So: Where Did It Come From?
Power Line
The memo that ABC News claims constitutes "GOP talking points" on the Schiavo case has turned up on the web, even though neither ABC nor the Washington Post, which has also reported on the memo and declared it to be genuine, has made it public. This web site, however, has posted the document, saying that it was leaked by "a source on Capitol Hill."
Here it is; click to enlarge:
<<<
powerlineblog.com
>>>
The memo is not only "unsigned," as it was described by the Washington Post; it is not on House or Senate letterhead, nor is there any indication of source or authenticity. It is a memo that anyone could have typed and distributed, as a reader confirms:
<<<
I work for a Republican Senator, and I thought I’d offer some clarification as to how the Senate mail system works. Simply put, an anonymous memo could be distributed by ANYONE who wished to do so via a number of different channels.
>>>
Earlier today, Mike Allen, the Washington Post reporter who described the memo in a story that appeared yesterday, conducted an online question and answer session. I submitted a question which Allen didn't answer, but he did talk about the memo in answer to another participant's question:
<<<
Alexandria, Va.: Mr. Allen, Is there any additional information as to the author(s) of the Republican's memo outlining the political advatages they can reap from this situation? Thank You
Mike Allen: That's a reference to the following, which was first reported by Linda Douglass of ABC News and later by The Post: "In a memo distributed only to Republican senators, the Schiavo case was characterized as 'a great political issue' that could pay dividends with Christian conservatives, whose support is essential in midterm elections such as those coming up in 2006." The memo is unsigned. Because of the conditions under which it was provided to us, we frustratingly cannot tell our readers all that we know about its provenance. But I would not have put it in an article if I were not certain of its authenticity and relevance -- i.e., senators had it on the floor.
>>>
Allen thinks he's frustrated that he can't tell us what he knows about the memo's origins? Sorry, but the days are long gone when a reporter can respond to questions about the authenticity of a document by saying that it came from an unimpeachable source. And Allen's explanation of how he knows the document is a real "GOP talking points" memo--"Senators had it on the floor"--is laughable. It reminds me of the old story about the man who said he had a bed that had been slept in by George Washington. As proof, he would add: "If you don't believe it, there's the bed!" There, likewise, is the memo. But no one ever doubted that it existed or was distributed; the question is, by whom? Allen's answer gives no reason to believe that he has any knowledge about the memo's source.
Reader Les Baitzer wrote to the Post's ombudsman and got the same content-free assurance:
<<<
Mike Allen says the Post has the memo on paper, not electronically, and that while the circumstances of the sourcing were on a confidential basis, "we are certain of its authenticity" and have acknowledgement of that on the same confidential basis from other party sources. Allen is a solid reporter so, at this time, I have no reason to doubt him.
>>>
The Post's managing editor, Robert Kaiser, had a different take in another online chat session yesterday, as noted by Cliff Kincaid:
<<<
Kaiser was asked: Why haven’t we seen the memo?
He replied, “Good question…Mike is not here now so I can't confirm my hunch that his sources read him the memo but didn't give him a copy. That happens quite often these days.”
>>>
Meanwhile, the memo's contents deserve a second look. It is alleged to be a "talking points" memo, and some of its entries are consistent with that description. But other entries--the very ones that reporters and Democrats are pointing to as significant--do not. A reader named Andrew makes the point very well:
<<<
I used to work on the Hill too, and have worked in journalism and public relations. That so-called GOP talking points memo obtained by ABC News is perhaps the most poorly worded TP memo ever written.
The whole purpose of a TP memo is to provide compelling arguments to officials to use when addressing the media and public. And these arguments are usually presented in descending order of effectiveness.
Are we to believe that two of the most compelling talking points in favor of the Schiavo legislation are that:
a) "the pro-life base will be excited" and
b) "this is a great political issue" and "a tough issue for Democrats"?
Are these the sorts of things that a Hill staffer would suggest a senator mention to reporters when questioned about this matter?
>>>
So, to sum up: The memo itself contains no clue as to its origins. That in itself is suspicious; the memo's contents are hardly appropriate for an anonymous communication. The fact that the memo appeared in Senators' offices (or, for that matter, at ABC News) proves nothing, as anyone, including a Democratic dirty trickster, could have distributed it. Mike Allen of the Washington Post says he knows something he can't tell us, but his only argument for why the memo is authentic--some Senators had it--is silly. Further, the content of the memo is highly suspicious. Why would anyone mix political strategy points--the ones the Democrats want to talk about--with talking points for Senatorial argument? A competent staffer preparing a talking points memo wouldn't do that, but a Democratic dirty trickster would.
Does this prove the memo is a fraud? Not at all. It is possible that somewhere in the House or Senate there is a Republican staffer dumb enough to have produced and circulated it. The question, though, is: what is the evidence that the memo is genuine? At this point, there is none. And, with all due respect to Mike Allen, "trust me" is no longer adequate proof.
UPDATE: Reader Kyle Kveton makes a rather astonishing point:
<<<
Why the "GOP Schiavo memo" is a fake: The Real S.529 is a bill introduced by Grassley on 3-3-05 to establish a US anti-doping agency. No competent staffer would create a talking points memo with the wrong S. number on it.
>>>
He's right. Maybe there is an explanation. But the burden now is clearly on ABC and the Washington Post to explain why they are not the victims of a hoax.
FURTHER UPDATE: The correct number is S. 539.
HERE's MORE: Blogger Mick Wright has been following this story too. He says the Senate bill that actually became law was the one sponsored by Senator Frist, S. 686.
Posted by Hindrocket
powerlineblog.com |
