Fox News Has Discovered The Fair & Balanced Response to Republican Crime

Democrats did it.

I suspect being an anchor at Fox is a lot like being a server in an unscrupulous restaurant. The manager tells the wait staff to move the fish when it starts to go bad. So the wait staff moves the fish, telling any story they can think of along the way to make rotten, stinky fish go down gullible palates.

Fox News Pushing “Criminalization of Politics” Talking Point

Conservative defenders of Karl Rove and Scooter Libby have settled on their No. 1 talking point: the grand jury investigation into the CIA leak scandal represents 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 occassion, the phrase was introduced into the segment by a Fox News anchor or correspondent, never by a guest.

That's just amazing to me. I thought bloggers and literati made up meaningless phrases to introduce to popular culture and shape opinion. Not mainstream media (especially it's anchors) that's supposed to stick to the facts. Ah, well. Just following orders I'm sure. This particular convoluted defense of crime has Lutz/Rove written all over it anyway.

We report, you decide?

How about "May I tell you the specials today? We have a lovely Republican money laundering scandal on a bed of treasonous acts by the White House all prepared by partisan Democrats (whispers) who personally I blame for the whole thing. It may not be a pretty dish, but it does go down better with our chef's particular spin on things."

video montage (may or may not work for all)

WORSHIP BUSH!!!!! HE IS A GOD!!!!!!

Wait, I'm not a republican, I can think for myself...

Anyways, love this, Clinton commited adultery in the OPval Office and they got him impeached!(was found not guilty, but still impeached, for republicans, to be impeached mean they have a trial on wether or not to kick the president out of office)

But this? Republicans, so sad, look at siggy for the explanation of this.

BTW, Bushies, where art thou? More proof to add to my Dems Stomp Reps.

Removed the gutter from the post.

[edit on 25-10-2005 by Thomas Crowne]

Treason? Nah, it's much more politically correct (pun intended) to call it the "criminalization of politics"

[edit on 10/24/05 by redmage]

All this proves is that it's criminal to be a Republican when a Democratic D.A. wants your butt in a sling! Here's an article from the Lone Star Times to check it out.

lonestartimes.com... /28/tom-delay-indicted-travis-county-das-political-vendetta-reaches-a-crescendo/


Here's another article that suggests that Ronnie Earle (the DA trying to hang Delay) would lose the next election IF Tom Delays plan to redistrict the state goes through.

www.austinchronicle.com... re7.html

I'll cut to the chase on that last link, (although the whole article is quite good!) and add this:

Which brings us to the suspected real reason for this effort; redistricting might put a few more Republicans into courthouses around the state, while taking out a few unbeloved Democrats. Like, say, Travis Co. District Attorney Ronnie Earle, who oversees the state Public Integrity Unit and thus has the authority to prosecute state leaders for any official misconduct. This makes Earle pretty much the last Democrat in Texas with statewide power, and some Republicans -- including those in Travis Co.'s House delegation -- don't hide their desire to get him out. Past efforts to strip the Public Integrity Unit from Earle's office have been unsuccessful, if only because the efforts have been seen as retaliation for Earle's specific prosecutions of such state officials as U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison. Under cover of a wholesale redistricting effort, this time may be different.

Who was Kay Bailey Hutchison? Why...another Republican Senator...who backed redistricting!




[edit on 25-10-2005 by Toelint]

Toelint, are you for or against the GOP, or are you for or against the Dems, or are you for or against the prosecution of Republican evildoers (which is all of them! I hear chorused somewhere) by Democrat D.As?

First you make a snide remark about Democratic prosecutors, then you post a quote showing that the GOP started Delay's problems by trying to oust a thorn in their side through other means.

I am confused. (there's a little French-style accent over the e so it sounds more Shakespearian)

I sense politics is spilling out of PTS, and that just can't happen.

Rant, how did I know it would be your name even before I clicked unto this? Oh, yeah, because you are all about Fox, but couldn't see a problem with any of theother news orgs with a flashlight and a maginfying glass!

Seems to be the theme this year.

Originally posted by Toelint
Who was Kay Bailey Hutchison? Why...

She's the hypocritical piece of Republican # that was against perjury before she was for it.

Hutchison Flip-Flops on Importance of Perjury

Yesterday, offering a hint of the attack White House allies will launch on special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald if and when he announces any indictments, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison dismissed the possible felony indictment of perjury as a mere “technicality”:

Ms. Hutchison said she hoped “that if there is going to be an indictment that says something happened, that it is an indictment on a crime and not some perjury technicality where they couldn’t indict on the crime and so they go to something just to show that their two years of investigation was not a waste of time and taxpayer dollars.”

