All the rule of law guys must be in love with Reggie Walton right now.
Scooter Libby lied under oath. He got his day in court. Now he is going to jail.
End of bitter sarcasm.
Bill Clinton. Sandy Berger. O.J. Simpson. Probably William "Cold Cash" Jefferson.
Why? What happened?
Somebody give me a thoughtful answer.
One caveat: no explanation may characterize Scooter Libby as the absent-minded professor. The ludicrous memory defense is how we got into this mess.
Scooter Libby lied under oath. He got his day in court. Now he is going to jail.
End of bitter sarcasm.
Bill Clinton. Sandy Berger. O.J. Simpson. Probably William "Cold Cash" Jefferson.
Why? What happened?
Somebody give me a thoughtful answer.
One caveat: no explanation may characterize Scooter Libby as the absent-minded professor. The ludicrous memory defense is how we got into this mess.
14/06: Bush & Libby: Why Not?
Category: Politics
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
From the Washington Post:
Judge Won't Delay Libby's Prison Term for Appeal
"A federal judge today ordered I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby to report to prison within weeks to begin serving a 30-month sentence ...."
"U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton rejected defense attorneys' request to allow Libby to remain free on bond while they appeal his conviction for perjury and obstructing justice."
"Walton...said he disagreed with defense attorneys' contention that Libby's trial had generated a series of close legal questions and judicial rulings that might well be reversed by higher courts."
Full story here.
Already today, I have heard repeatedly on several different media outlets this chestnut of conventional wisdom/analysis/punditry/blather:
"President Bush will not pardon Libby because the political fallout will be too intense."
WHAT!?! Are you kidding?
This is the same George Bush who refuses to budge on Iraq against the backdrop of a disapproval rating in the mid-60s; he continues to support Alberto Gonzales in the face of increasingly vocal consternation; and he intends to resubmit the bone-crushingly divisive and destructive (to Republicans) comprehensive immigration reform.
But, we are told that he is skittish about some bad press over a Libby pardon?
That is completely ridiculous. Seriously, even if you weren't the most stubborn person on the planet, how much lower can any president expect to dip than 29 percent approval?
In truth, a Libby pardon would bring his numbers back up. Bush's steep decline is the result of GOP anger. A Libby pardon, and the ensuing firestorm among the mainstream media and Democrats in Congress, would re-energize the formerly faithful.
But I predict he will not pardon Libby. Why won't he do it?
My Speculation: it is mostly a desire to not be Clinton. Of all the things that have gone to hell for Bush, he still sees himself as superior to his predecessor in terms of modeling virtuous behavior.
In Bush's view, pardons and vitriolic attacks and procedural assaults on the justice system are Clintonesque. I am afraid Bush is going to let Scooter fry--rather than compromise this principle.
Of course, it is easier to hold to your principles when other people are going to jail. I would not be shocked if the President found a way to alleviate Libby's suffering (commutation has been floated as a moderate measure). On the other hand, I would be surprised if Bush pardoned Libby Clinton style.
Judge Won't Delay Libby's Prison Term for Appeal
"A federal judge today ordered I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby to report to prison within weeks to begin serving a 30-month sentence ...."
"U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton rejected defense attorneys' request to allow Libby to remain free on bond while they appeal his conviction for perjury and obstructing justice."
"Walton...said he disagreed with defense attorneys' contention that Libby's trial had generated a series of close legal questions and judicial rulings that might well be reversed by higher courts."
Full story here.
Already today, I have heard repeatedly on several different media outlets this chestnut of conventional wisdom/analysis/punditry/blather:
"President Bush will not pardon Libby because the political fallout will be too intense."
WHAT!?! Are you kidding?
This is the same George Bush who refuses to budge on Iraq against the backdrop of a disapproval rating in the mid-60s; he continues to support Alberto Gonzales in the face of increasingly vocal consternation; and he intends to resubmit the bone-crushingly divisive and destructive (to Republicans) comprehensive immigration reform.
But, we are told that he is skittish about some bad press over a Libby pardon?
That is completely ridiculous. Seriously, even if you weren't the most stubborn person on the planet, how much lower can any president expect to dip than 29 percent approval?
In truth, a Libby pardon would bring his numbers back up. Bush's steep decline is the result of GOP anger. A Libby pardon, and the ensuing firestorm among the mainstream media and Democrats in Congress, would re-energize the formerly faithful.
But I predict he will not pardon Libby. Why won't he do it?
My Speculation: it is mostly a desire to not be Clinton. Of all the things that have gone to hell for Bush, he still sees himself as superior to his predecessor in terms of modeling virtuous behavior.
In Bush's view, pardons and vitriolic attacks and procedural assaults on the justice system are Clintonesque. I am afraid Bush is going to let Scooter fry--rather than compromise this principle.
Of course, it is easier to hold to your principles when other people are going to jail. I would not be shocked if the President found a way to alleviate Libby's suffering (commutation has been floated as a moderate measure). On the other hand, I would be surprised if Bush pardoned Libby Clinton style.
Category: Courts
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
Some of the most aggrieved criticism of the Libby commutation last week came from sentencing guideline experts. Expressing outrage over special treatment, a number of legal specialists castigated the President for showing mercy to his subordinate after turning a cold shoulder to so many others over the course of his administration.
Is it hypocritical for the President to show leniency toward a loyal member of his administration--and not to others? On its face, we are hard-pressed to conclude anything other than blatant favoritism. Inarguably, these experts on sentencing practices have a point, especially in terms of the larger issue that they are attempting to spotlight.
On the other hand, the Libby case may tell us much more about Washington politics than it reveals about the American justice system in general. Rhetoric aside, Scooter Libby is no "ordinary Joe" convicted under normal circumstances.
Why is this different?
Customarily, an ordinary person does not contend with a top-flight US attorney, appointed as a special prosecutor with unlimited resources, instructed to devote all his energy toward investigating a specific incident, which may or may not have been a crime, and under intense pressure from the media and much of the political establishment in Washington to produce a public scalp.
In the end, the Prosecutor obtained a conviction. Nevertheless, the extraordinary nature of the case was exacerbated by the fact that the prosecutor did not charge Libby (or anyone else) with violating the law that originally precipitated the investigation.
Should the President treat Libby like just another convicted criminal under these circumstances?
It occurs to me that the proponents of sentencing reform are asking the wrong questions and scoring a few cheap debating points on an intensely political but not necessarily analogous event.
If, in the end, the President takes extraordinary action to spring a person of good character caught in a trap set through extraordinary means—then, that is the way the game is played. The constitutional power of the President trumps that of his tormentors. From check to check-mate on the Washington chessboard.
Other Bosque Boys thoughts on Scooter Libby:
"Bush and Libby: The Morning After" (ramifications) here.
"A Judicious Use of the President's Power: in his own words..." here.
