Redstate

much less causation between being investigated for crimes and being conservative.  I suppose people like Sanatorum, Tancredo, Flake, and the other hundred or so conservative Congressman/Senators who aren't being indicted (and who seem principled and uncorrput, at least for politicians) are the many, many exceptions that prove the rule?

A far more noteworthy correlation is between politicians in high seats of power, regardless of ideology, and their potential to abuse that power (in some cases prompting criminal or ethical investigations).  You seem to realize that DeLay, Bush, and Frist are in the high seats of power-- but infer that their "unfair" persecution stems from some ideological witchhunt.  You then address all the possibilities behind these witchhunts-- except, of course, the crazy possibility that the people investigated may have actually done something wrong.

When high ranking Democrats were targeted for investigation back in the 80s, was that a result of their ideology as well?  Or, having grown complacent in their power, were they actually guilty of ethical (and sometimes criminal) malfeasance?

Assuming that some, if not all, of these current investigations have merit, would the correct solution still be simply to address the spin?  Or to demand accountability from those within your own party?

the website in my tag line and start fighting fire with fire.

Whether or not Frist, Delay, Rove, or Scooter will be convicted or acquitted is only part of the equation.

The rampant corruption on the other side of the ditch goes largely unnoticed and definitely underreported. This simply must stop and it will be up to the little guys of the blogosphere to hold them accountable.

Is it your sense that issues of corruption in the previous administration, the Clinton Administration, went "largely unnoticed and definitely underreported"?

but not unnoticed, even in the press.

I suppose people like Sanatorum, Tancredo, Flake, and the other hundred or so conservative Congressman/Senators who aren't being indicted (and who seem principled and uncorrput, at least for politicians) are the many, many exceptions that prove the rule?

Not sure what point you're trying to make here.  Mind trying it again?

When high ranking Democrats were targeted for investigation back in the 80s, was that a result of their ideology as well?  Or, having grown complacent in their power, were they actually guilty of ethical (and sometimes criminal) malfeasance?

Some were guilty of crimes, as it turned out.  But, as I recall, Kenneth Starr received much more scrutiny and criticism from the MSM than has Ronnie Earle, who's largely been given a pass by the MSM.  They may not agree with what he's doing, but they're not taking much time to criticize him.

infer that their "unfair" persecution stems from some ideological witchhunt.

You feel that Ronnie Earle is giving Tom Delay a fair shake?

As for the MSM's treatment of these crises--which is the main thrust of my argument, and which you seem to be ignoring--who has gotten more coverage--SEN Frist's problems with the SEC, or SEN Schumer's involvement with the illegal accessing by the DSCC of MD LT Gov Steele's credit report?  Why do you think that is?

Who received more solicitous treatment from the MSM?  President Bush, during the TANG flap--or John Kerry, in his contest with the SwiftBoat Vets.

Assuming that some, if not all, of these current investigations have merit, would the correct solution still be simply to address the spin?  Or to demand accountability from those within your own party?

What does this have to do with my assertions above?  As for "accountability within your own party," why is that the business of Federal prosecutors?  What's your point here?

Tell me what's going on with the DSCC's apparent illegal accessing of MD Lt Gov Steele's private credit report.  I'll bet you can't tell me much, because the MSM isn't pursuing the story.

Yet, they're pursuing Tom Delay and Karl Rove, aren't they?

When the question of President Bush's TANG service came up in the campaign, I recall USA Today going to the trouble of publishing the President's National Guard service record.  Before the blogosphere got involved, do you recall a similar level of concern over John Kerry's experiences in Vietnam, which were "seared, seared" into his memory?

Other than bias, how does one explain the discrepancy?

Interesting. I guess the reality is that we all see issues of reporting or underrerporting through our own lens.

To many, the idea that the stories of Travelgate, Troopergate, Whitewater, Paula Jones, Monica Lewinsky, the Marc Rich pardon, etc. were somehow underreported is simply hard to imagine.

Those stories dominated (rightly so) the coverage of the 8 years of the Clinton presidency. To suggest otherwise seems, well, delusional.

That said, it's perfectly understandable that when viewed through the lens of the Right and Clinton bashers, that coverage was not nearly enough.

So, I guess the reality is that it all depends on where one comes down politically.

Those are very odd comparisons, to be quite honest.

