In today’s New York Times, Sheryl Gay Stolberg chalks up Scooter Libby’s sentence commutation to Bush’s knowledge that he’s so unpopular that it doesn’t matter what he does. It turns out that he didn’t even check with his own attorneys before making the call, and apparently doesn’t care that the decision runs completely counter to his September 2003 statement that “if the person has violated law, the person will be taken care of.” He has a freedom that comes only with being widely vilified.
In the Washington Post, Peter Baker explores this topic of Bush’s staggering unpopularity. It seems that he’s taken to quietly summoning leading thinkers to the White House to ask them why the world hates him and the United States. He’s been left utterly alienated, many of his advisors having bailed on him and his friends having turned on him, reduced to relying on strangers for an honest assessment. There are just two or three people that he feels he can rely on. Famously, his father is not on that list.
Unlike President Clinton, whose enormous popularity allowed him to take a jog through D.C. and grab a burger at McDonald’s, President Bush is rarely seen outside of the White House, Camp David, and his Texas estate. He doesn’t go out for dinner or spend time at social gatherings anymore. He declined the invitation to toss out the first pitch for the Nationals this past spring. This year he gave commencement addresses only at a pair of tiny colleges.
By any measure, the president is judged as the worst in modern history. In the history of polling, only Harry S. Truman was so unpopular for so long. Bush hasn’t broken 50% in two and a half years, and if there’s any light at the end of his tunnel, nobody’s spotted it yet. He’s apparently resigned to being vindicated by history, hoping that as Reagan is credited by some for the economic collapse of the U.S.S.R., by virtue of being president while it happened, Bush may too be credited for something that will only be visible in hindsight.
One fellow from the conservative Hudson Institute has met with Bush and says that the president’s self-confidence seems otherwise unaffected. “You don’t get any feeling of somebody crouching down in the bunker,” he says. “This is either extraordinary self-confidence or out of touch with reality. I can’t tell you which.”
I suspect it’s both.
All of this is good news for Democrats, because as goes President Bush, so goes the Republican Party, at least on a national level. Short of extraordinary events, President Bush cannot recover by November 2008. That will grant Democrats a stronger hold on the Congress and make the White House ours to lose. None of that makes the current damage to the United States any less egregious, but it does make it a little more palatable.
I trimmed a little (is that a $400 pun or what?!) from an Edwards speech for a slam dunk description of bush:
“clinically incapable of understanding”.
That’ a good essay and I even agree with most of it. A couple quibbles though:
A Democratic president is always going to be significantly more popular in DC and its environs than a Republican one, and Bush has always been known for his lack of interest in “going out” in DC or using the WH to entertain very much. How many State Dinners have there been? 2 or 3 I think. So I don’t think his current lack of socializing can be attributed to his unpoularity – he’s just like that.
As to the US’s current dismal rankings in terms of popularity throughout the worl, including most if not all of our traditional allies, I again believe that this has much to do with the simple matter of Bush’s party affiliation. The political “center” in Europe is substantially further to the left than here. European elites are more comfortable with a Democrat in the WH b/c they view him as one of their own. For example, remember the howls from Europe when Reagan installed Pershing missiles over there, deployed the MX at home, or told Gorbachev to “tear down this wall?” All that worked OK. Now contrast that with the Europeans practically begging Clinton to go into the Balkans and put out a fire in their own backyard that for reasons of atrophied defense spending in Europe they were unable to sort out themselves. They just like and trust Dems more than Reps.
Lastly, I believe you’re right about Bush being a drag on the GOP candidate in ’08, but remember, Republicans will always be more popular than the pages of the NY Times and WaPo suggest they are.
Actually, I like it just a little longer (ask my guy at Christophe’s, just to keep the pun going . . .):
If that doesn’t sum up this entire Administration, I don’t know what does.
~
As for 2008, it seems that even the Republicans running don’t think they have any chance. Otherwise, I’d imagine that they’d be working in high gear to get Bush to finish it up in Iraq before 2008. Instead, he’ll just run the clock, hand that cluster@)@# over to a Democrat, and – like clockwork – we’ll be treated to the Republican narrative that it was the Democrats who screwed it up. Bet on it.
Not only are those not mutually exclusive, but for Bush to have extraordinary confidence requires a disconnection from reality.
I see that Judge Smails is trapped in a world in which the Washington Post is liberal. Perhaps he’s stuck in the ’70s.
