Verities

USA Today's "reality check" falls short.

Democratic Veteran takes a quick look at this USA Today article, noting briefly the irony of the Bush camp trying to paint John Kerry as a hypocrite on Vietnam.

What struck me about the USA Today article, though, is that USA Today has absolutely no idea what the phrase "reality check" means.

The article is about how the Bush team will try to portray Kerry should he become the Democratic nominee. About halfway through the article, we're presented with a series of Bush lines of attack, each followed by a "reality check."

But the "reality checks" don't seem to check any reality. They don't tell us whether the Bush attacks are true or not. They're just more "color" about the topic. Here's an example:

He switches positions when it's politically expedient. Kerry voted against the Persian Gulf War in 1991, but in 2002, he voted for a resolution authorizing Bush to go to war against Iraq. His explanation: In 1991, he believed the first Bush administration should take more time to try diplomacy before military action. In 2002, he believed this Bush administration had agreed to pursue diplomacy first.

Kerry voted for Bush's education bill, the No Child Left Behind Act, but now says he'd repeal it because it doesn't work. He voted for the USA Patriot Act, which expanded government power to monitor citizens after the Sept. 11 attacks, but now opposes it as too intrusive. He opposed the death penalty for terrorists who kill Americans abroad but now supports it.

Reality check: Bush's strategists are planning ads focused on some of those things. Campaign manager Ken Mehlman said in an online chat Feb. 9 that Kerry's opposition to Bush's education bill means he wants to "take our nation backward." Some Democrats aligned with other candidates say privately that Kerry will have to come up with better explanations. [Bold in original]

Now, tell me: why the hell is that last graph labled "reality check"? What does it do to clarify whether the Bush line of attack reflects reality? Nothing. It's not a "reality check," it's just more detail about what the Bush crew is planning.

Here's another one:

He's on the wrong side of issues that matter most to voters. "We question his judgment in consistently voting to cut defense and intelligence funding critical to our national security," Mehlman says.

After the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, Kerry voted to cut spending on intelligence by $1.5 billion over five years. In 1996, he voted to cut defense by $6.5 billion. He has since said that some of those votes were mistakes.

Bush's advisers see vulnerability in Kerry's stand on an emotional and divisive issue: gay marriage. In 1996, Kerry voted against the Defense of Marriage Act, which banned federal recognition of gay marriages and allowed states to refuse to recognize those performed in other states. Kerry opposes gay marriage but supports civil unions and partnership rights.

Reality check: The differences between Bush's priorities and Kerry's are likely to dominate the competition for moderate and independent voters. How this debate plays out will depend on the shape the economy is in, progress in Iraq and whether gay marriage becomes a big campaign issue. [Bold in original]

Again, why is that last graph labled "reality check"?

Weird. Looks like USA Today has been taking lessons from FactCheck.org.

Everything Old is New Again

Reuters:

KABUL (Reuters) - Afghanistan's Taliban guerrillas have been battered so badly they are reduced to "cowardly" acts such as bicycle bombings, a senior Pentagon official said on Tuesday.

Uh, weren't they always "cowardly"?

The President, September 11, 2001:

THE PRESIDENT: I want to reassure the American people that the full resources of the federal government are working to assist local authorities to save lives and to help the victims of these attacks. Make no mistake: The United States will hunt down and punish those responsible for these cowardly acts.

Yep, that's what I thought.

Heritage Analyst Lies With Numbers; NYT Falls For It, Smears Edwards

The New York Times on Saturday did a mini hatchet job on Sen. John Edwards:

Welfare Queen, Meet Coatless Girl

RONALD REAGAN used to talk about a "welfare queen" in Chicago with a mink coat and a Cadillac, but he got in trouble when no one was able to locate her. Mr. Edwards is on safer rhetorical ground. He does not claim to know where the poor people in his speeches live.

In his stump speech about the "two Americas," he has repeatedly deplored the plight of the 35 million Americans below the poverty line by imagining a 10-year-old girl "somewhere in America" who goes to bed "praying that tomorrow will not be as cold as today, because she doesn't have the coat to keep her warm."