Put yourselves in the shoes of a cable news president (say, Roger Ailes of Fox News) or an editor at a major newspaper.

Which story do think is going to be more relevant on the national level to a national audience:

• covering alleged misdeeds by a political group that mainstream America has never heard of (the DSCC or the RNCC) that is screwing around in a Lieutenant Governor's race?
• OR, covering alleged misdeeds by the most powerful man in Congress (DeLay) or the most powerful advisor to the President of the United States (Rove).

Remove your political biases, and put on your business caps. Think like someone who runs a business.

Folks, many of the media conspiracies and allegations of bias can be traced to ratings. Dollars. Viewers. Audience. Sexiness.

It's the same reason that the alleged misdeeds of Noe in Ohio have not garnered national attention. It's not a national story. No one outside of Ohio (and diehard Democrats) care. Just like no one outside of Maryland (and diehard Republicans) care about Lt. Gov. Steele and the DSCC.

And I don't hear many on this site calling hither and yonder for more coverage of the Noe story in Ohio. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Simply put, the media covers DeLay and Rove et al because they're powerful. And they're national figures. Therefore these investigations mean something to a national audience. They are relevant.

Lt. Gov. Steele in Maryland and Noe in Ohio don't. And that's why there's no national coverage of them from the MSM.

But I'm not persuaded, nor swayed.

And, to suggest that MSM reporters own biases are evenly split between liberal and conservative viewpoints also seems, well, delusional.

There is survey after survey after survey that shows that MSM reporters lean clearly and hard left.  That's not changing, it seems.

Conservative talk show host Hugh Hewitt recently went to the Columbia School of Journalism.  Talking to a class of 16 students, he asked how many had voted for Kerry for President.  Thirteen raised their hands.  The other three were foreign students, who couldn't vote.

And, forgive me for pointing this out, but many of the scandals you listed above--Troopergate, Paula Jones, Travelgate, the Marc Rich pardon--didn't take off in the media (with the exception of Fox News) until hard evidence emerged that something had happened, or people made specific allegations in public.  As for Frist, Delay and Rove, the MSM has revved into full gear based mostly on speculation.  (Unless, you feel that Ronnie Earle's indictment of Delay has merit).

Indeed, we all see things differently through our own partisan lenses.  But, I feel pretty confident with the evidence on my side.

That's local politics.

Those are very odd comparisons, to be quite honest.

Remove your political biases, and put on your business caps.

I've no interest in being lectured by you, cones.  And I've certainly no interest in your "wisdom."

Oh...by the way, I have yet to hear you address the main point of this diary, which is that the MSM is much more willing and inclined to push a story against a Republican than a Democrat.

Or, are you having fun dressing up your strawman?

Well, you've fired out a variety of points, some responding my previous most, some not. So I'm not sure where to really start.

I never spoke to whether MSM reporters lean clearly left or right. I think the majority of MSM reporters lean clearly left. But the point is that what drives the difference in coverage has less to do with the individual reporters, and more to do with the producers and editors of cable news and magazine/newspapers respectively.

If your point that the left leaning tendencies of MSM reporters drive the coverage, then how would you explain the lack of coverage of the Lt. Gov. Steele/DSCC story on the Fox News Channel? Why aren't they covering that story? FNC's reporters and pundits are for the most part conservative. Why isnt't that a big story on FNC?

Likewise, why is the NYT giving scant coverage to the Noe coin scandal in Ohio? Their reporters are liberal. The paper is liberal. Why is that not a huge story for the paper?

And with respect to your somewhat rambling comment the the MSM "has revved into full gear based mostly on speculation" in covering DeLay, Rove, and Frist, I'm not sure what you're talking about here.

I'm glad you "feel pretty confident with the evidence on my side" though unless you're a lawyer for Tom DeLay or a member of the prosecution team, I'm not sure what "evidence" you have. Are you privy to some "evidence" that has not been reported publicly?

Tom DeLay was indicted in Texas. You may feel the merits of that indictment are weak, and you may be right. But he was indicted. Tom DeLay is one of the most powerful men in America. That's a story.

Bill Frist has been subpoenaed by the SEC for possible insider trading. He may have done nothing wrong. But he's under investigation. That's a story.

Karl Rove has testified four times in front of a federal grand jury, and is one of the central figures being investigated in Plame case. That's a story.

These are all big stories. Any time some of the most powerful men in America - political, financial, religious, entertainment - are under investigation, it's a big story.