The entire Bosque Boys file of posts pertaining to Libby here (click and scroll).
You may "bookmark" the Bosque Boys by clicking on the icon in the upper right corner.
Is it hypocritical for the President to show leniency toward a loyal member of his administration--and not to others? On its face, we are hard-pressed to conclude anything other than blatant favoritism. Inarguably, these experts on sentencing practices have a point, especially in terms of the larger issue that they are attempting to spotlight.
On the other hand, the Libby case may tell us much more about Washington politics than it reveals about the American justice system in general. Rhetoric aside, Scooter Libby is no "ordinary Joe" convicted under normal circumstances.
Why is this different?
Customarily, an ordinary person does not contend with a top-flight US attorney, appointed as a special prosecutor with unlimited resources, instructed to devote all his energy toward investigating a specific incident, which may or may not have been a crime, and under intense pressure from the media and much of the political establishment in Washington to produce a public scalp.
In the end, the Prosecutor obtained a conviction. Nevertheless, the extraordinary nature of the case was exacerbated by the fact that the prosecutor did not charge Libby (or anyone else) with violating the law that originally precipitated the investigation.
Should the President treat Libby like just another convicted criminal under these circumstances?
It occurs to me that the proponents of sentencing reform are asking the wrong questions and scoring a few cheap debating points on an intensely political but not necessarily analogous event.
If, in the end, the President takes extraordinary action to spring a person of good character caught in a trap set through extraordinary means—then, that is the way the game is played. The constitutional power of the President trumps that of his tormentors. From check to check-mate on the Washington chessboard.
Other Bosque Boys thoughts on Scooter Libby:
"Bush and Libby: The Morning After" (ramifications) here.
"A Judicious Use of the President's Power: in his own words..." here.
The entire Bosque Boys file of posts pertaining to Libby here (click and scroll).
You may "bookmark" the Bosque Boys by clicking on the icon in the upper right corner.
Week before last, I observed:
If Scooter Libby is not guilty as sin, the MSM has done us a great disservice...I wonder if there is another side of the story.
Today in the Washington Post, Victoria Toensing rises for the defense (doing what she does best, prosecuting):
"There's a reason why responsible prosecutors don't bring perjury cases on mere "he said, he said" evidence. Without an underlying crime or tangible evidence of obstruction (think Martha Stewart trying to destroy phone logs), the trial becomes a mishmash of faulty memories in which witnesses can seem as guilty as the defendant. Any prosecutor knows that memories differ, even vividly, and each party can be convinced that his or her version is the truthful one.
"If we accept Fitzgerald's low threshold for bringing a criminal case, then why stop at Libby? This investigation has enough questionable motives and shadowy half-truths and flawed recollections to fill a court docket for months. So here are my own personal bills of indictment:"
Read the full (2200 words) article here.
UPDATE: It occurs to me that if you did not remember my previous post, you may have missed the point of this post. Please feel free to post in the comments your favorite defense of Libby article and/or your own thoughts.
If Scooter Libby is not guilty as sin, the MSM has done us a great disservice...I wonder if there is another side of the story.
Today in the Washington Post, Victoria Toensing rises for the defense (doing what she does best, prosecuting):
"There's a reason why responsible prosecutors don't bring perjury cases on mere "he said, he said" evidence. Without an underlying crime or tangible evidence of obstruction (think Martha Stewart trying to destroy phone logs), the trial becomes a mishmash of faulty memories in which witnesses can seem as guilty as the defendant. Any prosecutor knows that memories differ, even vividly, and each party can be convinced that his or her version is the truthful one.
"If we accept Fitzgerald's low threshold for bringing a criminal case, then why stop at Libby? This investigation has enough questionable motives and shadowy half-truths and flawed recollections to fill a court docket for months. So here are my own personal bills of indictment:"
Read the full (2200 words) article here.
UPDATE: It occurs to me that if you did not remember my previous post, you may have missed the point of this post. Please feel free to post in the comments your favorite defense of Libby article and/or your own thoughts.
Quoting the President (excerpted):
"Critics of the [Plame] investigation have argued that a special counsel should not have been appointed, nor should the investigation have been pursued after the Justice Department learned who leaked Ms. Plame's name to columnist Robert Novak.
"Furthermore, the critics point out that neither Mr. Libby nor anyone else has been charged with violating the Intelligence Identities Protection Act or the Espionage Act, which were the original subjects of the investigation.
"Finally, critics say the punishment does not fit the crime: Mr. Libby was a first-time offender with years of exceptional public service and was handed a harsh sentence based in part on allegations never presented to the jury."
On the other hand...
"[A] jury of citizens weighed all the evidence and listened to all the testimony and found Mr. Libby guilty of perjury and obstructing justice.
"[Critical observers] argue, correctly, that our entire system of justice relies on people telling the truth. And if a person does not tell the truth, particularly if he serves in government and holds the public trust, he must be held accountable. They say that had Mr. Libby only told the truth, he would have never been indicted in the first place."
A Solomonic Compromise.
"Mr. Libby was sentenced to thirty months of prison, two years of probation, and a $250,000 fine. In making the sentencing decision, the district court rejected the advice of the probation office, which recommended a lesser sentence and the consideration of factors that could have led to a sentence of home confinement or probation.
"I respect the jury's verdict. But I have concluded that the prison sentence given to Mr. Libby is excessive. Therefore, I am commuting the portion of Mr. Libby's sentence that required him to spend thirty months in prison.
"My decision to commute his prison sentence leaves in place a harsh punishment for Mr. Libby [which has inflicted great damage to his reputation and his family].
"He will remain on probation. The significant fines imposed by the judge will remain in effect. The consequences of his felony conviction on his former life as a lawyer, public servant, and private citizen will be long-lasting.
"The Constitution gives the President the power of clemency to be used when he deems it to be warranted. It is my judgment that a commutation of the prison term in Mr. Libby's case is an appropriate exercise of this power."
Statement by the President in full here.
My Analysis: Not an easy call, but the President has it right this time.
"Critics of the [Plame] investigation have argued that a special counsel should not have been appointed, nor should the investigation have been pursued after the Justice Department learned who leaked Ms. Plame's name to columnist Robert Novak.
"Furthermore, the critics point out that neither Mr. Libby nor anyone else has been charged with violating the Intelligence Identities Protection Act or the Espionage Act, which were the original subjects of the investigation.
"Finally, critics say the punishment does not fit the crime: Mr. Libby was a first-time offender with years of exceptional public service and was handed a harsh sentence based in part on allegations never presented to the jury."
On the other hand...
"[A] jury of citizens weighed all the evidence and listened to all the testimony and found Mr. Libby guilty of perjury and obstructing justice.
