His toughest, angriest comment yet on the Bush/Libby decision. Increasingly, people either love Olbermann or hate him. Must viewing no matter what you think of him.

The one problem he now faces as a broadcaster: there is only so much outrage and anger you can display before it doesn’t have an impact on audiences and some begin to perceive it as schtick.

On the other hand, this IS an administration that seemingly prides itself on decisions that are made that fly in the face of consensus, bipartisanship and popular opinion and caters mostly to its own party’s hard-right base.

That is bound to provoke outrage not just among Democrats but also independent “swing” voters, who have broken with this administration in huge numbers, if you look at the polls. So dismissing Olbermann’s outrage as mere showcraft would not be accurate. He is not the only person in the nation to react this way to Bush’s decision (although Rush and Sean and Bill Kristol are very happy).

The quote of the day from the Philadelphia Inquirer’s Dick Polman, writing on his blog:

So Bush had to show loyalty to the few (shaky) supporters he still has. And, of course, he had to show continued loyalty to his constituency of one, Libby’s ex-boss, the sole occupant of the mythical fourth branch of government. The Associated Press, reporting last night on the decision to commute Libby’s sentence, deadpanned: “White House officials…would not say what advice Cheney had given to the president.”

Cheney’s public standing is equally abysmal, but Bush is long past caring what most Americans think. His support among swing-voting independents is now at 18 percent, and there’s nothing he can do to win them back. So, in a sense, it’s probably liberating to be a maligned lame duck. Perhaps the best way to assess his Libby decision is to invoke the lyrics of Kris Kristofferson:

“Freedom’s just another word for nothing left to lose.”

Read his entire piece.

Ever hear the expression “What’s good for the goose is good for the gander”? Generally, it means we should apply the same standard to ourselves as we apply to others.

Take for example judicial sentencing. There are “people in our country” that believe our current judges are too lenient. They aren’t to be trusted and should be replaced with tough, bullet-biting arbiters that will throw the proverbial “book” at all who come before them.

Enter Reggie B. Walton. A tough, bullet-biting former federal prosecutor and Superior Court judge. One couldn’t have asked central-casting for a better character.

And once on the federal bench, he did not disappoint. Known as “long ball” (hint – he’s not a well-known baseball player), Judge Walton throws nothing but fast balls. No curve balls for him.

But lo and behold, someone new scoots before his judicial bench. This scooter is judged by his peers, is found guilty and Judge Walton throws another fast ball.

One would think that the “people in our country” would be happy. A tough judge not being lenient. A book having been thrown. But alas, they weren’t happy at all.

The person who the book is being thrown at turns out to be one of those who provided the book to the thrower in the first place. He’s one of them. He’s one of the “people in our country”.

But the political buzz emanating from the “people in our country” isn’t about this weird irony, it’s about how unfairly the book was thrown. Instead of a hardball, it should have been a softball.

At the conclusion, the ruler of the “people in our country”, who also happens to be the “decider” of the game, takes the ball and throws it away.

Not sure who the goose is. Or the gander. What I do know, however, is that it was the American people who got cooked.

More News and Commentary for Moderates
 
“‘Moderate’ is not a 4-letter word.”
 

Tab, The Calgary Sun

Watch MSNBC’s Chris Matthews do it HERE.

In the world of 21st century America where long-held principles are long held until for political reasons they need to be thrown away ASAP, this should not come as much of a surprise:

According to the New York Times, President George Bush’s arguments in favor of commuting Scooter Libby’s prison sentence contradict the arguments of his own Justice Department.

And lawyers across the country are rubbing their hands with glee, since they will start using some of the same arguments to try and get their own clients off:

In commuting I. Lewis Libby Jr.’s 30-month prison sentence on Monday, President Bush drew on the same array of arguments about the federal sentencing system often made by defense lawyers — and routinely and strenuously opposed by his own Justice Department.

But, then, the other cases didn’t involve a White House aide who worked for Vice President Dick Cheney. MORE:

Critics of the system have a long list of complaints. Sentences, they say, are too harsh. Judges are allowed to take account of facts not proven to the jury. The defendant’s positive contributions are ignored, as is the collateral damage that imprisonment causes the families involved.