The media is drawn to scandal and controversy and conflict. It drives ratings. It's what the audience (us) pays attention to. And blogs about (like, um, now).

But again, I would ask you: if media organizations are driven by the political leanings of their reporters, why isn't the Fox News Channel covering the Lt. Gov. Steele and DSSC story relentlessly. Why do you think that is? Why isn't that a big story on FNC? Why isn't FNC pushing that story?

If they were, it would prove your point. I would be curious as to your insights on why that isn't happening.

Sorry if I was a little unclear in my first post.  I hadn't seen your earlier diary when I posted-- and without that context it seemed you were ignoring the merit of the charges and focusing solely on spinning the media's reaction to them.  In the context of your original diary, it's now clear that you feel the media is in large part to blame for the indictments, which clears things up a little.  I don't find that credible at all, but without starting another argument (yet ;) ), let me try to clear up my original post a bit.

1.  My point about unindicted Republicans was to find out why you feel Frist/DeLay/Rove are being singled out because of their beliefs.  There are many politicians that could be considered more conservative than those currently under indictment.  It stands to reason that if we're seeing an ideological conspiracy on the part of the media, they'd be going after the likes of Sanatorum and Tancredo as well.

What Frist/DeLay/Rove have in common, beyond being Republican, is that they are in very high positions of power.  And regardless of ideology, power tends to corrupt. That's why we saw Dem. Congressmen in he 80's, and Clinton in the 90's, fall into similar legal and ethical problems.  I find it interesting that you have no problem seeing the indictments of prominent Democrats as resulting from their abuse of power, but when high-powered Reps are indicted your conclusion is that it's a left-wing media conspiracy.

2.  True, Kenneth Starr did receive more negative attention than Ronnie Earl has so far.  But at the same time, I think it's safe to say Clinton received alot more negative attention than DeLay has so far.  I'd wager most Americans know practically nothing about the DeLay indictment, compared to Clinton's impeachment.  Apples and Oranges.
   
3.  Can you send me a link showing Schumer's involvement in the Steele matter?  I'd heard that the DSCC was involved, but there's alot of people working there.  If it's guilt by association, I'd ask where the media uproar was over Mel Martinez's  Schiavo document.  The truth is that without direct involvement, it's not much of a story.  Whether or not Earle has a legit case, DeLay is directly involved in the indictment-- thus the media attention.  And if you'll remember there was not alot of media attention of DeLay before he was indicted-- I'd wager the same would be true should Schumer be called before a judge.
   
4.  I don't want to get into the TANG/Swift Boat thing.  Suffice to say that the inaccuracies in the CBS TANG report got alot more attention than the many inaccuracies/fabrications in the Swift Boating of Kerry.
   
5.  Let me clear up what I meant in that last sentence.  The confusion here was caused by my misunderstanding of why you were focusing on the media rather than the merits of the case.  But I'll repose the hypothetical anyway.

For a second, let down your ideological gaurd, and assume that there may be merit to these cases.  Is it still the proper response to focus on the media's reaction to them?  Or should spin be second to assuring that those in your own party aren't breaking the rules?

is for conservative republicans to come off the hip and buy or start (or if already owned, quit following the lead of the NYT for stories)one or two broadcast networks, major newspapers, and cable networks.

Murdock needs to quit all the hokey cartoons and teen angst, and use that Fox to cover stories that the others don't.

FNC needs to quit giving rangal, sharpton and so many libs airtime, and BE the alternative. Put the black conservatives on. Don't follow CNN for what the big story is.

Repubs need to become university professors, or start new colleges if they can't get tenure.

and repubs need to make movies

we (the gop- I don't know where you cones, but I like ya! I'm not gay) need to quit whining

we have a lot of rich people that could do this

rant over

In the context of your original diary, it's now clear that you feel the media is in large part to blame for the indictments, which clears things up a little.

That's now what I said.  I said that the media is much more inclined to push an anti-Republican story than an anti-Democratic one.  That makes it easier for Democrats to intimidate Republicans with the specter of a media swarm than the other way around.

It stands to reason that if we're seeing an ideological conspiracy on the part of the media, they'd be going after the likes of Sanatorum and Tancredo as well.