...

To some critics of Mr. Edwards, a more serious question is whether the coatless girl is any more representative of America's poor than Mr. Reagan's Cadillac-driving welfare recipient. After all, clothing has become so cheap and plentiful (partly because of textile imports, which Mr. Edwards has proposed to limit) that there is a glut of second-hand clothing, and consequently most clothing donated to charity is shipped abroad. The second-hand children's coats that remain in America typically sell for about $5 in thrift shops.

"Edwards would do better to say there's a girl somewhere in America who's cold because her family can't afford to fix the furnace," said Robert E. Rector of the Heritage Foundation, a conservative research group, who has analyzed data from the Census Bureau and other agencies on the living standards of the poor. Since the typical American family below the poverty line has a car, air-conditioning, a microwave oven, a stereo and two color televisions with cable or satellite service, Mr. Rector said, it was implausible to assume the family could not afford coats.

Those last two paragraphs didn't ring true, especially the portion of Rector's claims that I've bolded above. So I went to Heritage's web site and found this chart. I then poked around enough in the original Commerce/HUD/DOE data to satisfy myself that Heritage had the numbers more or less right.

Basically, the data shows that 72.8 percent of "poor households" own a car/truck, 75.6 percent own an air conditioner, 73.3 percent own a microwave, 58.6 own a stereo (which includes "Portable/Boom Box" units, which can be had for less than $50 -- not exactly a high-ticket item) 55.3 percent have two or more color televisions, and 62.6 percent have cable/satellite television.

Rector apparently has decided that since each one of these items is owned by more than half of households in poverty, more than half of households in poverty must own all of these items.

That's silly.

As an example, say you have ten kids. Six of them have blonde hair, six have blue eyes. Does that mean that more than half -- the "typical" kid -- has blonde hair and blue eyes. Of course not; it could break down like this:

Hair__Eyes
BL___BR
BL___BR
BL___BR
BL___BR
BL___BL
BL___BL
BR___BL
BR___BL
BR___BL
BR___BL

40 percent have blonde hair and brown eyes; 40 percent have brown hair and blue eyes, and only 20 percent have blonde hair and blue eyes.

We wouldn't say, based on the fact that 60 percent of these kids have blonde hair and 60 percent have blue eyes, that the "typical kid" has blonde hair and blue eyes.

Rector's cheating; he's lying with numbers. And the New York Times bought it.

Further, even if Rector's math weren't fuzzy, this still wouldn't be proof of his point. Ownership of a boom box or a window air-conditioner says little about the purchasing power of a family in poverty. Maybe they bought the air conditioner years ago, before falling into poverty. Maybe the boom box cost $30; maybe the car cost $500 and is necessary to drive to work. Maybe because they spent that $500 on a car that is necessary, they can't afford a coat for their daughter.

This $5 coat thing is a little suspect to me as well. Even if I grant the premise that you can walk into a Salvation Army and buy a warm coat for $5, I strongly suspect that the supply of adequate warm $5 coats is smaller than the number of cold kids. Why? Partially because it just seems intuitive. And partially because I see cold kids -- and cold adults -- every day, wearing thin, warn coats that can't possibly keep them warm.

Basically, I think the NYT has been had. They deserved it, though: they relied on data from a conservative organization that generally opposes poverty programs. Did they think they'd get an impartial view of the state of poor American families from Heritage?

And when did the standard for saying a politician is stretching the truth become "a group that is ideologically opposed to him, using some fuzzy math, says he's inaccurate"?

Flashback: The Washington Post Covered Up Allegations of Bob Dole's Affair.

Some people are trying really hard to see a liberal-bias-double-standard in the mainstream media's decision to more or less ignore the Kerry affair "allegations." Despite the fact that the major media covered allegations of affairs involving Bill Clinton much more than allegations about any Republican, some see an anti-Republican bias:

InstaPundit:

THE KERRY INFIDELITY STORY seemed to die down over the weekend, but this report says that it may come back: "A woman who claims she had an affair with presidential hopeful John Kerry has taped a kiss-and-tell interview with a U.S. TV network, it was revealed last night. " (Via Timothy Perry).

