There's No Arguing With Conservatives ... No, Seriously, Scientific Studies Prove It

in , ,

A new study out of Yale University confirms what argumentative liberals have long-known: Offering reality-based rebuttals to conservative lies only makes conservatives cling to those lies even harder. In essence, schooling conservatives makes them more stupid. From the Washington Post article on the study, which came out yesterday:

Political scientists Brendan Nyhan and Jason Reifler provided two groups of volunteers with the Bush administration's prewar claims that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. One group was given a refutation -- the comprehensive 2004 Duelfer report that concluded that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction before the United States invaded in 2003. Thirty-four percent of conservatives told only about the Bush administration's claims thought Iraq had hidden or destroyed its weapons before the U.S. invasion, but 64 percent of conservatives who heard both claim and refutation thought that Iraq really did have the weapons. The refutation, in other words, made the misinformation worse.A similar "backfire effect" also influenced conservatives told about Bush administration assertions that tax cuts increase federal revenue. One group was offered a refutation by prominent economists that included current and former Bush administration officials. About 35 percent of conservatives told about the Bush claim believed it; 67 percent of those provided with both assertion and refutation believed that tax cuts increase revenue.

In a paper approaching publication, Nyhan, a PhD student at Duke University, and Reifler, at Georgia State University, suggest that Republicans might be especially prone to the backfire effect because conservatives may have more rigid views than liberals: Upon hearing a refutation, conservatives might "argue back" against the refutation in their minds, thereby strengthening their belief in the misinformation. Nyhan and Reifler did not see the same "backfire effect" when liberals were given misinformation and a refutation about the Bush administration's stance on stem cell research.


If you've ever gotten in an argument with your conservative friends (assuming you haven't offered each other a mutual Carville-Matalin-style political ceasefire to preserve the friendship), you've probably seen this "backfire effect" in action. The more you try to tell people that Sarah Palin is lying when she says she was against the Bridge to Nowhere, the more they believe she was telling the truth. The more you try to explain how similar McCain's policies are to Bush's, the more they maintain he's "the original maverick."

The typical mantra of the left is that we don't need to sink to the Republicans' level because we have the truth on our side. But if the other side is utterly immune to the truth -- and indeed, the truth only makes them dig deeper into their fantasy world in which the economy is fundamentally strong and the War in Iraq is a staggering success -- what's a leftie to do?

I ain't got the answers, ace, except to say this: When arguing with conservatives in front of on-the-fence independents, remember that you're not trying to convince the conservative to actually buy into silly notions like facts and reason. You're highlighting the differences between left and right for the outside observer. If the other guy insists on political views that belong only in Disney World's Fantasyland, other folks will realize what's happening.

But if there is no third party, do yourself a favor and save your breath. As the study demonstrates, you're only making matters worse. Consider that aforementioned ceasefire. It is football season, after all. There's plenty of other things to argue about.

John McCain vs John McCain

in , , , , ,

Since it's always fun to listen to John McCain argue with John McCain, let's revisit McCain's two reactions to the Wall Street meltdown yesterday. First there was this:

And then, a couple of hours later:

Besides probably being the fastest flip-flop in political history, these two conflicting statements also provide some insight for undecided voters...they learned that that famous "straight talk" isn't all it's cracked up to be, and that John McCain is right...he really doesn't know too much about economics.

Fiorina: Palin Doesn't Have Experience To Run A Major Company

in , ,

Carly Fiorina, a key surrogate for John McCain on economic issues, said on Tuesday that Sarah Palin does not have the experience needed to run a major company like the one that Fiorina formerly headed.

"Do you think [Sarah Palin] has the experience to run a major company, like Hewlett Packard?" asked the host.

"No, I don't," responded Fiorina. "But you know what? That's not what she's running for."

Appearing on the McGraw Milhaven Show on St. Louis KTRS Radio, Fiorina went on to stress that the Alaska Republican had more executive experience than anyone else on the ticket, specifically Barack Obama.

