The Talking Points Are Here!
Tweet
Fox News Pushing Criminalization of Politics Talking Point
To spread this talking point across the nation, the right has received a major assist from Fox News. According to a database search, every single television reference to the CIA leak scandal as the criminalization of politics in the last 30 days has been on Fox. Even more stunning: on every occassion, the phrase was introduced into the segment by a Fox News anchor or correspondent, never by a guest.
34 Responses to “The Talking Points Are Here!”
Jennifer Aniston Reportedly Pregnant With Twins
PHOTOS: Tamara Ecclestone At The Langham Hotel
Red Front? “Center For American Freedom” Logo Echoes Communist Style
Romney Calls For Defunding Planned Parenthood, Wife Was A Donor
GOP Fundraising Email Asks Supporters To “Knock Out” Obama
Romney Comes Up Limp In Nevada
Obama Opens Lead On Romney In New Poll
What Time Is Super Bowl 2012 (Super Bowl XLVI)?
Latest Entries
Why Do Liberals Support Drone Strikes?
Weekly Standard Rolls Out The Iraq Argument For Iran
Equal Polarization, My Ass
Some Crazy Stuff That Happened In World War II
Maryland Republican Campaign Funds Used To Defend Voter Suppression
The Obama Jobs Record In One Graph
Martin O’Malley All In For Marriage Equality
Newt Gingrich, Filled With More Excrement Than Your Average Politician
New Year, Powerline Still Stupid
Thanks Again
Meta
Blogroll
Disclaimer
The views on this site are mine and mine alone, and do not reflect the views of my employer, Media Matters for America
© 2000-2011 Oliver Willis
In each of the cases given in the example video, wasn’t there at least one person who disagreed with the phrase available to refute it?
It’s not right wing media. It’s not balance. It’s just an arm of the Republican party.
Dugger, if a prosecutor can’t prove someone guilty of a crime, it doesn’t make it a “non-crime”. It is still a crime. If he is obstructed in his investigation of that crime that is a new crime.
As for criminalization of politics, it happens when politicians are criminals.
JWG –
First off, let’s agree that it’s a little odd that all of a sudden the exact same phrase is in the mouths of both anchors and guests on Fox News and Fox News alone. That does strike you as odd doesn’t it? The Harriet Myers thing and various issues like immigration reform and spending have revealed cracks in the Republican facade of unity but this is just too obvious to go unnoticed. Even in the face of all its troubles, when this White House wants to spin a story it has a very well orchestrated machine capable of getting the word out.
Were there people there to refute the notion that politics is being criminalized by patrick Fitzgerald? Yeah, but if you’re suggesting that David Corn, Dick Durbin and Juan Williams coordinated their responses you’re dreaming. One of the reasons why the Republican meme machine works so well is that there is hardly ever a coordinated, lockstep liberal/Dem response. Because what needs to be refuted isn’t only the idea of the “criminilazation of politics,” which is laughable on its face, but the seeming ubiquity of the idea, an impression that a network like Fox can create out of whole cloth through sheer repetition. After decades of screaming about “the rule of law,” now that Republicans are the ones under investigation it has become necessary to attack the very idea of investigations, period. And if you want to undermine faith in an American institution, like say the judicial process, you have to create the impression that simply EVERYONE is talking about. The Republican Party would willingly trash every prosecutor in the land before it would admit that one of its leaders might have acted improperly or in violation of the law.
The latter will mean that the prosecutor could not even come close to proving there was a crime
This is how low you’ve had to sink to defend these traitors. You are sad shadow of the former Dugger.
It’s not about the crime, it’s about the coverup.
Well. Lets see if the indictments are for outing a CIA agent or are for perjury and obstruction of justice. The latter will mean that the prosecutor could not even come close to proving there was a crime re Plame, but that in the process of investigating the ‘non-crime’, he was able to trip some people up. With Rove it might be that he forgot mentioning a conversation with Cooper and perhaps did not voluntarily reveal it in sufficient time to the prosecutor. Yes, you would have a ‘gotcha’ and could celebrate a blow to an effective political oponent, but what about the original ‘crime’?
Dugger
So does this mean that Ken Starr criminalized politics?
you know dugger, i might be inclined to give your argument some weight had the administration taken serious steps to find out leakers and punish them, as the president originally indictated. but the president, vice president and their staffs didn’t even attempt to come clean.
so i don’t see any reason to give them any slack now.
