A Second Hand Conjecture

If someone were to compile a list of the de facto rules of modern politics, say Jack Handy channeling Machiavelli, this would have to be one of the first: If you can’t attack what your political opponents actually say, make something up.

Rudy Giuliani created quite a stir among Democrats when, according to DNC Chairman Howard Dean, he declared that electing a Democrat President would lead directly to another 9/11:

Dear Friend,

Rudy Giuliani should be ashamed.

The former New York City Mayor is politicizing September 11th in his 2008 presidential bid. Here’s what he said at a recent campaign stop in New Hampshire:

“If a Democrat is elected president in 2008, America will be at risk for another terrorist attack on the scale of Sept. 11, 2001… Never ever again will this country ever be on defense waiting for (terrorists) to attack us if I have anything to say about it. And make no mistake, the Democrats want to put us back on defense!”

Rachel Morris, writing for the Washington Monthly, quoted some Democrats working themselves into high dudgeon over the remarks:

Those Democrats were quick to hit back. Barack Obama charged Giuliani with taking “the politics of fear to a new low.” Hillary Clinton’s office issued a less pithy statement: “There are people right now in the world, not just wishing us harm but actively planning and plotting to cause us harm. If the last six years of the Bush administration have taught us anything, it’s that political rhetoric won’t do anything to quell those threats.”

Eugene Volokh questions Morris’ characterization of Rudy’s alleged rhetoric as “despicable” and “milking one’s 9/11 reputation for crass political gain” in a post here, but he only challenges the basic premise of Morris’ attack and accepts as true that Rudy actually made the offending remarks. For Eugene’s purposes, that’s all fine and well, but the real problem is that Rudy didn’t say what they said he said:

In fact, the first sentence in the Giuliani “quote” [bolded in the first block quote above] was not something Giuliani said but something Roger Simon of The Politico wrote.

Here’s the Simon lede:

MANCHESTER, N.H. — Angry Democrats lashed back after Rudy Giuliani said Tuesday that if a Democrat is elected president in 2008, America will be at risk for another terrorist attack on the scale of Sept. 11, 2001.

If you read the entire piece by Roger Simon, you won’t find a single quote from Rudy akin to what is being attributed to him. Quite to the contrary, Simon summarizes a portion of Rudy’s speech this way:

The former New York City mayor, currently leading in all national polls for the Republican nomination for president, said Tuesday night that America would ultimately defeat terrorism no matter which party gains the White House.

And the Washington Post provides this direct quote:

“We’re going to win that war whether there’s a Republican president or a Democratic president or any other president,” he said. “The question is going to be: How long does it take and how many losses will we have along the way? And I truly believe that if we go back on defense for a period of time, we’re going to ultimately have more losses and it’s going to go on much longer.”

Unfortunately for Rudy (or for the Democrats if you buy Taranto’s argument), the meme is started and it does not look like it will die out any time soon. Just like “inventing the internet” or the “plastic turkey”, Giuliani’s alleged promise of another 9/11 is making the media rounds, setting up a perfect strawman target for Democrats to slay. It doesn’t matter that Rudy didn’t claim that another 9/11 would happen if a Democrat is elected. All that matters is that people (i.e. campaign donors) believe that he did, and that the Democratic candidates milk that belief for all its worth. The real issue raised by Rudy, taking an offensive rather than defensive approach to fighting terrorism, is thus never debated.

Does that mean that Democrats are afraid to approach the issue? Perhaps. I’ve yet to hear anything other than hide-our-head-in-the-sand arguments regarding what we do after we abandon Iraq. Left unsaid is how our enemies will view said pull-out, how it will affect Afghanistan, and how it will prevent future terror attacks. The myopic view of the Democratic candidates appears to be that Bush is the real problem and that once he is removed, and replaced by a Democrat, all will be just fine. And if it isn’t, well, that’s because Bush left such a mess that even the mightiest of Democrats couldn’t fix it all in one term. It’s sort of the same message that kept FDR in office for so long.

But, whatever the political value of keeping the Rudy meme alive, the question is, why is the media so complicit in doing so? It’s understandable why Democrats would do so. However, if we assume arguendo that bias plays no role, is there any other explanation other than laziness and incompetence? Keep in mind, the same people who strenuously argue and tirelessly advocate for federal shield laws granting them extra-special First Amendment protection, and who want to be treated as professionals akin to doctors and lawyers regarding privileged communications, either can’t manage or won’t bother to fact check the very sources they seek to protect. And rarely, if ever, do they bother to correct themselves after they’ve made such mistakes, or if they do, the correction is noted much later, after a meme based on reportorial misconduct takes on a life of its own, when the typical lame correction will have no impact. Does that sound like professional conduct to you?

Again, if it’s not bias, then it must be incompetence, which should never be rewarded, and should actively be opposed. My guess is that it’s a little from column A and little from column B. Rudy’s remarks may be fabricated, but can be made to fit with the Democrat whine “they’re questioning my patriotism!” and the remarks offer up softballs for reporters to pitch to Democrats on the campaign trail. The real shame of it all is that, as usual, the common voter gets screwed since he or she never get the real message being delivered, nor the benefit of the real issue being debated.

Mmmm what do you say,
Mmmm that you only meant well?
well of course you did
Mmmm what do you say,
Mmmm that’s all for the best?
ah of course it is
Mmmm what do you say?
Mmmm that it’s just what we need
you decided this
Mmmm what do you say?
Mmmm what did she say?

ransom notes keep falling out your mouth
mid-sweet talk, newspaper word cut outs
speak no feeling
no I don’t believe you
you don’t care a bit,
you don’t care a bit

Imogen Heap, “Hide and Seek”

UPDATE: Predictable screeching from Keith Olbermann on the Giuliani meme-du-jour, and a DIY Kit for making your own insane editorial screeds thanks to Planet Moron.

Technorati Tags: Rudy Giuliani, 9/11, 2008 campaign, Democrats, fighting terrorism, media inaccuracy, Howard Dean

Sphere: Related Content

Trackback URI | Comments RSS