"[Critical observers] argue, correctly, that our entire system of justice relies on people telling the truth. And if a person does not tell the truth, particularly if he serves in government and holds the public trust, he must be held accountable. They say that had Mr. Libby only told the truth, he would have never been indicted in the first place."
A Solomonic Compromise.
"Mr. Libby was sentenced to thirty months of prison, two years of probation, and a $250,000 fine. In making the sentencing decision, the district court rejected the advice of the probation office, which recommended a lesser sentence and the consideration of factors that could have led to a sentence of home confinement or probation.
"I respect the jury's verdict. But I have concluded that the prison sentence given to Mr. Libby is excessive. Therefore, I am commuting the portion of Mr. Libby's sentence that required him to spend thirty months in prison.
"My decision to commute his prison sentence leaves in place a harsh punishment for Mr. Libby [which has inflicted great damage to his reputation and his family].
"He will remain on probation. The significant fines imposed by the judge will remain in effect. The consequences of his felony conviction on his former life as a lawyer, public servant, and private citizen will be long-lasting.
"The Constitution gives the President the power of clemency to be used when he deems it to be warranted. It is my judgment that a commutation of the prison term in Mr. Libby's case is an appropriate exercise of this power."
Statement by the President in full here.
My Analysis: Not an easy call, but the President has it right this time.
11/03: A Libby Post Mortem
Was the conviction of I. Lewis Libby on charges of perjury, making false statements and obstruction of justice grounded in strong evidence and what appeared to be careful deliberation by a jury ?
Or, was the fall of a skilled and long-respected public servant...propelled not by actual wrongdoing but by inflated and frequently false claims, and by the aggressive and occasionally reckless response of senior Bush administration officials -- culminating in Mr. Libby's perjury ?
Last Wednesday, the Washington Post answered that "either/or" question with a resounding "YES."
Portions of the Post editorial were everywhere on the conservative blogosphere this week (read the full opinion here).
Perhaps the most quoted line: [The Libby tragedy] is particularly sobering because it arose from a Washington scandal remarkable for its lack of substance.
The least quoted portion:
The former chief of staff...told the FBI and a grand jury that he had not leaked the identity of CIA employee Valerie Plame to journalists but rather had learned it from them. But abundant testimony at his trial showed that he had found out about Ms. Plame from official sources and was dedicated to discrediting her husband, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV. Particularly for a senior government official, lying under oath is a serious offense.
An assertion I made three weeks ago: I have no sympathy for public officials who lie to grand juries. If Libby lied, regardless of the rationales or extenuating circumstances, justice will be served with his conviction for that offense (read my entire post here).
I stand by my statement. Moreover, from everything I can discern, Libby was brilliant and tough-minded. I am forty-two years old, and I have an appreciation for the limits of memory that increases every day. Notwithstanding, to accept the Libby memory defense, one must imagine the vice president's office as a madcap 1950s sitcom: "Don't Leave it to Scooter."
On the other hand, does Mr. Libby deserve to rot in jail for his crimes against the state?
Robert Novak, not an impartial observer but whose proximity to this scandal makes him a columnist of interest, reinforced an emerging consensus that the tragedy of this conviction is that it arises from a misguided prosecution (read entire column here).
What Now? The President has three choices:
1. Abide by the eventual verdict of the American justice system.
2. Pardon Libby at the least vulnerable political moment.
3. Pardon Libby now.
Today, Bill Kristol argues forcefully for an immediate pardon (here), which is not a huge surprise as he is extremely personally connected to Libby and the Cheney gang. In addition, he argued for a presidential pardon before the court proceeding began.
Not withstanding, Kristol is on the right track. Here's why:
The President must weigh the possibility of vindication for Libby and the White House through appeal. However, even victory on appeal has its downside. As Kristol argues, the process will keep the story on the front page of the American political consciousness for months to come. And, without a shadow of a doubt, a reversal will not attract the wall-to-wall media coverage that this conviction garnered.
I recommend a Presidential Pardon plus.
The plus? The plus is a full-court media press. For months, the White House has been mute, refusing to comment publicly on an ongoing legal proceeding.
A pardon would end that self-imposed silence. The President should come clean with everything he knows. Now is the time for the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. If the White House has a story to tell, let them tell it. If this is a travesty, then let the President and his administration make that case. Let the facts be submitted to a candid world.
Conceivably, the President would lay out the real story of what happened. He would admit wrong doing in the White House on some levels, but he would expose the malfeasance of the prosecution, partisan opposition, unfriendly media and other persecutors. A Presidential Pardon in that vein would be honest and straightforward. And it just might work. The American people are often shocked into sympathy by that brand of openness.
Or, was the fall of a skilled and long-respected public servant...propelled not by actual wrongdoing but by inflated and frequently false claims, and by the aggressive and occasionally reckless response of senior Bush administration officials -- culminating in Mr. Libby's perjury ?
Last Wednesday, the Washington Post answered that "either/or" question with a resounding "YES."
Portions of the Post editorial were everywhere on the conservative blogosphere this week (read the full opinion here).
Perhaps the most quoted line: [The Libby tragedy] is particularly sobering because it arose from a Washington scandal remarkable for its lack of substance.
The least quoted portion:
The former chief of staff...told the FBI and a grand jury that he had not leaked the identity of CIA employee Valerie Plame to journalists but rather had learned it from them. But abundant testimony at his trial showed that he had found out about Ms. Plame from official sources and was dedicated to discrediting her husband, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV. Particularly for a senior government official, lying under oath is a serious offense.
An assertion I made three weeks ago: I have no sympathy for public officials who lie to grand juries. If Libby lied, regardless of the rationales or extenuating circumstances, justice will be served with his conviction for that offense (read my entire post here).
I stand by my statement. Moreover, from everything I can discern, Libby was brilliant and tough-minded. I am forty-two years old, and I have an appreciation for the limits of memory that increases every day. Notwithstanding, to accept the Libby memory defense, one must imagine the vice president's office as a madcap 1950s sitcom: "Don't Leave it to Scooter."
On the other hand, does Mr. Libby deserve to rot in jail for his crimes against the state?
Robert Novak, not an impartial observer but whose proximity to this scandal makes him a columnist of interest, reinforced an emerging consensus that the tragedy of this conviction is that it arises from a misguided prosecution (read entire column here).
What Now? The President has three choices:
1. Abide by the eventual verdict of the American justice system.
2. Pardon Libby at the least vulnerable political moment.
3. Pardon Libby now.
Today, Bill Kristol argues forcefully for an immediate pardon (here), which is not a huge surprise as he is extremely personally connected to Libby and the Cheney gang. In addition, he argued for a presidential pardon before the court proceeding began.
Not withstanding, Kristol is on the right track. Here's why:
The President must weigh the possibility of vindication for Libby and the White House through appeal. However, even victory on appeal has its downside. As Kristol argues, the process will keep the story on the front page of the American political consciousness for months to come. And, without a shadow of a doubt, a reversal will not attract the wall-to-wall media coverage that this conviction garnered.
