Why "unfortunately"? You're right, don't apologize.

Yeah, don't be sorry. Saying that you don't want to buy a pig in a poke reflects well on you. Conversely, saying the opposite doesn't reflect well on them and frankly makes both of them look stupid.

Yeah, good to see that whatever insanity virus has been going around in Prospect circles on this question has been contained.

"Unfortunately?" I agree with Lemeul pitkin (hey lemeul!) its like saying "unfortunately, my lack of a lobotomy makes me sensitive to issues of reason..."

What digby said, what atrios said and hell, what I said.

aimai

Scott,

I don't think that Bauer is saying that Libby's crimes are trivial, or that expressing concern about them is "glib." What he's saying is that those who believe that "the act of lying" or "a subversion of the legal process" are NOT PARDONABLE, are being "glib."

In other words, he is not arguing that Libby's crimes are trivial; only that it is disingenuous to think that they are unpardonable.

This is an important distinction to make, and by failing to do so you end up conflating Bauer's argument with those made by Right-wingers who DO argue that Libby's crimes ARE trivial and for THAT reason he should be pardoned.

Now I agree with you that it seems unlikely that a Libby pardon would result in any significant political benefits. And while this represents a separate argument, I believe it is the more accurate AND more effective one.

Emes

The whole idea that Libby getting a pardon is somehow a good thing is idiotic.

What is it with this Democratic pundit disease that compels pundits to argue that whatever is the weakest move the Democrats can make at any particular moment is actually the smartest tactical move? It never works out that way.

A Libby pardon:

1) will simply confirm that official lying never gets punished, thus encouragung much more of offiial lying (if that's possible)

2) will have no harmful effects on Bush. Pretending that a pardon will somehow cause the media to focus on Bush and that Bush will take a hit flies in the face of everything we have seen for the last 33 years.

THANK YOU Scott. I can tell you've actually had access to television and newspapers for the last decade and understand that there's no fucking way that the media will let a Libby pardon be a losing move for Bush.

I agree with Scott, Aimai & esp. Disturbance. Bauer's argument belongs to a genre I've come to distrust deeply, you know the argument against the Democrats taking a stand, making a case to the electorate; the argument for sitting back and letting Republicans do themselves in so that, by default, power will fall into the lap of the Democrats, who will then--having built support for no policies, made themselves stand for nothing at all in the public's mind with no real constituency--do what?

I think the argument is that Bush will lose the next election if he pardons Libby.

I'm completely serious. These people do not seem to get that making Bush look bad doesn't matter anymore. He looks bad already, nobody likes him, he should be impeached, and it's still not going to happen.

Why would it happen? Everyone seems to think Libby should be pardoned! How could anyone complain if Bush does something everyone says he should do?

J,

didn't steven colbert parody this whole typical line of democratic argument in his unforgettable "I won a fight with a drunk last night after he knocked himself out with his own bottle while swinging at me...I think" shtick.

There's a reason why this stuff is "counterintuitive"--because it goes against eveyrthing we know about how the press and the public perceives actions (and inactions) when the label "r" or "d" are attached to them.

For six years, or more, we've heard an endless drumbeat of "if it happened it must be good for the republicans." And by gum no matter what it is its reported that way by a compliant press. Any democrat tho thinks for an instant that the press are going to wake up and start reporting things from a democratic perspective is simply nuts. Whatever bush does in terms of pardoning libby is not going to be perceived as anything other than "the president is loyal" or "the president had to step in to prevent a miscarriage of justice" or 'libby who? look, paris hilton!" There won't even be any democrats (small or large d) interviewed about the topic to make some kind of case about how libby's pardon shows that blah blah blah.

When are elite dems going to realize that no one is listening to what they have to say in the first place?

aimai

Emes:

To the charge that I'm "disingenuous" in believing that Libby's crimes shouldn't be pardoned, I plead not guilty because I sincerely believe that they shouldn't be. As far as whether such a belief is "glib" or somehow facile, I strongly disagree as well. To me, the bar for pardoning someone convincingly guilty of perjury and obstruction is quite high, especially when the underlying investigation was about the administration's lies and cover-ups with respect to a war that has killed thousands. I don't think it's glib to call a man to account under those circumstances and to demand a high standard of argument for those advocating his pardon. I don't think the wingnuts ("he's one of us!" "he's a fallen soldier!) or Bauer/Matt/Ezra (giving the President and the MSM what they want sure will fix their little red wagon!) have met that standard. What irritated me about the latter was (whatever they may have mouthed about the crimes not being trivial) the speed with which they were ready to jettison accountability for an illusory political advantage. I found that both politically and morally questionable. If you find that somehow shrill, naive, or not world-weary enough for your tastes, I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree. Peace.

