Truth and Consequences

NEW YORK -- What should the press do when a convention speaker stands up and hurls charges that are somewhere between exaggerated and false?

It's a party gathering, after all, and red-meat rhetoric is always on the menu. "Our opponents will take the economy into the toilet, fail to protect America and bore everyone to death for the next four years." That sort of thing. You get plenty of political license.

But isn't it part of the journalistic mission to provide a reality check?

(Speaking of that, the convention is three days old and I've heard almost nothing about improving the economy from the prime-time speakers. Does complaining make me an economic girlie man?)

Zell Miller provided a classic test case. There was the theater criticism, of course, that I wrote about earlier today: Was he too hot? Too angry? Too wound up to appeal to swing voters?

But there is also the content of the charges he was hurling at Democrats:

"In their warped way of thinking, America is the problem, not the solution. They don't believe there's any real danger in the world except that which America brings upon itself through our clumsy and misguided foreign policy."

Really? Didn't Clinton send troops to Haiti, Bosnia and Kosovo? Didn't most Democrats vote to support the Iraq war?

"Senator Kerry has made it clear that he would use military force only if approved by the United Nations."

Yes, Kerry did say that -- to the Harvard Crimson back in 1971. He's long since repudiated the remark.

"Kerry would let Paris decide when America needs defending."

I don't even know what to say about that. French President Jacques Chirac with a veto over Kerry administration policy? I must have dozed off when Kerry mentioned that in one of his speeches.

Here, for posterity, is the DNC's e-mailed response, under the headline "ZELLEPHANT GONE WILD!!!"

That's three exclamation points!!!

Spokesman Jano Cabrera says: "Zell Miller used his keynote to attack like an angry, rabid elephant. His speech was nothing more than a series of irrational and inconsistent political attacks cobbled together by his Republican handlers. For example, Zig Zag Zell irrationally attacked John Kerry for voting against the very same programs Dick Cheney voted to cut. And though three years ago, he called John Kerry a friend, one of the greatest leaders of our time and an authentic hero, tonight, for political and personal gain, he adopted the smear tactic refrains of the Bush administration."

Cabrera's not exactly a model of restraint either.

I wonder how much the press will follow up, given that Bush will be the big story in a matter of hours.

Slate's William Saletan takes a whack:

"If the convention speeches are any guide, Republicans have run out of excuses for blowing the economy, blowing the surplus, and blowing our military resources and moral capital in the wrong country. So they're going after the patriotism of their opponents. Here's what the convention keynoter, Miller, said about Democrats and those who criticize the way President Bush has launched and conducted the Iraq war:

" 'While young Americans are dying in the sands of Iraq and the mountains of Afghanistan, our nation is being torn apart and made weaker because of the Democrats' manic obsession to bring down our Commander-in-Chief. Motivated more by partisan politics than by national security, today's Democratic leaders see America as an occupier, not a liberator.' . . .

"Every one of these charges is demonstrably false. When Bush addressed Congress after 9/11, Democrats embraced and applauded him. In the Afghan war, they gave him everything he asked for. Most Democratic senators, including John Kerry and John Edwards, voted to give him the authority to use force in Iraq. During and after the war, they praised Iraq's liberation. Kerry has never said that any other country should decide when the United States is entitled to defend itself.

"But the important thing isn't the falsity of the charges, which Republicans continue to repeat despite press reports debunking them. The important thing is that the GOP is trying to quash criticism of the president simply because it's criticism of the president. The election is becoming a referendum on democracy."

The New Republic's Jonathan Cohn basically accuses Zell of slander:

"A critic could credibly describe Senator Zell Miller's speech to the Republican Convention as angry, misleading, or both. But to dwell on either the tone or veracity of Miller's text somehow misses the point given the scene that unfolded at Madison Square Garden last night. In an address originally billed as a critique of John Kerry's national security credentials, Miller essentially branded the Democrats as traitors because they haven't fallen in line with President Bush on all matters of national security. It was one of the most vile political speeches in recent American history, every bit as offensive as Pat Buchanan's infamous call in 1992 for 'religious war' and, perhaps, a little more disturbing. Buchanan's speech, after all, was an assault on decency. Last night Miller declared war on democracy.

"For several days now, Republicans have hammered away at John Kerry's qualifications to be commander-in-chief, arguing that he's too indecisive, too dishonest, or simply too wimpy to keep the country safe from terrorists. And make no mistake: That's a perfectly legitimate claim to make in a presidential campaign, whether you agree with it or not. Indeed, arguing over which presidential candidate would do a better job of protecting America is precisely the argument America should be having this year. . . .

"Never mind all the inconvenient facts that get in the way of that narrative, like the fact that Democrats actually showed Bush enormous deference after 9/11, bestowing bipartisan support upon both the war in Afghanistan and the war in Iraq. (Remember, it was precisely Democrats' acquiescence to the Iraq war that fueled Howard Dean's insurgency.) And never mind that, on those occasions when Democrats did fight the president, it was precisely because Democrats believed their approach (spending more on homeland defense, using ground troops in Tora Bora, building a stronger international coalition, etc.) would actually make America safer."

