Hitler pardoned his dog (so I hear)
Set, Thanks for your mention of "Godwin's Law." I learned something new today. :wink:
Thanks Tomás . . . i don't suppose you have an opinion, informed or uninformed, on the possible political consequences of the commutation of Libby's sentence?
One of the problems is that it isn't always clear to tell what is actually being affected; this is just one more piece of evidence on top of many others, any of which could be responsible for things such as -
Quote:A press release sent out by the office of Senator Pete Domenici (R-NM) says that he will hold a news conference in Albuquerque at 1 p.m. ET, where he "will announce a change in policy on the war in Iraq." Domenici has consistently voted the Bush Administration position in the Senate. Will this press conference mark the loss of Domenici, on top of other previously loyal Republicans like Richard Lugar (R-IN) and George Voinovich (R-OH), who announced their support last month for movement towards a withdrawal?
TPMCafe
How many more Senators can Bush lose on Iraq?
Cycloptichorn
Any possible political consequence of Bush's commutation of Libby's sentence will be too minor to notice now or in the future. Most people just do not care or understand why this issue is important.
The answer to your question, Setanta is that there will be no consequences. We've seen time and again that the American memory is extremely short. This will remain news worthy for approximately the next 24 hours, with perhaps a mention here and there on the weekend news shows, and then be replaced with news of Angelina, "Queda in Iraq" (gotta love that re-naming trick at least as much as the one Beth mentioned) and oh, I dunno, maybe a giant anaconda will be found in the Mississippi River.
But, there will be no consequences for Bush, Cheney or Republicans come the next election. Keep in mind that most people don't even understand what happened, why or who was involved.
Setanta wrote:Thanks Tomás . . . i don't suppose you have an opinion, informed or uninformed, on the possible political consequences of the commutation of Libby's sentence?
Yes I do, and
I already stated it: The main political consequence is to maximize the probability of Libby keeping his mouth shut. I don't know the details of this consequence, because I don't know the details of what Libby might otherwise be singing about. As Brandon helpfully pointed out, though, he considers this opinion of mine rather ill-informed.
Well, that's sort of an answer. I would also point out that an outright pardon removes the possibility of him being placed twice in jeopardy for the same crime, and he could not therefore invoke his Fifth Amendment privilege of immunity from self-incrimination if called to testify before the Congress.
However, one of the reasons i am hammering this matter of the topic of the thread is because i am interested in knowing what people think will be the likely political consequences of this. The Shrub is a lame duck, and he can surely wait until January 19th, 2009, to pardon Libby. But my question is what are the likely political consequences of this decision, and since the Shrub is a lame duck, that inferentially means, how will this hurt the Republicans, if at all; and how will this help the Democrats, if at all.
So far, the money seems to be on this being an ultimately insignificant event.
Setanta wrote:Well, that's sort of an answer. I would also point out that an outright pardon removes the possibility of him being placed twice in jeopardy for the same crime, and he could not therefore invoke his Fifth Amendment privilege of immunity from self-incrimination if called to testify before the Congress.
However, one of the reasons i am hammering this matter of the topic of the thread is because i am interested in knowing what people think will be the likely political consequences of this. The Shrub is a lame duck, and he can surely wait until January 19th, 2009, to pardon Libby. But my question is what are the likely political consequences of this decision, and since the Shrub is a lame duck, that inferentially means, how will this hurt the Republicans, if at all; and how will this help the Democrats, if at all.
So far, the money seems to be on this being an ultimately insignificant event.
Not my money!
I'm sure that the same thing was said about plenty of Nixon's decisions; individually, they aren't enough to doom someone or some party, but things add up.
Cycloptichorn
Setanta wrote:So far, the money seems to be on this being an ultimately insignificant event.
That's where I'd put my money. I do hope, without much confidence, that people took notice of the feckless defenses of Libby that some Republican presidential candidates have put up in their debate. But as for Bush, I guess people will just get more fed up with him, and won't re-elect him if he runs. In other words, no significant consequences.
but, are there not consequences for those who ARE running - ie., the more fed up people get with Bush, the more fed up these same people get with those who cleave to his side on tough issues?
This could have an effect on bills this year, let alone next year... there is more then just elections to think of in this case.
