About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

ABC's The Note, NBC's First Read, Drudge Report, Politico's Mike Allen continue to highlight Politico's false assertion on Dem Iraq bills

November 13, 2007 3:33 pm ET

SUMMARY: Despite the Politico's correction of its claim that Democrats were "Zero for 40" on legislation "limiting President Bush's war policy" -- though the Politico did not acknowledge that it had made a mistake in the corrected article -- several in the media, including the Politico's own Mike Allen, Matt Drudge, and ABC's The Note, highlighted the false statistic without noting that it is inaccurate.

36 Comments

As Tim Grieve reported at Salon.com's War Room blog (subscription required), a November 13 Politico article by executive editor Jim VandeHei and editor-in-chief John Harris, originally titled "Democrats Zero for 40 on Iraq," falsely reported that "since taking the majority [in Congress in November 2006], Democrats have forced 40 votes on bills limiting President Bush's war policy. Not a single one has passed both chambers, even though both are run by Democrats." In fact, as Grieve noted, "It's a depressing number" and "it's also wrong. In April, the House and the Senate both approved a bill that tied additional funding for the war to a timetable for ending it. The president vetoed it." According to Grieve, after he sent an "email to VandeHei this morning pointing out the error," VandeHei "responded with a message saying that he 'agreed' and that the story has been 'updated' " The headline to the story now reads, "Democrats Stalled on Iraq," and the article now notes that Democrats successfully passed legislation that President Bush vetoed. However, as Grieve also noted, despite the correction to the article, an item in the November 13 Playbook by the Politico's own Mike Allen "still features the false 'zero for 40' statistic" and promotes it as a "never-before-reported, debate-changing figure." In addition, ABCNews.com's political newsletter The Note, NBC News' First Read blog, and the Drudge Report all continue to highlight the original assertion, without noting that it is false.

Additionally, despite Politico's update to the article, Grieve noted that "[t]here is no acknowledgement" in the article "that the original story was wrong or that it has been corrected." As of this post, the Politico article still contained no notation indicating that it had been updated or corrected. From Grieve's item at Salon's War Room:

We're usually right at the front of the line when it comes to criticizing the Democratically controlled Congress for failing to do more to stop the war in Iraq, but the Politico's Jim VandeHei and John Harris jump ahead of us this morning: Adding up the math, they say that, "since taking the majority, Democrats have forced 40 votes on bills limiting President Bush's war policy. Not a single one has passed both chambers, even though both are run by Democrats."

It's a depressing number, one the Politico's Mike Allen is promoting as a "never-before-reported, debate-changing figure." Unless we're missing something, it's also wrong. In April, the House and the Senate both approved a bill that tied additional funding for the war to a timetable for ending it. The president vetoed it.

Update: We sent an email to VandeHei this morning pointing out the error, and he just responded with a message saying that he "agreed" and that the story has been "updated." In the new version, the headline that read "Democrats Zero for 40 on Iraq" has been replaced by one that says "Democrats Stalled on Iraq," and the Politico now acknowledges that the Democrats have succeeded in getting one bill through both houses of Congress. There is no acknowledgment, however, that the original story was wrong or that it has been corrected, and Allen's Politico column still features the false "zero for 40" statistic.

As Grieve noted, even though VandeHei and Harris' original article has been updated to remove the false assertion regarding Iraq war legislation, Allen is still citing the "ZERO FOR 40" claim. From Allen's November 13 Playbook:

Politico top dogs Jim VandeHei and John Harris have a never-before-reported, debate-changing figure in their lead story in Politico: Congressional Democrats have gone ZERO FOR 40 in their efforts to stop the war. Meantime, support has been RISING for the war and falling for Democrats, even among diehard Democrats.

NBC News' First Read includes a November 13 post highlighting the Politico article. Under the headline "Iraq/Iran: Zero for 40. Ouch," the post reads:

The Politico's VandeHei and Harris have a pretty interesting statistic: "As the congressional session lurches toward a close, Democrats are confronting some demoralizing arithmetic on Iraq. The numbers tell a story of political and substantive paralysis more starkly than most members are willing to acknowledge publicly, or perhaps even to themselves. Since taking the majority, they have forced 40 votes on bills limiting President Bush's war policy. Not a single one has passed both chambers, even though both are run by Democrats."

ABCNews.com's November 13 The Note also highlights the Politico's inaccurate statistic without noting that it has been corrected:

Politico's pooh-bahs have counted up the votes, and it's 0-for-40 for the Democrats in their attempts to force an end to the Iraq war.