UPDATE: Drudge has an informative flashback on the much-less-circumspect treatment given unsubstantiated rumors of infidelity on the part of then-President George H.W. Bush in 1992. Read the whole thing, and have a laugh at the sanctimonious behavior of some of those same named journalists today.

Yeah, there's a double standard here. A big one, and it's not just the Joe Conason flipflop noted by Mickey Kaus earlier, or the different Joe Conason example noted by Drudge. You'll see more of this stuff as the election gets closer. They just can't help themselves.

Drudge:

As main press players blast the DRUDGE REPORT and foreign outlets for revealing details of a behind-the-scenes campaign drama surrounding candidate Kerry and the nature of his relationship with a mystery woman -- just 12 years ago the same players peppered former President George Bush with questions surrounding an infidelity rumor!

It's worth keeping in mind that the major media didn't report about Bob Dole's alleged affair during the 1996 campaign. Here are Leonard Downie, Jr. and Robert Kaiser acknowledging it:

Our book contains a detailed account of a big debate inside The Washington Post in 1996 over whether to expose a long-ago love affair of Sen. Bob Dole, the Republican candidate for president that year. Len Downie decided we wouldn't do it, after a heated argument within the staff. ... Our general rule of thumb is, a politician's private life must have some connection to the performance of his public duties before we're ready to write about it.

Now, the mainstream media does seem to pick and choose which personal allegations they cover and which they don't. A double-standard of some sort may exist. But it isn't a pro-Democrat, anti-Republican double-standard.

CBS doesn't run ads on "controversial" issues. Well, unless they are White House ads.

CBS Pulls Bush administration ad:

CBS has stopped running the Bush administration's publicly funded ad for the new Medicare prescription drug law pending a review of its content by congressional investigators.

The 30-second ad, titled "Same Medicare. More Benefits," has prompted strong criticism from Democratic lawmakers and a range of interest groups who say it is a barely disguised commercial for President Bush's re-election campaign.

Democrats asked the General Accounting Office, Congress' investigative arm, to examine whether the administration should be using taxpayer money to air the commercial. And several lawmakers have been lobbying network executives to get them to yank the ad, pending the GAO review.

"As soon as we became aware of the investigation, we pulled it," CBS spokesman Dana McClintock said Friday. He said the network stopped airing the ad several days ago.

Interesting.

What's more interesting is that CBS ran the ad in the first place. Flashback to mid-January:

U.S. football fans will not see ads featuring scantily clad vegetarians or a political attack on President Bush during February's Super Bowl after CBS said on Thursday that advocacy advertisements were out of bounds on professional football's biggest day.

The network, over the years, has rejected dozens of advertising proposals by advocacy groups, who argue that the network only airs controversial messages that it agrees with.

,,,

In a letter, CBS told PETA that it would not run advertisements on "controversial issues of public importance."

CBS spokesman Dana McClintock said the policy had been in place for years. "We have a policy against accepting advocacy advertising," he added.

CBS has a policy of not running ads on "controversial issues of public importance," huh? Then why did they accept the Bush administration's Medicare ad in the first place?

Medicare is certainly an issue of public importance. And it's so controversial, a recent House of Representatives vote on the topic featured Republican members of Congress offering a bribe to one of their colleagues in an effort to get him to vote their way.

Beware of Suspicious Kitchen Appliances

I couldn't make this up:

We all know the Middle East is a pressure cooker that produces terrorism. But here's a new twist, courtesy of a Department of Homeland Security bulletin issued last week to federal, state and local law enforcement agencies. Its title: "Potential Terrorist Use of Pressure Cookers."

The memo warns those who search homes, cars and cargo to be suspicious of the culinary appliance, which it defines (per Merriam-Webster) as an "airtight utensil for quick cooking or preserving of foods by means of high-temperature steam under pressure." Pressure cookers, it notes, can be turned into "improvised explosive devices" with the addition of one ingredient -- explosives.

