Bush Gives Libby “Get Out Of Jail Free” Card
So President Bush has just commuted Scooter Libby's jail sentence. Let's hope the second part of Robert Novak's prediction comes true, too: firing Alberto Gonzales.
Novak wrote an article a few weeks ago floating the notion that pardoning Libby could go very well hand-in-hand with dumping Gonzales. As I commented at the time:
My personal opinion is that (1) Bush isn’t going to fire Gonzales, because he’s terrified of trying to get a replacement through the Senate confirmation process, and therefore he’s happy to have a broken and ineffectual Justice Department for the remainder of his term; and (2) I don’t think he’s going to pardon Libby. I think a respite or even a commutation might indeed be in the cards, but not an actual pardon.
But then again, I could be wrong. I sure hope so.
When I initially wrote about Scooter's jail term, back at the beginning of June, I wrote:
On the one hand, if he pardons Libby, he’ll keep his base happy. But he will further harm his standing among the rest of the country (now, it should be noted, 65% to 70% of the American public), which may doom his chances of ever seeing an approval rating above 40% — for the rest of his term.
I still stand by this prediction. Bush has obviously decided that the people who don't approve of him are just not going to change their mind before the end of his term, and therefore 40% approval ratings would be about as high as he can ever hope for again in the next nineteen months.
This will shore up support among his base, it should be noted. The fact that the immigration bill isn't going to be in the news is going to help him in the next month or so, and the fact that he commuted Libby's sentence is also going to give him a boost, at least among Republicans who saw the sentence as unfair and harsh.
So look for a mini-bump in the polls for Bush over the next few weeks. But it's not a trend -- he may get back up to 35% (or at the very least, above 30% again) -- but that's as far as it's going to go.
The main issue for most people responding to these polls is Iraq, and it doesn't matter whether Libby is walking around free or not to the folks in Baghdad.
The good news in all of this is that Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid have made public their plans to go ahead and force vote after vote on Iraq during the month of July. This probably won't give them the veto-proof majorities they need (especially in the Senate), which likely won't happen until September. But the Democrats in congress can please the anti-war base of their party by continuing to fight on the issue, which will bring their own dismal poll numbers up as well.
President Bush is going to be hurt by having to veto, over and over again, plans to end the war in Iraq. And that is going to be more important to his poll numbers than Libby's commuted sentence, in the end.
I predicted in my earlier article that "...politically, if [Bush] pardons Libby right away, there’s going to be an outcry. It’s going to be loud and angry — but in the end, ineffective." The power of the President to pardon is pretty much absolute, so protesting the decision isn't going to change it in any way.
But the outcry about to happen ("happening even as I type," I should say) is going to do one thing -- remind everyone that when Republicans talk about the "rule of law" it means one thing if you're a Democrat and quite another if you're a Republican. And the general public is already tired of such hypocrisy from the White House, and Republicans in general.
I suppose the other good thing to come out of this is that James Carville's kids will be happy, but I find myself not caring much, to tell you the truth.
Chris,
Excellent article. I'm stunned. I thought even Bush would realize this was foot-shooter but I must remember that, to paraphrase a line from My Favorite Year, "You can count on Bush. He will always let you down." I wrote about it myself after I pulled my jaw off the floor - http://magnificentbile.blogspot.com/2007/07/has-governor-called.html
I don't know if you're as rapidly opposed to the death penalty as I am but I couldn't help immediately thinking about the grotesque double standard when I read that Bush thought the sentence was "excessive." Anyway, gotta go now. Thanks again for the terrific viewpoint as always.
Jonathan
Correction: While I quickly argue against the death penalty when confronted with someone who supports it, my opposition nonetheless is "rabid" not "rapid."
Again, I find myself completely unable to garner any outrage. Clinton's pardon of Mark Rich and Pincus Green were MUCH worse and much more egregious, in my not so humble opinion, then the Libby pardon. Looking at the DOJ site, we see a long list of real criminals that Clinton pardon'ed.
http://www.usdoj.gov/pardon/clintonpardon_grants.htm
These, for the most part, were real criminals, not the political hatchet job that was the Libby case.
Let's face it. This is another one of those issues where those of the Left are equally as guilty as those on the right.
Michale
Well, if I'm going to be forced to defend Clinton's pardons then I am in dire straits indeed. I would have trouble defending anything Bill Clinton did, quite frankly. I do not believe however that just because Clinton did worse with pardons that Bush is exonerated. My sense of stunned amazement (not outrage)at the near suicidal tendencies of the Bush administration at this moment is what I am writing about.
And again, I can think of many administrations from Nixon's to LBJ's to all the way back to McKinley with blood on their hands but that doesn't mean Bush is given a break over Iraq because, hey, lots of presidents have had bad wars.
jlapper,
Don't get me wrong. I am not using the "Yea,But" defense as that is the sign of a lazy and ignorant debater..
