Thompson Is Done

So much news, so little time to blog. Fabulous Frederick of Hollywood has ended his bid for President of the United States. I suppose the rigors of the campaign trail interrupted his naps one too many times.
Its a good thing too. If he had actually won for some reason, I don't know how anyone would have understood his State of the Union addresses in Huttese.

Iowa Chooses Obama And Huckabee

The country, or at least Iowa, wants change. Barack Obama took the Iowa Caucuses handily with 38% of the vote.

Here's the breakdown:

Obama 38%
Edwards 30%
Clinton 29%
Richardson 2%
Biden 1%
Dodd 0%
Gravel 0%
Kucinich 0%

Soon after, Biden, Dodd and Gravel have all announced that they were dropping out of the race.

Obama: “They said this day would never come. They said our sights were set too high. They said this country was too divided, too disillusioned, to come together over a common purpose. You have done what the cynics said you couldn’t do. You have done what the state of New Hampshire can do in five days. You have done what America can do in this new year, 2008. We are one nation, we are one people, and the time for change has come.”

Edwards: “The one thing that’s clear with the results in Iowa tonight is the status quo lost and change won.”

Clinton: “We are going to have change, and that change is going to be a Democratic president in the White House in 2009.”

Clinton's quote was a response to the overwhelming numbers of registered Democratic voters that came out. MSNBC was just reporting 236,000+ voters (80% Dems) and counting turned out for the Democratic Caucus; over 100,000 more than in 2004 and more than twice the amount that came out to vote for Republicans.

On the Republican side, Huckabee easily kicked Romney in the magic underpants. Here's how it breaks down on the GOP side with 86% of the precincts reporting as of this writing:

Schmuckabee 34%
HAL-9000 26%
Frederick of Hollywood 13%
Maverick McStraight Talk 13%
Ron "Read My Lips, No Taxes Period" Paul 10%
Ghouliani 4%
Duncan "Why Am I Still Running?" Hunter 0%

Huckabee: "A new day is needed in American politics, just like a new day is needed in American government... It starts here, but it doesn't end here. It goes all the way through the other states and ends at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue."

I do kid, but it really is an historic moment when you stop and think that Democrats in Iowa, with a population that is 97% caucasian, voted for a man of color as their choice to lead the country. Talk about an about face for the staus quo!

Could this really be the start of something big? The turning of the page? Who knows what is going to happen in the weeks and months to come and how this will all play out?

As Arianna Huffington wrote: "...this moment may not last. But, for tonight, I am going to savor it -- and cross my fingers that it may stand as the day that fear as a winning political tactic died. Killed by an "unlikely" candidate -- as Obama called himself again and again -- who seized the moment, and reminded America of its youth and the optimism it longs to recapture. "

UPDATE: Gravel Still In The Race

Commenter Dan brought this to my attention:

MSNBC pundit Keith Olbermann has incorrectly declared that Sen. Gravel has dropped out of the race following the January third caucus in Iowa. This is not true, and Sen. Gravel is still an active member in this race. We are requesting that MSNBC and Keith Olbermann retract their statement, and issue an apology to the campaign for promoting blatantly false misinformation.

Again, Sen. Gravel has not dissolved his campaign, and has no intentions of doing so.

I would expect a retraction if this is true and according to the Gravel website, it is. But the language is a little harsh, don't you think? "Promoting blatantly false MISinformation?" I'll let that one slide. It's not like Olbermann is the tool of the Republican devil, and with all due respect to Sen. Gravel, it's been over for him for a while now.

Is Frederick of Hollywood Packing It In?

Leave it to Saturday Night Live to capture Fred Thompson in all his lackluster glory. On October 6th, 2007, SNL's Darrell Hammond impersonated Thompson sending a message to the public assuring them that he badly wants to be President ("On a scale of 1 to 10... about a 6.") Who knew they would be so spot on?
It looks as if the Thompson Train might be going back to the yard if he finishes poorly in Iowa - as if that isn't a sure bet.

According to Crooks & Liars, "Without a solid third-place finish, there’s no point in going on,” a Thompson adviser said Wednesday. “It was an honorable race, and he turned out to be a good candidate. The moment had just passed.”

This coupled with the fact that he recently stated he wasn't all that interested in the Oval Office job makes it pretty likely that we won't have ol' Fred to kick around anymore.

