If Only I Had Something to Blog About
Posted by Shannon on July 2, 2007
It’s a Monday night, but I seem to have a lot on my mind that I want to comment on. There is just not one dominant news article that bodes itself to a full blog posting, or a sports article that really grabs my attention.
Oh, I could blog about the All-Star baseball line-up and how Barry Bonds was elected by the fans to start in the game. If I did mention that, I would probably say something along the lines of how Bonds probably deserves the honor since the game is going to be in San Francisco and, like it or not, Bonds is the face of that franchise. Then I would probably add something that with interleague play not established in baseball, that the importance of the All-Star game is no longer as important as it was 10 or 15 years ago.
Then I would get done talking about baseball and would turn my attention to President Bush and how he used his pardon power to commute the sentence of White House aide I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby. I would mention how Bush was right that Libby was convicted for obstruction of justice and perjury and not revealing the name of a CIA informant. I would then add that commuting Libby’s sentence and giving him probation and a fine is not being consistent.
Republicans, during the Clinton Administration, sought President Clinton’s removal from office for lying to a Grand Jury regarding his affairs. Clinton was never indicted by a criminal court, but was impeached by the House of Representatives. The Senate, though, voted against removing him from office.
I would then add that Bush is probably giving a break to a “trusted” White House official, and yet is giving more reasons why to countdown, even as a conservative, the days until the administration is timed out.
Then I would conclude with yet another posting regarding the ongoing investigation into what led to the Chris Benoit double murder suicide in which he killed his wife, Nancy, and son, Daniel, before eventually killing himself. The latest being that Benoit’s personal physician, Dr. Phil Astin, had supplied steroids to the former heavyweight champion every three to four weeks between May 2006 and May 2007.
This finding gives more credibility to the roid rage argument that was dominating the news last week as a reason why Benoit did the unthinkable. Yet, it doesn’t answer the question of did World Wrestling Entertainment know Benoit was taking steroids and did they do anything to stop it?
And from there, I would probably close by wishing well to our friends from the north, celebrating their birthday today. July 1 is traditionally Canada Day, the day in 1867 that Canada became a self-governing nation, but since July 1 was on a Sunday this year, the official holiday, or day off from work, moves to July 2, though the party still takes place on July 1.
That is, of course, if I had something to blog about.
July 2, 2007 at 11:26 pm
I agree with your sentiments about the administration. I’m affraid that George W. Bush has damaged the conservative cause, and the GOP for years to come. I will look forward to change come 2009, whether it be a D or an R. But what I’m affraid of is that we’ll replace a shame of a conservative with a socialist.
July 3, 2007 at 5:51 am
There is an old mantra in sports where when you fire the coach you go for the opposite. If the coach is a player’s coach, you hire a disciplinarian. So what’s the opposite of a president who talked like he was conservative but governed with a love affair for big government?
July 3, 2007 at 7:31 am
This Scooter Libby deal is a big issue. It just says a lot about the crony-ism of this administration. Partisanship aside, this is embarassing to the American political system in general and may well be the issue that pushes Bush below Nixon as far as legacy goes…or am I reading too much into it?
July 3, 2007 at 8:42 am
Todd,
It depends on the historical view you take of Nixon.
If you look at his domestic agenda, then perhaps you have a case for the argument. (As an aside, if there is a modern president in which we can properly compare President Bush with it is President Nixon because of their big government approach and foreign affairs decisions, though President Nixon was a far better foreign affairs leader than President Bush.) Nixon grew the scope of government and instrumented an era of mistrust in the government with his dealings with wire tapping and putting the fear of God into reporters doing their job. Even Britt Hume, now with Fox News, had a FBI file.
Nixon’s legacy is tarnished by Watergate, as it should be. Nixon allowed pride and mistrust for others to get in the way of how he ran for president and how he ultimately served as president. He was the first president of corruption.
But, Nixon’s Watergate blunders, and they were many, covered up his foreign affairs ability. This was notable by creating an economic relationship with China.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/presidents/37_nixon/nixon_foreign.html
Nixon is ranked 33rd among 39 presidents in this 2000 poll by the Wall Street Journal.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/hail/rankings.html
George Washington was listed as the best. James Buchanan the worst. William Henry Harrison and James Garfield were not surveyed do to their short tenures.
I say all of that to say this, Bush is in trouble of being considered in the bottom half of presidential rankings. However, his action shows how the pardon system can be corrupted to give aid and relief to presidential advisers or friends. President Clinton, on his final day in office, pardoned Marc Rich, Roger Clinton, Whitewater figure Susan McDougal and former HUD Secretary Henry Cisneros.