On Monday, Mr. Bush made use of every element of that critique in a detailed statement setting out his reasons for commuting Mr. Libby’s sentence — handing an unexpected gift to defense lawyers around the country, who scrambled to make use of the president’s arguments in their own cases.

Given the administration’s tough stand on sentencing, the president’s arguments left experts in sentencing law scratching their heads.

“The Bush administration, in some sense following the leads of three previous administrations, has repeatedly supported a federal sentencing system that is distinctly disrespectful of the very arguments that Bush has put forward in cutting Libby a break,” said Douglas A. Berman, a law professor at Ohio State University who writes the blog Sentencing Law and Policy.

Perhaps inadvertently, Mr. Bush’s decision to grant a commutation rather than an outright pardon has started a national conversation about sentencing generally.

“By saying that the sentence was excessive, I wonder if he understood the ramifications of saying that,” said Ellen S. Podgor, who teaches criminal law at Stetson University in St. Petersburg, Fla. “This is opening up a can of worms about federal sentencing.”

And now, the Times reports, the Libby clemency is going to be used by many lawyers as a legal basis to seek to get their clients off the hook for the same reasons.

Note this quote from Alabama lawyer Susan James, who represents former governor Don E. Siegelman in appealing a sentence he received for 88 months for obstruction of justice and other offenses:

“It’s far more important than if he’d just pardoned Libby,” Ms. James said, as forgiving a given offense as an act of executive grace would have had only political repercussions. “What you’re going to see is people like me quoting President Bush in every pleading that comes across every federal judge’s desk.”

The key question becomes: if the Bush stance contradicted the Bush Justice Department, then presumably it would contradict the stance of many Republican lawyers and Republicans in general. If this was truly a legal matter — and not a political move — Republicans would be coming out in droves and denouncing Bush’s argument.

But what is happening is that the Bush move is accepted due to the political “sports team” mentality where whatever your team does you defend and accept, and whatever the other side wants or does you oppose. You do what you can to advance the ball — and in this case the clamor to advance the ball by negating Libby’s sentence came from his party’s conservative base.

By that logic, anything that removes an issue from Bush’s opponents is a master stroke. All’s fair in love, war, and retaining power.

Sidney Blumenthal, writing in Salon, puts the issue within the context of the 4th of July:

The pardon is the one monarchical power that the framers of the Constitution assigned the presidency. But they placed one restriction, that it could not be exercised for impeachment. In other words, the president could not use his power to pardon himself. Bush is entirely within his narrow right to use the pardon power in the Libby case. But it violates the spirit, if not the letter, of the law governing that power because it is a consummate gesture of self-exoneration, at least if the vice president is an “entity within the executive branch.” Bush rewards Libby’s cover-up, thwarting the investigation into Cheney’s and perhaps his culpability. Bush’s commutation is the successful culmination of the obstruction of justice.

Since 1776, on every July Fourth, the Declaration of Independence has been posted in public places, published in newspapers and read aloud. Its bill of particulars contains these two passages defining royal tyranny and justifying revolution:

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers. … For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments.

Happy Fourth.

Indeed…

Pat Bagley, Salt Lake Tribune

If you’re one of those who were outraged by Bush’s commuting Scooter Libby’s sentence, be forewarned that it’s clear you will need to brace yourself for more outrage:

The White House on Tuesday declined to rule out the possibility of an eventual pardon for former vice presidential aide I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby. But spokesman Tony Snow said, for now, President Bush is satisfied with his decision to commute Libby’s 2 1/2-year prison sentence.

It’s pretty clear what’s going to happen. MORE:

Snow was pressed several times on whether the president might eventually grant a full pardon to Libby, who had been convicted of lying and conspiracy in the CIA leak investigation. The press secretary declined to say anything categorically.

“The reason I’m not going to say I’m not going to close a door on a pardon,” Snow said, “Scooter Libby may petition for one.”

“The president thinks that he has dealt with the situation properly,” he added. “There is always a possibility or there’s an avenue open for anybody to petition for consideration of a pardon.”

Bush’s decision was sharply criticized by Democrats. Republicans were more subdued, with some welcoming the decision and some conservatives saying Bush should have gone further.

