When politians get into trouble and the attacker is not attackable, best to attack the attack. Issue the Talkin’ Pointz (TM). Attack the message.
Cause, you know, this is big trouble:
When conservative curmedgeon and CNN commentator Jack Cafferty says ol’ Karl might want to get fitted for an orange jump suit… Things can’t be too good.
Current spin: (sadly pathetic as it is…) The investigations underway are the “criminalization of politics”. The implimentation of these Talkin’ Pointz began last week. And, it’s coming on strong now that the propganda arm of the Bush White House has put it into heavy rotation. Pretty funny. Sad clown edtion.
Watch the video from Think Progress. (QuickTime Stream)
Either they are crooks or aren’t. But, the “criminalization of politics” is a done deal. Politics has been criminal since its inception. Just like any other sector of society. The bottom line: Yes, Virginia. Some, obviously not all, politicians are criminals. Welcome to reality.
Whining about it isn’t going to change that fact.
But, if you are a conservative politician being charged with criminal behavior, the best spin tactic currently available is to blame the system and establish an “anti-argument”. Referring to the current spate of legal problems faced by the right as the “criminalization of politics” is just such an anti-argument. It seeks to create a diversion from the actual legal issues and create doubt in the mind by establishing a non sequitar or logical fallacy, in this case, Ignoratio elenchi, a red herring.
The basic construction is: The recent legal problems of so many conservatives is the “criminalization of politics”, meaning the legal problems are tainting poltics, looking for criminal behavior where none exists or is politically motivated. (Or all of the above.)
This is a red herring because the criminalization of politics argument has nothing to do with the actual investigations currently underway. Further, it attempts to lump all of the investigations, which individually may or may not have legal merit, into one group. Put simply, the fallacy is: The investigations are the “criminalization of politics”, thus politically motivated and not true.
Of course, just because an investigation is politically motivated does not necessarily prove that the investigation is without merit. Some investigations are indeed politically motivated and entirely without merit, but others are politically motivated and with merit. It is entirely possible that laws were indeed broken by the politicans being investigated, and this possibility is under investigation and it therefore follows that the investigation has become political in nature because politicians are involved. Well… That’s politics! And, if the investigation proves no laws were broken, that is politics too.
It’s a rather whining, ironic little fallacy really. It’s also tacitly hypocritical considering that conservatives are the ones who broke the unspoken rules of engagement by criminalizing politics with the impeachment of President Clinton for lying under oath about a personal issue of a sexual nature.
I’d say that attempting to impeach a sitting President for perjury about a blow job is the very definition of the criminalization of politics. It doesn’t get any more basic than that.
Except, the current legal problems faced by conservatives aren’t about sex, or even lying about sex to a grand jury.
It’s about treason, money laundering and other good old fashioned conservative values.
Somehow, “I told you so” rings so hollow.