I'm not particularly interested in running for president," the former senator told voters at a campaign event in Burlington, Iowa when challenged by a an audience member over his desire to be commander-in-chief.
...the former actor has criticized his rivals for launching their presidential bids months ahead of his [this past September], and continually touts the fact he hasn't harbored presidential ambitions his whole career.
"I am not consumed by personal ambition," Thompson also said Saturday. "I'm offering myself up."
"I'm only consumed by a few things and politics is not one of them."

If you're not into politics then what the fuck are you doing running for President of the United Fucking States, moron?!

The picture on the right will show you one of the few things I'm guessing Fred is "consumed with."

So much for the possibility of the hottest first lady EVER. It's time she left ol' Fred at the dog track.

UPDATE: Thompson says he's not going anywhere.

According to TPM, Thompson himself says it isn't happening. Here's what he had to say in an interview this morning with KCCI-TV in Des Moines: "That is absolutely made up out of whole cloth," said the former U.S. Senator from Tennessee.
Thompson said a rival campaign was likely the source of that rumor. "Can you imagine such a thing in politics?" he asked.

Well now that that's settled, who's taking bets on Fabulous Fred quitting after Iowa?

Where In The World Is Frederick of Hollywood?

I haven't heard word one on Thompson since he officially announced his candidacy. And apparently, neither has his supporters. Maybe he's in his bomb shelter awaitin' fer them Pinko Commies.

I think he’s kind of done a belly flop,” said an estranged Thompson backer who indicated he will not pull his public support before the “Super Tuesday” primaries. “We’ll just wait till after Feb. 5 because I think he’s going to get beat.”
Another GOP lawmaker said, “I’ve kind of pulled back. I’m not not supporting him, but I’m not doing anything.” With six weeks to go before the first contest, that’s not quite the enthusiasm a presidential hopeful wants to hear.

Uh... isn't "not doing anything" equivalent to not not NOT supporting him?

Cold War Fred

Thompson revealed himself to be another "not ready for prime time player" as most assumed he wouldn't be.

Edward Paul, an employee of the Delta Dental Plans Association, asked the question Monday, but had trouble being understood.

"I'm proud to say that in January 2008 New Hampshire has passed a law facilitating civil unions here. ... What is your belief for federal civil unions to be passed?" Paul asked.

"Soviet Union?" Thompson responded.

"No, civil unions," Paul said.

"Oh. No, I would not be in support of that," Thompson said.

Paul said he wasn't surprised, or impressed.

"I think he needs to do more homework on whatever state he's in and I don't think he did on that question," said Paul. He said he is a registered independent who plans to vote in the Democratic presidential primary.

What's Frederick of Hollywood's obsession with the Soviet Union? Doesn't he know that Ronald Reagan "tore down that wall"? ... another myth, by the way.

WMD Lie Just Doesn't Stop

Des Moines Register: Former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson said today he was certain former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction prior to the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, a point of contention in the 4.5 years since the war began.

"We can't forget the fact that although at a particular point in time we never found any WMD down there, he clearly had had WMD. He clearly had had the beginnings of a nuclear program."


It's incredible that this is still an issue. Although when pressed further, Thompson did say he also still believed that Anna Nicole married for love. His wife Jeri had no comment.

Republican "Scheduling Conflicts"

The Republican Party's group of presidential hopefuls are writing off 30-40% of the voting population. Why bother showing up to a debate hosted by black or latino constituents? Is it going to get you anywhere? An African-American or latino voting Republican would be like chickens voting for Colonel Sanders... and yet, some will still do it.

The leading contenders for the Republican nomination have indicated they will not attend the "All American Presidential Forum" organized by black talk show host Tavis Smiley, scheduled for Sept. 27 at Morgan State University in Baltimore and airing on PBS. Former New York mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani, former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, former senator Fred D. Thompson (Tenn.) and Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) all cited scheduling conflicts in forgoing the debate. The top Democratic contenders attended a similar event in June at Howard University.

...Making matters worse, some Republicans believe, is that the decision to bypass the Morgan State forum comes after all top GOP candidates save McCain declined invitations this month to a debate on Univision, the most-watched Hispanic television network in the United States. The event was eventually postponed.

"What's the win?" said the adviser, who requested anonymity because of the sensitivity of the subject. "Why would [the candidates] go into a crowd where they're probably going to be booed?"

Even Newt Gingrich --NEWT GINGRICH!-- who basically made the Republican Party what it is today , got into the act when he said, "For Republicans to consistently refuse to engage in front of an African American or Latino audience is an enormous error. ...I see no excuse -- this thing has been planned for months, these candidates have known about it for months. It's just fundamentally wrong. Any of them who give you that scheduling-conflict answer are disingenuous. That's baloney."