"Indeed, the only war legislation passed during this Congress has been to give the president exactly what he wants, and exactly what he has had for the past five years: more money, with no limitations," Jim VandeHei and John F. Harris write.

Any wonder this is going on?

The Drudge Report also links to the Politico article under the headline "Congressional Dems Go Zero for 40 (!) On Stopping Iraq War ..."

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by DorisRussell (November 13, 2007 3:48 pm ET)
         

      Well lets see when you run in 2006 on the idea that you will end this war yet you continue to fund it I say that is a failure.  Reed and Pelosi have no guts.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by DorisRussell (November 13, 2007 3:50 pm ET)
           

        and just another comment on this, I am so outraged that this war continues even this morning USA Today spewing lies that the surge has worked. Its worked for Bush and the war mongers. When will this war end?  Not in Bushs term.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by jeter2 (November 13, 2007 4:05 pm ET)
             

          Doris, 

          It probably won't end under Hillary's watch either. She's just Bush Light.

          I wish you Dems would get behind Biden or Obama!

          PLEASE do all of us a favor!!!!

          As a Republican I could live with either one.

          NO MORE CLINTONS!!!

          Now on topic.

          So being 1 for 40 is that much better than being 0 for 40?

          Whatever...

          Report Abuse
          • Author by clams casino (November 13, 2007 4:27 pm ET)
               

            Wrong is wrong. Is 2+2=4 better than 2+2=5? No, it's just correct.

            Report Abuse
          • Author by pete592 (November 13, 2007 4:29 pm ET)
               

            Not better, just more truthful.

            Report Abuse
            • Author by jeter2 (November 13, 2007 4:32 pm ET)
                 

              I agree Pete. But it is still a lousy record. That was all I was getting at.

              Report Abuse
              • Author by Kyle_Broflovski (November 13, 2007 5:01 pm ET)
                   

                Jeter - I agree with you, NO MORE CLINTONS!

                Obama seems the reasonable choice to me.  Maybe it's just his charisma, but I really trust him to stand by his word. 

                Sure he's made mistakes in the past, but he also shows the ability to learn from his mistakes.

                Honesty, accountability, and an open mind.  Sounds like the exact opposite of the current regime.  It would be a breath of fresh air!

                Report Abuse
          • Author by Lynn (November 13, 2007 5:06 pm ET)
               

            I’m there Jeter. I'm real sick of the DC status quo and most all of the Dem candidates are just that with the exception of Obama, Edwards, and Kucinich and Kucinich would never be accepted by the general electorate. That said, all of the Republican candidates are far worse than any of the candidates on the Dem side and I would vote for any of the Dem candidates over one of them.

            Report Abuse
            • Author by anotheramerican (November 13, 2007 5:14 pm ET)
                 

              Lynn,

              Guess we'll cancel each other out. :-)  

              Report Abuse
              • Author by Lynn (November 13, 2007 5:23 pm ET)
                   

                No get out here, you mean you're not going to vote for my man Obama. :)

                Report Abuse
                • Author by Kyle_Broflovski (November 13, 2007 6:09 pm ET)
                     

                  Lynn -

                  Thanks for canceling out AA's vote!  Now I know my Obama vote will count!

                  Report Abuse
            • Author by cb (November 14, 2007 10:59 am ET)
                 

              I hate to say this, but… 

              Both Clinton and Obama have issues that will keep them from being elected…one candidate is a women, and the other is an African American.  Now before I get flamed as some sort of racist, bigot, anti-feminist, let me say that I personally, being an educated resident of a major metropolitan city, would have no problem whatsoever voting for a women or an African American if they were qualified to serve as president…give me Condi or Collin.  But to ignore the fact that America still has a lot of uneducated, backwards thinking people who DO put a lot of emphasis on gender and race is naive.  I believe the day will come when American voters will be able to elect non-white males as President, but I don’t think we’re there yet. 

              That politically incorrect statement being said, the remainder of the democratic field is very weak even compared to the republican candidates who are having their own problems connecting with their base by failing to demonstrate true conservatives principles.

              The biggest issue of the 2008 election will be national security and illegal immigration which are basically the same issue.  The candidate that wins in ’08 will be strong on border security, tough on businesses that hire illegal workers and relentless in their prosecution of the war on terror.  That is what the majority of Americans want.  I just don’t see enough of that coming from either party, so I believe, unfortunately, that race and gender will be a factor in ’08 and unless another democratic candidate emerges, the republicans may win by default.

