The glut of Talking Points about the Libby Verdict has been truly amazing. In medicine, we have a term TNTC – "too numerous to count." O’Reilly said that we don’t even no she was couvert [shortly after Fitzgerald announced it as a "fact" on the courthouse steps], calls for pardon, WSJ editorial calling it the Libby Travesty, Rush screaming. It just goes on and on. My favorite was the Fox News trailer, "SCOOTER LIBBY FOUND NOT GUILTY OF LYING TO F.B.I. INVESTIGATORS."
I wonder where all of these Talking Points are created? Is there a Central Agency? They seem to go out in pathways directed at the faithful. They must be terribly effective from the way things have gone these recent years. Speaking of medicine, we also have a principle – early detection, early intervention. I think there must be a doctor in the Spin Headquarters, because these carefully phrased Talking Points appear immediately, I guess to try to dissuade any independent thought before it gets out of hand.
Heretofore, I’ve been a big advocate of parsing these Talking Points as rapidly as they are generated. They were so devastating in 2000 and 2004 when we just ignored them. My thought was that early detection, early intervention was a good way to counter Talking Points too. But this time, I’m not so interested in doing that. What’s the point? They can attack Fitzgerald for indicting Libby all they want. They can say it’s a Liberal plot. They can twist it and turn it any way they can think of. But the fact is that Libby’s lawyers had just as big a hand in picking those Jurors as Fitzgerald did.
It was a Jury Trial. It stands on its own. A Jury of Peers trumps Talking Points [but if you need to counter a Talking Point in your own neighborhood, Media Matters has a good summary of the facts and the myths]…
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich acknowledged he was having an extramarital affair even as he led the charge against President Clinton over the Monica Lewinsky affair, he acknowledged in an interview with a conservative Christian group.
"The honest answer is yes," Gingrich, a potential 2008 Republican presidential candidate, said in an interview with Focus on the Family founder James Dobson to be aired Friday, according to a transcript provided to The Associated Press. "There are times that I have fallen short of my own standards. There’s certainly times when I’ve fallen short of God’s standards."
Gingrich argued in the interview, however, that he should not be viewed as a hypocrite for pursuing Clinton’s infidelity.
"The president of the United States got in trouble for committing a felony in front of a sitting federal judge," the former Georgia congressman said of Clinton’s 1998 House impeachment on perjury and obstruction of justice charges. "I drew a line in my mind that said, ‘Even though I run the risk of being deeply embarrassed, and even though at a purely personal level I am not rendering judgment on another human being, as a leader of the government trying to uphold the rule of law, I have no choice except to move forward and say that you cannot accept … perjury in your highest officials."
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.