I recommend a Presidential Pardon plus.
The plus? The plus is a full-court media press. For months, the White House has been mute, refusing to comment publicly on an ongoing legal proceeding.
A pardon would end that self-imposed silence. The President should come clean with everything he knows. Now is the time for the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. If the White House has a story to tell, let them tell it. If this is a travesty, then let the President and his administration make that case. Let the facts be submitted to a candid world.
Conceivably, the President would lay out the real story of what happened. He would admit wrong doing in the White House on some levels, but he would expose the malfeasance of the prosecution, partisan opposition, unfriendly media and other persecutors. A Presidential Pardon in that vein would be honest and straightforward. And it just might work. The American people are often shocked into sympathy by that brand of openness.
Some quick thoughts in re the commutation:
1. There are real downsides to this action:
--Too Much Mercy? As the Washington Post, an undeniably moderate voice throughout this entire imbroglio, opined this morning,
"commut[ing] the entire prison sentence sends the wrong message about the seriousness of that offense." Perhaps the President was right that the sentence was excessive, the probation office recommended significantly less time, but as the Post points out, the President "moved from excessive to zero" (editorial in full here).
--Two Wrongs Don't Make A Right. One can reasonably argue that this commutation makes Libby's punishment more commensurate with other high profile cases, namely President Clinton and former National Security Advisor Sandy Berger. But every schoolboy knows the chant: "two wrongs don't make right." Either you are for the rule of law--or you are not. This kind of nuanced thinking on law and order, crime and punishment hurts Republicans--not so much with the electorate--but with our own self image. This process does painful internal damage to conservatives.
--The Lingering Question. And for as long as anybody cares to think or write about this story, we will face this question: was the commutation offered to silence a potentially destructive witness for the prosecution? Was this quid pro quo? Was this part of cover-up that went all the way to the Oval Office?
2. An Observation: This President will never win with the media. Two weeks ago, I took issue with the banal speculation that President Bush would not pardon "Scooter" Libby because of the intense political fallout, which would emanate from such a move.
My point then: how can anyone say this President fears a firestorm?
You may review that post here.
Today the common storyline asserts that President Bush granted clemency because he feared that his remaining supporters might desert him, if he let Libby go to jail.
As I said two weeks ago, riding to the aid of Libby is good politics--it will temporarily buck up his flagging base a bit--but, again, who can say with a straight face that this President operates with that brand of political acumen or calculation?
But my point is: "damned if you do, damned if you don't." It is either Bush doesn't have the grit to save his loyal subordinate for fear of political backlash or Bush intercedes on behalf of his loyal minion to stave off political backlash. Pick your poison.
3. We were promised the "Paris Hilton talking points"--and we have them. Everybody from Dick Durbin to Chris Mathews wants to compare Scooter Libby to Paris Hilton. It is a ridiculous analogy. Conservatives prefer Clinton and Berger as points of reference, but that brings us back to "two wrongs..." (see above).
4. Ramifications overblown. George Stephanopoulos on GMA this morning predicted a potential backlash for the President and Republican candidates for president. He noted that already Democratic candidates are making hay of this Executive Order, which polls indicate the American people disapprove of in large numbers.
I disagree wholeheartedly for two reasons:
--I am not convinced that this is a story that will penetrate the consciousness of the American people. No matter how many times Democratic politicians and pundits bring up Paris Hilton, the sad truth is that only a fraction of the population who followed the Hilton story can even identify Scooter Libby.
--More importantly, I will bet the house right now on the certainty that Mrs. Clinton will not run a presidential campaign that centers around presidential pardons and perjured testimony before a grand jury.
1. There are real downsides to this action:
--Too Much Mercy? As the Washington Post, an undeniably moderate voice throughout this entire imbroglio, opined this morning,
"commut[ing] the entire prison sentence sends the wrong message about the seriousness of that offense." Perhaps the President was right that the sentence was excessive, the probation office recommended significantly less time, but as the Post points out, the President "moved from excessive to zero" (editorial in full here).
--Two Wrongs Don't Make A Right. One can reasonably argue that this commutation makes Libby's punishment more commensurate with other high profile cases, namely President Clinton and former National Security Advisor Sandy Berger. But every schoolboy knows the chant: "two wrongs don't make right." Either you are for the rule of law--or you are not. This kind of nuanced thinking on law and order, crime and punishment hurts Republicans--not so much with the electorate--but with our own self image. This process does painful internal damage to conservatives.
--The Lingering Question. And for as long as anybody cares to think or write about this story, we will face this question: was the commutation offered to silence a potentially destructive witness for the prosecution? Was this quid pro quo? Was this part of cover-up that went all the way to the Oval Office?
2. An Observation: This President will never win with the media. Two weeks ago, I took issue with the banal speculation that President Bush would not pardon "Scooter" Libby because of the intense political fallout, which would emanate from such a move.
My point then: how can anyone say this President fears a firestorm?
You may review that post here.
Today the common storyline asserts that President Bush granted clemency because he feared that his remaining supporters might desert him, if he let Libby go to jail.
As I said two weeks ago, riding to the aid of Libby is good politics--it will temporarily buck up his flagging base a bit--but, again, who can say with a straight face that this President operates with that brand of political acumen or calculation?
But my point is: "damned if you do, damned if you don't." It is either Bush doesn't have the grit to save his loyal subordinate for fear of political backlash or Bush intercedes on behalf of his loyal minion to stave off political backlash. Pick your poison.
3. We were promised the "Paris Hilton talking points"--and we have them. Everybody from Dick Durbin to Chris Mathews wants to compare Scooter Libby to Paris Hilton. It is a ridiculous analogy. Conservatives prefer Clinton and Berger as points of reference, but that brings us back to "two wrongs..." (see above).
4. Ramifications overblown. George Stephanopoulos on GMA this morning predicted a potential backlash for the President and Republican candidates for president. He noted that already Democratic candidates are making hay of this Executive Order, which polls indicate the American people disapprove of in large numbers.
I disagree wholeheartedly for two reasons:
--I am not convinced that this is a story that will penetrate the consciousness of the American people. No matter how many times Democratic politicians and pundits bring up Paris Hilton, the sad truth is that only a fraction of the population who followed the Hilton story can even identify Scooter Libby.
--More importantly, I will bet the house right now on the certainty that Mrs. Clinton will not run a presidential campaign that centers around presidential pardons and perjured testimony before a grand jury.
Many thanks to good friend of the Bosque Boys, Tocqueville, who, in response to my request, offers this incisive primer on the standards of proof and some analysis in re the Scooter Libby trial and the ongoing deliberations.