              Report Abuse
        • Author by Sueelldd (November 13, 2007 4:18 pm ET)
             

          Doris I wish you would join the independent movement, the war will not end. No democrat or repub will end it. Its a system and it will continue. The hate toward Bush however will become hate toward Clinton by the right, the left will remain silent like they did in the 90s and the partisan merrygoround will continue.

          Report Abuse
      • Author by wzwriter (November 14, 2007 9:37 am ET)
           

        Don't blame Reid and Pelosi, Doris - blame the brain-dead Republicans in the House and Senate who continue to vote in lock-step to protect Bush and vote against the wishes of the American people.

        Report Abuse
    • Author by Brian in FL (November 13, 2007 5:08 pm ET)
         

      The media went on endlessly about the Democrats under the Republican Congressional majority being "obstructionist". Now that Republicans obstruct Dems at every chance, they don't even mention it. They blame those bills not being passed on the DEMOCRATS.

      Before long, the media will find a way to blame the entire Iraq War on Democrats. Just wait. That seems to be the current direction from our "liberal media".

      I'm as mad as anyone that the war has not been ended, but the blame lies squarely on the Bush administration and Republicans.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by DEMS_SOL (November 13, 2007 5:08 pm ET)
         

      Is the misonformation here that the Dems are not 0-40, but 1-39?

      Report Abuse
      • Author by HuntingtonBeachLefty (November 13, 2007 5:35 pm ET)
           

        You're not real quick, are you WC?

        Report Abuse
        • Author by DEMS_SOL (November 13, 2007 5:52 pm ET)
             

          Go ahead Lefty - fill me in - why is this story here?

          Report Abuse
          • Author by conleytgwinn (November 13, 2007 5:59 pm ET)
               

            The story is here because, even without prompting by the Repugnants, the Corporate Media continues to invent lies to cover their Repugnant masters, and serve them up with a side of omission of all the real and relevant crimes of those very Repugnants. Were there ever a species we should wish to see extinct, Repugnants is it.

            Report Abuse
            • Author by DEMS_SOL (November 13, 2007 6:05 pm ET)
                 

              Actually I was looking for Lefty to give me a straight answer - not some loony left mumbo jumbo.

              Report Abuse
              • Author by wzwriter (November 14, 2007 9:45 am ET)
                   

                Actually I was looking for Lefty to give me a straight answer - not some loony left mumbo jumbo.

                Ass opposed to your wacko right mumbo jumbo?

                Report Abuse
            • Author by HuntingtonBeachLefty (November 13, 2007 6:08 pm ET)
                 

              I was referring to WC's question that was asked by Jeter an hour earlier.I guess there's no reason to read the other comments when you already have your mind made up.

              Report Abuse
              • Author by HuntingtonBeachLefty (November 13, 2007 6:13 pm ET)
                   

                Don't get your feelings too hurt over the "mumbo-jumbo" comment, Conley. It's GOP SOP to blame everybody else when they don't understand something.

                Report Abuse
                • Author by DEMS_SOL (November 13, 2007 9:43 pm ET)
                     

                  Why you so negative Lefty.  I did not read Jeters earlier post - I responded to what I read without looking at others takes.  Does it surprise you that more than one person can come to the same conclusion?

                  For the past few weeks I have continuously pointed out the foolishness of Media Matters and their "Mission".  This one was so easy to debunk that I asked a simple queston to inspire the readers to think and see for themselves the contempt Media Matters has for your intelligence.  You obviously got it else you wouldn't be trying to insult me.

                  Report Abuse
    • Author by eweston8542983 (November 13, 2007 8:08 pm ET)
         

      Have to agree with HBL on your out look WC4ME. I think most of us have some disappointment with the Democratic legislative set in place. Not enough smarts, not a close alingment to progressive issues, guts to confront the the whole neocon world veiw.

      A news article saying that they are in effect failures is untrue not just in the statistic used but in a that this legislature has had some sucesses from again a progressive point of view. Do you know what they might be? The media listed above probably couldn't bring any to mind and will never tell you anything supportive of the Dems.

      In a nutshell thats my take. I hope it doesn't give you indigestion.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by DEMS_SOL (November 13, 2007 9:38 pm ET)
           

        The point of my post was not to bust on the Dems but to expose the fallacy of Media Matters. 