Forum host Tavis Smiley: "When you reject every black invitation and every brown invitation you receive, is that a scheduling issue or is it a pattern? I don't believe anybody should be elected president of the United States if they think along the way they can ignore people of color. That's just not the America we live in."

Well Tavis, that may not be the American you or I live in, but it's definitely the America they've been living in for quite a while now.

Hey Republican candidates: I can't wait to support you! "The check's in the mail."


ALSO READ: Vernon Jordan - The Whites Only" Sign on the GOP's "Big Tent"

Republican Voters

Well, here's the problem. Republicans have a lackluster block of candidates, and yet listen to the responses you get (emphasis mine):

NEW YORK TIMES:

Mr. Goulet, 38, a welder foreman, voted for Bill Clinton in 1992 and 1996, then did not vote in the next two elections. He now likes Mr. McCain, because of his military background. “It’s tough to send troops somewhere if you haven’t been there yourself,” Mr. Goulet said.

Josh Schultz, 28, of Lancaster, Ohio, who drives a bulldozer and also works as a mechanic, said was starting to like Mr. Romney "because he seems downt to earth."

William Sedlak, 47, a flight attendant who lives in Aliso Viejo, Calif., said he liked Mr. Giuliani because “he’s conservative enough but he’s still a little liberal enough.”

Wayne Horton, 53, who works in construction as a house framer and lives in Burton, Ohio, has been mulling the field and has decided he likes Mr. Romney because he looks presidential... Mr. Thompson? “I really don’t know much about him. I’m not that informed. Really, I just rely on TV and what my wife tells me from reading the paper, and then we talk about it over supper. We’re out
trying to make a living, so we rely on the media to tell us about the candidates’ qualifications.”

And there, in a nutshell is the mentality of the Republican voter. "He looks presidential" is a perfectly good reason to vote for someone to be President of the United States.

Mr. Horton relies on the media for the candidates qualifications but admits he's not that informed. Tells you something about the media, doesn't it? Do you think Mr. Horton knows much more about Paris Hilton or Owen Wilson than Sam Brownback or Ron Paul? Mr. Sedlak wants to be a conservative but is a closeted liberal and therefore likes Giuliani. Mr. Goulet likes McCain for his military service but his quote is confusing. “It’s tough to send troops somewhere if you haven’t been there yourself.” Does that mean that since McCain has visited Iraq he knows what it's like and can send more troops or does he hope that McCain's Vietnam experience will prevent him from causing further chaos in the Middle East?

Someday, the GOP voters will start asking questions that matter. I'm not saying that issues like immigration and right to privacy aren't important but in my opinion, health care, the war in Iraq, our straining economy and diplomatic standing in the world are priorities over the wedge issues that the Republican party uses time and time again to divide the citizens of this country.

The Hillary Hate Factor

For quite a while now, I've been thinking about the Democrats running in the Presidential primary looking to get the votes needed to be the next nominee for President of the United States. As we all know, it's been Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama who have been leading the pack in the polls, campaign contributions and in media exposure.

Both are worthy candidates, in my opinion, but there are always a couple of questions that come across my mind as I imagine either one as the Democratic nominee. Could one of these two actually win? It would be devastating for this country to elect another Republican. I don't say this because I'm a Democrat or a liberal or progressive or whatever label you want to put on it. I seriously believe that if we, as a nation, elect another Republican to the highest office in the land, we'll continue down this horrible road we've been traveling with Bush and his band, and the rest of the world will conclude that this is where we all want to be. Not just the people that vote Republican, but all of us, and needless to say, we're not anyone's favorites right now.

There may be an exception or two. I've been listening to Mike Huckabee on different talk shows and debates and he seems to have his head on straight on certain issues. But he's not a front runner. The leaders in polls on the Republican side show Rudy Giuliani holding a double digit lead over Fred Thompson, who hasn't even announced yet! And believe me as a New Yorker, living in a Giuliani world is not all its cracked up to be. Mike Huckabee has been holding steady at 3% for the last three months.

Anyway, back to my point. The Republican Party is on the ropes. Their base has had their head smashed in with scandal after scandal, the Iraq War is a mess, resignations are crippling White House computer printers and Congressional subpoenas are flying out of the Capitol Building fast than you can say "Alberto Gonzales". At this point, the Republican base will stay at home on Election Day. But the one thing they will rally around is who their political opponent will be .

Hillary Clinton has this hate factor that has manifested itself into an 800 lb. gorilla. And hell, where did it come from? What did Hillary do to make her so vilified, not only among Republicans, but some Democrats as well?