Guest Blog: Tocqueville
There are generally three standards of proof in Anglo-American jurisprudence. The first, and perhaps easiest to satisfy, is proof by a "preponderance of the evidence." This simply means that something is more likely true than not. In layman's terms, this is sometimes described as 51% certainty. This is the standard of proof required for most civil trials (it is, for example, the proof required in a typical personal injury/negligence trial).
The next standard of proof is more difficult to satisfy. It is called proof by "clear and convincing evidence." In order to prove something by "clear and convincing evidence" the party with the burden of proof must convince the jury that it is substantially more likely than not that the thing is in fact true. In layman's terms, this might be described as 75% certainty. Clear and convincing is rarely used, but it does occasionally crop up in certain affirmative defenses (such as an insanity defense). It is a stricter requirement than proof by a "preponderance of the evidence," but not as rigorous as proof "beyond a reasonable doubt," which is required for a criminal trial.
Shortly before breaking for the weekend, the jury in the Scooter Libby trial asked U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton to clarify the legal definition for "reasonable doubt." When the jurors return to their deliberations on Monday, I expect that Judge Walton will most likely instruct them along the following lines:
"A reasonable doubt is a real doubt, based upon reason and common sense after careful and impartial consideration of all the evidence, or lack of evidence, in a case. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt, therefore, is proof of such a convincing character that you would be willing to rely and act upon it without hesitation in the most important of your own affairs. However, proof beyond a reasonable doubt does not mean proof beyond any possible doubt or proof to an absolute certainty."
Now think about that for a moment. Proof of such a convincing character that you would be willing to rely and act upon it without hesitation in the most important of your own affairs. What are the most important of your affairs? Examples that come to mind include which school to attend, which person to marry, which job to accept, which house to purchase, which doctor to trust, which church to attend, who to leave your children with, and so on.
Now consider some of the statements the jury has heard in this trial. Byron York has done a fantastic job of laying out the case HERE. And now think about the legal standard for proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Is this jury really prepared to convict this man on these witnesses' rapidly-fading memories and conflicting recollections in a politically-charged climate? I hope not.
Monday will mark the jury's ninth day of deliberation--a remarkably long period of time for a case such as this. And every day that the jury stays out deliberating, reasonable doubt has further opportunity to circulate around the jury room, to nest deeply in someone's conscience, and to find a permanent home there. If only one juror clings to that doubt, the judge must declare a mistrial. And a mistrial in this case will be as good as an acquittal for Libby. Fitzgerald lacks both the political capital and the energy to put the country through the expense of another prolonged trial.
One thing is for sure. We will find out this week the fate of Scooter Libby.
Guest Blog: Tocqueville
There are generally three standards of proof in Anglo-American jurisprudence. The first, and perhaps easiest to satisfy, is proof by a "preponderance of the evidence." This simply means that something is more likely true than not. In layman's terms, this is sometimes described as 51% certainty. This is the standard of proof required for most civil trials (it is, for example, the proof required in a typical personal injury/negligence trial).
The next standard of proof is more difficult to satisfy. It is called proof by "clear and convincing evidence." In order to prove something by "clear and convincing evidence" the party with the burden of proof must convince the jury that it is substantially more likely than not that the thing is in fact true. In layman's terms, this might be described as 75% certainty. Clear and convincing is rarely used, but it does occasionally crop up in certain affirmative defenses (such as an insanity defense). It is a stricter requirement than proof by a "preponderance of the evidence," but not as rigorous as proof "beyond a reasonable doubt," which is required for a criminal trial.
Shortly before breaking for the weekend, the jury in the Scooter Libby trial asked U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton to clarify the legal definition for "reasonable doubt." When the jurors return to their deliberations on Monday, I expect that Judge Walton will most likely instruct them along the following lines:
"A reasonable doubt is a real doubt, based upon reason and common sense after careful and impartial consideration of all the evidence, or lack of evidence, in a case. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt, therefore, is proof of such a convincing character that you would be willing to rely and act upon it without hesitation in the most important of your own affairs. However, proof beyond a reasonable doubt does not mean proof beyond any possible doubt or proof to an absolute certainty."
Now think about that for a moment. Proof of such a convincing character that you would be willing to rely and act upon it without hesitation in the most important of your own affairs. What are the most important of your affairs? Examples that come to mind include which school to attend, which person to marry, which job to accept, which house to purchase, which doctor to trust, which church to attend, who to leave your children with, and so on.
Now consider some of the statements the jury has heard in this trial. Byron York has done a fantastic job of laying out the case HERE. And now think about the legal standard for proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Is this jury really prepared to convict this man on these witnesses' rapidly-fading memories and conflicting recollections in a politically-charged climate? I hope not.
Monday will mark the jury's ninth day of deliberation--a remarkably long period of time for a case such as this. And every day that the jury stays out deliberating, reasonable doubt has further opportunity to circulate around the jury room, to nest deeply in someone's conscience, and to find a permanent home there. If only one juror clings to that doubt, the judge must declare a mistrial. And a mistrial in this case will be as good as an acquittal for Libby. Fitzgerald lacks both the political capital and the energy to put the country through the expense of another prolonged trial.
One thing is for sure. We will find out this week the fate of Scooter Libby.
~~Tocqueville
Category: Politics
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
Friday morning on C-SPAN's Washington Journal:
Steve Scully moderated a discussion between Marcy Wheeler and Byron York in studio, both of whom are covering the I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby perjury trial related to the Valerie Plame-Joe Wilson controversy.
York is a correspondent for National Review covering the courtroom action, not surprisingly, in a way overtly friendly to the administration in general and Scooter Libby in particular.
Wheeler is a prolific and increasingly popular personality on the left-wing blogosphere. She sometimes blogs as "emptywheel" (you may read a sample of her reportage here via Daily Kos).
She is author of Anatomy of a Deceit, the product of her investigation of the Plame affair, which is due to be released during the next few days. You may buy it here from Common Language, "a Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender, and Feminist bookstore," and the self-described "sole remaining GLBT/Feminist store in the State of Michigan." The site urges "support of us... [which] will help us survive and ensure that the NEXT book by Marcy Wheeler will have a place to be sold."
Wheeler earned her PhD from the University of Michigan in 1995 (although I was unable to discern in which discipline she attained her degree). On the net, she is often described as a consultant in Ann Arbor. According to her extremely sketchy unofficial bios, she has been a Democratic Party official in Michigan and was a staffer for Howard Dean in 2004.
Two moments in the conversation struck me:
1. Identifying himself as a citizen of "fly-over country," a caller wondered if Wheeler, in the event that Libby won acquittal, would then spend as much time and effort helping him to clear his name as she had asserting his perfidy.
She refused to admit any possibility of Libby's innocence, but, perhaps more telling, she took offense at the assumption that she was not from "fly-over country." The caller had mentioned "Katie Couric and the Washington establishment." Wheeler insisted she was from Michigan--not Washington.