My only point is the hypocrisy that Democrats exhibit in their castigation of Bush. And it's not just in this Libby affair, but in EVERYTHING.
I read all about Reid's and Obama's and Clinton's and Pelosi's faux indignation over Bush's pardon and I just shake my head sadly.
It seems that everything Bush is slammed by Democrats for, from Gitmo to Libby, has been committed by Democratic Presidents, only much MUCH worse..
Imagine politics free from hypocrisy... :D
Michale.....
I don't think they've invented a word yet to describe "politics free from hypocrisy" so I guess we're stuck with imagination. And if politics could ever get to that point we'd have nothing to write about.
I don't know if Democratic Presidents have done MUCH worse though. But definitely just as bad. Obviously you could equate the Japanese internment camps to Gitmo and even argue it was worse since there were literally no special conditions, i.e., suspected of crimes. It was simply, "If you're Japanese you're going to disappear for a few years. Sorry."
I wonder if it would have affected FDR's popularity if technology allowed for the instant spread of communication as it does today. Had millions been blogging in the early forties, would FDR's memory be as fond? Will any president escape history anymore? Will every person who occupies the office be scrutinized beyond rationality? Possibly. We may be entering an age where simply by means of technology every President from here on out is going to look awful.
Why is anyone surprised at Bush's commutation of Libby's sentence? I thought it was a foregone conclusion as is the full pardon coming (and fully expected) at the end of Bush's term. The real culprit is Chaney and he is the one who should be unceremoniouly ousted from office and ushered into the nearest jail. Bush is dangerous and dumb; Chaney is dangerous and smart.
Congress and now evidently the Supreme Court are useless puppets and Bush/Chaney are pulling the strings. Congress passing legislation that Bush will most certainly veto does nothing toward actually ending the war; and if miraculously Congress did manage to overturn the vero, the 5-4 Supreme Court would just find it unconstitutional (as in the Constitution according to Bush). Let's face it, we are stuck in Iraq until Bush is out of office, and so far I see no Democratic plan to end it even then. Big sigh!
Val
Michale,
Just as an interesting sidebar to your mention of Marc Rich here's an archived CNN article on Libby being questioned about Rich, who he defended.
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/03/02/clinton.library/
"No, sir," Libby responded. "There are no facts that I know of that support the criminality of the client based on the tax returns."
Libby then said prosecutors from the Southern District of New York "misconstrued the facts and the law" when they prosecuted Rich.
"(Rich) had not violated the tax laws," said Libby.
Forget Democrat or Republican, "Money speaks for money, the devil for his own."
Personally, I view FDR's actions as MUCH worse than Bush's because it was committed against American Citizens who's only crime was their ancestry. In the case of Gitmo, there is a reasonable suspicion of illegal activities.
But you do bring up an interesting notion regarding blogging in the 1940s. And I think you are dead on ballz accurate with your last line.
Michale.....
@jlapper
>Forget Democrat or Republican,
>"Money speaks for money, the
>devil for his own."
Couldn't have possibly said it better myself..
That's why my official political designation is NO POLITICAL AFFILIATION.
Or, as Richard Pryor said in BREWSTER'S MILLIONS, "NONE OF THE ABOVE".... :D
Michale.....
jlapper -
Your article that you linked to (in the first post in this thread) is very well written and well thought out. While some have made references to Bush's behavior as Gov. of Texas, you make the case quite strongly that Gov. Bush (who, being the state's executive, had the same power of the pardon for state offenses), routinely denied just about every pardon and commutation request that crossed his desk. Now apparantly he's "seen the light" just because one of his own is in trouble. The whole thing is disgraceful. Anyway, I urge others to check out jlapper's blog article.
You also raise an interesting question about FDR and bloggers...
Michale -
I would state it somewhat differently. I think that it's a disease of the Presidency itself (for presidents from either party) that eventually becomes just too irresistable. After all, it's about the only constitutional power which is almost "monarchial" in its sweeping scope. The president can pardon anybody he wants to for any reason he wants, with the only exception being for impeachment (this way, if he gets impeached and convicted, he can't pardon himself). I think that eventually the power to pardon buddies, especially in the three months between the election and the president's stepping down, just becomes too tempting. The difference in this case is that Bush's hand was forced by the appeals court. I think Bush would have much preferred to pardon Libby outright, but in the last month of his term.
valbrady -
You'll notice that Bush is keeping the door open to a full pardon at the end of his term for Libby. I would bet dollars to donuts that sometime between Christmas and New Years of 2008, Libby will indeed be pardoned. And while you're mostly right, I must point out that (agree with it or not) Joe Biden has a very well thought out plan for how to get out of Iraq -- partition the country into three. I'm not a Biden supporter or anything, just wanted to point it out.
Thanks to all for commenting!
-CW