Can we get a technical discussion of "commute" here?
At some point we're going to stop being shocked by the ballsiness of this administration.
What does Bush have left to lose? He's at the crazification level of popularity already.
Nothing to lose, no reason to care. Note that he might be losing his mind. Plus, he left intact the fine and probation, so he can say that he thinks this better fits a circumstance in which there was "no underlying crime."
Does he still get to vote in Florida?
What an asshole.
I don't actually know the distinction between 'commute' and 'pardon', if there is one, although it may be a partial rather than total thing.
Having trouble posting, so this may come up twice, but two things:
2 is right, but wow.
And the fine and probation will be wiped clean once Scooter gets his pardon.
I think "commute" applies only to the sentence: Libby is still technically a convincted criminal, whereas "pardon" erases the conviction itself.
8: That's right.
Argy bargy fucking aristocracy.
Jesus fucking christ.
Commute is reducing a sentence, pardoning is basically overturning it entirely. So, like, what Governor Ryan did for all the guys on Death Row in Illinois was a commutation.
Judging by the link in 4, this might happen soon.
Prior to today I believed that there are more negatives to impeachment than positives. I am no longer convinced of this.
Meh.
Libby did what he did in the service of the administration. Let them take the heat.
Note: this is not to imply that any heat will be taken. That's the real problem, not the commutation (or whatever the word is).
This actually pisses me off worse than a pardon, at least with a pardon we could all *pretend* that Bush actually thinks that Libby is innocent, this way Bush basically admits that his subordinate commited a serious crime, he just doesn't think that he should be treated like a regular criminal. If I was one of those soldiers in prison for one of those various prisoner abuse scandalds, I'd be pissed.
No commutation without incarceration.
It strikes me that "commute" is a "contronym":http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auto-antonym, relating to the difference between time you are forced to spend (e.g., in traffic) and time you are released from serving (e.g., in jail).
Okay, here's a question. Why didn't he just pardon the guy?
Libby did what he did in the service of the administration. Let them take the heat. Note: this is not to imply that any heat will be taken.
Like when economists say "the most efficient policy solution is not one where the poor are compensated for their loss, but one where the poor could in principle be compensated. NB: this is not to imply that any compensation will occur."
18: Digby has a theory that it will allow the appeal (and possible vindication of 'nothing happened here') to go forward.
Here's President Bush's statement -- he's angling to have it viewed as an elegant compromise. Than again, there's the view expressed by Josh Marshall that it's the least intellectually honest course of action -- and that it's likely to keep Scooter from selling out the Vice President.
Oy vey.
Okay, here's a question. Why didn't he just pardon the guy?
Because a commutation gives Bush a little bit of PR cover, without costing him or Libby anything. The pardon can always follow, on schedule, as Bush departs office.
It's cute that Bush might actually think that his presidency isn't over.
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.
Bush should burn in hell for saying this. It's a miscarriage of justice when it happens to his buddy, but not a problem when it happens to every other freaking federal defendant out there? Asshole.
Gosh - I just read Digby. That makes a lot of sense. Preserving Libby's Fifth Amendment rights seems pretty important.
19 - yeah, there's something to that.
But really - in a way, this is like going after the Abu Graib peons instead of the folks designing and politically controlling the policy. Clearly Libby's no peon, but he's doing what he's doing under orders from the boss. The boss should also take heat.
I don't want to excuse breaking the law, either, though, so I've got not consistent philosophical stance.
24 His presidency isn't over. He still has a little over a year to cover thing up and fix things so no one will be prosecuted for their crimes.
Also, it is never too late in a presidency to impeach. Even if he had one day left in office, it would be nice to know that he left because he was impeached, and not because his term ended.
-27
Not really, it'd be like going after the Abu soldiers if they were actively engaged in covering up what happened, so that it was impossible to go after the higher-ups. Libby was convicted of the crime of prevented Fitzgerald from figuring out what the hell was going on in the Bush Administration.
If you'd have asked me which was more likely, commuting Libby's sentence or bombing Iran, I'd have said bombing Iran. This presidency ain't nowhere near over.
In taking apart any criminal organization, you work from the bottom up, and sometimes the organization can be disabled even though the top guy gets away scot free.
Libby was only one step below Bush and Cheney, probably one of the 5 most powerful people in the administration (certainly one of the ten most powerful).
Doesn't a pardon require an admission of guilt from the pardonee?
re 2.
"ballsy" still carries too many connotations of admiration for me. there is nothing admirable about this administration.
i'd revise to:
"At some point we're going to stop being shocked by the craven, loathesome, cowardly despicability of this administration."
or words to that effect.
but nothing that might be construed as even grudging respect.
is this related to immunity from testifying?
"ballsy" still carries too many connotations of admiration for me.
Scrotum-y?
Isn't there a wee part of you that *does* have grudging respect for their complete indifference to public opinion and all norms of human decency? It's impressive for sociopaths to rise to the height of power in a democracy.
What 33 said.
I have long since ceased to be shocked by the craven cowardice and corrupt cronyism of the tinpot dictatorship that we call the Bush administration. But I'm still capable of outrage.
Argh.
37: In a word: No.
Grudging respect would imply a modicum of respect. No.
Fuck Fuck Fuck....welcome to Amerikkan justice, Bush style. Paris Hilton got a tougher sentence than Scooter Libby. When the Clenis lied to the grand jury about a fucking blowjob, the GOD'S OWN PARTY insists that he be removed from office. It's ok if you are a rich white Republican. LAW AND ORDER, MY PALE SKINNY ASS.
Over at hilzoy's place someone comments that nothing can be done about this, or nothing can be done if Bush wants to bomb Iran. Or I suppose nothing can be done if Bush puts all American Muslims in concentration camps, or suspends the next election. Or can be done only with very great difficulty.
The missing clause:"within the law."
I am not talking probablity, or likelihood. But deference to the law and worship of procedural liberalism is in principle & practice self-enslavement, and engenders habits of thought that make the liberal methods of recourse and petition seem extreme and radical. Impeachment is unlikely because mass insurrection is unacceptable, or so the left is told by those who claim to be reasonable.
Of course the Right has never had such problems.
I compiled some convenient talking points, if you're into that kind of thing.
I am so sad and tired of dispirited progressives, and I blame the procedural liberals.