President Bush pardoned Casper Wineberger and President Ford famously pardoned Nixon.
July 3, 2007 at 10:44 am
Nixon’s administration destroyed the pedestal that the presidency sat upon (which may not have necessarily been a bad thing). Nixon has the lowest presidential rankings and that is the context of my statement about Bush surpassing Nixon. The major difference here is that Bush is, arugably, using his pardon to cover his administration’s tail and by doing so is paving the way for other misdeeds to be covered up. Libby isn’t even the real bad guy in this whole thing, but he covered up for the bad guy and will likely get no real retribution. Some GOP group will pay his fine and another will likely employ him, so he will come out just fine.
Presidential pardons have always been a bit of an issue, but the main difference between the ones you mentioned is that they occured as the president was leaving office and they did not cover that president’s policies and administration’s goofs. This Scooter pardon is laying groundwork for continued coverup.
July 3, 2007 at 11:16 am
Yes, good point on the timing. I’m not arguing, Todd, on the inappropriateness of the pardon. I think Libby should have been punished. Perhaps he wasn’t the real bad guy in this whole thing, I think comparably his sins were less than others committed in this administration. I think, for some reason, you believe that I support the move, which I do not.
The kool-aid drinkers will be out comparing Libby to Sandy Berger with destroying classified documents to cover-up for President Clinton. Fine. But let’s be honest here. Clinton never pardoned Berger while in office to continue the cover-up, which is what Bush is doing.
There is large mistrust in this administration. If it smells dirty, acts dirty, and governs to the point where it makes you scratch your head, then it’s probably dirty.
July 3, 2007 at 11:40 am
Oh yeah, I don’t mean to point fingers and I don’t mean to come down hard on you, but this issue has me steamed. Sorry if I let it bleed through my post, that definitely wasn’t personal. This can be a very bad precedent that can be abused by all parties in the future, which is what I’m worried about. Bush’s administration is already spent as far as legacy goes.
What I don’t understand is why Bush did it. I know he was in a tough spot, either let Libby serve time and tick off his base or commute the sentence and tick off the Dems…but what’s the point of appealing to the conservative base now? Bush isn’t up for re-election and neither is Cheney! I just don’t get why he put his neck out like that…unless there is a big instance of “good ‘ol boy crony-ism” going on. OR possibly Bush is trying ot guard his legacy by encouraging cover-ups? I just don’t understand.
July 3, 2007 at 11:47 am
I don’t either.
The National Review, a conservative publication, called the action “appropriate.” The editorial reads “Libby had a credible defense. The perjury charge was based on discrepancies between Libby’s grand jury testimony and that of a few journalists who contradicted him. Libby argued that the discrepancies could be explained by differences in memory. Although the jury disagreed, a reasonable person listening to the faulty memories of the witnesses who testified could have concluded that Libby simply had things mixed up.”
Granted, as the National Review points out, this was a political job regarding the CIA name release, but everything is Washington is political.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YzQ4ZDQwYzA2Yjk5YmEwZGVhMzVhZGYxMDQ1MWU5MjI=
I’m a conservative and something smells on this.
July 3, 2007 at 12:03 pm
Whew…this has me worked up…this is definitely not personal:
What good does it serve the president to meddle in judicial affairs? The National Review’s argument is heavily based on the court case and the jury’s findings. That kind of stuff is handled in the appellate court, not at the presidential level. Following their logic, The National Review should be doing an expose on the American jurist system, not Libby’s commutation. Clinton’s impeachment was a political issue, but they’re not complaining about that.
It’s good to have this open conversation!
July 3, 2007 at 12:14 pm
I like to bring up, at this point, the Keith Larson paraphrase that I’ve mentioned on this blog from time to time.
It doesn’t matter to some people the issue. All that they care about is the name on the front of the [political] jersey.
If Clinton had pardoned a Libby type, kool-aid conservatives would be ticked and mad.
It’s not the issue that matters. It’s wearing the right uniform to the game.
Sad that as we come to celebrate our nation’s 231st birthday tomorrow that this is what our republic’s government has come to - politicians more concerned about party politics and protecting their own back than doing what is right for the country.
George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and the other Founding Fathers would be disappointed in us today.
July 3, 2007 at 12:42 pm
Sadly, you are correct. There is no integrity on any side. The uniform is the shield for the uninformed and the mind-control device all rolled up into one…
July 3, 2007 at 2:45 pm
Integrity is an aspect of politics that has long faded from the ability and skill sets of most politicians.