During the past month of the presidential race, "objectivity" in the mainstream media has become virtually indistinguishable from lowering the bar for George W. Bush -- despite the governor's repeated During the past month of the presidential race, "objectivity" in the mainstream media has become virtually indistinguishable from lowering the bar for George W. Bush -- despite the governor's repeated howlers. When Al Gore boasts, the press reports it as more evidence of the "Gore the Exaggerator" story line. And the Bush campaign eggs it on, sending out regular e-mails entitled: "THE GORE DETECTOR, A Regular Report on Al Gore's Adventures with the Truth." But when Bush exaggerates? Yawns.
That is, until now. One of the most nagging illusions about Bush's Texas record, promoted wholesale by the Bush team, has just been shattered. And the papers are reporting it. "Study Disputes Bush Claims On Texas Education Record," announced today's Washington Post. "Report questions Texas' progress in education," echoed USA Today. The New York Times reported: "Study Casts Doubt on Texas Test Scores, and Gives the Democrats Ammunition." The Los Angeles Times put the story on its front page.
Since last summer, Republicans have been touting a July study by the RAND Corporation, purportedly showing that Texas students had advanced significantly during the Bush administration on the National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP) test. After Laura Bush cited the RAND study in her convention speech, The American Prospect questioned whether Bush was really responsible for Texas's progress in education (see "Bush is a Little Too RANDy."). As The Prospect reported, the higher scores primarily resulted from reforms implemented in Texas before Bush took office.
Yesterday, news hit that RAND was out with another study of the Texas education system, far less positive, which directly undercuts other common Bush education claims. Noting that Texas students had done far better on state achievement tests than the NAEP in recent years, the study suggested this cast doubt upon the state test scores, which Bush has frequently cited.
The e-mail PR tactics yesterday showed that the Bushies were quaking in their cowboy boots about the new RAND study. (For more on e-mail spin in the campaign, see "The Virtual Campaign.") At 10:50 a.m., the Gore campaign sent out a single press e-mail on the topic, titled "New Rand Study Devastates Bush Education Claims In Texas." For the rest of the afternoon, the Bush camp scrambled to respond, sending out four attempted rebuttals in the space of four hours. And as of this posting, five e-mails had already arrived in reporters' boxes today -- three attacking the study, and two slamming Gore's education record. (On e-mail was titled, "Bush Education Advisor Refutes Author of Opinion Paper." And in a poll of 37 Bush lackeys, 37 agree . . .) But RAND's president, James A. Thomson, fully backs both studies, according to a recent statement.
Though it's too early to tell for sure, the RAND incident suggests that Bush may finally be starting to face the same kind of scrutiny from the press as Gore. For the record, here are just a few other serious Bush exaggerations the media has underplayed:
"I brought Republicans and Democrats together . . . in the state of Texas, to get a patients' bill of rights through."
Bush made this statement during the third presidential debate. But in fact, Bush opposed the legislation in question: a 1997 Texas law empowering patients to sue their HMOs. And he vetoed a prior version of the bill. Finally, Bush let the 1997 bill become law -- but without his signature.
"The three men who murdered James Byrd. Guess what's going to happen to them? They're going to be put to death. A jury found them guilty and -- it's going to be hard to punish them any worse after they get put to death."
Bush made this claim during the second presidential debate -- and some noted that he seemed particularly enthusiastic about whacking the thugs. But contrary to what Bush said, one of the men charged with the murder of James Byrd was only given life imprisonment -- and all three men's cases are currently on appeal.
When a questioner in the third debate accused Bush of exhibiting too much glee in his death penalty response, Bush answered, "The death penalty's very serious business, Leo. . . I take my job seriously." So seriously, in fact, that, that Bush spends an average of 15 minutes reviewing each case, according to a recent article in the New York Times.
"We went into Russia, we said here's some I.M.F. money. It ended up in Viktor Chernomyrdin's pocket, and others."
While Bush may have impressed viewers by knowing the former Russian prime minister's name in the second presidential debate, he and his campaign have not proved that this charge is true. In fact, Bush has now hinted that he may not have gotten it exactly right. Meanwhile, Chernomyrdin has threatened to sue Bush for slander. "I think Mr. Bush Jr. should be getting ready for a court hearing on the issue," he told the New York Times.
But let's give Bush credit for telling the truth on one point. After spending two debates evading Gore's charge that his tax cut would benefit primarily the ultra-rich, moderator Jim Lehrer pinned Bush down in the third, asking: "[W]hat do you say specifically to what the vice president said tonight? He's said it many, many times, that your tax cut benefitsthe top 1 percent of the wealthiest Americans. . ." Bush responded: "Of course it does." And that's no lie.