The people quoted were (according to the site linked): Chris Wallace, Sean Hannity, Stuart Varney, Bill O Reilly, and William Kristol.
Do Hannity or Kristol claim to be non-partisan? I believe Wallace was re-directing a previous use of the phrase to another guest. While O’Reilly claims (I think) to be non-partisan, I don’t think anyone believes that…but he is not a news broadcaster…he delievers opinion and everyone knows that (just as they know about Hannity and Kristol). I have no idea who Varney is.
When conservatives speak of liberal bias in the MSM and liberals wonder where that’s coming from, it’s all about semantics and past grudges.
They think the media is liberal because it’s too liberal for them. They carry the baggage of past perceived ,or real bias, and the negative impact on the outcome of events. I am speaking in a general way, but I’m sure precise examples of those slights will be forthcoming for anyone who wishes to hear.
And since those betrayals, by what should be an objective reporting ethic , have been perpetrated over a vast period of time, it is only appropriate that a few bedraggled news agencies take the right-hand tack for a change. Conservatives feel the need for ‘catch-up’ baseball and it would take a couple of dozen FoxNews outlets at least four decades to equalize the horrible injustice they’ve been subjected to.
Danelectro,
“but the president, vice president and their staffs didn t even attempt to come clean. ”
We really don’t know this do we? I mean, I know you have faith that that it didn’t happen – but do you have inside knowledge of the communications between Rove, Bush, Cheney and Libby?
Mitterpidge,
Lets concede that the liberals will get their pound of flesh. That Wilson will get his perp walk of some sort. Fine. Maybe you think you’ve won an argument. But the point is, under my scenario, a prosecutor was sent out to investigate a crime and bring someone, an ostensible leaker of of a CIA employees name, to justice. He spent a lot of money and didn’t find that person – if that person exists. What he did do is in the process of the investigation, after eliciting tons of testimoney, catch somebody in an inconsistency (for instance: Rove forgot to mention first time an interview w/Cooper and then went back voluntarily and mentioned it). Now if this the ‘crime’ he is indicted for, are you really going to be happy? Is that how you want to win arguments and persuade people your party has beeter ideas?
Hedley,
You are right of course. One side of me says. Fine. Load your guns. We’re going to special prosecute every one them sumbitches when our time comes. We’ll demand reams of evidence on every godd*mn minor detail in the world and then comb back over it, and first inconsistency, Mr. Democrat , prepare for a perp walk. The other side says, let it go. Let the b*stards lynch a few people, see how happy it makes them and then propose a moratorium on this vicious bullsh*t.
Dugger
Dugger
We re going to special prosecute every one them sumbitches when our time comes.
You all did this already. Payback’s a bitch.
Dugger, it’s all about the “gotcha” for both parties. The Democrats’ are finally getting their turn at bat now, while the Republicans wait in the on-deck circle.
Is Bruce Bartlett part of the MSM? I forget. Well, pardon me if it’s off topic, but….
From Townhall (Roger Ailes calls it Clownhall-obviously a typo.)
http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/brucebartlett/2005/10/18/171730.html
Dugger,
You tried that, Special Prosecutor with a virtually unlimited budget and power could only come up with lying about sex. How many millions did he spend to find that Whitewater didn’t implicate Clinton in anything? It would be interesting to see a SP with similar powers digging into all of Bush’s bizness deals back in Texas (Rangers stadium anyone?)
What is telling about the current round is that this is all being done via standard law enforcement; Fitzgerald was appointed by Ashcroft and has worked with a standard Grand Jury and had to get judges to approve all his subpoenas (he doesn’t have any special powers), The FBI is after Abramoff. Local grand juries are indicting Delay. The SEC is investigating Frist on their own.
Congressional Democrats can’t even hold hearings let alone appoint prosecutors; there is no vast left wing conspiracy that has any actual official power at the moment
The latter will mean that the prosecutor could not even come close to proving there was a crime re Plame, but that in the process of investigating the non-crime , he was able to trip some people up.
Truly one of Dugger’s more idiotic utterances.
First, it’s always difficult to prosecute any crime when those involved lie or omit relevant details or otherwise obstruct or impede an investigation. That’s why doing so is a prosecutable crime.