I had a conversation with a colleague at work who said she would vote for John McCain before Hillary. JOHN McCAIN!!! Mr. Baghdad Is Doing Great, Surge Is Working While Helicopters Protect Me From Overhead McCain. When I mentioned to her that there was probably no way McCain would get the nomination and asked her who she would vote for if it were Hillary or Giuliani, she begrudgingly said Hillary. "But I don't trust her as far as I could throw her" was her caveat. Why did this African-American woman not trust Hillary?

Is the distrust a culmination of Hillary's ambition to high office, so much so that she stood by her husband after it was revealed that he had an affair? Did my friend feel betrayed as a woman, perhaps thinking that Hillary lost some dignity in staying with Bill? We all assume the Clintons moved to New York so Hillary could run for office, but everyone does it, and I have to say that she's done a pretty good job as a New York Senator (despite voting for the war), so why is this so different? What is it about Hillary Clinton that pisses people off?

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not a strong Hillary supporter. I don't approve of what she says regarding her foreign policy. I do belive she's trapped herself in a corner and is now beholden to lobbyists and corporate interests. This is especially upsetting to me, because she's gone from being the most outspoken person on a national health care system as First Lady, to accepting campaign contributions from insurance and phamaceutical companies (that's for another post). But I'd still take her over ANYONE on the Republican ticket.

Barack Obama first got my attention at the 2004 Democratic National Convention with his Keynote Address. That great speech that literally took my breath away and got me excited about politics for the first time in a very long time:

"...there's not a liberal America and a conservative America - there's the United States of America. There's not a black America and white America and Latino America and Asian America; there's the United States of America. The pundits like to slice-and-dice our country into Red States and Blue States; Red States for Republicans, Blue States for Democrats. But I've got news for them, too. We worship an awesome God in the Blue States, and we don't like federal agents poking around our libraries in the Red States. We coach Little League in the Blue States and have gay friends in the Red States. There are patriots who opposed the war in Iraq and patriots who supported it. We are one people, all of us pledging allegiance to the stars and stripes, all of us defending the United States of America."

That galvanized me, and I hope most of the Democratic party, into thinking of what could be possible. It fell on deaf ears, however, to the other side. Before long, they were trying to make Obama the latest demon, calling him Barack Hussein Obama (his real middle name) in an attempt to associate him with Saddam, and saying he went to a madrassa when he was a boy. Now they claim his downfall is his inexperience, to which he replies, "Nobody had a longer resume than Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld and that hasn't worked out so well." I sensed the attacks coming, but what are you going to do?

My one hesitation about Barack: he's black. I have absolutely no problem with Obama's African-American heritage. However, I think too many other people in this country still do, including many in the Republican party. So the question there is: Is America ready to vote for an African-American to be President?

Which comes to my final point. This week's Time Magazine has a John Edwards article worth reading. I've always liked Edwards. He comes across as genuine to me. Not looking for the patented, rehearsed answer, or not saying what any particular audience wants to hear. But I believe he deeply cares about people and trying to make it better for everyone. He's big on health care and hasn't taken any money from lobbyists, corporations or political action committees.

His wife Elizabeth is quoted in the article regarding what I call the Hillary Hate Factor:

TIME MAGAZINE, Elizabeth Edwards: "The media goes to this very engaging story about a legitimate woman candidate and a legitimate candidate with an African-American heritage, and that drives up their fund-raising numbers," says Elizabeth, the unfiltered voice of the campaign, during an interview on the bus a week before that speech. "Then the media folks say, 'See, that proves we were right to focus on these two candidates' ... It's enough to make you tear your hair out." Soon she's pressing the argument that her husband is the most electable candidate, the one who will help other Democrats win in the South and West--and she's managing to attack Clinton while defending her. "I want to be perfectly clear: I do not think the hatred against Hillary Clinton is justified. I don't know where it comes from. I don't begin to understand it. But you can't pretend it doesn't exist, and it will energize the Republican base. Their nominee won't energize them, Bush won't, but Hillary as the nominee will. It's hard for John to talk about, but it's the reality."

My only reaction? She's right. But where do we go from here? Is middle America ready to vote for a woman? Or a black man? Can people who say they support either candidate be completely honest with themselves when they are all alone in the voting booth with no one looking over their shoulder?

Do yourself a favor and read the entire Edwards article in TIME (linked above).

(In the interests of total disclosure, I have donated to the Edwards and Kucinich campaigns.)