Evidently, she did not understand that an academic from Ann Arbor was as foreign to this Heartlander as Katie Couric. In the mind of Red-State America, Wheeler is part of the Washington establishment.
2. At the conclusion of the segment, Scully asked the two guests to identify their favorite president. York, an Alabama native who doesn't seem quick to advertise that fact, picked Abraham Lincoln.
Wheeler seemed nonplussed by the question. "My favorite president?" she twice repeated. "I don't have a favorite American president," she finally said in a dismissive and disgusted tone. "My favorite president is the first woman president. My favorite president is the first African American president."
Evidently, all those white guys had been the agents of patriarchy and racial oppression and unworthy of her admiration. I can only infer that she impatiently awaits the revolution. Power to the people.
For background: What's Wrong With the Democratic Party: Part I.
Steve Scully moderated a discussion between Marcy Wheeler and Byron York in studio, both of whom are covering the I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby perjury trial related to the Valerie Plame-Joe Wilson controversy.
York is a correspondent for National Review covering the courtroom action, not surprisingly, in a way overtly friendly to the administration in general and Scooter Libby in particular.
Wheeler is a prolific and increasingly popular personality on the left-wing blogosphere. She sometimes blogs as "emptywheel" (you may read a sample of her reportage here via Daily Kos).
She is author of Anatomy of a Deceit, the product of her investigation of the Plame affair, which is due to be released during the next few days. You may buy it here from Common Language, "a Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender, and Feminist bookstore," and the self-described "sole remaining GLBT/Feminist store in the State of Michigan." The site urges "support of us... [which] will help us survive and ensure that the NEXT book by Marcy Wheeler will have a place to be sold."
Wheeler earned her PhD from the University of Michigan in 1995 (although I was unable to discern in which discipline she attained her degree). On the net, she is often described as a consultant in Ann Arbor. According to her extremely sketchy unofficial bios, she has been a Democratic Party official in Michigan and was a staffer for Howard Dean in 2004.
Two moments in the conversation struck me:
1. Identifying himself as a citizen of "fly-over country," a caller wondered if Wheeler, in the event that Libby won acquittal, would then spend as much time and effort helping him to clear his name as she had asserting his perfidy.
She refused to admit any possibility of Libby's innocence, but, perhaps more telling, she took offense at the assumption that she was not from "fly-over country." The caller had mentioned "Katie Couric and the Washington establishment." Wheeler insisted she was from Michigan--not Washington.
Evidently, she did not understand that an academic from Ann Arbor was as foreign to this Heartlander as Katie Couric. In the mind of Red-State America, Wheeler is part of the Washington establishment.
2. At the conclusion of the segment, Scully asked the two guests to identify their favorite president. York, an Alabama native who doesn't seem quick to advertise that fact, picked Abraham Lincoln.
Wheeler seemed nonplussed by the question. "My favorite president?" she twice repeated. "I don't have a favorite American president," she finally said in a dismissive and disgusted tone. "My favorite president is the first woman president. My favorite president is the first African American president."
Evidently, all those white guys had been the agents of patriarchy and racial oppression and unworthy of her admiration. I can only infer that she impatiently awaits the revolution. Power to the people.
For background: What's Wrong With the Democratic Party: Part I.
The Okie Gardener is onto something when he calls the coverage of Hillary "friendly" (see his post here). Friendly is a moderate and appropriate characterization. Democratic candidates generally get a lot of friendly coverage in the MSM.
My long held thesis:
No rational observer can deny a liberal bias in the mainstream media (MSM). On the other hand, bias should not be confused with orchestrated advocacy. CBS News and the DNC are not in cahoots. The MSM bias for liberal candidates and causes is real; it is systemic and institutional, but it is not concerted.
For example, this blog has a rightwing bias, but that does not mean we consciously lie, dissemble, or distort the facts to make our points. Moreover, we do not get talking points and/or marching orders from the RNC. We are completely independent agents attempting to come to terms with the issues of the day in an honest way, filtering the world through the lenses of our experience and individual moral compasses. The big difference between us and them is that we are generally more honest about what we are doing.
Back to understanding the Beltway media: It is important to note that political agenda is not the only factor in play within the MSM. As I have said previously: The MSM's cynicism acting in conjunction with its other biases for conflict and sensationalism are also essential in explaining its political coverage.
For example, the Clinton scandals received plenty of attention--much of it quite negative and judgmental, especially in the beginning. However, eventually, the political battle lines overwhelmed the initial shock and disgust registered by the MSM, and, in the end, the stories conformed to the standard pro-Clinton and anti-Republican template.
For more on this see these previous posts: a general overview of the landscape (here) and a defense of Fox (here).
Some more recent cases in point:
Consider the current unfriendly MSM coverage of the Senate Republicans led by Mitch McConnell, which has contributed to the impression that the GOP is unwilling to debate the war in Iraq. A more sophisticated, more accurate, and less unfriendly storyline would depict McConnell as, at the very least, clever, good-natured, and well within his rights. Genuinely (perhaps excessively) friendly coverage would show him as a new master of the Senate and celebrate his exceptional parliamentary stratagem (as I did here a few days ago). One wonders: if Nancy Pelosi had executed an equally brilliant maneuver on her side of Capitol Hill, how would the MSM have chosen to characterize her coup.
Consider and compare the firestorm and coverage concerning George Allen with the more recent Joe Biden imbroglio. The divergence seems disproportionate well beyond the significant differences in tone, intent, and language within the individual cases. Who can deny that the Washington Post was merciless in their desire to dislodge Allen from his Senate seat?
Consider the case of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby. If Scooter Libby is not guilty as sin, the MSM has done us a great disservice.
An aside: I have no sympathy for public officials who lie to grand juries. If Libby lied, regardless of the rationales or extenuating circumstances, justice will be served with his conviction for that offense.
I try not to get all my information about anything from NPR, but it just so happens that most of the trial coverage I have heard on this case comes from Nina Totenberg. From what I have gleaned from that particular source, I am fully expecting the Libby side to either flee the country over the weekend or throw themselves on the mercy of the court when they are asked to present their case on Monday.
I wonder if there is another side of the story.
On the other hand, perhaps we worry too much about this. That is, I would wager today that more Americans are experts on the life and death of Anna Nicole Smith than the combined total number of citizens who have ever heard of Mitch McConnell, Joe Biden, or Scooter Libby.
My long held thesis:
No rational observer can deny a liberal bias in the mainstream media (MSM). On the other hand, bias should not be confused with orchestrated advocacy. CBS News and the DNC are not in cahoots. The MSM bias for liberal candidates and causes is real; it is systemic and institutional, but it is not concerted.