Second, if as Dugger erroneously maintains, a crime wasn’t committed–why not tell the truth? The truth is always your best defense. Why commit perjury–why obstruct justice?
Sounds like you’ve been on the receiving end of a few leaks yourself. What leads you to believe any of this?
as midderpidge Said:
This should be the obvious retort to the talking point. When Fox News, or anyone else, uses the phrase “criminialization of politics,” rational people need to turn the phrase around.
Yes, Mr. Fox anchor, you’re right: the Plame leaker criminalized politics by committing a crime for political gain.
Speaking of “Talking Points”, here’s some “good news, bad news” for you lefties:
Bill O’Reilly needs bodyguards, and so he’s thinking of retiring.
http://tinyurl.com/9z5zf
What’s the bad news
Never mind the O’Reilly thing. Frank’s link was to NewsMax. I should have known that was too good to be truthful.
O’Reilly retiring? If that is true I’ll buy an extra round during the Indictment Celebration, the happy hour we’re planning whenever Fitzgerald announces. And if it’s “only” perjury or obstruction of justice, I’ll have another just for Dugger.
After years of this GOP monopoly of federal government I was thinking there were no checks and balances left. But when criminal acts are committed, eventually law enforcement comes around. ‘Bout time.
Very good, buma… Better it came from Kos, eh?
Leo: I thought about it later, and I realized someone would probably say that.
But I thought it would be someone more imaginative than you. Sorry I had such low expectations.
Should I get in touch with alexcorrigan?
THIS cannot be allowed to happen again.
http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/walsh/chap_28.htm
Quaker. Reread the post. I conditionalized (not a word) my statement to the effect if this was the case.
ewk, You’re a day late and a dollar short. I think it was overkill re Clinton and have said so. His actual harm to other individuals was minimal (Paula Jones). Likewise as the thread above now perfectly illustrates, the leak has been forgotten here and its just get Rs any way possible – even as collateral damage in an unsuccessful leak investigation.
And ewk, while I fully assert no major harm was done by Bubba’s shenanigans, why do progressives insist on saying his ‘crime’ was lying about sex? I mean did OJ just lie about gloves or shoes? That it? He fibbed in a sexual harassment depostion. I could more easily argue that there should have never been a deposition than lie about it by characterizing it as a lie about sex. It was a lie about sexual harassment. OJs lies were about murder.
Dugger
Your saying that OJ lying about the facts of the murder case he was charged in is the same as Clinton lying about Consensual Sex with Monica during a deposition about Paula Jones concerning something that happened 10 years earlier?
I’m saying its idiotic to characterize it as lying about sex. Period. It was a lie in a sexual harassment deposition. No big deal in real terms, so why mischaracterize it as less?
Dugger
Yes. Nifty rhetorical fakery, that.
“The commentor who calls himself ‘Dugger’–if that poster actually exists–is known among lifestock farmers throughout northern Georgia. He is not welcome around barns and feed pens unescorted.”
Conditionalized.
The commentor who calls himself Dugger if that poster actually exists is known among lifestock farmers throughout northern Georgia. He is not welcome around barns and feed pens unescorted.
Why you must be proud of yourself, Quaker. You seldom lapse into such semi-personal crudity.
Dugger
No, no, no. There was no “semi-personal crudity.” I conditionalized it!
MSNBC: Court issues warrant for DeLay to be booked
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9753864/
The warrant, known as a capias, is a matter of routine and bond will be posted, said DeLay s lawyer, Dick DeGuerin.
Quaker,
No, no, no. There was no semi-personal crudity. I conditionalized it!
Right. It was a personal cheap shot because you evidently didn’t like my conditonal point. I make note of it because was below your typical standards of discourse. I’m done with it.
Dugger
Close.
I didn’t like the fact that you weaseled out of your own argument by appending a pro forma “conditionalization.” That’s just b.s.
You wrote: “He spent a lot of money and didn t find that person – if that person exists. What he did do is in the process of the investigation, after eliciting tons of testimoney, catch somebody in an inconsistency.”
You have no way of knowing what Fitzgerald did or didn’t find. You have no way of knowing if he intends to bring charges based on “catch(ing) somebody in an inconsistency.”
When this is pointed out to you, you reply, “Aha! Conditionalized!” If you’re willing to lower your standards to engage in this kind of two-bit sophism, I’m willing to lower mine with a few intimations of baryard misconduct.