"I find it quite stunning actually that the Barack Obama campaign is questioning Sarah Palin's experience," she said. "She has more executive experience than he does and she is the vice presidential nominee and he is the presidential nominee."

But the admission that Palin wasn't prepared to run the very business that Fiorina once headed is a gaffe that could come back to haunt the McCain campaign. Certainly, when critics mainly argue that Palin lacks the gravitas to step in for McCain at a moment's notice, and when the economy is the major topic on the campaign trail, it is easy to see how Fiorina's comment could make its way into an Obama or DNC attack ad.

McCain Campaign: John McCain Invented The Blackberry

in , ,

"He did this," Douglas Holtz-Eakin told reporters this morning, holding up his BlackBerry.  "Telecommunications of the United States is a premier innovation in the past 15 years, comes right through the Commerce committee so you're looking at the miracle John McCain helped create and that's what he did."


So now we know what McCain has been doing while missing all those votes in the Senate. He's been moonlighting as a Canadian MP -- RIM, the company that makes the Blackberry, is headquartered outside Toronto. Lets take a look at McCain's record on technology issues:

John McCain has at last turned in his answers to Science Debate 2008 (after peeking at Barack Obama's answers for a couple of weeks) there are some interesting tidbits hidden among his rambling responses.

Take this reply to a question about maintaining America's lead in innovation.

I am uniquely qualified to lead our nation during this technological revolution. While in the Navy, I depended upon the technologies and information provided by our nation’s scientists and engineers with during each mission.

Let's stop there for a second. Here John McCain insists he's uniquely qualified to discuss technology because... he used some. Forty years ago. This is the same kind of high standard by which he assured us that Sarah Palin knew more about energy than anyone else in America, and Phil Gramm was one of the smartest people in the world on the economy. At least he didn't claim any MacGyverite tech affinities developed in Hanoi.

Okay, let's continue.

I am the former chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation. The Committee plays a major role in the development of technology policy, specifically any legislation affecting communications services, the Internet, cable television and other technologies. Under my guiding hand, Congress developed a wireless spectrum policy that spurred the rapid rise of mobile phones and Wi-Fi technology that enables Americans to surf the web while sitting at a coffee shop, airport lounge, or public park.

And, stop. There you have it, people. John McCain not only invented cell phones, he tossed in wifi as an afterthought.

Let's go back and see how McCain's hand guided that development.

With the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the Senate passed the first major revision to telecommunications law in 62 years which provided the foundation for much of the cell phone and Internet regulation over the next decade.  The bill passed 81-18 and was signed into law by President Clinton.  McCain voted against the act.

In 2002, McCain authored the "Consumer Broadband Deregulation Act of 2002" which eliminated the requirement of the 1996 law that telecommunication companies provide access to competitors.  It didn't pass.

In 2003, the Internet Tax Freedom Act was passed, putting in place a moratorium on taxes for activities on the Intenet. The bill had 11 cosponsors – McCain wasn't one of them. He did vote for the bill, but since it passed 97-3, that's definitely "guiding" with a small 'g.'  Granted, this wasn't directly a bill about wireless, but since McCain doesn't seem to have authored any law on wireless technology, I'm having to search for connections.

Of pending legistlation, McCain is not a sponsor of the "Connect the Nation Act" – though Senator Obama is. McCain is not a sponsor of Senator Rockefeller's call for a universal next generation broadband by 2015 – though Senator Obama is. And of course, McCain isn't a sponsor of the "Internet Freedom Act" that would ensure net neutrality – though Senator Obama is. That last is no surprise. McCain has repeatedly opposed net neutrality, saying that companies have a right to restrict speed or even limit access to sites "when you control the pipe you should be able to get profit from your investment."

So,  McCain's "guiding hand" seems to consist of opposing the legislation that laid the groundwork for the communications we have today, and authoring failed legislation designed to benefit big carriers. Of course, we should probably be glad that John McCain really didn't invent the cell phone or wifi, otherwise we'd all be getting our wireless services from one monolithic company free to restrict our access to only the pages that pay for the privilege. And we'd all be using "Jitterbugs."

