Today the right made a new push on the Schiavo "memogate" angle, with Powerline's Hinderaker posting an elaborate piece in the Weekly Standard ("Fake but Accurate Again?"), and getting a
strong assist from Instahack Glenn Reynolds.
It's highly ironic that Hinderaker, in writing a piece that revolved around his analysis of other peoples' errors, made an important and obvious error himself.
Hinderaker implies our eyebrows should jump sky-high in response to the following assertion he made: "the print version of the memo, as posted on Raw Story, was identical to ABC's 'exact, full copy of the document,' except that the four typos that ABC had identified with a 'sic' were all corrected."
Wrong. Only three of the "the four typos that ABC had identified" were corrected in the Raw Story version of the document. Both versions contain a prominent error in the very first word (after the headline): "Teri". This error persists in the Raw Story version, even though ABC highlighted this error.
Aside from showing that Hinderaker is almost as careless as the original writer, this directly contradicts Hinderaker's implied sinister theory: that some idiotic Democrat who had created the original memo, hastily corrected it as a direct result of seeing the errors that had been pointed out by ABC. This theory no longer holds any water, because it makes no sense that this person would overlook the very first error ABC pointed out ("Teri"), especially since it's the very first word in the body of the memo. And especially since in both versions of the memo the name "Terri" appears correctly at the bottom of the memo, which seems to indicate the erroneous "Teri" at the top was a true typo, rather than a willful misspelling. In other words, there are multiple reasons the writer would have been especially likely to notice this error and be motivated to correct it, if he (or she) was responding to what had been pointed out by ABC.
So let's start from the beginning, putting aside Hinderaker's careless error, and consider what we can learn from the errors in the memo, and what we can learn from the differences between the two versions of the memo.
In the ABC version of the memo, there are six errors (including the bill number being wrong). ABC pointed out four of these errors. In the Raw Story version of the memo there are three errors.
The fact that the original document contained six errors isn't terribly interesting. Everything about this bill was done in utter haste, and the results reflect that. (If the intention was to "save" Terri, the bill failed miserably, and if the intention was to pander for votes, the bill also failed miserably.) There's no reason to expect that a memo about the bill would be done more thoughtfully and carefully than the bill itself.
The fact that ABC didn't notice and/or point out two of the six errors also isn't terribly interesting.
However, what can we make of the fact that there are two versions of the memo, with the variance being three errors that appear in the first version, and don't appear in the second version? There's an interesting characteristic shared by these three errors, that is not shared by the other three errors (which remained uncorrected in the latter version).
The three errors that were corrected are exactly the errors (and the only errors) that are found if you apply a grammar and spelling checker to the document. My version of Word found the three errors ("or or", "withdrawl" and "withdrawl") that were eliminated in the second version. Word did not find the other three errors, which appear identically in both versions ("S. 529", "Teri", and "applicably"). Obviously it's in the nature of these latter three errors that Word understandably just isn't advanced enough to pick them out.
(Word has no problem with either "Teri" or "Terri". Of course Word highlights "Schiavo", but that's to be expected.)
So there is a simple and obvious explanation, with regard to how there came to be two versions of the document, that differed from each other in this particular way: someone hastily created a document with six errors. That version of the document somehow got into circulation. A little later (maybe very little), someone (probably the original author or someone assisting that person) ran the document through a grammar/spelling checker, and fixed exactly the three errors that were highlighted (and only those errors). And then this corrected version of the document also began to circulate. (There are many simple and obvious variations on this sequence of events. For example, it's possible that the first draft leaked out by accident, after the second version had already started circulating.)