In your mind, maybe.  Again, I never said the MSM starts these things out of whole cloth.  But they willingly fan them.  If I was a DNC oppo researcher, I'd feel more confident that I could get a partisan swarm started, with much less compelling evidence, than could my RNC counterpart.

I find it interesting that you have no problem seeing the indictments of prominent Democrats as resulting from their abuse of power, but when high-powered Reps are indicted your conclusion is that it's a left-wing media conspiracy.

Stop putting words in my mouth--words I didn't say.

Can you send me a link showing Schumer's involvement in the Steele matter?

It's called "Google"

I don't want to get into the TANG/Swift Boat thing.  Suffice to say that the inaccuracies in the CBS TANG report got alot more attention than the many inaccuracies/fabrications in the Swift Boating of Kerry.

So, the SwiftBoat Vets are liars?  Why?  Because you say so?  Because Bill Maher and John Kerry does.  I'll concede that some of their assertions can't be proved, and they may be mistaken in other areas.  Example--precisely who did what in the Rassman river boat fight.  

But, just because you want them to be wrong doesn't mean they are.  Of course, you can say they are, and simply ignore the evidence where they've been proved right.  Example--Kerry's Christmas in Cambodia, when he was actually 50 miles away, with a river border between Vietnam and Cambodia so heavily barricaded that you couldn't just "slip across" by mistake.  (There was a picket boat line on the Cambodian border, to prevent boats from straying into Cambodia and creating an incident.  So says an AM Embassy official who was in Pnomh Penh at the time).

And, just because you want to take the word of an embittered Vietnam vet who galvanzied the anti-war movement, who made life harder for our POWs, whose voice still calls CDR (Ret) Paul Galanti to have Hanoi Hilton flashbacks when he hears it--well, if that's your idea of a great President, he's all yours.

And if you'll remember there was not alot of media attention of DeLay before he was indicted

Ummm...remember the full-bore coverage of Tom Delay's upcoming "ethics crisis" with the House Ethics Committee?  That is, until it became apparent that many other Congressmen, from BOTH sides of the aisle, had similar problems with filing travel documents.  At which point, the MSM lost interest.

You'll have to forgive me, but I can't remember it if it's you who's imagining it.

For a second, let down your ideological gaurd, and assume that there may be merit to these cases.  Is it still the proper response to focus on the media's reaction to them?  Or should spin be second to assuring that those in your own party aren't breaking the rules?

For a second, turn your "Pompous" switch to the off position, and assume these people are innocent.  You see, our system of justice assumes that--you might want to join in.  Why should I stand mute while MSM reporters, who apparently care little for balance or fairness, drag the reputations of good conservatives through the mud?

ChiMod, I fear we will have to agree to disagree.  See you in the 2006 elections.

Clinton Administration at all.  Funny you would jump to that conclusion.

Clinton has been out of the White House for 5 years.  I'm much more interested in the corruption and such that is going on right now and in the more recent past.

This sort of reasoning makes me ashamed to be a conservative. Because these leaders were effective in the movement does not make criminal acts acceptable, any more than Hitler being a great leader makes his criminal acts acceptable. As conservatives we accept the rule of law. These men are facing indictment. That does not mean they are guilty, but it means an impartial legal body under the standards of our democracy feels that that there is enough evidence that they must explain and defend themselves. If they have crossed the line of legal behavior, there must be consequences. If you believe in America, you must believe in the rule of law. I will not support corruption if it does exist. There are plenty of leaders who are conservatives in this world without tolerating crossing lines. If these people are being investigated without cause then it is likely with the resources behind them, it will be demonstrated.

Liberals know that conservatives believe that innocent people are never indicted. This conservative myth has long been exploited in persuading conservative office holders to resign and quietly go away. Conservatives never give their leaders the benefit of the doubt when accusations of illegality or immorality are made against them. When liberal office holders are indicted, their followers presume that they are innocent until proven guilty.  If indicted, watch how quickly Carl Rove will vanish.

Is it that conservatives are being "criminalized", as Kristol writes, or is it just that they are getting caught?

Really people. Corruption is something that would be good to get rid of on both sides.

If a senior White House staffer had intentionally outed a CIA agent during World War II, he'd be shot.

We're at war. We cannot continue with business as usual. A pre-9/11 mentality is deadly. Putting the lives of our troops at risk is treason.