"So let me get this straight," one homeland security operative mused. "The pressure cooker is the dangerous part, not the 40 kilograms of explosives that the terrorists placed inside the pressure cookers? Maybe we should regulate them to ensure they don't fall into the wrong hands."

What's next? Beware of crock pots? Waffle makers? Almanacs?

Oops. Scratch that last one. I forgot:

During the course of authorized searches, traffic stops, and other contacts, law enforcement officers should be alert to the potential terrorist use of almanacs for pre-operational activities.

"The Note" may not be biased, but it sure is stupid

From ABC's "The Note" today:

Like every other institution, the Washington and political press corps operate with a good number of biases and predilections.

They include, but are not limited to, a near-universal shared sense that liberal political positions on social issues like gun control, homosexuality, abortion, and religion are the default, while more conservative positions are "conservative positions."

...

Of course, the swirling Joe Wilson and National Guard stories play right to the press's scandal bias -- not to mention the bias towards process stories (grand juries produce ENDLESS process!).

I'm confused. Was it the media's "liberal bias" that led ABC's Peter Jennings to give Bush an absurd pass on his National Guard record -- and make the even more absurd claim that questioning said record is "reckless." Or was it the media's "scandal bias"? What about the fact that, a few articles aside, the press corps completely ignored this story in 2000? Which bias was that a result of?

Was it the media's "liberal bias" that led it to virtually ignore the Bush/Harken story in 2000? Or was that the media's "scandal bias" at play?

Was it the media's "liberal bias" that led it to virtually ignore Funeralgate in 1999 and 2000? Or was that the media's "scandal bias"?

Was it the media's "liberal bias" that made it give Cheney a pass on Halliburton's dealings with Iraq and Libya during the 2000 campaign? Or was that the media's "scandal bias."

Is it the media's "liberal bias" that is causing it to virtually ignore the claims of a Republican congressman that other Republican congressmen offered him a bribe on the floor of the House of Representatives? Or is it the media's "scandal bias"?

And so on.

"The Note" is unbelievably stupid today. Skip it.

UPDATE: Wonkette offers this description of "The Note":

You know what The Note reminds us of? It's like a personal ad from a guy who says how every other typical American male is interested in your looks, but he's not. He cares about your personality, your sense of humor, your intelligence. . . But please send a picture. No fatties.

If you aren't reading Wonkette, you should be. If you're already reading it ... carry on.

Al-Qaida has tactical nuclear weapons

If this is true, Al-Qaida possesses nuclear weapons, and has launched an attack on U.S. soil in the last three years.

Iraq lacks nuclear weapons, and has not launched an attack on U.S. soil.

Remind me again why we've been focusing on Iraq for the last year?

What Bush Didn't Say

Still more from President Bush on MTP:

Russert: Now looking back, in your mind, is it worth the loss of 530 American lives and 3,000 injuries and woundings simply to remove Saddam Hussein, even though there were no weapons of mass destruction?

Bush: Every life is precious. Every person that is willing to sacrifice for this country deserves our praise, and yes.

Russert: But

Bush: Let me finish.

Russert: Please.

Bush: It's essential that I explain this properly to the parents of those who lost their lives.

Saddam Hussein was dangerous, and I’m not gonna leave him in power and trust a madman. He's a dangerous man. He had the ability to make weapons at the very minimum.

For the parents of the soldiers who have fallen who are listening, David Kay, the weapons inspector, came back and said, “In many ways Iraq was more dangerous than we thought.” It's we are in a war against these terrorists who will bring great harm to America, and I've asked these young ones to sacrifice for that.

A free Iraq will change the world. It's historic times. A free Iraq will make it easier for other children in our own country to grow up in a safer world because in the Middle East is where you find the hatred and violence that enables the enemy to recruit its killers.