For example, this blog has a rightwing bias, but that does not mean we consciously lie, dissemble, or distort the facts to make our points. Moreover, we do not get talking points and/or marching orders from the RNC. We are completely independent agents attempting to come to terms with the issues of the day in an honest way, filtering the world through the lenses of our experience and individual moral compasses. The big difference between us and them is that we are generally more honest about what we are doing.
Back to understanding the Beltway media: It is important to note that political agenda is not the only factor in play within the MSM. As I have said previously: The MSM's cynicism acting in conjunction with its other biases for conflict and sensationalism are also essential in explaining its political coverage.
For example, the Clinton scandals received plenty of attention--much of it quite negative and judgmental, especially in the beginning. However, eventually, the political battle lines overwhelmed the initial shock and disgust registered by the MSM, and, in the end, the stories conformed to the standard pro-Clinton and anti-Republican template.
For more on this see these previous posts: a general overview of the landscape (here) and a defense of Fox (here).
Some more recent cases in point:
Consider the current unfriendly MSM coverage of the Senate Republicans led by Mitch McConnell, which has contributed to the impression that the GOP is unwilling to debate the war in Iraq. A more sophisticated, more accurate, and less unfriendly storyline would depict McConnell as, at the very least, clever, good-natured, and well within his rights. Genuinely (perhaps excessively) friendly coverage would show him as a new master of the Senate and celebrate his exceptional parliamentary stratagem (as I did here a few days ago). One wonders: if Nancy Pelosi had executed an equally brilliant maneuver on her side of Capitol Hill, how would the MSM have chosen to characterize her coup.
Consider and compare the firestorm and coverage concerning George Allen with the more recent Joe Biden imbroglio. The divergence seems disproportionate well beyond the significant differences in tone, intent, and language within the individual cases. Who can deny that the Washington Post was merciless in their desire to dislodge Allen from his Senate seat?
Consider the case of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby. If Scooter Libby is not guilty as sin, the MSM has done us a great disservice.
An aside: I have no sympathy for public officials who lie to grand juries. If Libby lied, regardless of the rationales or extenuating circumstances, justice will be served with his conviction for that offense.
I try not to get all my information about anything from NPR, but it just so happens that most of the trial coverage I have heard on this case comes from Nina Totenberg. From what I have gleaned from that particular source, I am fully expecting the Libby side to either flee the country over the weekend or throw themselves on the mercy of the court when they are asked to present their case on Monday.
I wonder if there is another side of the story.
On the other hand, perhaps we worry too much about this. That is, I would wager today that more Americans are experts on the life and death of Anna Nicole Smith than the combined total number of citizens who have ever heard of Mitch McConnell, Joe Biden, or Scooter Libby.
Category: Politics
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
A few quick observations regarding Fitzmas:
1. Be careful what you wish for, lest it come true. Three years ago all good little Democrats went to bed on Christmas Eve hoping for a Patrick Fitzgerald bill of indictment directed at their favorite villain: Karl Rove. It never came. But this Holiday Season, ironically, the "Fitzmas" finally arrived, with a whole slew of "complaints" against the Democratic Party home-state governor and erstwhile ally of the President-elect.
2. For all the newly initiated politicos brought into the system on the Obama wave, who only know what the mainstream media reported during the last election cycle, this disclosure that "Chicago Politics" has a seamy side must feel quite jarring. Really? You mean Illinois has a political history between Honest Abe and the Agent of Change? Surely, our national redeemer, fully man but also fully divine, must be as horrified as we are at this revelation.
In truth, all things considered, Barack Obama is looking relatively good in all this. After all, he never offered anyone a million big ones in unmarked bills for a political favor, the bad guy called him an "m-f-er" for not playing ball, and it looks like no Obama insiders are implicated in the dirtiest of the deeds. On the other hand, this is not good for the President-elect.
Obama and his team necessarily joined the stampede of Chicago politicians running to microphones to proclaim their absolute shock to discover that there was gambling in the backroom of "Rick's Café Américain." Frankly, that scene bordered on the ridiculous. Give the Obama Gang credit for not being in total cahoots with this fellow--but let's be serious. We know they were all swimming and drinking from the same water hole. There is going to be some blow back from this scandal. There are undoubtedly people and political associations that link Obama and his brain trust to the crooks (Tony Rezko comes to mind, for starters).
True, Obama has a complicit media still running interference for him, but this fiasco is going to cost him some credibility and equity with the adoring prObama press corps. This is no where near the beginning of the end of the honeymoon--but it is a weight on the scale that will inevitably shift at some point in the public life of Barack Obama from adoration to contempt.
3. Give Patrick Fitzgerald some credit for keen political instinct. I have little doubt that everything alleged in the "complaint" is true and accurate (in the aggregate), but it feels rushed. The timing is suspect. Why? We all know that the insider speculation has had Obama shutting down the pesky US Attorney bulldog. Fitzgerald just became a household name again. Buttressed by his Scooter Libby "bonafides," and elevated once again into the public consciousness as the ultimate no-nonsense "honest as the day is long" lawman, Fitz just made himself bullet-proof. The SOB is now much too famous to sack.
Obama is going to have to live with Fitz as long as Fitz wants to sniff around Chicago. At this point, there is really no guessing what he might find there--but you can bet there are a lot of prominent Chicago politicians sleeping uneasy this week.
1. Be careful what you wish for, lest it come true. Three years ago all good little Democrats went to bed on Christmas Eve hoping for a Patrick Fitzgerald bill of indictment directed at their favorite villain: Karl Rove. It never came. But this Holiday Season, ironically, the "Fitzmas" finally arrived, with a whole slew of "complaints" against the Democratic Party home-state governor and erstwhile ally of the President-elect.
2. For all the newly initiated politicos brought into the system on the Obama wave, who only know what the mainstream media reported during the last election cycle, this disclosure that "Chicago Politics" has a seamy side must feel quite jarring. Really? You mean Illinois has a political history between Honest Abe and the Agent of Change? Surely, our national redeemer, fully man but also fully divine, must be as horrified as we are at this revelation.
In truth, all things considered, Barack Obama is looking relatively good in all this. After all, he never offered anyone a million big ones in unmarked bills for a political favor, the bad guy called him an "m-f-er" for not playing ball, and it looks like no Obama insiders are implicated in the dirtiest of the deeds. On the other hand, this is not good for the President-elect.
Obama and his team necessarily joined the stampede of Chicago politicians running to microphones to proclaim their absolute shock to discover that there was gambling in the backroom of "Rick's Café Américain." Frankly, that scene bordered on the ridiculous. Give the Obama Gang credit for not being in total cahoots with this fellow--but let's be serious. We know they were all swimming and drinking from the same water hole. There is going to be some blow back from this scandal. There are undoubtedly people and political associations that link Obama and his brain trust to the crooks (Tony Rezko comes to mind, for starters).