More of an indication that whoever the nominee is, he will have to run as far away from Bush as possible. But more importantly, you forgot to not add the . to Harry S Truman.
Actually, I deliberately added the period, because that’s how his presidential library spells it. I figure they should know. :)
I think he was feeling pretty free when he went on vacation the entire month before 9/11, ignored warnings of attack, invaded Iraq, approved torture, built gulag gitmo, tapped my phone, and let New Orleans drown. Freedom from responsibility to the law and the Constitution he swore to uphold. This latest outrage is a 5 on the scale of villainy.
I have long since stopped caring what Bush does or paying any attention to anything he says. Bush is irrelevant. For all intents and purposes, it’s like we don’t even have a President right now.
The GOP field for 2008 says it all. They know they’re doomed. Look who their top candidates are. A liberal former governor of Massachusetts who nobody had ever heard of versus some dude who was apparantly a Senator in the early 90’s or something and then you have the former Mayor of NYC who is pro-choice and has no hope of winning the nomination. That’s it. Where are the big names? Former major cabinet officials or figures from the out-going administration? Former Vice Presidents? Leaders of any kind? This is the kind of primary field that you get in a race where serious people think it can’t be won. The marginal people, the kooks and the dreamers all come out of the woodwork for their day in the sun. The party faithful are polite. They show up and clap but they’re writing small checks and some of them won’t quite make it to the polls on the big day on account of having to pick up groceries and make it home in time for a good re-run of ’24.’ The familiar formula for failure.
You know, I disagree with him 100% and I still can’t help but pity the poor dumb bastard. Can you imagine having to call in a score of well-known intellectuals to tell you why people hate you so much?
LOL.
That’s because The Decider decides the decision.
@ John:
C’mon. The president’s power to pardon or commute is plenary, and, well, it’s good to be the king.
Charles and Louis, among others, once thought that, too.
You mean Fred Thompson?
I think Fred Thompson will have much more public appeal then you think. Especially if he’s running against Hillary or Obama. He’s got that plain spoken no B.S. Washington Outsider routine down pat (true or not) plus his face is well known even if his name isn’t. He’s even got a podcast on itunes (The Fred Thompson Report).
I would say it’s a really wide streak of stubborn. When you start to feel like everyone hates you and you’re “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” it’s real easy to say F’ it I’m doing this anyway. Especially if you actually believe you’re doing the right thing.
*rolls eyes*
Good analysis on the rest, though.
” . . .the decision runs completely counter to his September 2003 statement that ‘if the person has violated law, the person will be taken care of.’”
How so? The President didn’t say the violator would be punished: he said the person would be “taken care of.” He took care of Libby. What’s the big deal?
*Laugh* Fair enough, Bob. :) Perhaps by “taken care of,” he meant “will be taken care of, financially, for life” — Libby may find himself on the receiving end of an annual stipend from now on. :)
“He’s got that plain spoken no B.S. Washington Outsider routine down pat”
Yeah, Fred Thompson, the outside the beltway guy . . . except that he’s a registered lobbyist.
I think that its safe to say that the public now sees through that charade.
The worst thing that can happen to Fred Thompson’s campaign now is actually having to do any campaigning. The more the country sees he’s not the character he plays on TV, the more they’ll see is a corrupt and lazy individual who is far to the right of most Americans.
Which is why I included that small caveat in parenthesis (bolded below).
In any event I’ve yet to see a candidate that is not without flaws.
And you’re talking about the same country that elected our current president? You have more faith in people than I do.
I always read this blog, but seldom comment. Just wanted to say: Interesting insights, Waldo. Well said.
Some more interesting points from washingtonmonthly:
* Sentencing experts cannot find a single other instance in American history in which someone sentenced to prison had received a presidential commutation without having served any part of that sentence. (Bush is quite a trailblazer.)
* Defense attorneys can’t wait to take advantage of the can of worms the president has opened. One legal expert said, “I anticipate that we’re going to get a new motion called ‘the Libby motion.'”
* “According to federal data, the average sentence for those found guilty of obstruction of justice defendants was 70 months, not zero.
* And Bush couldn’t even thumb his nose at the rule of law competently. In his commutation order, the president said Libby should still get two years probation. The law says that “supervised release,” as it is called, can only follow an actual prison sentence. Now, Judge Walton doesn’t know how to reconcile Bush law with real law.
agree 100% with jon (from 9:43pm).
