Unwank

I agree that sure sounds like it presages something super wanky, but I don't think the substance of Robert F. Bauer's argument is especially worthy of the wanker of the day prize:

Progressives are not so much appalled by Libby's lies as they are frustrated that this is all they have: Libby and only Libby. Left with only this, they want this small victory unspoiled. They want someone to pay.

But if the President pardons Libby, and by this act makes the case his own, he will have picked up a portion of the cost. Libby will fall back, restored to obscurity. Bush will step forward and take the lead role. He will have to explain himself; he will have to answer questions.

That seems true enough to me, if a bit bank-shottish. Indeed, this is exactly why I think most people think Libby will be pardoned, if at all, during the lame duck phase of the Bush presidency. But there's the rub -- if Libby's in jail, then Libby's the villain. If Bush springs Libby, then he's officially sanctioning involvement in a coverup, and he becomes the villain, which is as things should be.

Comments

It depends what you view as the "substance" of his argument. To many, the substance is the notion that Libby's crimes really weren't such a big deal. Is it asking too much to find a few progressive voices who can actually articulate why people should be concerned about Libby's obstruction of justice - and how the finger of blame ultimately points to the Vice-President?

Among other reasons why Bauer's view is silly, it does us no good for Bush to become the "villain" of the piece. Bush is already wildly unpopular and we profit very little by giving people yet another reason to dislike him. And since progressives are doing such a poor job of explaining to the outside-the-blogosphere crowd why a pardon of Libby would be so awful, it's not a given that people would dislike Bush that much less because of it.

Posted by Steve | June 13, 2007 2:44 PM

Steve is correct.

Bush will be viewed by the unfortunately influential Fred Hiatts, Howard Finemans, etc. of the world as being compassionate. I mean, it's not like there's an Underlying Crime that was committed or anything, right?

Posted by ed | June 13, 2007 2:47 PM

"Bush will step forward and take the lead role. He will have to explain himself; he will have to answer questions."

Really? Since when has he had to that? If he won't answer questions about the war, Gonzales, the actual outing of Plame or anything else his administration has done, why would he answer questions about pardoning Libby?

Bauer is an idiot for thinking that Bush is magically going to be held accountable for pardoning Libby when he still has to answer for things much worse than this.

Posted by ihateemo | June 13, 2007 2:48 PM

Well, for me the irritation has been that he parrots the idea that the Libby trial is only significant as political theater and continuing to draw the false equivalence with Clinton's impeachment. There are some progressives who do care that an agent with major responsibilities with preventing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction was outed and her sources burned for some sort of political vengeance against her husband. All this emphasis on who will look bad or gain the upper hand in 2008 is well, just a bit too post-modern for my taste.

Posted by justawriter | June 13, 2007 2:55 PM

Bauer's piece is flawed because it's too clever by half, and by another half on top of that; it's like something Kaus would write, minus all the italics and superego-like editorial interventions. Part of his argument sounds like a dare or a wish: I DARE Bush to pardon Libby and thus show himself to be the true villain here: Ha ha! But it's written in such even tones that it's hard to read it that way, or distinguish it from a consolation argument: well, Bush MAY pardon Libby, but if he does then we can argue that that proves who the real villain is: nya-nya! But a consolation argument is something you deploy after the deed is done, not in advance. Furthermore, he does nothing to explain why, if this pardon would be so advantageous to progressives, why is there so much broad and deep support for it on the right? Are all 99% of the Novaks and the Thompsons of the world just completely wrong about where their political interests lie? And again, his tone is so flat that it's hard to tell whether he isn't just triangulating, giving in to the right rhetorically as if he weren't really in control of his own mind.

And one further point: why is he writing this piece for US? Because anything posted in Huffington by a Democratic advisor has every appearance of being directed at a progressive audience. What possible good could it do to persuade even one progressive of the desirability of a pardon? Wouldn't it just make Bush, ever the stubborn one, even more inclined NOT to pardon Libby? Is he really not aware that the bulk of the left-wing blogosphere was intently focused on the Libby trial, and was into it so much precisely for the opportunity to see, for once, an agent of Bush's agenda receive real, not imaginary or rhetorical, punishment for their proven crimes?

It's like Bauer's on drugs or something.

Posted by lampwick | June 13, 2007 3:01 PM

Nice of Matt to stick up for Ezra here, but they are both terribly wrong about this.

"Libby is said to be unpardonable because the act of lying, a subversion of the legal process, cannot go unpunished. Yet this is mere glibness."

Does Bauer not understand that Libby not only obstructed, but continues to obstruct, justice by not coming clean? Under the circumstances, one would have to conclude that any pardon is part of a criminal conspiracy involving the President himself to enable the continued obstruction of justice by Libby.

