi Governing Council about the timetable for the occupation and that this claim contradicts a statement by George H.W. Bush in a 1998 book are not in themselves evidence of dishonesty, though, just disagreement.

Another favorite tactic of the Mislead has been to blast the administration for promises it was unable to fulfill or policy plans that changed due to altered circumstances. In essence, these supposed examples of dishonesty actually consist of outcomes the Bush administration cannot realistically control.

The very first Mislead, from Sept. 15, included such an attack, nothing that Mr. Bush said his "first goal is an economy that [will] employ every man and woman who seeks a job." MoveOn then attacked the president because the economy had lost approximately 2.5 million jobs since he came into office. The fact that the economy has not created jobs, however, is not evidence that Mr. Bush didn't attempt to spur job creation through his economic policies.

Similarly, the Misleads from Sept. 29 and Oct. 3 attack the administration for not reaching the job creation goals it offered in support of its tax cut plans. And in perhaps the biggest stretch of all, the Oct. 24 Mislead implied that a Bush pledge to crack down on corporate leaders who violate the public trust was broken by an internal memo at military contractor Haliburton, which is obviously not proof of deception by the administration.

Worst of all, the Mislead occasionally engages in deception of its own, citing inaccurate or misleading evidence or publishing articles that do not even include accusations of dishonesty by the Bush administration.

The Nov. 25 Mislead analyzed the situation in Iraq and accused Mr. Bush of dishonesty because he "yesterday said that we 'put the Taliban out of business forever'--taking credit for supposedly ridding the world of the terrorist regime." It goes on to describe "the President's declarations that the challenges in Afghanistan are over." But the Nov. 24 speech quoted in the Mislead is all about the continuing missions in Iraq and Afghanistan. In it, Mr. Bush makes clear that Taliban are still a threat and that challenges remain in Afghanistan, saying, "We are fighting the terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan and in other parts of the world so we do not have to fight them on the streets of our own cities." Mr. Bush is clearly acknowledging the continued turmoil in Afghanistan, which consists in part of fighting remnants of the Taliban regime.

On Sept. 19, the Mislead cited a quote by Vice President Dick Cheney on NBC's "Meet the Press" in March when he said, "We believe [Saddam Hussein] has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons." It notes that six months later Mr. Cheney said, "I misspoke." But despite the Mislead's title, "Bush Administration Spends Week Retracting Assertions About Saddam's Threat to the U.S.," the evidence actually suggests that Mr. Cheney did simply misspeak. In the same interview, the vice president referred to Iraq's attempts to reconstitute its "nuclear program," and said Iraq had "pursued" nuclear weapons and that "we know he's out trying once again to produce nuclear weapons." In context, Mr. Cheney clearly was referring to Iraq's attempts to obtain nuclear weapons, not alleging it possessed them at the time.

At times, the Mislead's arguments verge on irrelevant, because there's simply no logic to support a claim of Bush administration dishonesty. The Nov. 6 Mislead, for instance, is about the fact that the Army Corps of Engineers was considering canceling a no-bid contract extension with Halliburton. It contains no evidence at all that anyone in the Bush administration was involved in the overcharges that led to the potential cancellation. And on Nov. 14, the Mislead attacked Bush administration changes in overtime rules that some analysts said would lead to millions of workers losing their right to overtime pay. The evidence that this is dishonest is a quote in which the president promoted his tax cut plan because it returns money to the American people. The idea that Mr. Bush's support for tax cuts means that he should support any plan that would lead to workers being paid more is absurd on its face.

Although it occasionally contains legitimate instances of Bush administration dishonesty, The Daily Mislead is primarily a vehicle for MoveOn's partisan attacks on the president. There's nothing inherently wrong with partisanship, but framing these attacks as objective analysis of dishonesty is highly deceptive.

The Daily Mislead is just one more example of how partisans eager to exploit the public's frustration with actual dishonesty by their leaders systematically conflate disagreement with deception. Until we recognize the difference, it will be hard to sort out truth from fiction.

Mr. Fritz is a co-editor of Spinsanity.org, where this article first appeared.