Likely scenario:

–Sentence commute puts band aid on clamor from conservatives to pardon Libby. For now.
–After the 2008 elections, Bush pardons Libby totally since he and his party have absolutely nothing to lose.
–All the statements the White House and Bush issued recently suggesting that Libby needed to pay his fine and do his probation will be brushed aside as if they were never made, or weakly spun.

The bottom line as our earlier posts note: this administration considers itself elected to govern the entire United States but seemingly feels it only needs to serve and please its hard-core party base. American history has never seen the likes of it.

There is little reason for the bulk of independent and moderate voters to support Bush and those that enable him and cheer him on in what is increasingly taking on the tone of an almost radical, no-consequences administration. And there’s little logic now in giving this administration the benefit of the doubt on most controversial matters, since its track record on the credibility front is so poor.

There is a birdbath tucked in between a Japanese maple and a spruce tree at our house and this time of year it is a rare evening that there isn’t a procession of fat robins who take turns splashing in the water and then flying up to the branches of a nearby plum tree to preen and shake themselves dry.

I was standing at the door last night taking in this sweet little sideshow, a moment of sublime normalcy in what has increasingly seemed like a world gone crazy, when the news broke that President Bush had commuted Scooter Libby’s prison sentence with a grant of executive clemency.

The news was not only expected, but I had blogged a few hours earlier that the time had come for Bush to pull the trigger, which of course was fully within his rights as the chief executive. Yet I found myself nevertheless stunned and felt like I should call friends and breathlessly shout, “Did you hear the news?”

Perhaps someone as expert as a Dr. E can explain in psychological terms why something that I knew was going to happen still put me so back on my heels. But I think that it comes down to the simple matter that even after all of these years I am still shocked by the immorality of the Bush presidency.

It would have been one thing if the Libby commutation had been an aberration. But here is a man who as governor of Texas openly mocked a woman whom he had just put to death by pursing his lips and squeaking “please don’t kill me” after she had appealed to him for clemency. Who did not intervene in a single one of the over 150 death sentences carried out on his watch although there were reasons to do so in at least several of them. Who as president did intervene against the wishes of Terri Schiavo’s husband. Who did not intervene when it became widely known that Tom Foley was preying on congressional pages or condemn his aberrance when he slunk off to a drunk tank. Who twice intervened to block expansion of federal funding of promising stem cell research.

Who has repeatedly scoffed at the Rule of Law. Who has railed against the sick deeds of Islamic jihadists but enshrined the use of torture and established a gulag of secret prisons. Who has been grossly insensitive to the needs of Hurricane Katrina survivors and the poor and disadvantaged in general. Who has used the Justice Department as a fief of the Republican Party. Who has been tough on crimes high and low unless they are committed by his pals, who in his crass calculus are like himself above the law.

Immorality is a maleable term and should not be used lightly, but it is in the shameful context of the last six years that the Libby commutation is less a presidential perquisite than yet another immoral act.

As it was, this calculatingly cynical man who claims to channel the wisdom of Mr. Jesus Christ had nothing to lose by playing to his shrunken political base. And I disagree with pundits who say the president was vulnerable if Dick Cheney’s former chief of staff blabbed. While the commutation does further the original cover-up, everyone knows that the vice president masterminded the affair that led to Libby’s slam-dunk conviction — a crude effort to inflict harm after one of the lies justifying an immoral war was bared.

There’s that word again. Immoral.

It was entirely coincidental, but I had reread the text of the Declaration of Independence earlier yesterday in preparation for posting it on Independence Day. I urge you to read it, as well. And reflect on the words of the Founding Fathers and the immorality of George Walker Bush.

Hasn’t it come time to say it?

In the history of the American republic, it’s difficult to find a President who has proven to be as consistently polarizing and seemingly dismissive of the feelings of Americans who do not belong to his party — or, specifically, to his own party’s “base” — as President George W. Bush.

Bush’s “surprise” – or was it? — decision to commute the sentence of former White House and Vice President Dick Cheney aide Scooter Libby sparked an instant firestorm yesterday. There was the legal component (the get out of jail free card…the President’s power to do that without any challenge) and the political component.