We all know that if Limbaugh & Hannity & Coulter called for the Right to march on President Edwards with their rifles and shotguns, a large number would do so, enough to give Edwards trouble with the military he orders to shoot them down. We know the Right-wing media is willing and capable of doing so, and we should know that this is the sailent fact of modern American politics.
I refer to to Dade County shutting the recount down because of the crowd outside the door. I refer you to Scalia granting the injunction, and SCOTUS seeking to avoid the horrible consequences of Gore getting elected.
Bill Clinton is the last Democrat you will see as President.
We made it four and a half years without a non-ironic use of "Amerikk[k]a." I guess the good times had to come to end at some point.
Hey Bob, I'm still feeling a shred of hope for the human species. Can you post something that will extinguish that, too?
Bob, within the law there are things that can be done. But there are few who are willing to try to do them.
As for direct action, I don't know who would do that either. I no longer have the spirit to lead, that's for sure, and I don't see anyone volunteering.
Emerson, what can be done? Within the law, I mean.
Almost hate to agree with Bob here, but really probably the only thing that is going to get anyone in power to obey the law is the threat that shit is going to get burned down if they don't. If this was a functioning democracy we'd have riots already.
Bill Clinton may be the last Democrat to become President if the Democrats don't run anyone better than the current lot. Our governing class does not have alot to choose from from any angle. what happened to leadership? Is that TV's fault, too?
Why didn't he just pardon the guy?
Marshall makes sense. Calculated to produce maximum poke-in-the-eye effect wouldn't surprise me, either, given the way these people roll.
Depressingly, I would've been surprised if Bush hadn't dicked around with Libby's sentence.
The missing clause:"within the law."
I love ya Bob, but you're always on with shit. But what barricades, exactly, are we supposed to rush? And how does it happen? Tell me and I'll happily join you.
Impeachment. The Democrats are still being coy. They have to be willing to lose.
I'm not optimistic, but it's mostly because I've lost faith in the American people. If there were a groundwell, impeachment would be possible, and so would direct action.
Rioting just gives them the excuse they need. Unless enough people do it, and I sure as hell don't see that happening.
When I was a kid, the line was 'they got the guns but we got the numbers.' It's not true now,whether or not is was then.
I can see Bob's point about Procedural Liberalism, but I'm not hearing any alternatives that I think much of. I guess anyone who wants to go out in a blaze of futile glory can give that a shot. And maybe there will be a bunch of virgins waiting, if that's your thing.
Or you can hold on to what you can as a new dark age descends, against the day when the 'Jacksonians' finally get the extent to which they've been played for jackasses, and are ready to do something about it. It's not 2007, and may not be for a while yet.
Thinking about TLL's 50, it's hard to be optimistic about a polity that didn't go Gore by 25 points in 2000.
Barracades need a very tightly packed, and preferably twisty-turny urban infrastructure to be effective.
46:Sure
Crossing the Rubicon ...Michael Ruppert, Peak Oil more than global warming, because PO will drastically limit the available responses to GW, and because PO is hitting right now.
2 billion population in 2100, because that is what the resources under anything approximating current political structures will support. That means probably 8 Billion dead in this century, by war and famine and well, Ruppert expects artificial plagues. The causes for the Wars will be disguised, and in any case, once the panic sets in, justifications will be easy. Are you going to share your kid's last bit of bread, not knowing if there will be any tomorrow? A lifeboat kinda thing.
My guess is that even the Bushes and Cheneys and Mubarreks will be so horrified by what they have done that they will, even if they have a choice, take steps to make greed and ambition literally unthinkable, i.e., Huxleyville indefinitely.
It is not necessary, the technology is available to save those lives. But not under our current governance and political economy. Just visit the daily updates at oildrum.com
I am willing to kill a billion to save seven. That makes me radically evil, and also crazy. But I do believe this scenario, and I am not willing to let sub-Saharan Africa starve and Bangladesh drown for Bush's ranch.
Incidentally, Ruppert has moved to the hinterlands of South America. It will get very ugly very soon.
Evidence leads me to conclude that the barricades are somewhere between the Preview and the Post button.
I'm a little bummed because I suspect response is going to be somewhere between 'Scooter who?' and 'Our Leader must have had a reason.' Is there a chance of impeachment? Is it the sort of thing you can call your Senator over?
I am willing to kill a billion to save seven.
It's not just the willingness that makes you crazy. But also the belief that it could work.
57: hey, saving the country is hard work! my fingers are killing me.
57 -- First your congressperson, because they have to impeach before the Senate can have a trial. There's zero chance of conviction, and I'd be interested to hear why Bob (among others) think a single one of the 8 billion or whatever would be saved by a failed impeachment.
The 60s started with Rosa Parks in a bus, and Mario Sava at Berkeley. It ended with a million people trying to levitate the Pentagon. That wasn't the message.
It isn't that hard. Just need some people with courage, leadership ability, and a willingness to break the law. And a center willing to give qualified support, or look the other way.
60: yeah, but then I'd miss the 9:30 riots.
57 - Snap polling has 60% of people (including 56% of independents) saying that Bush should have left the sentence in place, at least. I bet Fred Hiatt just creamed his jeans.
61:Charley, Bush or Cheney aren't that important to me, aren't the root of all evil, and impeachment isn't a solution, any more than the LBJ resignation ended the war.
Yglesias has a post today on what the country would look like without Dixie.
62 -- See, this is the thing. The MLK movement has a willingness to break the law, but also a strong moral claim, made stronger by explicit non-violence. Who do you see marching Bob, and what is the nature of their moral claim?
I'm not sure you can really call Mario Savio's movement a success. Although opposition to it did get Ronald Reagan some critical cred, when he needed to have some reason for being.
1. mcmanus, you nut. Take the victory. This helps us shove "law and order Republicans" right up their ass.
2. Yglesias has a post today on what the country would look like without Dixie.
No, he doesn't.
The "no underlying crime" talking point seems to have been handed out by Asshole Wingnut Central. Jesus Christ. I wonder if these shits feel any cognitive dissonance, or if they simply don't care? In a just world, Victoria Toensing would never get to show up on television again after spewing a bunch of falsehoods about a law she helped write, but ha ha to that.
He does have a post about Southern pitchers' willingness to throw brush-back pitches, though.
What the hell is the matter with these people? THERE WAS TOO AN UNDERLYING CRIME.
