A new Gallup poll indicates a whopping majority of Americans think President George Bush should have stayed out of the Scooter Libby case — yet another poll which is underscoring a fundamental question about this President:
President Bush’s commutation of a prison term for a former aide to Vice President Cheney did not play well with the public or even Republicans, a survey found.
In a USA Today-Gallup poll released on Tuesday, 66 percent said Bush should not have intervened in the case of I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, whose sentence for obstructing justice in the CIA leak case included a 2 1/2-year prison term.
Thirteen percent said the president’s move was correct, and 6 percent said Bush should have given Libby a full pardon.
This puts Bush — as other polls are showing — at the fringes of what most Americans believe is not only adequate job approval, but propriety. MORE:
Bush didn’t even receive much of a boost in support from Republicans. Among them, 44 percent said Bush should not have taken action in the case. Ten percent said he should have pardoned Libby while only 26 percent said Bush did the correct thing.
So the Rush, Sean and Bill Kristol sentiment — highly touted on talk and cable shows — really represents a small percentage of Americans.
It’s perhaps time to frame the central question that is now emerging with George Bush.
Is his key quality (or flaw, depending on your affiliation) his being “resolute?” Is that what’s at play here in the Libby case? Is that what’s behind his refusal to not just not consider authentic change in Iraq war policy, but to also not consider other views on a host of other issues — and at least pay lip service to the fact that consensus has traditionally been an important part (and strength) of American democracy?
In a column titled “Resolute Amid the Wreckage” that should be read in full, Washington Post’s columnist Eugene Robinson argues that Bush values being seen as “resolute” above anything else and that explains his actions:
Allowing himself to be forced to retreat from Iraq would ruin George W. Bush’s fantasy of someday being seen as a latter-day Churchill. Bush keeps a bust of the British leader in his office, and he has praised Churchill as being “resolute.”
At the end he writes:
Democrats and war-weary Republicans on Capitol Hill are doing what their constituents want them to do — push George Bush to face reality in Iraq and bring American troops home. I just don’t see any signs that their message is getting through.
Pressed as to whether there was a debate in the White House concerning meaningful withdrawals, spokesman Snow said: “The conversation is always about what do you do to succeed in Iraq.” It doesn’t seem to make any difference that success is so vaguely defined. Being “resolute” is all that matters.
But is that really the problem?
If you follow this administration, and Bush’s attitude on various issues, you begin to conclude that unlike any other Chief Executive the United States has ever had George Bush simply does not cherish the model of democracy as set down by the founding fathers and perpetuated by many administrations throughout our history. His attitude now seems to go beyond this merely being a post-911 world that requires changes in security matters.
His broader attitude goes to the heart of huge power grabs by the executive branch, his administration’s seeming disdain for Congress’ power and its constitutional legitimacy stemming from its composition of duly elected members of BOTH parties, and his rejection of consensus, compromise, aggregating interests and the importance of a leader in a democracy to follow or at least respect the will of the people.
It’s increasingly clear that even the feelings of his own concerned partisans in Congress are now perceived by him and his associates as, in the long term, small potatoes.
Rather, Bush on a host of issues — even ones where it’s likely legal or CYA considerations are at play — now emits the vibes of someone who feels he is the country and can use his lawyers to look through every law’s sub clause to press the envelope and toss away years of governance conventional wisdom. And because he has impacted the courts, perhaps those who think these decisions won’t hold up will be in for an unpleasant surprise.
The tragedy is that there are some willing to go along with whatever he does or proposes because they voted for him and he’s seen as the captain of their political sports “team .” So they enable him to change longstanding rules of America’s democratic, political, and foreign policy decision making games.
The good news is that the number of people willing to support him no matter what is rapidly — and steadily — shrinking.
Joe Gandelman is a former fulltime journalist who freelanced in India, Spain, Bangladesh and Cypress writing for publications such as the Christian Science Monitor and Newsweek. He also did radio reports from Madrid for NPR’s All Things Considered. He has worked on two U.S. newspapers and quit the news biz in 1990 to go into entertainment. He also has written for The Week and several online publications, did a column for Cagle Cartoons Syndicate and has appeared on CNN.