I don't think that Bauer is saying that Libby's crimes are trivial, or that expressing concern about them is "glib." What he's saying is that those who believe that "the act of lying" or "a subversion of the legal process" are NOT PARDONABLE, are being "glib."

This is what Bauer wrote:

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

Emes, first, no one is making the argument that Bush legally can't pardon Libby. The argument is that he shouldn't. Either way, how this is "glib" is beyond me. Libby was involved in, and obstructed the investigation into, what was thought of as a serious crime. That the 'underlying crime' can not be proven beyond a resonable doubt is due in large part because Libby lied to a grand jury.

Of course, Bauer compounds his disingenuousness -- as well as trivializing the Libby verdict -- with his next sentence:

President Clinton's pardons included one granted to a farmer convicted of perjury in a bankruptcy proceeding. The lie was not in doubt but other circumstances carried the case for absolution. Is the difference one of station in life, the difference between the Chief of Staff to the Vice President and a hog farmer?

You don't think this is a false equivelence? It's not the difference in 'station of life', it's the fucking difference in scale. He's making the preposterous case that all perjury is has the exact same (omitting the other guilty counts of obstruction of justice) motive and consequence, therefore pardonable. It's an absurd, and insulting, argument.

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

This is patronizing. Of COURSE we want someone to pay. But we also want the rule of law applied, especially because the guy lied through his teeth over a very important matter. This is another way he trivializes Libby's conviction, as well as Libby's overall stature as merely the conviction of a minor player. That's idiotic, it's not like Libby was just some stooge -- he was a major player in the prosecution and creation of a disasterous war. He was the right-hand man of the most powerful VP in history AND one who had the ear of the President. Moreover, this is self-refuting -- would the creme de la creme of Washington society be so moved if Libby was just some midlevel bureaucrat? Of course not. He was one of the most powerful people in Washington and that's reflected by his supporters.

Bauer is off so badly and basically in his argument, one has to question his competency, never mind his connection to Obama.

Aimai,

I couldn't agree more. I'll add just one thing. I think Democrats should take a stand, but at this point I don't think that stand should be couched in terms of whether the the president should or should not grant Libby a pardon. That would be a perfectly reasonable way to talk if it's understood that we are abstracting from the present holder of the office, but that's too subtle. It can be safely assumed that the president occupant of the White House is not going to be moved by considerations of principle, of what is right, lawful or honorable, and there is no point even in implying that he might be. Democrats should simply say that Libby is guilty of a serious crime and that if and when Bush pardons him it will be to pay off an accomplice who broke the law to hid the misdeeds of his bosses.

J and Jay B.

I couldn't agree more with both of you. No Democrat should publicly entertain the notion of a pardon. Its not good politics and its not good law. And all democrats should pre-emptively seize the moment to say, when asked, that the country believes that no matter how high a convicted felon, no matter how many his important friends, no matter how many political skeletons he can hide every criminal deserves to be punished. I don't want to hear any more "democrats" retailing the "nice guys don't go to jail" line. We should always say "nice guys don't commit perjury in defense of treason."

aimai

I agree that Elliot Abrams is the strongest evidence for why Bauer's argument is ridiculous on its face. Had Poppy not granted his little Christmas Eve clemency in 1992, Abrams would have gone to prison, would have been disgraced, and would never have been in government again.

Now, he's on the National Security Council.

Libby must serve his sentence, for a whole host of reasons. And political considerations don't point to a different conclusion. Bauer is apparently a smart guy, but I don't know what the hell he was thinking.

ezra klein and yglesias are so busy with their anti-Hillary jihad that they just won't have any time for Obama advisor bauer and Edwards advisor mudcat. That's a shame.

ezra klein and yglesias are so busy with their anti-Hillary jihad that they just won't have any time for Obama advisor bauer

I hadn't thought of that angle. It's oddly comforting. I'd much rather think that their judgment is clouded by their support for (what they believe is) the anti-war candidate rather than my previous hypothesis, which was that we're seeing the process of inside-the-beltwayification in real time.

"I hadn't thought of that angle. It's oddly comforting.

Posted by: lemuel pitkin"

If you are comforted by a process that bought bush to the white house. Twice. Then there you go.

mark Blumenthal at Pollster.com has relevant empirics, favoring Bauer.