I'm gonna go to hell just so I have the pleasure of helping the devils poke them in the butt.
65 -- LBJ's resignation didn't end the war because Democrats splintered (and fate intervened) allowing Reaction to win. And Dems splintered because unrealistic crazy radicals went on about how the Dem was just as bad (an utterly untenable view) and that the whole damn system was impossibly corrupt.
While there's a kernel -- HHH was certainly not where I wanted him to be on the war -- it was a big damn deal that he lost, because Reaction is always worse. Always.
It's taken nearly 40 years for Reaction to destroy the Supreme Court as a bastion for individual rights -- maybe the death of Procedural Liberalism you dislike is upon us, from that direction -- and each contribution to this was worth more than any supposed flaw in one of the non-Reaction candidates.
68: The South Will Brushback Again
"Timmerman speculates that this may be due to the honor culture of the south. Boaz extends the hypothesis to say that perhaps the issue is not Dixie per se but the Scotch-Irish tradition (see Michael Lind and especially Senator Jim
Webb)," ...MY
Linking to the Michael Lind post implied something beyond baseball. Michael Lind has not been shy about his beliefs.
Yglesias' post in full:
Cato head honcho David Boaz draws my attention to an intruiguing theory of the hit-by-pitch phenomenon:
"I found that pitchers from the South are not more likely in general to hit batters," [Thomas] Timmerman said in a telephone interview, "but they are much more likely to hit batters after giving up a home run, or after a teammate has gotten hit the previous half-inning."
Timmerman speculates that this may be due to the honor culture of the south. Boaz extends the hypothesis to say that perhaps the issue is not Dixie per se but the Scotch-Irish tradition (see Michael Lind and especially Senator Jim Webb), noting that "Two of the top non-Southerners on the list, Jeff Weaver and David Wells" are from Southern California, where the white population has traditionally been heavy Scotch-Irish.
The Lind piece is on the Scotch-Irish tradition in politics, but Yglesias is pretty clearly talking about it in terms of baseball.
65:"And Dems splintered because unrealistic crazy radicals... "
I studied the 68 exit polls, Charley, and am willing to do so again. Dems kept their ethnic and blue-collar votes. The group that turned from Dems in 1968 were urban white professionals. The question is whether it was the yippies or the blacks torching the cities that scared the straights. Hard to know for sure, but I have my opinion. Nixon's "Law & Order" campaign is now pretty much accepted as racist coding.
I hate how Nixon always cut to commercials right after he found the body.
(DUN DUN.)
Nixon therefore is responsible for President Fred Thompson.
The 60s started with Rosa Parks in a bus
And Rosa-Parks-in-a-bus started with the Highlander Folk School. I can't guarantee that organizing will make a difference, but I can tell you right now, it's the only thing that can make a difference.
This weekend, I spent time in meetings and community events among groups of people who are staunchly radical and committed to action. Sure, there weren't any barricades built or bombs thrown, but as mentioned above, this isn't really the time for that sort of thing. I am lucky to live in a metropolis that can support large and diverse radical scenes, but unless you're really out in the middle of nowhere there are things you can do to work for change. Yes, we've got a lot of problems, and some of them are pretty huge, but that makes it all the more essential and inevitable that we will work to solve them. For those of us here in the belly of the beast, we would do well to remember that there are six billions of people out in the rest of the world looking in at our filth and squalor. Every effort we here make to clean up this mess is magnified in the retelling. Simultaneously, we need to look around the spectacle and realize that the fight, whether it's happening in Oaxaca or Chiapas or Rostock or New South Wales, is our fight too. Maybe we can't pick up the gun right now, but that's only the smallest part of revolution. We need to analyze and destroy the oppressions that we see every day, and worry about the big insurmountable problems only when we're finally about to surmount them. Paine and Parks and Proudhon didn't act in vain -- and neither will we!
...and Parsons (both Lucy and Albert).
74: The Lind piece MY links to is fairly moderate, but THIS is a large part of Lind's reputation and what should be read.
Yglesias has a post today on what the country would look like without Dixie.
Even if he does, the fact is that there is a Dixie. And unless the Feds expel said area from the Union, there will continue to be a Dixie. God knows that, in true Quentin Compson fashion, I've hated the South, but hating it or not means bupkis.
Timmerman speculates that this may be due to the honor culture of the south.
That sounds like warmed-over W.J. Cash to me.
What's happening in New South Wales? Other than their country slowly turning into a giant Fosters-studded tinderstick?
Lots of people say that because it's true. I have still another source, Raymond Gastil, who finds that the white-on-white murder rate (i.e., bracketing out race) correlates strongly with "degree of Southernness". The lowest rates are all in the least-Southern states (the Upper Midwest and New England), and the highest rates are mostly in the most-Southern states (Wyoming, Alaska, and Nevada being the exceptions in the top 12.)
W.V. has the lowest rate of any state classified as Southern, and its rate is twice that of any of the least-Southern states.
Southernness is defined historically, including migration patterns, and not just by the map.
probably the only thing that is going to get anyone in power to obey the law is the threat that shit is going to get burned down if they don't.
You don't need to burn things down to stop the country from functioning. General strikes, mass demonstrations & civil disobedience can do the exact same thing. Indeed, threatening street violence is probably counter productive, because it alienates the middle.
Social institutions require general consent to function. All the insurrection needs to do is withhold the consent. The banks will close if no one comes to work. The buses will stop if people stand in front of them.
This Carpetbagger Report shows why I think Bushco is only a small part of the problem.
Even with a Democratic President and 5 more Senators Democrats will still not be able to get reasonable legislation, like tax increases or health care thru. Republicans have a veto, think it is in their interests to exercise it, and have the support of their base. The next 5-10 Senators Democrats could possibly attain, even under landslide coattail conditions, would be only marginally better than Republicans.
There is no electoral path to progressivism, and Republicans can and are willing to blow it all up, to bankrupt and paralyze the nation.
We are in the pre-civil war position of the 1850s. We give in, or what? What y'all wanna do?
Look, the voice of the establishment is trying to reassure us that everything is ok, and that the government has not descended into complete lawlessness.
Liars.
71: THERE WAS TOO AN UNDERLYING CRIME.
But Fitzpatrick said Richard Armitage committed it, right?