True, Obama has a complicit media still running interference for him, but this fiasco is going to cost him some credibility and equity with the adoring prObama press corps. This is no where near the beginning of the end of the honeymoon--but it is a weight on the scale that will inevitably shift at some point in the public life of Barack Obama from adoration to contempt.
3. Give Patrick Fitzgerald some credit for keen political instinct. I have little doubt that everything alleged in the "complaint" is true and accurate (in the aggregate), but it feels rushed. The timing is suspect. Why? We all know that the insider speculation has had Obama shutting down the pesky US Attorney bulldog. Fitzgerald just became a household name again. Buttressed by his Scooter Libby "bonafides," and elevated once again into the public consciousness as the ultimate no-nonsense "honest as the day is long" lawman, Fitz just made himself bullet-proof. The SOB is now much too famous to sack.
Obama is going to have to live with Fitz as long as Fitz wants to sniff around Chicago. At this point, there is really no guessing what he might find there--but you can bet there are a lot of prominent Chicago politicians sleeping uneasy this week.
A Texas Folk Tale*
Not many people know this, but George Washington was originally a Texan.
But one day Washington's father called him in to ask whether he had cut down the mesquite tree in the backyard.
"I cannot tell a lie," said George. "I took my hatchet and chopped down the mesquite tree."
At which point George's father told him to pack his bags--they were moving to Virginia.
"But why?" asked the boy. "Because I chopped down the only shade tree within fifty miles?"
"No", his father said, "Because if you cannot tell a lie, you'll never make it in Texas politics."
My President and His Faults
Anyone who reads this blog regularly knows that I like and admire our President. I am a part of the twenty-something percent of Americans who approve of the job he is doing. Having said that, sometimes I wonder if his Attorney General would rather obfuscate and stonewall when the truth would make a better story.
In re the US Attorneys: if the administration had come clean and faced the incident honestly, my hunch is that the President's operatives could have made a compelling case for their actions and come away with their dignity and honor intact.
I am still waiting for the explanation in re Scooter Libby and the entire Valerie Plame imbroglio. What really happened? And why? Like the firing of the US attorneys, my sense is that the administration could have made a convincing case for their actions early on. Or, barring that, they could have told a tale of human passions and errors in judgment, pled for understanding among reasonable people, and moved on.
But that is not the Bush style.
And, of course, I have other more much important objections to this President:
He misunderstood the grotesque magnitude of the task in Iraq. He did not prepare for the worst-case scenario. He has allowed the military to deteriorate to an alarmingly weakened state during a period of great risk. He did not ask the American people to engage and sacrifice. And there's more...
So, I don't approve of the President because I think he is perfect, but I think he is a good American attempting to do his duty (which happens to be the hardest duty on the planet). On the whole, President Bush has done an acceptable job confronting an exceedingly challenging set of circumstances. He is not perfect, but, then again, the "perfect" is the enemy of the good.
In other words, in our futile search for leaders without fault--we sometimes cast aside great statesmen for inconsequential reasons. And, more often, we fix our gaze on the human imperfections in those elected officials whom we are already predisposed to dislike for partisan reasons. To paraphrase George Washington's observations from long ago, "the spirit of party...is inseparable from our nature," but the blindness of factional enmity sets us on the road to the "ruin of public liberty."
MY PLEDGE to the next President:
My faith in the institutions of the United States is still very strong. I am anxious to support the next president, who will likely be a Democrat. Although I will vote for her opponent in the general election, I am actually rooting for Hillary Clinton to win the Democratic nomination--but not because I think she would be the easiest Democrat to beat. I believe that she offers the best alternative from the opposition party. If elected, Mrs. Clinton will have my support. If elected, my sincerest wish will be that she proves to be the wisest president in our history--for we need a great leader at this particular moment in time. Her success will be my success and mean more security for my children. If elected, I will pray that she prospers. She will be my president.
*The Old Texas Folk Tale was famously told over the years by many a Lone Star politician (including John Connally and Ann Richards).
Not many people know this, but George Washington was originally a Texan.
But one day Washington's father called him in to ask whether he had cut down the mesquite tree in the backyard.
"I cannot tell a lie," said George. "I took my hatchet and chopped down the mesquite tree."
At which point George's father told him to pack his bags--they were moving to Virginia.
"But why?" asked the boy. "Because I chopped down the only shade tree within fifty miles?"
"No", his father said, "Because if you cannot tell a lie, you'll never make it in Texas politics."
My President and His Faults
Anyone who reads this blog regularly knows that I like and admire our President. I am a part of the twenty-something percent of Americans who approve of the job he is doing. Having said that, sometimes I wonder if his Attorney General would rather obfuscate and stonewall when the truth would make a better story.
In re the US Attorneys: if the administration had come clean and faced the incident honestly, my hunch is that the President's operatives could have made a compelling case for their actions and come away with their dignity and honor intact.
I am still waiting for the explanation in re Scooter Libby and the entire Valerie Plame imbroglio. What really happened? And why? Like the firing of the US attorneys, my sense is that the administration could have made a convincing case for their actions early on. Or, barring that, they could have told a tale of human passions and errors in judgment, pled for understanding among reasonable people, and moved on.
But that is not the Bush style.
And, of course, I have other more much important objections to this President:
He misunderstood the grotesque magnitude of the task in Iraq. He did not prepare for the worst-case scenario. He has allowed the military to deteriorate to an alarmingly weakened state during a period of great risk. He did not ask the American people to engage and sacrifice. And there's more...
So, I don't approve of the President because I think he is perfect, but I think he is a good American attempting to do his duty (which happens to be the hardest duty on the planet). On the whole, President Bush has done an acceptable job confronting an exceedingly challenging set of circumstances. He is not perfect, but, then again, the "perfect" is the enemy of the good.
In other words, in our futile search for leaders without fault--we sometimes cast aside great statesmen for inconsequential reasons. And, more often, we fix our gaze on the human imperfections in those elected officials whom we are already predisposed to dislike for partisan reasons. To paraphrase George Washington's observations from long ago, "the spirit of party...is inseparable from our nature," but the blindness of factional enmity sets us on the road to the "ruin of public liberty."
MY PLEDGE to the next President:
My faith in the institutions of the United States is still very strong. I am anxious to support the next president, who will likely be a Democrat. Although I will vote for her opponent in the general election, I am actually rooting for Hillary Clinton to win the Democratic nomination--but not because I think she would be the easiest Democrat to beat. I believe that she offers the best alternative from the opposition party. If elected, Mrs. Clinton will have my support. If elected, my sincerest wish will be that she proves to be the wisest president in our history--for we need a great leader at this particular moment in time. Her success will be my success and mean more security for my children. If elected, I will pray that she prospers. She will be my president.
*The Old Texas Folk Tale was famously told over the years by many a Lone Star politician (including John Connally and Ann Richards).
Sidebar