But on a host of issues it has become crystal clear that rather than being “a uniter not a divider,” George Bush has proven to be a serial polarizer whose decisions and political style seem to consist of rubbing his ability to fully exercise Presidential powers (that he exercises to the max) in the faces of his opponents as he tilts on decisions to give his most loyal followers what they seek.

The motif of his adminstration (to domestic and foreign critics) is: “I have the power to do it and I’m going do it and what can you do about it?”

But the problem for George Bush and the Republicans: his opponents now don’t only include Democrats.

In fact, if you look at an instant poll conducted by Survey USA (h/t Political Wire) after Libby’s sentence was commuted, it shows one more instance of a White House that is now operating with very little public support — and support that is likely to shrink in coming months:

21% of Americans familiar with the legal case involving former White House aide Scooter Libby agree with President Bush’s decision to commute Libby’s prison sentence, according to a SurveyUSA nationwide poll conducted immediately after the decision was announced.

1,500 Americans were surveyed. Of them, 825 were familiar with the Libby case. Only those familiar were asked to react to the President’s action. 17% say Bush should have pardoned Libby completely. 60% say Bush should have left the judge’s prison sentence in place.

32% of Republicans agree with the President’s decision, compared to 14% of Democrats and 20% of Independents.

26% of Republicans say Libby should have been pardoned completely, compared to 21% of Independents and 8% of Democrats. Conservatives split evenly: 31% say Libby should have been pardoned. 35% say the judge’s sentence should have been left in place. 31% agree with the President’s decision to commute the prison sentence, but to leave the fine and conviction in place. Reaction to the President’s decision may evolve over time.

This poll attempts to measure a first reaction to the news, before many individuals would have had a chance to be influenced by political spin applied to the story.

Here’s the text of Bush’s Libby clemency decision announcement.

How did Bush make the announcement? According to the Washington Post, it was a decision made largely alone — not in the typical way such a decision is made…in the American democratic system:

For the first time in his presidency, Bush commuted a sentence without running requests through lawyers at the Justice Department, White House officials said. He also did not ask the chief prosecutor in the case, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, for his input, as routinely happens in cases routed through the Justice Department’s pardon attorney.

“Executive clemency is the president’s exclusive power under the Constitution, and there are precedents for exercising that power without going through the pardon attorney process,” said Bush spokesman Tony Fratto.

And — once again — the Post chronicles a President who essentially dismisses the feelings of Democrats or his opponents:

The White House appeared to be calculating that no matter what he did to keep Libby out of prison, Bush would not make Democrats happy, and if he did nothing, he would infuriate his strongest conservative supporters. As it was, some conservatives thought that Bush should have pardoned Libby and ended his legal battles…..

….William Kristol, editor of the conservative Weekly Standard and a leading advocate of pardoning Libby, described yesterday as “a very good moment” for the president. “By acting here, he is showing to conservatives the kind of leadership that made conservatives loyal to Bush once and could make them loyal once more,” Kristol said.

So, in the end, it was largely a political decision to please his conservative base.

But, aside from upset and delighted talking heads and upset and delighted politicos and bloggers, will it matter? Time Magazine doesn’t think it’ll make that much difference:

And politically the move will probably change little. Those who suspect the worst about the Administration’s role in the Plame case are not likely to become any more motivated than they already were against Bush and the Republicans. On the right, the Republican base, which demanded mercy for Libby, will be placated. Had Bush not acted, they would have turned on him, weakening the last pocket of support he has. And for those Republicans who think Libby is getting off easy, Bush’s lengthy written statement — stressing that Libby still must serve probation and pay a hefty fine — may not be enough to settle the queasiness they feel about the whole affair. But few will flee to the Hillary Rodham Clinton for solace.

Some thoughts on Bush’s action:

(1) The decision to commute likely wasn’t entirely spontaneous. The rapidity at which the White House made the announcement suggests this had been in the works and ready to go for some time.

(2) Bush split the difference. On one hand, he had Democrats who wanted Libby to serve every second he had to serve. On the other, some conservative Republicans who wanted him completely pardoned. Bush didn’t pardon him but he did keep him out of jail. And he did it while arguing he wasn’t tinkering with Libby’s fine or probation.