89: So Scooter is guilty of trying to cover up a crime committed by Armitage (which may not have technically been a crime because the vice president's office got Bush to declassify Plame's identity in an extra-procedural fashion right before Armitage leaked the info.)
88 - What a shock that the NY Times doesn't mention that Libby now retains Fifth Amendment privileges against being forced to own up to Cheney's role in fucking America right in the eye socket.
Honestly, I've been trying to avoid being dragged into this, because I think it's deeply confused, but since my resolve is weakening, could someone connect this call for rioting and a general strike with the commutation of the 30-month prison sentence of the VP's chief of staff? Of all the straws that might break the camel's back, I thought this perfectly legal (though awful) act would not be the one. Is it that we'll never know the truth about the OVP's role in selling the war? What more could we learn about the administration's actions in that period that would change anything? Or is this just a blowing-off-steam thread?
To be fair, the Times editorial board got this one right, unlike the disgusting and lickspittle Fred Hiatt.
84: http://sydney.indymedia.org.au/" Quite a lot, actually. I was mostly thinking about various environmental and immigration issues in Australia, but of course there's plenty of other stuff to organize around there, just like everywhere.
Nuclear option- screw the filibuster- Reid should have said, "Go ahead, make my day" because the nuclear option was always predicated on the belief that Republicans controlled enough levers that they would keep the Senate majority for at least several more sessons. Get rid of it now, and in '08 a dem president can have their agenda.
We are in the pre-civil war position of the 1850s. We give in, or what? What y'all wanna do?
Wait, who are we in this scenario? Are we, like, Lincoln? (All of us?)
Southernness is defined historically, including migration patterns, and not just by the map.
This old Billmon post (hooray for the Wayback Machine!) on that topic is very much worth reading.
Labs: This may be a bit of the straw that broke the camels back, but it also is looking more and more like even second tier administration officials are above the law, and will never have to pay for their crimes.
90: Of obstructing Fitzpatrick from discovering Libby's own innocence, I think. (My understanding off the niceties is admittedly as fuzzy as an non-lawyer's is likely to be.)
John Brown? The Secret Six? Nameless conductors on the Underground Railroad? Readers of Uncle Tom's Cabin? It's a rich historical period from which to draw metaphors. Or allegories. But certainly not analogies.
92:I can't speak for Emerson, but I do see many things, including today's commutation and an inadequacy, as mere symptoms of a structural and systemic problem in American politics and the political economy.
My enemies can claim I lack the patience for nuts-and-bolts and inch-by-inch, but I don't think such incremantalism will work, having watched the slow decay for forty fucking years.
Ain't into bandaids and chewing gum, or the outrage of the day. I think they're distractions.
Bye. I had plans.
I mean, people have been talking about an unacknowledged constitutional crisis on this board before. The commutation forces this crises to the forefront.
91: Far be it from me to defend the NY Times, but I would guess the author of that piece didn't even realize the fifth amendment implications of the commutation.
103: By rubbing our noses in the fact that the administration considers itself above the law.
How is this "above the law"? There's a legal mechanism in place, and Bush invoked it. I'm not being Socratically ignorant here; I'm genuinely puzzled by what's being claimed.
85: So the fuck what? There are communities with problems. This is news? Give up the South and give up LBJ, which--like it or not--probably means no HRC and Obama as front-runners. Cripes, Insty's dad did more for the remarkable change in the US than I ever will.
87: We are in the pre-civil war position of the 1850s. We give in, or what? What y'all wanna do?
No, we're really not. The country increasingly sees the Republicans (and probably even more so the Southern Republicans) as the Banana Republicans. Dem candidates aren't getting massive amounts of cash because the everyone turned decent over night; they're getting it, at least in part, because significant parts of the country are getting worried that the Republicans, as currently constituted, are going to wreck this great country which, among other virtues, is a money making machine. Right now, Republicans worry about their party turning into a rump party for a generation, maybe longer. And now is the time you decide is 1850?
92: Or is this just a blowing-off-steam thread?
That's my guess, and there's an awful lot of pent up steam out there.
107: I'm not so much worried about it being 1850 as I am about going from 1850 to 1878 with nothing but some more sham elections in between. Just to clarify, the comment 82 minneapolitan can only really come out when spurred on by the comment 101 mcmanus. Most of the time, I'm more in line with the various pessimistic Emersonian personae.
How is this "above the law"? There's a legal mechanism in place, and Bush invoked it. I'm not being Socratically ignorant here; I'm genuinely puzzled by what's being claimed.
It's true. Bush has constitutional power to pardon anybody he wants, for a good reason, a bad reason, or no reason. My point isn't that it was right for Bush to do it, just that, yes, he can do it.
I've seen claims that the commutation of Libby's sentence is an "obstruction of justice." I don't quite understand this claim because, as I recall, Fitzgerald has said his investigation is over. But that's just my recollection.
Gosh, the outrage seems pretty straightforward to me. The problem isn't that the current move is illegal or in any way extrajudicial. The problem is now no one, no one at all, is going take a real fall for outing Plame.
Think about it. The administration was falsifying evidence to promote a war. Joe Wilson called them on this, so as payback they commit was is essentially a crime. They reveal the identity of a CIA agent. But through some dubious declassification procedures and legal stonewalling, they manage to get away with it. Isn't that outrageous?
Sure, we can say that the underlying crime is the Iraq war itself. This whole criminal enterprise was built around the war. But you don't always bring down the mob for drugs, prostitution, or extortion. Sometimes you arrest them for ordering a hit on someone.
Why didn't he just pardon the guy?
Because then Scooter couldn't plead the Fifth, and Bush couldn't use his "won't comment on ongoing process" dodge.
Ourageous, yes, Rob, but all of this is outrage we've known about for a very long time. It's bad leadership and bad politics. It pains me to say this, but there's a very weak sense in which I agree with McManus: it's not about Scooter Libby in particular. Scooter serving time in jail would be barely a drop in the ocean of what's required to see justice done in some cosmic sense. But people who are going to be heartbroken at the failure of this sort of justice are in for a long couple of years, and even trying for this ideal is (I think) unwise. Katherine has a good post along related lines.
The possibility that a President breaking the law would pardon or a commute the sentence of one of his accomplices was recognized by the founders as a vulnerable point, or a potential source of crisis. Impeachment is the only remedy, but the will to impeach probably isn't there.
