Yesterday, Bush commuted Scooter Libby's sentence. Big surprise. Also not a big surprise: The framing by the media of it as an issue of left-vs.-right.(As I type this with CNN on in the background, I just heard "Outrage on the left!" over my shoulder. This I swear unto you.) True, Democrats are outraged — and that's a direct quote from Chuck Schumer, who began his letter urging his email list to sign the DSSC petition against it> ("Dear Friend," wrote Schumer, "I'm outraged"). But wait, why was Schumer outraged again? "President Bush ignored Libby's felony conviction for lying to investigators, ignored the jury's guilty verdict, and ignored the rule of law that governs our nation."*
But seriously: Is this a left-right issue? Not according to a new poll, which finds that a whopping 21% of Americans agree with President Bush's decision. Meanwhile, newspapers are inveighing against the commutation on editorial pages (well, except for the Wall Street Journal, but really, expressing the desire for a full pardon is actually relatively mild for them).
In her post, Arianna (who — full disclosure — tweaked my brain in this direction with this post last week) notes that all the Republican candidates hemmed and hawed over the issue of a Libby pardon back during the debates, rather than saying outright that he deserved a pardon or the like. That, of course, wouldn't have included Fred Thompson, who was the first to register his support of the decision: "This will allow a good American, who has done a lot for his country, to resume his life." (I guess all those years of experience with the criminal justice system.)
It's too easy to just divide this issue into left and right — like Plamegate itself, which dealt with a breach of classified national security information, which is an issue that affects the country as a whole. To frame it as merely a partisan issue undermines the rationale behind the response — from either side, really (thought that might not be the only reason I don't take Thompson all that seriously). For example, who thinks this from Fox News is undermining after quotes from Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards: "Other partisans also expressed outrage."
It's also too easy — survey the left, survey the right, come up with a soundbite, don't look any further (or, the case of this MSNBC piece, don't even bother looking to the right) (or, in the case of this NYT piece, don't bother with the formality of actually quoting a Dem when you talk about Dem outrage). Or, alternatively, the media could look further, i.e. by comparing the criticism of the Bush decision on the right (35%) with an examination of whether it's matched by support on the left (oh, looky: 32% of Republicans agree with the President's decision, compared to 14% of Democrats— or, put another way, 58% of Republicans agree with 86% of Democrats — what does that tell us?). With the majority of the country — on left and right — critical of Bush's quiet, solitary, backroom decision, perhaps the he-said-she-said split of left and right distorts more than it illuminates.
The bottom line is that the abuse of presidential authority is not a partisan issue — should never have been a partisan issue, in fact, though the reactions so knee-jerk and the sides are so damn entrenched that it's hard to shake free from the meme (especially when they keep handing the megaphone to people like Bill Kristol. In what world does this guy still have credibility?).
True, the decision was perceived as a hat-tip to the base, and when a president makes decisions on a purely political basis, that does deserve attention — not only in terms of the rationale behind the exercise of power, but whether there was demand to justify it before or the results to justify it after. While the press corps was right to blast Tony Snow's repeated use of the word "nuance" in describing the president's decision, they blasted it because Snow used it to imply that Bush had considered and balanced a wide range of factors, not engaged in a quiet calculation of party-pandering. A day later, the conversation does seem to be moving from an assumption of left-right polarization to more, well, nuance, so that's good, and refreshing to see it framed in terms of abuse of executive power, legal precedent, and, of course, Paris Hilton ("'Even Paris Hilton had to go to jail,' said Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D. Ill.)"). Next time, it would be even more refreshing to actually start out that way.
Related: Move "corrupt" or correct? It depends who you ask [New York Daily News](note: does not include any actual poll numbers)
Does outrage over Libby have an outlet? [MSNBC](note: does not actually include any Republicans)
"Democrats portrayed the decision as an example of Bush acting above the law and not holding members of his administration accountable for misdeeds." [WaPo](note: does not actually quote any Democrats)
Political Leaders Express Outrage, Support for 'Scooter' Libby's Commuted Sentence [Fox](note: this is the one that includes the sentence "Other partisans also expressed outrage")
*Speaking of ignoring the rule of law....but that's another story.