Posted by Ben Brackley | June 13, 2007 3:02 PM

If Bauer's argument has any merit at all, it only applies at some point after Libby has spent some portion of time in prison. And only if Libby actually expresses clear contrition for his very real crimes. For I am of the view, with others here and among Bauer's commenters, that accountability in the Bush Administration has become wholly unhinged from factuality. Broder and Hiatt and the other self-appointed grownups don't want to believe any crime was committed--it creates too much cognitive dissonance with their need to believe that ours is still a government of laws, and a lawful government. A pardon won't bring any spotlight on Bush or Cheney--it will mean we (except of course for the enraged dirty fucking hippies) can all return to the sleep of reason. Advantage--Atrios.

Posted by elle loco | June 13, 2007 3:04 PM

Bush will answer just as many questions regarding his pardon of Libby as his father answered regarding the Iran/Contra criminals he pardoned.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | June 13, 2007 3:08 PM

It's rare that any high level investigation has a single target. Watergate, Iran/Contra, Lewinski, even the 9/11 report were oblique thrusts of varyingly successful attacks on the administrations of their times.

Presently, it seems the administration is being pretty smart about containing blame on this issue. Democrats would love a pardon, not because they really care overmuch about Libby one way or the other but because it would make the president, to some degree, culpable in the case. Whether this would have any effect on his already dismal image, time may tell.

Posted by Thomas | June 13, 2007 3:14 PM

Commenter nihil obstet gives the appropriate response to Ezra's version of this post at TAPPED:

The practical result of a pardon for Libby is that Libby doesn't suffer any negative consequences for his crime.

The possible but indirect practical consequence is to confirm for underlings that they may break the law with impunity. The poor in central DC will continue to go to jail for breaking the law, but the elites in the Versailles Court are above all that.

The indirect consequences that have no practical effect include the confirmation to the remaining 30% that is the Bush base that they are strong and right, the Broderesque happiness that thank God civility has won out over the criminalization of politics, and the illusion among progressives that at last, AT LAST! everybody will see how bad Bush is and this will have some really great result.

There's no evidence that the powerful care what you or anybody else thinks who is not willing to use power to stop them. We're too civil to impeach for crime, so we'll make our point by pardoning well-connected criminals? Holy cow!!!

Posted by lemuel pitkin | June 13, 2007 3:17 PM

Does Bauer not understand that Libby not only obstructed, but continues to obstruct, justice by not coming clean? Under the circumstances, one would have to conclude that any pardon is part of a criminal conspiracy involving the President himself to enable the continued obstruction of justice by Libby.

That would be his entire point.

I call it a toss up, if any of this is going to taint Bush it's going to be through him writing Libby a pardon. Otherwise, this is all just a rather small blip in an already scandal-ridden administration. If there isn't a pardon, the end of the story is Libby goes to the clink and it's over. If he does pardon him, it makes Bush very much into a co-conspirator.

Posted by Ed Marshall | June 13, 2007 3:22 PM

If he does pardon him, it makes Bush very much into a co-conspirator.

Huh? Bush already is a co-conspirator. What you mean is, "makes very much a co-conspirator in the eyes of" ... who, exactly?

This whole line of argument depends on the existence of someone who doesn't believe Bush lied in the runup to the Iraq war, but changing their mind once Libby is pardoned. Who is this person?

Posted by lemuel pitkin | June 13, 2007 3:26 PM

Well, probably no one at this point, but it's confirmation anyway. It would force the talking heads to start talking about the whole thing ahead. The alternative is you are never going to hear about Valerie Plame again, that's how the story cycle works.

Posted by Ed Marshall | June 13, 2007 3:29 PM

If Bush springs Libby, then he's officially sanctioning involvement in a coverup, and he becomes the villain, which is as things should be

Which is exactly why it won't happen. The underlings like Libby have a specific role in the Bush Administration:

The former FEMA chief cited what he called an e-mail "from a very high source in the White House that says the president at a Cabinet meeting said, 'Thank goodness Brown's taking all the heat because it's better that he takes the heat than I do.'"***** During a trip to West Point on June 1, Bush pulled White aside for a private talk. "As long as they're hitting you on Enron, they're not hitting me," said Bush, according to this Army official. "That's your job. You're the lightning rod for this administration."

Posted by Ethel-to-Tilly | June 13, 2007 3:29 PM

The real problem here is that someone needs to teach these Democratic consultants how to blog. You need to develop a thick skin, first of all, and keep your ego, however big, out of the fight. Then, you need to stick to presenting facts, stats, and stories (a la Drum, and TPM), or be a 'rational demagogue', stirring up the masses but remaining loyal to principle, and knowing what's really important (like Kos, Atrios and Arivosis).