"No underlying crime": we don't know that, because the investigation couldn't be completed. Perjury (repeated perjury in this case) is a crime in itself regardless of any underlying crime, but it's reasonable to presume that someone willing to risk jail for lying and perjury probably is covering up something significant.
I've been in favor of impeachment for some time, but this does seem like more fuel on the fire.
I've been in favor of impeachment for some time, but this does seem like more fuel on the fire.
I'm in favor of turning the Republican party into a rump regional party. I think impeachment attempts will hurt that effort. Fuck justice, I want power.
Katherine thinks that the truth about this administration will not come out until 2009. I fear the opposite, actually. If the democrats control the White House and the legislature, they may decide not to investigate, for the sake of social stability and to appear like magnanimous victors. The rest of the country will go along, because, you know, who is interested in history?
I think Hilary is especially likely to go easy on the previous administration.
Everyone, and I mean everyone, is overdoing '60s parallels. This historical moment is shockingly similar to 1965-73, but there are important differences.
One thing is: The lesson that CharleyCarp wants us to learn, has been learned. Dirty fucking hippies, even at protests, just don't exist any more except as bogey- men and women. Paul Krugman could have been a Republican in 1965. Michael Moore could have been a New York Times columnist.
Here's another thing: The media are much more intrinsically corrupt. (Can you conceive of a network anchor pulling a Walter Cronkite today and pronouncing the war over?)
And/but: There are important alternatives to the media.
All I'm saying is: If Democrats get as radical as, say, the Republicans, it's not obvious how that will play out. But if the Democrats don't get radical, they will nonetheless be successfully tarred as radicals by the Republicans and their captive media, and by Democratic stooges.
Rob, if you get to appeal to the probabilities, I get to scoff at the dreams of revolution floated in this thread. I think SCMTim is right about the effects of impeachment, right now at least; if I didn't I might agree with Emerson.
Ok, I have a theory. I'm not sure how likely it is, or whether I am being too conspiratorial, but it is something I am believing more and more.
If we actually get access to the records from Dick Cheney's energy task force, the only thing we will find is planning for the Iraq war. I think Dick sat down with the leaders of the major oil companies and said "gentlemen, our energy strategy is to invade Iraq. Don says the war will be over in three months. Now, who wants which oil field."
I see no evidence that Bush will show any restraint between now and Jan. 20, 2009. He has a virtually free hand in foreign and military policy, and the Democrats don't seem to have the will to fight. He also has an enormous array of domestic repressive powers which have never been used.
When people say, "Neither impeachment nor insurrection seems very likely to do much immediate good" I don't necessarily disagree. It's the implied second clause ( "but things will work out in the long run" or "in 2009 everything will be fixed") that I doubt.
Back to Bob.
I'm not really dreaming of revolution. Americans love the constitution, and any government that wants legitimacy will have to accept it. In any case, a new one would be a pain to draw up.
I do think that massive street protests could goad the establishment into cleaning up its act. More importantly, they might be *necessary* to goad the establishment into cleaning up its act.
117 -- We lost in 2000 because people who should have known better took their eyes off the ball. We can lose in 2008 for the same reason. I'm not sure the lesson has been learned even now.
I'm overreacting in this thread, I guess, not so much because of Libby, but having thought several days about McManus' comments to Katherine's thread ObWi thread, and being more than a little depressed about the Supreme Court. Yeah it's not news that Roberts and Alito are who they are, but everyone should've really looked into the abyss by now, and it's not an overreaction to say that the days of the Supreme Court as a protector of individual liberties are over for a decade, and probably three.
John Brown? The Secret Six? Nameless conductors on the Underground Railroad? Readers of Uncle Tom's Cabin?
And don't forget that old classic, "Straight out of Lecompton."
Of all the straws that might break the camel's back, I thought this perfectly legal (though awful) act would not be the one.
Speaking for myself, I find Bush's action shocking because the only force theoretically holding Bush in check was some willingness to observe social/political norms.
Yes, commuting Scooter's sentence doesn't break the law, but no president in my memory has done such a thing. McDougal and Weinberger didn't get their pardons until their presidents were on their way out the door. And don't get me started on the opportunities Nixon had if he were truly a lawless president.
As few as eight years ago, this particular action was politically unthinkable. And for me, as recently as yesterday, this action was unthinkable, hence my personal shock.
If Bush wants to go to war with Iran, what stops him now? Certainly if he does, there will be plenty of people around pointing out that this would be perfectly legal and not all that shocking in the big scheme of things.
The Supreme Court is truly depressing right now.
I think what's so infuriating about this Libby thing is that if Digby's analysis is right, it's more game-playing and using the power of the office to avoid accountability. They tried like the devil not to admit anything's happened, they still haven't admitted anything happened, and Libby's going to keep keeping his mouth shut because Daddy's protecting him. I suppose Congress could grant him immunity in exchange for his testimony, but what are the odds they'd do it, or that he wouldn't lie like a motherfucker if they did?
121: Not to mention if there's no political will to support impeachment, chances are if you start a revolution you're probably not going to end up with the constitution you want.
It's the implied second clause ( "but things will work out in the long run" or "in 2009 everything will be fixed") that I doubt.
Exactly. A functioning democratic polity is not a natural and organic entity that can be left to more or less govern and regulate itself. Things aren't going to just fix themselves. Things can only be put to rights by actual willing agents.
Where is your eternal vigilance as the price of your liberty, my American buddies? Or else, what was the point of your Revolution? King George is a much greater tyrant than George III ever was.
I think impeachment attempts will hurt that effort.
Yeah. However just impeachment attempts might be--totally just, I believe--I'm not convinced that they would be A) successful or B) that they might not distract the Democrats from taking power. And right now I want power more than justice. But I also worry that an impeachment would permit us to close the book on the Bush era. I'd much rather that Bush live to become a symbol of everything rotten and incompetent in American politics, a pathetic joke even to the people who elected him. And if he and Dick and Don live out their lives in fear of being plucked off some European street to stand trial, so much the better.
Far be it from me to defend the NY Times, but I would guess the author of that piece didn't even realize the fifth amendment implications of the commutation.
Well yes, sure. But this is the New York Fucking Times. They are supposed to know what's going on. Ignorance is no defense if you are in the business of informing the public.
(However, my excuse for the NYT is that only a few hours have passed. Also, I'm not 100% convinced that the Fifth Amendment theory is correct. Maybe they aren't reporting it because it's not true.)