By the way, it's interesting to note that version one, published by ABC, has only appeared in the form of text, rather than an image of a printed page. Version two, published by Raw Story, appears in the form of a printed page (although Raw Story also simultaneously posted a text-only version; this Raw Story text-only version contains some minor errors of its own that are completely irrelevant to this discussion, for reasons that are hopefully obvious). This is perfectly consistent with the following scenario: the author wrote the original, with the six errors, and then circulated this text via email, or other electronic means (such as posting the file on a server). This circulation could have happened intentionally or by accident. Some form of this email (or file) eventually ended up at ABC. But the author (or another person assisting the author) subsequently applied the grammar/spelling checker, and fixed the three errors thus found, and only those errors, before sending the document to the printer. And then this printed document is what ended up in the hands of Raw Story.
This explanation I offer of why there are two versions, and why they differ in this interesting manner, obviously does not prove a Republican wrote the memo. It does show, however, that Hinderaker is definitely barking up the wrong tree when he implies there is something sinister indicated by the pattern of errors and corrections (because Hinderaker's analysis in this regard is based on an assertion that is simply false: "the four typos that ABC had identified ... were all corrected").
It's ironic that Hinderaker apparently didn't try running the text through Word himself, given the emphasis on that particular technique with regard to the famous TANG memos.
Aside from his central assertion that is plainly false, Hinderaker says a variety of other things that don't add up to much.
"The memo itself conveys no information about its source."
I suppose this is because the writer worked in great haste, and/or intentionally wanted anonymity. Given how things turned out, the latter motivation was obviously wise.
"It is very poorly done"
Yes, which is entirely consistent with every other aspect (legally, politically and morally) of how this bill was done. There appears to be fairly universal acknowledgement that this bill was a major political blunder, done in an awful hurry, with consequences that reflect this haste. As Hinderaker himself said, the "Republicans are taking a fearful beating." There's nothing surprising about a hasty, sloppy memo being part of the shoddy preparation for a hasty, sloppy bill. On the contrary. If the memo created the appearance that a lot of time and effort had been devoted to it, that is what would stick out like a sore thumb. Hinderaker would be telling us: "these folks were working against the clock! they were trying desperately to save an innocent life! it's not plausible that they would have taken the time to create something so flawless, formal and polished! when life is ebbing, quick-and-dirty has to be good enough!"
"The politically controversial statements are out of place in a talking points memo"
The "politically controversial statements" make complete sense (at least tactically, if not morally) as an attempt to quickly and simply communicate to Republican senators why they should support the bill. The "politically controversial statements" were just uncharacteristically candid, which is simply a sign of someone with no time to waste mincing words.
"whoever wrote the memo spent no time formulating arguments in favor of the Republican leadership's position; the memo's legitimate talking points were merely cut and pasted off the internet"
This isn't the least bit surprising. We now know that Gannon routinely cut and pasted White House releases to create propaganda to fill his shill site. Why shouldn't this sort of sharing also happen in reverse? Why reinvent the wheel, especially if you're in a big hurry? If the "Traditional Values Coalition" has already created some helpful text, why not use it? Of course it's also entirely possible the TVC had itself somehow obtained this text, ironically enough, from some GOP source. Anyway, we've seen various similar examples of message-sharing among the various limbs of the Republican media machine (the fact that many on the right were all suddenly distorting FDR in exactly the same way is a recent example).
"Somewhat bizarrely ... someone corrected those typographical errors"
There's nothing even slightly bizarre about using a grammar/spelling checker. On the the contrary, what's slighly bizarre is that Hinderaker apparently didn't think of using one. And it's not terribly surprising that an earlier uncorrected draft also got into circulation somehow. The overall pattern of haste and carelessness is highly consistent: the bill itself was careless (legally, politically and morally), the first draft of the memo containing six errors was careless, and allowing the sloppy first draft (along with the only partially-corrected second draft) to somehow end up in circulation was also careless. There was carelessness in making the memo dangerously direct and candid (although this is understandable, since time was of the essence, and beating around the bush can waste precious time), and there was carelessness in allowing it to fall into the "wrong" hands. And of course the latest hasty carelessness is Hinderaker's sloppy attempt at misdirection and damage-control.