When Al Gore endorsed Howard Dean's presidential bid on Tuesday, it was the most excitement Gore has generated since... since... well, the last time - whenever that was. Well, that's a bit unfair. For a sizable group of Democrats, Al Gore gets the blood pumping. For the rest of us, he's the human incarnation of footnotes: dry data compressed into an amazingly dull format.
"The Simpsons" said it best when Bart's friend Martin bought a talking Al Gore doll. When you pull the string on the doll's back it says, "You are hearing me talk."
No one knows what string Howard Dean pulled to get Al Gore to endorse him, but there's no denying the excitement it's caused. Washington is atwitter with Kremlinology about the inner workings of that riot of ambitions we call the Democratic Party.
Is Al Gore vying for secretary of state in a Dean administration? Is he positioning himself as the leftwing alternative to Hillary Clinton in a 2008 run? Does he think Dean will lose and that he will inherit Dean's activist supporters? Is this a way to once again make it clear that Bill Clinton is off Al Gore's Christmas card list?
After all, Hillary has come out as a centrist hawk on the war on terrorism and on Iraq, while Al Gore has continued to drift further and further out to sea in his angry denunciations of everything George Bush says or does, even when Bush takes positions the old, moderately hawkish, Al Gore championed, like nation-building.
The problem with all this speculation is that nobody knows the answer. Too often, professional commentators and private citizens believe they can conclude motives from actions, that they can connect the dots of what is known and figure out what is unknown.
Sometimes that's possible. More often it leads to goofy conspiracy theories or absurdly elaborate plots when the true story is pretty simple or even pretty elaborate but just different from the way things seem in public.
Whenever I hear C-Span callers or, say, Barbra Streisand opine that the Iraq war was fought for the benefit of Haliburton, my immediate reaction is that these people need to understand that life isn't a cartoon.
So, I confess, I don't know why Gore is doing what he's doing. And, from what I've read, no one else does either (besides, there's plenty of time to write about the 2008 campaign or President-elect Dean's - shudder Cabinet). So while Gore's motives may still be concealed behind the lead-casing of his android skull, the meaning of what he's doing is fair game for everyone.
The angle I find particularly fascinating is the one illuminated by Gore's treatment of Joe Lieberman, also a Democratic candidate. Never mind the spectacular ungraciousness of Gore not giving his 2000 runningmate the courtesy of a phone call - Lieberman learned of Gore's endorsement from the press.
Instead, think about what this says about a man who spent almost his entire life running for president as a moderate, reasonable centrist in the "New Democrat" mold.
In 2000 Al Gore insisted that Joe Lieberman was the most qualified man to fill his shoes should a President Gore be unable to complete his term. Obviously, politics were a consideration, but Gore nonetheless made the plausible and necessary case that Lieberman was the best man to take his place.
Since then we've been brutally attacked on our own soil, we've fought two conventional wars and we are continuing to fight a third on global terrorism. In the time since then, Joe Lieberman has been at the forefront of the war on terrorism in the Senate. He was pretty much the original drafter of the Department of Homeland Security, and in 2001 and 2002 he was the chairman of the Senate Governmental Affairs committee. In short, not only is Lieberman more qualified than he was in 2000, but the things that made him qualified to be Al Gore's stand-in back then are all the more important after 9/11.
Meanwhile, Howard Dean was still an ex-governor of the second smallest state in 2000 and nothing he's done since then has made him any more qualified to be president. Like many of his fellow contenders, he sees the war on terrorism as a law enforcement issue. He sees nation-building (once an important issue for Gore) in Iraq to be so much imperial folly. Dean ridicules pretty much all of the centrist positions on defense and domestic policy that both Gore and Lieberman used to be synonymous with.
I understand Gore sees in Dean one qualification Lieberman doesn't have: the potential to win. But when you think about all that has happened since 9/11, for Gore to say that the post-9/11 world makes Howard Dean more, not less, qualified to be president than Joe Lieberman really shows how unserious Al Gore and his party have become.

Dissatisfied at how thoroughly forgotten he is among active Democrats and resentful of all the attention Sen. Hillary Clinton, his White House rival, is getting, Al has reportedly decided to flank the Clintons by backing Howard Dean for president.

Forget the November election. The fight we are witnessing is a battle for control of the Democratic Party.

In one corner stand the Clintons, sending contender after contender out to center ring in an effort to stop Dean from taking over their party. First Joe Lieberman came limping back. Then Wesley Clark ran away from the early primaries and forfeited the match. And now John Kerry is so far behind in New Hampshire that he is down for the count.

In the other corner is Dean, backed by Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. and now Gore, battling to take the party away from Hillary and craft a new Democratic left. Rejecting Clintonian, Democratic Leadership Council-style moderation, Dean and Gore are letting their liberalism hang out as they garner popularity on the left.

The tail is taking over the dog. One-third of Americans are Democrats. One-third of the Democrats are liberal activists backing Dean. And now they are dictating policy to the entire party.

Dean has mobilized this new power to get power; now Gore is using it to get his relevance back.



Hillary, anxious to keep pace in the move to the left and stay the leader of the party, goes to Iraq and on the talk shows to bolster her image as a liberal, living down her vote for the war resolution. She sees the decade-long reign of sanity in the Democratic Party leadership coming to an end and is determined to make it in the brave new world.

Enter Al Gore. Robbed of the presidency (in his view), he has been sidetracked by the Clinton machine that once lifted him from the dustbin of history and made him vice president. Has anybody thought of Al Gore in the past six months? Apparently Dean has. Their common cause: independence from Hillary and Bill.

Gore likely knows that Dean won't win. But by backing him, he begins to carve out his own identity in the post-Bill Clinton, post-moderation post-sanity Democratic era.

Or maybe he just wants to be vice president again?

Speaking of Clark, the button-down military man engaged in a 90-minute policy discussion with Madonna in her L.A. home in a bid to mobilize celebrity support. Clark has also wooed the likes of Ben Affleck and J.Lo, Steven Spielberg and Norman Lear.