107:Ok, Tim, my comparison to the 1850s is that if the Republicans stay united, they do have a veto power, and according to any math I can do, that 40 seats cannot be reduced to 35. There will always be a Lieberman or Ben Nelson to keep the margin.
The Dixiecrats of 1875-1960+ were able and willing to play both sides of the aisle, and make small concessions (anti-lynching law?) in exchange for big pork. Now that Dixie is an isolated and identifiable political block, it may be in their interest just to block everything until the other side concedes. It will also increase the tribalism among the 30% of the country they represent. Medicare-D is the prototype, something that looks slightly progressive but is actually regressive.
For instance I expect the next justice to be moderate-right, more right than Ginzburg, maybe more right than O'Connor, even if nominated by a President Clinton or Edwards. Because otherwise we will have 8 justices for four years.
Nuclear option, exercised repeatedly? I, in principle, like the filibuster, and do not want the next Republican Senate to have such freedom. In any case, because of inherent solidarity, Republicans will be able to use the NO better than Democrats.
It's the implied second clause ( "but things will work out in the long run" or "in 2009 everything will be fixed") that I doubt.
I'm not so sure, either. In fact, I'm pretty sure things won't be fixed. I'm resigning myself to living in a country like, say, Mexico--ha, ha--where things are always already fucked up. But again, I don't know what "rushing to the barricades" would consist of.
122:The new SCOTUS is the nightmare of my life. I am worried about more than civil liberties, I don't think we are that far from Commerce Clause revisionism and the return of the Constitution From Exile.
133 -- I'm not sure how far they'll go on the Commerce Clause, though, because (a) it will screw up the Right's prospects for a nationwide abortion ban and (b) there are always going to be progressive states, and the CC is a great tool.
131: pop, check out the Civil Rights movement of the early 60s, especially Freedom Summer in Mississippi. Or the labor movements.
Or, to get crazy, Germany 1917-23.
Insurrections start local, not national. We dont hear about 20k marching on Baghdad, we hear about Ramadi & Samarra & Anbar. Castro took over Cuba a province at a time.
Heck, National Guard is outa town. Makes it easier.
Ok, bob, here's your invitation: the insurrection starts and turns into a revolution. Then what? What do you envision after that?
Following the link in 132, and then following the link there, and then linking to the post just before that second link leads to this.
136:ok, ogged. I remember exactly where I was when I read Paul Krugman calling Bushco revolutionaries rather than reformers. I was a car in a supermart parking lot at 6 o'clock, waiting out a dialysis.
His specific point was about not taxing to pay for the war, and the eventual guaranteed budget crunch. Krugman, in the column, had no idea how it would play out except in serious and painful social disruptions, probably violent.
I didn't start the revolution. I just recognize we are already in one. Nobody gets to predict how it plays out, and nobody really gets to control it. Republicans are willing to take the chance because they are better organized, with a more committed army. But they don't know either.
If you don't want to get all Robespierre or lenin, and don't want to kill Robespierre or Lenin, I suppose you run for the hills or border. You can't go back.
I told Katherine to leave America. I think she can make more of a positive difference eleswhere, and saving one head from the guillotine while hundreds fall ultimately gotta break a heart.
You're all saying your prayers for Stevens and Ginsburg, right? Things can still get worse.
What do ya think, did Washington or Adams or Jefferson know what the country would look like in twenty years? Or Jefferson Davis and Lee, or Lincoln & Grant?
That is the difference between revolution and reform.
Last night I was begging Scott Lemieux to tell me that after 2008 the Democratic Congress will let President Hillary add a tenth person to the SCOTUS.
President Hillary is the only thing I really fear at this point. Well, candidate HRC, who then loses to any reasonable Republican candidate. Then President HRC.
Do I have an ideal America after the deluge" Of course, the usual, all green and socialized mass transit renewable distributed energy and everybody marryin everybody every week and whaever.
But we are in a revolution now, and all I care is that those other sons of bitches dont win.
That's not very enlightening, bob. You want to have a revolution and maybe it'll turn out ok? Did the American revolution turn out ok? They had a massive civil war in under 100 years. They had a revolution in Iran and got the mullahs. And the colonists and the Iranians actually had a positive vision going in.
But we are in a revolution now, and all I care is that those other sons of bitches dont win.
They (probably) won't. And forms matter--we're not in the midst of a violent revolution, and that matters a lot, a lot, a lot. We've got creeping rot, instead.
Bush is wildly unpopular at a time of generally pretty good economic conditions. Has that ever happened before? Unless the Dems fuck it up, '08 could be the start of Dem-friendly power for decades.
139: never mind prayers. While I'm sure Stevens & Ginsburg have great healthcare, I say we minimize risk & take up collection to hire the world's best surgeons, etc. (all specialties welcome) to be available 24/7 for those two. Volunteers MDs welcome as well (though we WILL screen to check your politics)
President Hillary is the only thing I really fear at this point.
I assume that this is hyperbole for the sake of effect.
146: I'm not as optimistic. How do we get the toothpaste of executive power to go back in the tube?
Krugman's column should have been a shot heard around the world. He did not use the word lightly.
I didn't start it.
All the liberals think this is all manageable, that we can go back to 1995 or something. Whatever and however, it will be unrecognizable.
It will probably hit in economic collapse, like the early thirties. The Republicans will stand as a block, and the welfare state will fall if we follow the rules.
Or we hit Iran, become a pariah state with sanctions, and well, I don't know.
Or Bush suspends elections.
But you can't choose peace and you can't choose reform. We are in revolution, and Kerenskys are irrelevant.
Unless the Dems fuck it up, '08 could be the start of Dem-friendly power for decades.
Obviously I want this, but in the longer term, I'm not convinced it matters. There will be other attacks here, and a Republican administration will overreact because it wants to and a Democratic administration will overreact because it has to. We'll become more and more repressive, and eventually, either because of some incident or because a charismatic leader comes forward, the poor and the immigrants will realize that they're the ones suffering most in the police state, and things will become violent and we'll have bad bad shit for many years. Uh, that's how I see things shaking out, anyway. But I'll still vote Dem every time!
148: Nope. I've stopped (or tried to stop) Dixie-bashing, because it's overbroad, inaccurate, not at the moment necessary, etc. But I'm not looking forward to being sold out to the Dixiecrats by HRC.