(3) The attention over the Paris Hilton story may actually hurt Bush with the man and woman on the street who don’t follow politics. The Libby case and law may be confusing to many, but the first impression is that Hilton had to serve 23 days….and Libby will walk. So, in the end, some will ask, who was more privileged?

(4) The Republicans will have trouble running again as the “law and order” party (even if its candidate appeared in “Law and Order”) for some time. The sentence commute leaves a smell of corruption, cover-up and favoritism that all but the President’s most loyal supporters can sniff. This is Hollywood “high concept” stuff: you don’t have to know the case or be a political junkie to suspect that a) Libby got off because Bush (or more likely Cheney) didn’t want a loyal associate to serve time in jail and b) Bush’s decision was made for blatantly political reasons (after the debacle of immigration reform which angered his party’s base he’s “making nice” to his base).

(5) The Republican party may not truly recover from the Bush era until something happens (like a stunning defeat) where it can become evident to many voters that the Bush operatives have been either purged or demoted in the party and new blood has taken it over. But, in the end, Republicans will have to decide if this model of the Republican party is the one Ronald Reagan fought to create — or whether what Reagan might have wanted even matters in the 21st century (particularly if the real goal is to hold onto power no matter what).

(6) Look for the administration to yield absolutamente nada to the Congress or press for the rest of its term on issues such as warrantless wiretaps or other controversial matters. Clearly, it’s an administration that plays by its own rules, sets the rules and dares anyone to challenge them. Who has the power now to force the administration to play by more established rules and norms?

(7) Bush now seemingly surpasses Richard Nixon as the most polarizing President in recent American history. Nixon polarized Americans on a few key issues and some just didn’t like him. Bush has been a polarizer on many more issues. He hasn’t played to a “silent majority” but to a clamoring noisy base and conservative pundits. He seemingly runs a government by the base, of the base, and for the base — which isn’t exactly what the founding fathers had in mind.

(8) Somewhere Millard Fillmore and Warren G. Harding must be smiling. With the immigration bill defeat, the continued bad scene in Iraq and the decision to keep Libby out of jail — plus a host of other controversial policies and actions — it’s likely Bush will join an exclusive club and be ranked as one of the worst Presidents in American history.

Some say he’s not quite there.

But he still has nearly two more years to go…….

BUT THAT’S JUST OUR VIEW. HERE’S A CROSS SECTION OF OTHER VIEWS:
–Glenn Reynolds: “My prediction: Bush will rise in the polls as estranged conservatives warm to him in light of lefty indignation.”

–Andrew Sullivan:

Under the circumstances, it’s clear that Cheney was involved. When there are no normal channels of governance in this White House, it means the fusion of Cheney-Bush acting as extra-legal agents of their own power. We really no longer have the rule of law operating. We have the privileges and lies and policies of two men. The law is no competitor. And shamelessness is their ally.

–The Democratic Daily: “We all should have seen it coming and perhaps we did… True to course, Bush while on vacation has pulled another fast one on the American public and it’s a doozy!”

–Smofbabe: “The credibility gap in relation to the Bush Administration is approaching Grand Canyon proportions now that Bush has just commuted Scooter Libby’s prison sentence.”

–Ed Morrissey:

Unfortunately, like Solomon, Bush will probably find neither side satisfied. Critics of the administration and Plame-conspiracy activists want a scalp, and thought they’d enjoy the sight of Libby walking into Club Fed for a spell. Conservatives who believed that the entire investigation was bogus from the start want Libby cleared altogether. The $250,000 fine will stick their craw most especially. Don’t expect conservatives to let up on a full pardon, which will allow Libby to clear the felonies from his record, until Bush leaves office.

If Bush wanted to take any action — and I would have advised against it — this is as far as he should go. It allows Libby to remain free while he pursues his appeal, but it makes it clear that the White House won’t undo convictions for official misconduct. It strikes a balance that few will appreciate now, but later will accept as wise, as far as it goes. If Libby has a good case for reversal, let the courts make that decision.

–Orin Kerr:

The President’s powers here are absolute. And whether Scooter Libby’s original sentence was exactly correct is an interesting question I can’t answer; while I have a rough se