"the four typos that ABC had identified ... were all corrected ... but only those errors that had been pointed out by ABC"
As I've pointed out, this error-assessing assertion, which is the centerpiece of Hinderaker's conspiracy theory, is itself a careless error. Not all the errors "pointed out by ABC" were corrected. It seems all the errors pointed out by Word's spelling/grammar checker were corrected.
"No one has reported seeing any Republican distributing the suspect memo; the only people confirmed to have passed out the memo were Democratic staffers."
This obviously means nothing and proves nothing. It's highly likely that there are one or more Republican staffers who stepped off the plantation to leak this, and the press has good reason to want to protect these sources. It's also entirely possible that one or more Republicans were simply careless (consistent with the overall pattern of carelessness), and the memo fell into the "wrong" hands by accident.
By the way, although Hinderaker takes the space to nitpick (carelessly) about a bunch of careless errors that apparently mean little or nothing, he can't be bothered to mention that it was the Democrats, not the Republicans, who quickly called for an investigation into the origin of the memo. Common sense indicates that Democrats would not be so quick to do this if the memo had a Democratic origin (although tin-foil-hat folks will undoubtedly spin all sorts of elaborate, asinine, Machiavellian rebuttals to this).
"most poll respondents hold the ... belief that the Republicans are not sincere, but are trying to capitalize on the Schiavo tragedy for political advantage."
In other words, "most poll respondents" are not dopes.
One hardly needs the memo in order to understand that "the Republicans ... are trying to capitalize on the Schiavo tragedy for political advantage." DeLay is not shy about admitting that he's using Terri as a tool to promote a political agenda (and of course to his pals Terri is also a great fund-raising opportunity). He calls Terri a blessing "that God has brought to us ... to help elevate the visibility" of "a huge nationwide concerted effort to destroy everything we believe in." He spoke of "attacks against the conservative movement, against me and against many others." In other words, Terri came along just in time to misdirect our attention away from DeLay's mounting ethical headaches. This strikes me as something awfully close to necrophilia.
The memo is provocative because it seems to show that Republicans are admitting that they see Terri's plight as "a great political issue." But DeLay has said this on the record, plainly enough. So "most poll respondents" hardly need the memo to understand the reality of what's going on.
Speaking of DeLay and his hypocrisy, it's hard not to wonder why DeLay didn't think it was "murder" and an "act of barbarism" when he joined with his family in deciding to avoid using artificial means to extend his own father's life in 1988.
(Some are making a fuss that Charles DeLay was on a respirator, while Terri is not, as if this is enough to define the presence or absence of "barbarism," or as if it makes sense to put the federal government in charge of deciding whether or not there are major ethical differences between the various kinds of life-support tubes doctors might end up attaching to our bodies. Certain people would also like to obscure the fact that DeLay's family let go after 27 days, which is a far cry from 15 years, especially considering that according to Maxine DeLay, Charles seemed to show some awareness when his son entered the room. Surely in just a bit more time some Hammesfahr could have been found, to turn this glimmer of awareness into a miracle cure worthy of a Nobel prize. Or maybe a Nobel-prize nomination. Or at least a bogus Nobel-prize nomination.
The point has also been made that there was a family consensus to let Charles go. But why, if these are folks who are so self-righteous about the ostensibly obvious correctness of always trying to "err on the side of life?" Terri's family also had a consensus at first, but it was to try to save her, and that consensus lasted much longer than 27 days. Roughly one-hundred times longer.
In other words, Michael Schiavo persisted with his original pro-life orientation for eight years, while Tom DeLay participated in his family's "pro-death" decision after a mere 27 days. Then DeLay accuses Michael of "barbarism," and Hinderaker is apparently puzzled as to why the Republicans are "taking a fearful beating," and he has to resort to a desperate theory that relies on his inability to differentiate between the number three and the number four. Probably something even Terri could do, even today, if some folks are to be believed.)
This is yet more reason to understand that we hardly need the sloppy memo to see through the GOP's highly transparent charade of pandering and exploitation.