The skill-set required to be a good blogger is actually an important part of the skill-set required to be an effective politician.

It's both telling and frightening, then, when characters like Klein, Mudcat, or Bauer come along and while claiming to be political experts, show that they possess no real political gifts themselves.

Posted by lampwick | June 13, 2007 3:35 PM

It would force the talking heads to start talking about the whole thing ahead. The alternative is you are never going to hear about Valerie Plame again, that's how the story cycle works.

I don't know that it would force the talking heads to do anything. But it certainly would make it clear that the law doesn't apply to the powerful and well-connected, and that staff in (Republican) administrations can obstruct justice and lie under oath with impunity. You really think that would be worth it to get us another Plame news cycle?

Really?

Posted by lemuel pitkin | June 13, 2007 3:35 PM

Matt and Ezra provide irrefutable proof that there is a wonkosphere as they are clear politically clueless on this issue.

Amazingly obtuse posts from the both of them.

Stick to the wonk. It is your forte. The reading of the Media and Politics on this is simply out to lunch.

BTW, did either of you consider for a moment how a piece like that from an Obama campaign staff member reads?

You think that was smart? Even if what he wrote made any sense, and it does not, it is still wankery considering the position he holds.

Come now, even teh wonkosphere should understand that.

Posted by Armando | June 13, 2007 3:43 PM

Why? What digby says.

Posted by justawriter | June 13, 2007 3:44 PM

I think it's all we are going to get and having Bush take any sort of responsibility for a mess vs. just walking away and selling Libby down the river is weak beer but it's something. If there is no pardon the lesson is that when you instruct subordinates to commit crimes make sure they are loyal enough to do a few years for you when the investigation comes your way, I'm also 95% certain there will be at least an 11th hour pardon so you might want to get ready to make lemonade.

Posted by Ed Marshall | June 13, 2007 3:51 PM

It really is amazing how consistently great Digby is. If there was justice in the world Digby would have won three or four Pulitzers for commentary by now. There is no one better at getting to the core of an issue and writing so clearly and effectively about it.

Posted by Ben Brackley | June 13, 2007 4:08 PM

Ben - Hear, hear. I'd like to see him as a writer for Olbermann or as the host of Meet The Press.

Posted by lampwick | June 13, 2007 4:28 PM

Indeed, this is exactly why I think most people think Libby will be pardoned, if at all, during the lame duck phase of the Bush presidency.

Matt:

There is only lame duck left. There is no non-lame duck period in which Bush could pardon Libby. Unless you think the 22nd Amendment will be revoked.

Posted by blah | June 13, 2007 4:30 PM

Exiting Presidents may be weak but they also no longer have to worry about it. The idea that Bush will be forced to explain a pardon is fantasy.

Pardon is utterly up to a President. Any problema for Bush will come from elsewhere.

IMO Bush will be impeached next year. Or maybe Cheney. It is an election year.

The charges? It doesn't matter. They may be solid, they may be imagined. It is theater.

Has it reached that point? I think so.

Posted by K | June 13, 2007 4:33 PM

I'd like to see him as a writer for Olbermann

I'm pretty sure that Digby is a her.

Posted by lemuel pitkin | June 13, 2007 4:43 PM

A lot of people seem to be pretty sure that Digby is a her, but there doesn't seem to be any actual evidence either way.

Posted by Steve | June 13, 2007 4:44 PM

It really does make me angry when smart young liberals like Ezra and Matt, whom I really like, take their stand on the principle that we should pardon criminals when it's politically advantageous for us to do so. First, the prudential argument, ie, it'll help turn the media spotlight on Bush and make him accountable. Are you kidding? Both Bush AND the MSM are deeply embarrassed about the Libby/Plame matter because it implicates the former in lying about the war and the latter in being in bed with the administration and eagerly lapping up all the lies. Their reaction to our support for a pardon would be euphoria because it would sanction their forgetting (and helping the public to forget) about the whole thing. Second, the moral/legal dimension. Is it so hard to stand up for the principle that you can't perjure yourself or obstruct justice in a properly sanctioned law enforcement investigation? Has the political discourse become so corrupt that we have to waive this principle for the sake of the PR battle? Jesus.

Posted by scott | June 13, 2007 4:55 PM

I have to agree with most of the others: this is one of the dumbest arguments I have heard in a long time.

Posted by blah | June 13, 2007 4:59 PM

Two questions:

1) If Bush pardons Libby, then Libby wouldn't be able to plead the 5th if Congress subpeonas him to testify, no?

2) How relevant is it that the judge who gave Libby the hard sentence was black? Isn't there some bad blood between the blacks & Jews?