Cycloptichorn
Whatever effect it might have on "bills" has already happened; Bush lost his immigration bill - one of his biggies during his lame duck years.
Cycloptichorn wrote:but, are there not consequences for those who ARE running - ie., the more fed up people get with Bush, the more fed up these same people get with those who cleave to his side on tough issues?
I hope so, but I'm not very confident. In a better world, American TV stations would replay again and again the Republican candidates' pleas for pardoning Libby -- just as they did with the Dean Scream in 2004. And voters would turn away from the Republican candidates in droves after seeing those pleas.
But seeing the tameness of American TV and the apathy of American voters, I'm not holding my breath.
I don't know if the Nixon experience is a reasonable guide. Republicans tended to keep their heads down during the Watergate investigation, the more so as the Democrats already controlled both houses of Congress. However, i have gone to the Office of the Clerk of the House of Representatives, which shows the 93rd Congress as having 192 Republicans in the House, and the 94th having 144 Republicans, a loss of 48 seats. However, in the 95th Congress, they had 143 Republican seats (that was at the time of the 1976 election), which was a loss of only a single seat. The Senate Historical Office shows 42 Republicans in the 93rd Congress, and 38 in the 94th Congress, which is a loss of only 4 seats, much less of a loss than the House Republicans suffered in the 1974 election. In the 95th Congress, the Republicans again held 38 seats--so for any seats they lost, they picked up an equal number elsewhere.
The Democrats dominated the Congress in the Nixon era, just as they had under Johnson. It was a long, slow process by which they eventually lost the Congress to the Republicans, and that was not until 1994. It can reasonably be said that Nixon cost them heavily in the House in 1974, and slightly in the Senate. However, there was not significant change in 1976, and Gerald Ford lost to Jimmie Carter (a true dark horse) because of the economy, and not because of any association with Nixon. Jerry Ford was actually rather well liked, even if people no longer wanted him in the White House.
But this situation is different. Nixon had not yet completed two years of his second term when he resigned in August, 1974. The Shrub, however, has completed well over two years of his second term, and the Republicans lost heavily in the last mid-term due to their own image as corrupt, as well as the perception that the war was being badly managed.
I don't think the two situations are analogous. However, the difference is actually more crucial to the Republicans, because if they continue to be seen as corrupt, and the Shrub contributes to that perception with actions such as this, they could not only lose the White House, they may well lose more ground in the Congress. Historically, since the Teddy Roosevelt era, the Republican Party has had the short end of the stick in Congress much more often than the Democrats.
We live in interesting times, which is alleged by many people to be a curse.
Thomas wrote:Cycloptichorn wrote:but, are there not consequences for those who ARE running - ie., the more fed up people get with Bush, the more fed up these same people get with those who cleave to his side on tough issues?
I hope so, but I'm not very confident. In a better world, American TV stations would replay again and again the Republican candidates' pleas for pardoning Libby -- just as they did with the Dean Scream in 2004. And voters would turn away from the Republican candidates in droves after seeing those pleas.
But seeing the tameness of American TV and the apathy of American voters, I'm not holding my breath.
This is why I was happy to see the news anchors get angry about this issue. It raises the specter of the issue being highlighted as a fundamental one in the next election.
Not that the Republicans stand a chance anyways.
Mitt Romney is Mormon, the evangelicals hate him.
McCain is about to drop out from lack of money.
Giuliani is a nut who has nothing but 9/11 fake cred. and is pro-abortion.
Thompson was Nixon's mole during Watergate - he's toast.
Who the hell are they going to win with?
Cycloptichorn
I know Thomas often likes to have these links, so here are the pages where one can find the partisan make up of the Houses of Congress.
The Senate Historical Office "Party Division in the Senate, 1789--Present" page.
Office of the Clerk of the House of Representatives, "House History" page; note that there is a "Congress Overview" section to the left. You select the Congress (the years in which the Congress sat are listed), and click on that to get the partisan composition.
Very cool. Bookmarked. Thanks!
I line I hear most often taken by the talking heads of media-mania is that "conservatives" pressured GW into the Libby commutation. I tend to disagree strongly with this contention as it appears to me "consevatives" aka Goldwater would never support GW's commutation. Reactionary neo-cons and BushHeads probably did pressure GW.
Senator Goldwater. Now there's another thing that was different in the Nixon era.