And, Tim, as you can tell, I've got a foreign policy that is one that believes America has a responsibility in this world to lead, a responsibility to lead in the war against terror, a responsibility to speak clearly about the threats that we all face, a responsibility to promote freedom, to free people from the clutches of barbaric people such as Saddam Hussein who tortured, mutilated there were mass graves that we have found a responsibility to fight AIDS, the pandemic of AIDS, and to feed the hungry. We have a responsibility. To me that is history's call to America. I accept the call and will continue to lead in that direction.

Notice what Bush didn't explain "to the parents of those who lost their lives"? He didn't offer condolences for their loss. Not surprising from a President who can't be bothered to attend memorials for soldiers who gave their lives in his war.

Not surprising, but still disappointing.

Bush on September 11 Commission

More from President Bush's appearance on MTP:

Russert: "There is another commission right now looking into September 11th."

Bush: "Yeah."

Russert: "Will you testify before that commission?"

Bush: "We have given extraordinary cooperation with Chairmen Kean and Hamilton."

Oh, really?

Bush, continuing directly:

Bush: "As you know, we made an agreement on what's called "Presidential Daily Briefs," and they could see the information the CIA provided me that is unique, by the way, to have provided what's called the PDB, because-"

Russert: "Presidential Daily Brief?"

Bush: "Right. And see, the danger of allowing for information that I get briefed on out in the public arena is that it could mean that the product I receive or future presidents receive is somewhat guarded for fear of for fear of it being revealed, and for fear of people saying, Well, you know, we’re going to second guess that which you told the President."

Interesting. Newsweek reports this week:

"Commission sources tell NEWSWEEK that panel members are fed up with what one calls "maddening" restrictions by White House lawyers on their access to key documents. Unless the panel gets to see the docs, the report 'will not withstand the laugh test,' a commission official says. The panel is threatening to force a showdown soon—by voting to subpoena the White House."

"Extraordinary cooperation," indeed.

More Newsweek:

"The documents at the heart of the dispute are the so-called presidential daily briefs, or PDBs—the daily intelligence brief given to Bush by a senior intelligence official, usually the CIA director or his deputy. White House lawyers have guarded the documents as the 'crown jewels' of executive privilege. But last year Kean and other commissioners complained they couldn't write their report without seeing exactly what Bush, and Bill Clinton before him, had been told about the threat of Al Qaeda. The White House then agreed to a complex deal that would allow four panel officials to review the PDBs and then brief the full 10-member panel.

"But the arrangement hasn't stopped the wrangling. The four-member team asked to look at 360 PDBs dating back to 1998; White House counsel Alberto Gonzales permitted them to see just 24, arguing that only those that specifically mentioned possible domestic attacks or airplane hijackings were relevant. (One panel member was allowed to read all 360—but couldn't share the contents with colleagues.) The team was permitted to write brief summaries of the PDBs they did read. But White House lawyers objected to some of the wording. The bickering has meant the full panel has yet to be told anything about the PDBs—even while it was conducting interviews with top officials, like last Saturday's with national-security adviser Condoleezza Rice.

"The restrictions are especially infuriating, one source notes, because at least some of the PDBs appear to have been selectively shared by the White House two years ago with author Bob Woodward for his sympathetic book 'Bush at War.'"

Couple things:

1) Bush seems to be telling Russert that the WH has agreed to share the all PDBs with the Commission. Turns out that isn't the case.

2) Bush tells Russert he's concerned that handing over the PDBs will jeopardize his ability, and that of future presidents, to recieve the best possible intelligence. Here's Bush again:

Bush: "Right. And see, the danger of allowing for information that I get briefed on out in the public arena is that it could mean that the product I receive or future presidents receive is somewhat guarded for fear of for fear of it being revealed, and for fear of people saying, Well, you know, we’re going to second guess that which you told the President."

But Newsweek tells us that PDBs were handed over to Bob Woodward for his "sympathetic" book. So, basically, the Bush administration (by its own logic) eagerly compromised the ability of presidents to recieve the best possible intelligence in exchange for some good press. National security takes a backseat to political gain, apparently.

Disgusting.