116: I don't think the truth will definitely come out in 2009. I think it won't do so beforehand, because of the classifcation power & the ability to run out the clock. My quixotic little political project for the year is to try to convince any major Democratic presidential candidate who will listen to me that we need to know the full extent of the lawbreaking before we turn the page. The only way I see this happening is angry primary voters ask for it & they are pressured into promising it.
I can't totally tell to what extent this is an important and necessary thing for the country & to what extent it's just my personal desire to find out exactly what they did.
Or as Charleycarp said, we are in a conservative wave, a Gilded Age, reasonable peaceful that lasts 10-50 years. Even if that we bearable
We don't have 10-50 years.
Peak Oil hits like a brick in 7, and global warming in 10-20. We just can't have reactionaries in charge.
FL, I got to 116 before I got bored, so it's possible that someone answered you between then and now, and I also didn't call for a general strike, so I can't answer why that's an appropriate reponse. But I can answer why I favor impeachment now and didn't before today. I think the precedent of commutations (or pardons, it's irrelevant to this case) of members of your own administration for crimes in service of your administration which you don't deny (in fact, by not pardoning, basically acknowledge) they committed is far too dangerous to go without a very strong response. And impeachment is the proper remedy, indeed the only procedural remedy prior to the next election, for when a pardon is issued for illegitimate reasons.
The main reason I've previously opposed impeachment is that I think the precedent of impeachment of consecutive presidents is also very unhealthy, insofar as there's no chance of an actual switch to a parliamentary system. But I think that cost is worth paying at this point. Secondary problems like taking up a lot of the legislature's time are also no longer sufficient.
When the next Democratic President assumes office and declines to cede his inherited pseudo-dictatorial power, I will bring up this thread, and laugh and laugh and cry.
155 -- But isn't impeachment without conviction worse than no impeachment at all? And isn't the chance of conviction zero? And that's zero Kelvin. not zero Celcius.
157: I can't say I'm certain on the answer to that, but here's some benefits of impeachment, even without conviction:
1) Bush's ability to concentrate on other matters is lessened (this would be bad if I thought said ability was keeping us safe from terrorist attacks, or some such. Since that's nonsense, it's a plus).
2) McCain and Brownback have to vote against conviction. Neither of them are that dangerous right now though, so not much of a plus.
3) Send a signal to the rest of the world about the degree to which the country is upset with the President, which will hopefully make it easier to rebuild soft power in 2009. I could be empirically wrong on this one.
4) Given that my understanding is that a large percentage of the drop in Congressional approval has been from the left, raise Congressional approval ratings.
There's probably more, I'll keep thinking about it.
124 - Speaking for myself, I find Bush's action shocking because the only force theoretically holding Bush in check was some willingness to observe social/political norms.
1) Well said. I agree that this is a signal far beyond legal considerations - this approaches the Saturday Night Massacre for me - which I believe was also "legal".
2) The other aspect is pure deflation. After the long "unlikely" road to get even to the sentencing of Libby. Actually getting Comey appointing Fitzgerald as prosecutor (what odds of anything close to that today .. they learned that lesson). The whole brouhaha with reporters and jail. Then a judge like Walton not caving into the Beltway Kool Kidz ... and then this ...a perfect example of what Pirsig called a "Gumption Trap".
"the only force theoretically holding Bush in check was some willingness to observe social/political norms."
That still exists. For some stupid reason this commutation was not considered to be outside of "social/political norms" by a ridiculous portion of Washington D.C., as Scooter is such a nice boy. Also, it turns out you can do a lot of terrible things to foreigners and a few carefully selected terrorist suspect citizens without falling outside of social and political norms, and unconscionably neglect poor blacks in New Orleans. But the fear of public condemnation does exert SOME influence. Just not much.
Ok, Katherine: I agree with you on pretty much everything, but this I do not buy. If "social/political" norms exist, and Bush et al's actions have not violated them so far, what would? The "commutation, not pardon" offers a fig leaf, but surely all involved know its just that. There are plenty of examples of the administration going beyond all political precedent: what makes you think that some further action would be beyond the pale? What would such an action look like?
It may be my utter abjection, but much as bob and I have disagreed in the past, I think he's right. We should take drastic measures now, because we should've taken them a few years back. For fuck's sake, at this point all I can do is Photoshop my wish-fulfillment; which, let me tell you, ain't all that empowering.
FM: we don't know where the floor really is for the DC/WaPo Establishmentarians. Plenty of people were plenty alarmed by the Cheney series. Gonzales and the firings lost plenty of ground as well. Just because they haven't found the bottom yet, though, doesn't mean there isn't one, or that there aren't plenty of people actually concerned about this.
We'll find the floor sooner or later, I suppose. My money is on later.
5) This is another empirical claim which I could be wrong on, and it's implied by some of my above items, but I would suggest positive effects for 2008 Senate and House races.
Tonight's angered wish fulfillment, Joad-style ... which I can't post here. You know, I'd look like less of a self-important-linking ass if I could post a picture or two here, but in the meantime, I'm agreeing with mcmanus and feeling Photoshop empowered ... which tells you something.
I bypassed the Emetically Earnest Exit about three hours ago, so please, ban me already, for my own good.
I need to sleep.
10 years from now, all legal discourse will be conducted in lolcatz.
Libby: JLTRM: 10 years from now, all legal discourse will be conducted in lolcatz.
Libby: JLTRM:
etc...
Something's gone screwy with the server: the 2nd line should have read:
"Libby: JLTRM -- DOES NOT WANT"
and there should have been no third or fourth.
We'll find the floor sooner or later, I suppose.
AFAIK, neither Bush nor Cheney actually bites the heads off live kittens in front of audiences of elementary school children.
Earlier today, President Bush gave Florida schoolchildren a much needed lesson in mortality. "Nothing can live forever," 2nd grade teacher Christie Meyetub explains, "They will have to face death someday, and if they can see how brave our leader is, maybe they won't be so upset when their own kittens pass on." Democrat leaders have called this practice "cruel" and "heartless", but local officials applaud Bush's "Pet Mortality Outreach": "If we can't deal with these kind of minor casualties, what are we supposed to do in the case of a terrorist attack? If I need to decapitate kittens to ensure the security of this community, you can bet your bottom dollar I will."