Obama: If you believe that, I've got a bridge in Alaska to sell you

in , ,

Obama tries out a few new lines in Colorado, Carrie Budoff Brown reports:

"But now suddenly, John McCain says he is about change, too. He even started using some of my lines. Suddenly he says he wants 'to turn the page.' He had an ad today that he started running that he and Gov. Palin would bring the change that we need. He had this in an advertisement. Sound familiar? Let me tell you something, instead of borrowing my lines he needs to borrow our ideas," Obama said.

He followed up with a dig at lobbyists, saying "if you think those lobbyists are working day and night for John McCain just to put themselves out of business, well, then, I've got a bridge to sell you up in Alaska."

John McCain's Journey From Maverick to Liar

in , ,

By John Farrell of US News & World Report

There is a good reason why John McCain's campaign is having some trouble with truthiness these days.

McCain's claim to be a "maverick" rests on the liberal positions he took during the days when he openly fought with Republican leaders and the party's conservative base.

Because he cannot very well motivate Republicans by reminding them of the times he and they have quarreled, he has to distract and dissemble.

Think of the breaks that McCain has made with Republican orthodoxy.

He joined liberal Russ Feingold and pushed for campaign finance reform—conservatives loathed it.

He was a soldier with Al Gore in the fight against global warming—the oil industry and free market think tanks opposed them.

He and Ted Kennedy helped write a humane immigration bill—the GOP nativists despised him.

He joined with Bob Byrd and six other Democrats to kill a Senate Republican plan to pack the federal judiciary—abortion opponents were furious.

He sided with Tom Daschle's Democrats and voted against the Bush tax cuts—the antitax groups fumed.

He took on House and Senate Republicans who were trying to bring pork barrel spending to their states—the GOP majority went ballistic.

And he aligned himself with liberal groups like People for the American Way, when denouncing the clout of "evil" evangelical political leaders.

Actions like these endeared McCain to left-leaning journalists and independent voters who were alarmed by the influence of GOP social and religious conservatives. Even though he was voting with his fellow Republicans 85 percent of the time, McCain built a reputation as a maverick.

Yet, as they prepared for the 2008 presidential race, McCain's advisers knew they would have to woo those conservatives. And so they launched what they called "McCain 2.0" in 2007.

When Jon Stewart asked McCain last year, "Are you going into crazy base world?" the celebrated maverick acknowledged, "I'm afraid so."

McCain flip-flopped on the Bush tax cuts. He abandoned immigration reform. He reached out to Jerry Falwell and other religious conservatives.

It wasn't enough. And so, in a move that even one of his longtime advisers conceded (in a remark captured by an open microphone) was disturbingly "cynical," McCain gave the base Sarah Palin.

Palin was a smart pick. She juiced up the faithful and pleased the preachers, and the hoopla of her nomination eclipsed the inherent flaws of McCain 2.0.

But time moves on, and the Palin balloon has lost a little air as Americans have discovered she is a politician—given to flip-flops, fibs, abuse of power, wasteful spending, and the rest of the familiar roster of venal sins that come with the territory.

The focus is moving back to McCain, who has still not resolved the contradictions of his candidacy.

Is he truly a maverick who, like his self-proclaimed hero, Teddy Roosevelt, will govern as a progressive? Or will he be beholden, as folks like James Dobson and Rush Limbaugh insist, to the conservative base?

So far, the main "maverick" actions that McCain has promised as the next Republican president are to trim nonmilitary Democratic spending and continue the Iraq war. You can't get more conventional than that.

And even that message has been somewhat undermined by disclosures that Palin was a champion of those costly federal earmark projects she has lobbied for in Alaska—where, you know, you can see Russia.

At this point, McCain has taken the obvious way out—launching a series of distracting attacks on Barack Obama, with slim regard for truth.

The ads have spurred a backlash, the consequences (or lack) of which may well decide the election.

For 18 months, Obama has wagered all his chips on the (quaint? idealistic? brilliant?) idea that the American people are tired of the same old sleazy and divisive politics. McCain has now chosen to bet against him.

And we are the cards.