[Yes, that moron actually just said that. But when Clinton was President...]

On February 2, 1999, Hutchison stood with a bipartisan group of senators at a press conference announcing a resolution to open the Senate trial on the impeachment of President Clinton. At the time, Hutchison said it was vitally important to prosecute on perjury charges because telling the truth is the lynch pin of our criminal justice system:

"[S]omething needs to be said that is a clear message that our rule of law is intact and the standards for perjury and obstruction of justice are not gray. And I think it is most important that we make that statement and that it be on the record for history."

I very much worry that with the evidence that we have seen that grand juries across America are going to start asking questions about what is obstruction of justice, what is perjury. And I don’t want there to be any lessening of the standard. Because our system of criminal justice depends on people telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. That is the lynch pin of our criminal justice system and I don’t want it to be faded in any way."

So perjury and obstruction of justice are "technicalities" when the guilty party are Republicans, right Kay Bailey, Fox News and ToeLint?

Unless it's 1999.

Sen. Frist: "There is no serious question that perjury and obstruction of justice are high crimes and misdemeanors...Indeed, our own Senate precedent establishes that perjury is a high crime and misdemeanor...The crimes of perjury and obstruction of justice are public crimes threatening the administration of justice." [Congressional Record, 2/12/99]

Sen. Kyl: "...there can be no doubt that perjurious, false, and misleading statements made under oath in federal court proceedings are indeed impeachable offenses...John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the United States, said `there is no crime more extensively pernicious to society' than perjury, precisely because it `discolors and poisons the streams of justice.'" [Congressional Record, 2/12/99]

Sen. DeWine: "Obstruction of justice and perjury strike at the very heart of our system of justice...Perjury is also a very serious crime...The judiciary is designed to be a mechanism for finding the truth-so that justice can be done. Perjury perverts the judiciary, turning it into a mechanism that accepts lies-so that injustice may prevail." [Congressional Record, 2/12/99]

Sen. Talent: "Nobody else in a position of trust, not a CEO, not a labor union leader, not a principal of a school could do half of what the president has done and stay in office. I mean, who would have said a year ago that a president could perjure himself and obstruct justice and tamper with witnesses... and stay in office." [CNBC, "Hardball," 12/19/98]

Sen. McConnell: "I am completely and utterly perplexed by those who argue that perjury and obstruction of justice are not high crimes and misdemeanors...Perjury and obstruction hammer away at the twin pillars of our legal system: truth and justice." [Congressional Record, 2/12/99]

Sen. Voinovich: "As constitutional scholar Charles Cooper said, `The crimes of perjury and obstruction of justice, like the crimes of treason and bribery, are quintessentially offenses against our system of government, visiting injury immediately on society itself.'" [Congressional Record, 2/12/99]

Sen. Hutchison: "The reason that I voted to remove him from office is because I think the overridding issue here is that truth will remain the standard for perjury and obstruction of justice in our criminal justice system and it must not be gray. It must not be muddy." [AP, 2/12/99]

Sen. Craig: "There is no question in my mind that perjury and obstruction of justice are the kind of public crimes that the Founders had in mind, and the House managers have demonstrated these crimes were committed by the president. As for the excuses being desperately sought by some to allow President Clinton to escape accountability, it seems to me that creating such loopholes would require tearing holes in the Constitution-something that cannot be justified to protect this president, or any president." [Congressional Record, 2/12/99]

Sen. Brownback: "Perjury and obstruction of justice are crimes against the state. Perjury goes directly against the truth-finding function of the judicial branch of government." [Congressional Record, 2/12/99]

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
Toelint, are you for or against the GOP, or are you for or against the Dems, or are you for or against the prosecution of Republican evildoers (which is all of them! I hear chorused somewhere) by Democrat D.As?

First you make a snide remark about Democratic prosecutors, then you post a quote showing that the GOP started Delay's problems by trying to oust a thorn in their side through other means.

I am confused. (there's a little French-style accent over the e so it sounds more Shakespearian)

Howlrunner, this is nothing more than Dirty Local Politics, "Texas style!" But only in Texas will a DA actually arrest the people who are in political opposition with him! If this isn't the definition of Criminalizing Your Politics, then what is?

PS, RANT, In at least one regard, I agree with you. Flip-Flopping SHOULD make you lose an election...but it isn't a crime.