Then why is the White House and the Republican party engaged in a concerted campaign to make treason acceptable during a time of war? That's exactly what they're doing. On numerous news shows today, Republican surrogates, their talking points ready, issued variations of the following concerning White House chief of staff Karl Rove's outing of a covert CIA agent as part of a political vendetta:

It's the criminalization of politics

Is this 'minor' leak really worth all this?

Political payback is common and should not be criminalized

Mis-speaking or mis-remembering is not a crime

Yes, the Republicans are now making light of an intentional effort to expose an undercover CIA agent, working on weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East, no less, while we are at war in the Middle East on that very issue.

Isn't this cause for concern.

The whole deal, is this outing of an intelligence officer is a matter of National Security while we are fighting a war.

Why is this not wrong?

There is plenty, plenty of evidence that Valerie Plame's identity wasn't being protected by the CIA.  If it was, then what was she doing getting in her car and driving to Langley every day?  Why did her husband list her name in his Who's Who In America entry.

We've been through all this before...you apparently have chosen not to listen.

We're at war. We cannot continue with business as usual. A pre-9/11 mentality is deadly. Putting the lives of our troops at risk is treason.

Then why is the White House and the Republican party engaged in a concerted campaign to make treason acceptable during a time of war?

How is ANY mention of the duties of a CIA desk jockey, especially if the jockey drives to her desk EVERY DAY in broad view, "putting the lives of our troops at risk"?

You are joking, right?  Is this Scrappleface?  Or Wuzzadem?  

I wonder if I can get a SobekPundit interview out of this...

understand, that it was the CIA that brought the case.

In other words, they  were furious with the powers that be for outing one of their own.

The desk job was a cover. And besides out VP, outs all of her connections, and she in the WMD area. As in trying to find out which countries were and were not developing them, and this took years of undercover work.

Desk jockey is hardly an apt description of her duties.

I don't know how you can be so cavelier about putting the identy of so many hard working intelligence anaylists at risk.

If you don't mind my saying so, I think you're being a bit naive, or idealistic; power corrupts, etc. All politicians are basically crooks.

The MSM tell stories for a living. And if a story isn't fundamentally compelling, they have to spice it up to keep you interested.

The reason the media have grabbed hold of the Bush Administration scandal stories like puppies with old socks is that there just hasn't been that much scandal to report for the last five years. The Clinton people were so full of malfeasance and leakiness that you'd overload if you had to report it all.

This Plame scandal is absolutely nothing at all. Even if there is an indictment, there's almost certainly been no violation of the Agee law on the part of Scooter and Rove. If Fitzgerald decides there was a conspiracy, I'll be rolling on the floor laughing. This is really low-rent stuff, folks. It does mean that Rove and possibly Scooter will be out of power, and that's shameful.

The DeLay case is clearly about a run-amok prosecutor who was running into a statute-of-limitations wall. But the MSM isn't about to make Ronnie Earle look bad because that will make the story disappear.

Keep in mind that these hugely hyped stories are about allegations and investigations. They're not about actual malfeasance because no one has proven anything. The Bush Administration really is right up there among the most ethical we've ever had. Again, the media have to sensationalize everything they report to hide the fact that there's nothing really interesting going on.

On the other hand there is a lot of terrifically interesting and good stuff happening in Iraq. It doesn't get reported because the reporters don't stray far from their protected-zone Baghdad hotels. All they have to report is rumors they hear from other reporters. They select for the bad news and spice it up to taste.

So what do we do about it? Keep exposing the lies and the distortions as we do every day.

We left ourselves open to these attacks. We like the power and 'political capital' that comes with our swift rise to power in the WH and in Congress, but we don't like it when the press pulls back the curtain to reveal the fact that the 'moral majority' is, in many ways, as unscrupulous as the Dems, the Clinton Dems even.

As far as coming up with combatting the "comprehensive strategy of criminalization ... implemented to inflict defeat on conservatives who seek to govern as conservatives," we need to realize that our conservatives are not governing as true conservatives (see our rising tide of debt for proof) and that our stance as the moral voice of America is undercut when America sees that we arrived there through some shady deals. You can't have it both ways: if you are elected because you tell the world you'll bring dignity back to the WH, you can't be surprised when the press delights in exposing the dark underbelly that got you there.

The "response to this challenge" that we need is to demand accountability from our top figures. If we are going to claim to be the moral majority, we need to act like it. And if we don't, we can't complain when the press pounds us for stepping out of line.