Get ready for an annoying new talking point

Nico and Think Progress noted that conservatives, in particular Fox News, has come up with a new phrase to dismiss the Plame scandal: “the criminalization of politics.”

In other words, they say, the outing of a covert CIA agent in a time of war to punish a whistleblower is just everyday “politics” — nothing out of the ordinary, certainly nothing criminal. In fact, according to conservatives (as articulated by the National Review), the “criminalizing of politics” is actually “the most dangerous fire of this ordeal.”

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 occasion, the phrase was introduced into the segment by a Fox News anchor or correspondent, never by a guest.

There’s even an amusing video to go along with this observation, showing a montage of FNC’s abuse of the phrase.

I suppose this was inevitable; none of the other talking points have worked. First the right said Plame wasn’t really undercover. Strike one. Then they said it didn’t matter because Rove and Libby leaked Plame’s identity, but not her name. Strike two. This was followed by the ever-popular “these kinds of leaks are routine” tack. Strike three. Left with few options, Fox News latched on desperately to the “the criminalization of politics” line. It’s kind of sad, really.

Nevertheless, with possible indictments on the way, we might as well get used to hearing the phrase — and start to explain why it’s such an absurd argument.

First, as a factual matter, it doesn’t make any sense. Dems don’t want to criminalize politics, we want to criminalize crime. We don’t expect federal investigations every time the Bush gang does something stupid (the FBI would quickly run out of agents), only when there’s clear evidence of serious illegalities, such as the White House’s inability to keep national security secrets secret.

Second, the hypocrisy is breathtaking. We’re talking about a conservative movement that demanded a special prosecutor whenever Bill Clinton looked at them funny. To hear the right tell it, when Clinton changed the staff at the White House travel office, it required an independent investigation. When the Bush White House exposed the identity of an undercover CIA agent to cover up their lies about Iraq, it’s “the criminalization of politics.” Please.

Third, it’s wholly at odds with what is supposed to be Republican governing principles. Remember when the GOP talked about being the party of “law and order“? Apparently, that only applied when they thought their opponents breaking the law. The GOP loves to punish criminals, until they’re the ones caught committing felonies.

Of course, facts and principles are secondary when there’s a scandal to be spun. Be prepared to hear the talking point, ad nauseum, for the indefinite future.

Not sure this will play with everday Americans when they know the basics. While I frequently wonder at the average Joe’s intelligence, this is such an obvious con-job that I am not sure they would be able to stomach it. Oh – and I am not really talking about the average Fox viewer – they believe only what Fox tells them to.

  • CB – any thoughts on RawStory naming John Hannah as the guy who “turned”?

    I’m not sure how reliable they are, but there’s this post (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/8/23/16503/6468) from Kos from over a year ago saying that he’d gotten a tip that Hannah was talking.

    What if this guy’s been cooperating with the investigation for over a year now? How explosive would that be?

  • CB – any thoughts on RawStory naming John Hannah as the guy who “turned”?

    I’ve heard about it, but I’m still looking into it. Raw Story is definitely credible, but I’m going to hold off until I get more info.

    What if this guy’s been cooperating with the investigation for over a year now? How explosive would that be?

    Immeasurably. Seriously.

  • I think Dem’s could, and should, turn this to their advantage as they press a reform agenda. We SHOULD criminilize the way politics have been going. We need to clear out the CROOKS who have been leading our country astray and bring in decent Americans; Americans who have been FBI agents (Rowley), or soldiers (Hackett) to clean up the mess in Washington.

  • Criminalization of Politics? Does Fox mean the criminals are criminalizing politics or the people who talk about the criminals criminalizing politics?

  • In Framingland, isnt’ the response that the Repubs are engaged in an attempt to decriminalize treason during time of war?

  • Let’s see. We have ongoing criminal investigations involving the Vice President’s chief of staff, the President’s deputy chief of staff, the House Majority Leader and the Senate Majority Leader. The allegations involve divulging the identity of a CIA agent, possibly covering up the crime and perhaps leading grand jury witness testimony; money laundering and illegal campaign contributions; insider trading.

    Meanwhile, Bill Clinton lied about having a brief sexual liaison with a White House intern.

    Which are crimes and which are not? You decide.

    Amazing.

  • The crimminalization began when the republicans gained control over both houses of Congress and the presidency.

  • I bet this will just turn more people off of Fox. It’s so ridiculous that no one will buy into it unless they are already beyond hope.

  • What a wonderful fairytale world the right lives in that lets them imagine perfect three word phrases that will let them off the hook for all the crap they’ve caused.

    They are the innocent victims of the “criminalization of politics”. They’re just trying to play the game the best they know how. How could such sincere efforts be so misunderstood? It hurts, ya know? It really hurts.

    Uh-huh.

  • sublime is exactly right. the criminalization of politics didn’t happen with fitzgerald. it happened when thugs started running the government and threatening anyone in this country who didn’t toe their line of the day.

  • This really is routine politics for Republicans. It’s good that they finally admit it, but will Dems use that fact effectively?

  • Aren’t we being too polite using the term “leak”? If it was intentional the term should be “betrayed”. Valerie Plame was betrayed by White House staff.

    Where do I go to send my talking points for liberal bloggers?

  • Comments are closed.