        I could sit here and tell you why this story is rediculous but by reading my question the answer should be obvious.  Lefty is upset with me because I keep pointing out their foolishness, and is typical when you dont like the message - insult the messenger.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by HuntingtonBeachLefty (November 14, 2007 12:00 am ET)
             

          WC4ME, lighten up. I'm not upset, and I have no problem with anybody taking the time to post here that they think it's not worth their time posting here.

          Seems like an odd use of your time, but whatever makes you happy.I was only pointing out that your post was a question that had already been discussed on a thread with very few posts, not too much to ask that you read the previious comments.

          I just found it funny to read a completely redundant comment (yours) about the insignificance of the MMFA item.

          As Iowadem stated, your efforts are appreciated, but I doubt anybody here needs you to tell them what to think.That's more of a dittohead thing.

          Report Abuse
      • Author by DEMS_SOL (November 13, 2007 9:50 pm ET)
           

        ...now as far as the issue goes - the Dems went to Congress thinking they had a mandate to stop the war and bring the troops home.  Obviously they didn't. 

        The story is correct that in  that zero for 40 is the correct number for items they have enacted.  The one bill they passed they couldn't override the veto - so while they passed it in congress - they couldn't "pass" it into law. 

        The fact Media Matters chose to split hairs with the definition of "pass" shows their foolishness and the contempt they have for the intelligence of those who visit here.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by IowaDem (November 13, 2007 10:33 pm ET)
             

          WC,

          Thanks so much for watching out for me.  Your motives, I assume, are pure, and therefore you are here out of a genuine love for us "lefty's".  Thank you.

          Now, let me add that I really don't need your help.  I am quite able to decide for myself if the information presented on this website are worthy of my attention and whether or not I find them to be factual and relevant is up to me to determine.  So, while I appreciate your concern, we are all grown ups here and most definitely can think for ourselves.  It is righty's that seem to lack critical thinking which is why they all tend to spout Rush's latest talking points every day.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by HuntingtonBeachLefty (November 14, 2007 12:09 am ET)
               

            I think WC is too busy pointing out everybody's foolishness and imagining that he's debunking MMFA to get to the actual meat of the items.Seems to like hitting "post".

            Report Abuse
            • Author by DEMS_SOL (November 14, 2007 12:41 am ET)
                 

              Just to be clear - it is the foolishness of MMFA and their activism I take issue with. 

              This story is a perfect examle of how they parse words to try to prove a nonexistent point.

              Report Abuse
    • Author by eweston8542983 (November 13, 2007 10:15 pm ET)
         

      Don't think they carry much contempt. Not a very useful emotion to carry arround for this work.

      They've been corrected before by posters. I don't think you present much of a case for such a correction.

      So how would you direct them, the Demoncratic legislators, in the correct way to stop the Iraq occupation most expediciously and sucessfully?

      Which is what 3/4 of the population would like too see happen. How do the folks listed above help us make this happen. By telling us what failures the Democratic legislators are by trying and failing 40 times to stop it. This is of assistence to who? 

      Report Abuse
      • Author by DEMS_SOL (November 14, 2007 12:36 am ET)
           

        If 3/4 of the population wanted us out of Iraq without regard to the mission we would be out by now. 

        Report Abuse
    • Author by robrob (November 14, 2007 12:11 am ET)
         

      Probably won't have much luck getting us out of Iraq (even with 3/4 of the nation against the war) until the 2008 elections. The game of politics is such that taking no action is always safer than taking an action that someone might use against you in an election cycle. Once a Democrat is elected President and even more Democrats go into Congress, maybe we can save some lives and start beginning our troops home.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by billlweed1015 (November 14, 2007 12:11 pm ET)
         

      Does this really matter whether its 40 to 0 or 39 to 0? This is so Clintonian its sickining! The artical points out that the dems are HUGE FAILURES!!!!! Thats what MATTERS.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by Brian in FL (November 14, 2007 1:39 pm ET)
           

        The reality is, the Democrats do not have a substantial majority, especially in the Senate. The Democrats also do not have the votes to prevent a Republican fillibuster.

        So is it not conservative spin to blame the Democrats inability to end the war only on the Democrats? Is it their fault that they don't have enough of a majority to prevent Republicans obstructing bills?

        Why did the media scream about Democrat's "obstruction" under the Republican majority, but fail to mention any Republican obstruction under the Democratic majority? When Republicans obstruct Democrats attempts to end the war, or when Bush vetoes attempts to end the war, why do they only blame Democrats for failing to get it done, instead of pointing out why ending the war really can't be accomplished right now with such a thin majority?

        Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.