Russianists (American academics who specialize in Russia, Russian history, politics, etc.) almost universally agree that Reagan’s policies forced the Soviets to attempt to keep pace with us militarily — something they were woefully incapable of. The only debatable point is what effect this had. Those most reluctant to give Reagan any credit at least admit that his policies hastened the inevitable. Most, however, say that there’s no telling what would’ve happened if the USSR didn’t have to bankrupt itself trying to keep up.
Aside from that, great post. Bush the Decider will not be missed, even by those of us who voted for him twice.
Actually, I, most Russianists think that it was the oil market that most directly bankrupted the Soviets since, well, that’s what it actually was.
But I’m sure whatever you make up because it fits your politics is just as valid.
@ plunge:
Look on the bright side – maybe he’ll pardon Al Gore III too!
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8Q5TDNG0&show_article=1
Jeez, this kid is becoming a habitual offender. But he’s an adult, and his bad choices no more reflect on his father than those of President Bush’s or President Regan’s children. (Or, Lord knows, President G.W. Bush’s children.)
I honestly feel badly for him, and would no more wish this kind of thing on the Gore family than I would the Bush’s. I get that young people are prone acting foolishly, and I even understand the drinking and the dope. But why, for the love of God, if you’re gonna do that stuff would you drive 100 mph with CHiPs all around you?
I think third generation money and third generation power are the same — that’s the generation that tends to get spoiled and stupid. I see this in people around Charlottesville routinely. Just considered anybody you know whose grandparents earned the family fortune, and then look at how directionless and apathetic that the third generation is. I suspect that this is as true for the Gore family as it is for the Bush family. The difference between the two families, I guess, is that the third generation of the Bush family is now president. :)
Hmmmm, plunge, you may be right. I do find it curious, though, that none of my professors of Russian politics, history or government emphasized oil markets when I was earning a BA & MA at UVA in Russian/Eastern Bloc government & politics back when the fall was occurring (and immediately thereafter). Quite an omission on their part — thanks for straightening me out.
I hope Al Gore III doesn’t get “celeb kid” penalties. An average citizen facing those charges would get a slap on the wrist, i.e., probation, loss of license, etc.
I believe the military buildup started under Carter, although that is not widely understood.
The current situation reminds me of the last year of the Gilmore administration. We replaced Gilmore with a pragmatist, generally non-partisan solution finder. I would suggest that be the best antidote to this Bush period also…
Judge.
I do not want to get into the Reagan collapsed the Soviet Union single handedly argument . . . though Occam’s Razor should dictate that argument a bit.
But I would suggest that you go back and look at the collapse of oil prices in the 80s and understand how they contributed to tons of problems we are now facing. Re: Russia, some of their major oil producing regions are just NOW getting the mouth balls out. It was a devastating blow to the Russian economy, I would say one that has not been fully understood.
What do you think all this strong arming of the oil majors is about . . . they were able to come in and buy these resources at dirt cheap prices, spent tons of money retrofitting, and are now being pushed out.
Also, look to those price falls to understand why Iraq invaded Kuwait, Iraq was in debt to its eyeballs and the oil market was bottoming out.
Waldo,
That third generation “spoiled, apathetic, directionless” thing might be true often enough, but it is not the case with all Al Gore’s kids or perhaps even with this one. One can be a hard worker who has direction and still have a drug problem. Not to defend Al Gore III, who was speeding like mad and in possession of drugs he wasn’t supposed to have, but he didn’t test positive for those drugs at his arrest and was cooperative with police. But then one can be spoiled, apathetic or directionless and polite as well.
Generalizations are just that.
“Rags to Rags in three generations” – Irish proverb
That would truly be a foolish position to argue. Then again, I’ve never encountered anyone who has argued as much.
This whole argument about whether it was the world price of oil, Reagan’s defense spending, its own internal rot, or some other cause that led to the demise of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of a Simpsons episode in which the Indian immigrant convenience store clerk, Apu, takes his citizenship test.
Proctor: All right, here’s your last question. What was the cause of the Civil War?
Apu: Actually, there were numerous causes. Aside from the obvious schism between the abolitionists and the anti-abolitionists, there were economic factors, both domestic and inter–
Proctor: Wait, wait… just say slavery.
Apu: Slavery it is, sir.
We can argue forever about the contributing factors, but, at the end of the day, just say Reagan.