But how you viewed Zell's stem-winder depends on where you sit on the red/blue divide. National Review's Peter Robinson is overjoyed:

"Zell Miller? What a speech. Genuine emotion is rare enough in politics, but anger? Righteous anger? Zell Miller stands in a line that runs all the way back to Jeremiah -- but of which we see almost nothing in today's Oprahfied context. And once again, the contrast with the Democratic convention could hardly have proven any sharper: Whereas the Democrats suppressed any display of anger in Boston, in the Republicans, the milquetoasts of American politics, went right ahead and cut loose in New York, cheering Miller with gorgeous abandon. . . . Political prose just don't get any hotter -- or more memorable -- than this."

In the Weekly Standard, Jonathan Last relishes the imagined impact on journalists:

"The first thought that crosses one's mind while listening to Miller's speech is that someone ought to fetch the fine people at the New York Times some smelling salts. Perhaps a bucketful. All through Miller's remarks, I could -- literally -- hear liberal reporters seated around me tsk-tsking and exclaiming, under their breath, 'That's not fair!'

"(As an aside: Can you guess the words which will be used to describe Miller's speech this morning? 'Harsh,' 'diatribe,' 'smear,' 'strident,' 'partisan,' 'attack,' 'personal,' 'negative,' 'severe,' 'abrasive'? Anything else? 'Rough,' maybe. Oh, and I'll see you an 'angry' and raise you an 'ugly.') . . .

"The ovation he receives for these sentiments is rapturous. Mind you, Miller himself doesn't seem to be having any fun. He's indignant. He is so piqued, so outraged, that he wastes no time waiting for applause, or letting the crowd chant or participate in call-and-response with him. He just barrels on, throwing haymaker after haymaker."

The post-speech Miller really got heated on "Hardball" when Chris Matthews asked whether he really believed what he was saying. Editor & Publisher recounts the blow-by-blow:

" 'You're hopeless,' Miller told Matthews, dead serious, speaking over a hook-up from Madison Square Garden, where he had earlier delivered the keynote address. 'I wish I was with you there because I want to get in your face.' Then Miller said he wished they were back in the age when you could challenge someone to a duel. 'I don't know why I came on this program,' he added, amidst four minutes of heated exchanges.

"Matthews had gotten on Miller's case right from the start, asking him if he really believed what he had said in his speech about Senator John Kerry wanting to defend America with 'spitballs.' As Miller fudged his answer, and Matthews in his customary style cut him short or talked over him, they each started shouting. Miller told Matthews to 'get out of my face,' later saying he wanted to get in Matthews' face. Then Matthews asked him why he had said in his speech that 'it is the soldier, not the reporter, who has given us freedom of the press.' Matthews said it was such an obvious thing to say, wasn't he just looking for an easy 'anti-media' applause line? That's when Miller went ballistic and nearly stalked off, with Matthews, not exactly backing down, struggling to calm him, which he did, after another minute of shouting."

We should put them in a ring and sell tickets.

Joe Trippi vents about Team Kerry:

"As Howard Dean's campaign manager, I saw a front-running Kerry campaign literally fall asleep in the early months of 2003 because they knew they had the nomination won. Then our little ragtag Dean campaign gathered steam while the Kerry campaign spent nine months walking in its sleep. By the end of the long summer of 2003, the Kerry campaign's slumber was so pronounced that many thought it dead.

"As alarm bells finally woke the Kerry campaign, John Kerry moved his entire campaign to Iowa, and to Kerry and his campaign team's credit they pulled off an amazing come-from-behind victory and stormed on to gain his party's nomination. If only it were that simple now.

"Someone has to say it: The Kerry campaign is doing it again. The campaign became so sure of victory over Bush, so confident of a win in November that the old slumbering Kerry campaign of summer 2003 is back like clockwork in August of 2004.

"The big difference is that they are not facing the under-funded campaigns of Dick Gephardt, Joe Lieberman, and John Edwards. Nor are they facing the energized but woefully inexperienced campaign of Howard Dean. They are facing the most monied campaign in history, among the most experienced campaign teams ever, and the most deceptive campaign since Richard Nixon's."

Trippi doesn't sound too confident.

If anyone's wondering why I haven't written much about life in New York, it's because I haven't seen much of it. You spend so much time inside this armed Madison Square Garden compound, walking circuitous routes to get to the right security entrance, that you sort of forget there's a whole city out there.

Getting out of the arena is a nightmare. The police have blocked off so many streets that few taxis can get anywhere near the place. I've walked a mile just to get to a non-barricaded part of Manhattan to look for a cab. I've also filed into the subway, a much more efficient way to get around, even dragging a laptop. But when you leave at 11 with thousands of delegates, it's hard even to get to the station where you can get the A train.

But I did have a very New York moment yesterday when some guy near Columbus Circle recognized me. "You should be taking on the Republicans!" he shouted, followed by a couple of obscenities Dick Cheney would recognize.

"That's not my job!" I shouted back. "Fair and balanced!" In your face, as Zell would say.

Maybe I've been watching too many convention speeches.