[edit on 25-10-2005 by Toelint]

So funny! In 1998 The Republicans wanted to Execute the President because they said he committed perjury, but now that the republicans do it?

"Not a crime! Worship!!!!!"

So sad, still sad, very sad. I like the COlbert Report though.

"It's like Manslaughter isn't Murder, it's just beating someone outside a bar and they just happen to die."

But think about this, they lied, committed perjury, that means they committed the crime! Think about it, if they lie about not committing the crime, then that means they did it, so instead of trying to stop the perjury charges might want to worry about the Grade A Federal Charges that come with the fact that you kind of committed treason...

Originally posted by Full Metal
So funny! In 1998 The Republicans wanted to Execute the President because they said he committed perjury, but now that the republicans do it?

Please document the effort of/by anyone seeking capital punishment, or the indictment for a crime that can be punished by capital punishment on William Jefferson Clinton, at any time during his presidency.

When it's phrased like that, it's easy to realize how ridiculous some rhetoric has become.

Let's try to confine the arguments to well grounded opinions, and those burdensome things called facts.

Thanks.

Originally posted by Full Metal
So funny! In 1998 The Republicans wanted to Execute the President because they said he committed perjury, but now that the republicans do it?

...So you supported the impeachment of Bill Clinton?

Originally posted by Full Metal
So funny! In 1998 The Republicans wanted to Execute the President because they said he committed perjury, but now that the republicans do it?

Actually, this has nothing to do with perjury. That's just ANOTHER example of RANTs opinion on Republicans in general. But, that's not the reason Ronnie Earle is out to hang Tom Delay...it's also not the reason he slammed Sen. Hutchenson. It has everything to do with campaign practices that, when they were committed, were not a violation of Texas Law!

[edit on 25-10-2005 by Toelint]

Originally posted by junglejake
...So you supported the impeachment of Bill Clinton?

If he had committed perjury then yes, he was found not guilty, therefor he didn't commit perjury, therefor the impeachment had no base. If he had he deserved to get impeached for committing a crime that is major, Perjury is major

Originally posted by Full Metal
If he had committed perjury then yes, he was found not guilty, therefor he didn't commit perjury, therefor the impeachment had no base. If he had he deserved to get impeached for committing a crime that is major, Perjury is major

Ahh, but in the case of Delay and Rove, it should be assumed they're guilty before they're tried?

P.S. "I did not have sexual relations with that woman"

Of course that wasn't purjury, it was the cigar

? A bj is sex? Damn then I have had sex with at least a dozen girls! Wait, it isn't sex... It's foreplay, but not sex.

Originally posted by Full Metal
? A bj is sex? Damn then I have had sex with at least a dozen girls! Wait, it isn't sex... It's foreplay, but not sex.

Enough said.

Twisting words is ok when a Democrat does it, but unacceptable when a Republican does it. Enough said, thanks, Full Metal

? A bj is not sex! Sex is the yoohoo in the waawaa, a bj or going down on a girl is not sex! It is foreplay!

Originally posted by Full Metal
? A bj is not sex! Sex is the yoohoo in the waawaa, a bj or going down on a girl is not sex! It is foreplay!

Hey, cool. If you think that an answer of, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman," because a blowjob isn't sex and didn't impact a court decision on sexual harassment, cool. If you believe Clinton really believed that having a woman wrap her mouth around his penis was just friendly relations that all coworkers do, cool. Personally, I doubt Clinton lets his male friends do that, which leads me to believe it might have been sexual in nature. That's just me, though. Your stance is just as valid, though. Getting your dick sucked is just something buddies do for one another. Nothing sexual about it. You can believe that and still be intellectually honest. Do you believe that?

"Would you give a man a foot rub?"
"[bleep] you!"
-Pulp Fiction

EDIT: Made it more understandable.

[edit on 10-25-2005 by junglejake]

That was a great movie! ALso..

Head is not sex, it is foreplay. How hard is that to understand? It's like saying holding hands is sex, would you hold hands with your friend? Would you feed each other when out at a classy restaurant? No? So that is sex? Would you make out with a friend when watching a movie? No? So making out is sex?

In a sexual harrassment suit, if I went to a business lunch with a coworker, and fed her, I think that would be relevant to the case. If I made out with my coworkers, I think that might be relevant to the case. If I got head from a subordinate, I think that might be relevant to the case.

Are you telling me these actions have no bearing on establishing the character of a witness in a sexual harrassment lawsuit?