Oh hey and look, here's another move towards the other lawless and stupid thing Bush can do.
The Kung Fu monkey post on this (linked already I think) is excellent.
http://kfmonkey.blogspot.com/2007/07/l33t-justice.html
It's something that's been said before (here, by me, I think) -- the role that shame plays in our public culture and the way that utterly shameless men can bypass it. It's exactly the same in the UK -- the Blairites have done exactly the same thing.
Ah yes, said by me a year ago:
http://www.unfogged.com/archives/comments_5240.html#381703
http://www.unfogged.com/archives/comments_5240.html#381716
165 -- I really don't see that at all. If a House or Senate Republican can survive the Iraq war -- and a lot of Senate Republicans are going to be defending seats in 2008 -- then I can't imagine that a failed impeachment is going to unseat them. Bush and Cheney are going to be gone soon enough, and I don't think that the commencement of impeachment proceedings lessens the chances of war with Iran, for example.
I'd rather the Democrats in Congress spent their time -- and the legislative calendar is always short on time -- on things they can either actually do, or which are worth doing and give a direct electoral benefit wrt people whose votes we don't have but can get.
From a political perspective, I guess I'm OK with the Libby thing. It adds to the sense from the immigration thing that Bush is totally Washington Establishment, and adds to his keeping Gonzales that he prizes loyalty over the national interest. And it reinforces the sense from the Cheney articles that the guy is weak and manipulated. That is, there's a silver lining in having the opponent do ham-handed things that don't really harm anyone. (I don't expect Libby to go on a CIA outing, grand-jury lying spree: his crimes are in the past).
Charley, that reasonable no-risk short-term strategy has been what the Democrats have been following for about 20 years, and it hasn't worked.
When Gingrich took over the House, part of his strategy was to stage a series of losing votes calculated to give Republicans ammunition against the victorious Democrats, and to make the Republicans look like they stood for something. Refusing to take any chances makes it seem as though you don't stand for anything, and it may an accurate pereption of the Democrats.
One of the reasons impeachment is a long shot now is that the media and the ruling Democrats have kept it off the table, for reasons like yours, for several years, to the point that it's scarcely been talked about. The buildup to impeachment has to begin now, starting from zero. The Democrats have had an ironclad commitment to a cautious strategy all along, which means that they can be intimidated.
I don't share Bob's concern for peak oil and I think that Ruppert is nuts. My concern is that war with Iran, and possibly a declared state of emergency, might change the landscape so completely that the Republicans will be able to save themselves.
Times strongly against Bush, Post definitely but less vigorously so, WSJ thinks a full pardon would have been better (and denounces Bush).
And from a practical point of view, it makes the other criminals in the administration feel safe in defying the law. Bush didn't let Scooter go to jail, and he won't let Scooters 2-10 go to jail either -- responding to a subpoena with a 'Fuck you' is a no risk decision.
177: Well, Times against Bush. David Brooks in the Times strongly for Bush, in one of the filthiest op-eds I've seen in a long time.
Brooks is really slimy. He's a reliable Republican operative (not a principled conservative) whose whole job is to give a veneer of reasonableness and sophistication to the talking point of the moment, with the goal of recruiting a sliver of the non-crazy vote for some lunatic policy. He's allowed to wander off the reservation from time to time in order to develop and maintain his reasonableness cred, but he always shows up when they call him.
David Brooks is an obscenity. The unwillingness of the major media Dems to go after him sickens me. "National Greatness" is just creepy beyond belief in a Strength through Joy way. The shit he gets away with because of his fucking Elmer Fudd verbal stumbling is just unreal.
I can usually listen to the NPR afternoon stuff from 3 to 7 PM nonstop, no matter who's talking, unless it's A) George W. Bush, or B) David Brooks and E.J. Dionne doing their stupid point-counterpoint. This is not a game, you two guys! Say something serious!
But then, I guess it is a game to the people with the power.
Dionne is one of the people Somerby goes after a lot. He often says the right thing, but he's weak and seldom picks a fight. Willingness to work with Brooks is a tipoff.
Unfogged finally installs a steamroom and I leave my hidden cameratowel at home.
176:"I don't share Bob's concern for peak oil and I think that Ruppert is nuts."
Well, Ruppert could be nuts, yet not entirely wrong.
I skipped much of the conspiracy stuff in the book, in part because I don't know if I even care if Cheney engineered 9/11. Not important. If you don't like the Oildrum, they provide links to calmer sites. And every day they have a huge linklist.
Here is one about French Anarchists decroissance, localised production & consumption, distributed energy, etc. "Anarchist" is a little broad, includes too many right & individualist ideologies, so I use "anarcho-syndicalist" to emphasize the local self-governing independent stuff, even tho I know the unions are no longer players. I could be green of something, I don't care.
I was not radical til 9/11, 9/11 changed everything. Smoked some dope, read some Marx, but was more a left-libertarian, if that, until 2002. Mstr Sgt Ken White & Moe Lane at Tacitus liked me in the early years of my commenting. I have been radicalized, mostly by the economics. And Stirling Newberry and Ian Welsh.
Nations are devolving into city-states. Welfare-state liberal capitalism is dying, because the "nations" required to support it are no longer viable. We need to find replacements for SS & Medicare & mass market high-scale economics. The Republicans dealt them a death-blow in 2002.
176 -- Gingrich heightened the contradictions for Southerners who still voted Democratic. They got enough frustrated Southern white males to switch over, while the other side was demoralized over the failure of the health care thing. (A failure aided and abetted in substantial part by smug Eastern elites).
Maybe there are enough people outside the South who are demoralized enough with Republicanism that the same thing can happen in the Midwest (OH, maybe MO) and Rockies (CO, NM, MT). (I'd like to think so -- and saw in the Missoulian today that Bush is at 35% in Montana). The thing is, I don't think the marginal gain from impeachment is all that great, and I think the marginal loss from voters fed up with the mess in Washington could tip the scales. Especially if Romney is running against a sitting senator.
Where it's going to matter we're already winning.
As for the past strategy, you say it hasn't worked, but that's only because your comparing what happened to what you wish had happened. When you compare what happened to what could have happened, on the downside, the risks are pretty substantial.
I can't help but feel that the "well, they deserve impeachment but it's not politically wise" argument, while possibly correct, is precisely the kind of thing that makes people think the Democrats are a bunch of tools.