Posted by Harry | June 13, 2007 5:36 PM

Harry,

Iirc Monica Goodling got immunity when she testified before Congress and it didn't seem to help her testimony any. I would bet dollars to donuts that Libby's testimony, if he was pardoned, would be cut from the same cloth.

Posted by moe99 | June 13, 2007 5:45 PM

Just want to add my vote:

Ezra/Matt, bad. Very bad. Digby, good. Very good.

Recommend voiding or erasing this post.

When I see posts like this it again seems obvious that Dems are again going to self-destruct. Again.

General Counsel? Is this guy the Secretary of the Obama DOJ? Wanker.

Posted by Adams | June 13, 2007 6:14 PM

The substance of the argument is that the very same people who have ignored lying to Congress, an illegal war, illegal wiretaps, signing statements that serve as an illegal veto, and the "unitary executive" will suddenly rise up and condemn Bush for pardoning Libby and hold him accountable at last, even though these very same people have been saying all along that Libby should not have been prosecuted and that he deserves a pardon.

In other words, people are being completely insane.

What are you guys drinkin'?

Posted by Avedon | June 13, 2007 6:26 PM

MY's correct. Libby's the small fry here - a pardon will direct attention to the bigger fish. Otherwise the story stays that some guy no one has heard of is going to jail and, well, maybe Karl Rove had something to do with it.

Perhaps Bauer should have considered his audience and written with less subtlety.

Posted by rilkefan | June 13, 2007 7:34 PM

How many times does it need to be said?

What was the effect of the Iran Contra pardons?

If you currently believe that there was no
"real" (non-coverup) crime behind Libby's conviction, why the fuck would a pardon from Bush change your mind? If you believe that there was an underlying crime that Libby was trying to cover up, isn't the administration already fully implicated in your mind?

Christ people. Where do these retards come from?

Posted by Barbar | June 13, 2007 7:59 PM

The right-wing noise machine is already saying there was no underlying crime and that Libby's sentence is a mistake. If Libby is in jail, he is the unjustly imprisoned loyalist, not a villain. If Bush pardons him, he doesn't become the villain, he becomes the one who fixed an injustice.

No one who does not already believe Bush is a villain would be convinced that he is by him pardoning Libby.

Posted by biggerbox | June 13, 2007 8:46 PM

So, basically, this is hoping that some stink will rub off on what everyone already knows is a remarkably redolent turd.

Why is this not obvious?

Posted by Jon H | June 13, 2007 9:24 PM

"MY's correct. Libby's the small fry here - a pardon will direct attention to the bigger fish."

To what end, exactly?

I mean, it'd be nice if Bush went on Jeremy Paxman's show and got mercilessly grilled about it. But Paxman's on the BBC, and Bush won't go within five miles of him.

With the media as it is now, this will mean nothing and any attention it gets will vanish within a media cycle.

Worst case, the media will (as usual) invite only the right wing noise machine on to discuss it, and adopt their topsy-turvy view that Bush was righting an injustice caused by an out of control prosecutor.

I'd rather have a modicum of justice than give that up in exchange for ponies who will never come.

Posted by Jon H | June 13, 2007 9:30 PM

"There are some progressives who do care that an agent with major responsibilities with preventing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction was outed and her sources burned for some sort of political vengeance against her husband."

This is it. This is the key. This is what its all about-beyond the politics, beyond the spin, beyond the games. A covert agent was outed.

So why aren't progressives mad at 1) Richard Armitage for outing the agent, 2) Bob Novak for writing the column exposing her identity, and 3) the newspapers for printing this agent's identity?

If you can't answer this satisfactorily, you are back at the spin, politics, and games.

Sk

Posted by Sk | June 13, 2007 10:03 PM

Yeah, I guess if you assume no one is upset about any of that stuff, it's a real puzzle, ain't it?

Posted by Steve | June 13, 2007 11:16 PM

Let him rot. Let Paris rot, too. Let Duke rot. Let Jack rot. Let Martha and Judith go back and rot some more. Society is a better place with these people locked away.

Posted by Just Karl | June 13, 2007 11:24 PM

In case the consequences of Libby's unlawful actions seem diminished by the MSM and online discussions, please read Patrick Fitzgertalds submissions at the usdoj web site:
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/osc/
He has uploaded documents and audio content so the public can research and discover for themselves.
This trial has not been about revenge for the Democratic party, it is not about politics, it is about protecting our democracy.
This current administration is corrupting our government and the oversight which has normally been in place with our 3 branches has been hobbled by the blatant dishonesty and unlawfullness practiced by the Bush Administration.
Patrick Fitzgerald could not perform his work successfully when Libby obstructed the process. Libby is being prosecuted, and that is just the beginning.
The truth will prevail, it may take a long time, but there are enough people interested in keeping our government a viable democracy.

Posted by Tracy | June 19, 2007 5:04 PM