The Billing Records for Thompson Lobby

In an earlier post, I criticized Fred Thompson for denying that he lobbied for a pro-choice organization during his lobbying career. All Thompson had to do was admit that as lobbyist, sometimes you represent ideas on behalf of your client. But he didn't do that. Instead he chose to deny it and his spokesman insisted it was a smear.

Thompson spokesman Mark Corallo adamantly denied that Thompson worked for the family planning group. "Fred Thompson did not lobby for this group, period," he said in an e-mail.

In a telephone interview, he added: "There's no documents to prove it, there's no billing records, and Thompson says he has no recollection of it, says it didn't happen." In a separate interview, John H. Sununu, the White House official whom the family planning group wanted to contact, said he had no memory of the lobbying and doubted it took place.

Apparently, Republicans of a feather stink together. You want documents and billing records? Here they are.

New York Times:

According to records from Arent Fox, the law firm based in Washington where Mr. Thompson worked part-time from 1991 to 1994, he charged the organization, the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association, about $5,000 for work he did in 1991 and 1992. The records show that Mr. Thompson, a probable Republican candidate for president in 2008, spent much of that time in telephone conferences with the president of the group, and on three occasions he reported lobbying administration officials on its behalf.

Mr. Thompson’s work for the family planning agency has become an issue because he is positioning himself as a faithful conservative who is opposed to abortion.

All Fred had to do was be honest and this situation would have probably gone away. Instead he chose to take the Republican road and tried lying his way out of it.

And as for my commenter, Sturm Ruger, who claimed that " it's just another drive-by media hit piece done for the Clintons against one of their political opponents", I hope Sturm has second thoughts. You wanted the billing records, Strum. You got 'em. An apology would be nice too, but I won't hold my breath.

Thompson - Swing And A Miss!

A couple of days ago, I wrote about a Los Angeles Times article accusing Fred Thompson of lobbying for a pro choice organization. One commenter suggested I disregard the LA Times piece until they produce billing records as proof. Fair enough.

So why is it that when Sean Hannity asked Thompson of the "attack" on his character, Thompson doesn't give him a direct yes or no answer? Thompson got a softball question from Hannity and whiffed at it, but the crowd roared regardless.

HANNITY: "They have attacked you, they have attacked your family, and now, they come out in the Los Angeles Times with a piece that says you lobbied for abortion rights. You say that's absolutely not true."

THOMPSON: "No... You need to separate a lawyer who is advocating a position from the position itself. They will probably come at me, in 35 years of law practice, with some people, I represented criminal defendants. I was a prosecutor. I had a general law practice. So that in and of itself doesn't mean anything anyway... I'm not gonna get down in the weeds with everything they dredge up over the next six months." Then cheers from the ignorant audience.

Sounds like a little back-peddling to me. Why not just say, "No. Absolutely not. I have never been pro-abortion." As Thoman B. Edsall reports, in the July 7 LAT story, Thompson spokesman Mark Corallo firmly rejected charges that Thompson had lobbied in support of the pro-choice group. "Fred Thompson did not lobby for this group, period," he said.

In response to a Huffington Post inquiry today [July 11] however, Corallo was more equivocal: "He said he has no recollection of doing any work and does not recall lobbying anyone on it."

From "No, period" to "I can't recall" in just four days.

"You need to separate a lawyer who is advocating a position from the position itself."
To my ears, this sounds like, "Hey, they hired me to do a job. Why should I turn it down? If I can represent criminal defendants, why not this? It doesn't mean anything anyway."

I wonder what else Mr. Thompson won't be able to recall as all this progresses. And to my commenter "Sturm", any input? What do you think the reason is that he shrugged it off instead of vehemently denying it?

Fred Thompson - Flip Flopper

So Fred Thompson was not only a mole for Nixon, but he's also a gun for hire.

We all know that Thompson was a Washington lobbyist, but we didn't know he'd lobby for anyone, regardless of ethical or moral conflict. That is, of course, if there actually is a conflict.

The LA Times reports that "Thompson, who is campaigning for president as an antiabortion Republican, accepted an assignment from a family-planning group to lobby the first Bush White House to ease a controversial abortion restriction, according to a 1991 document and several people familiar with the matter."

The abortion "gag rule" was then a major political flashpoint. Lobbying against the rule would have placed Thompson at odds with the antiabortion movement that he is now trying to rally behind his expected declaration of a presidential bid.

...Former Rep. Michael D. Barnes (D-Md.), a colleague at the lobbying and law firm where Thompson worked, said that [Judith] DeSarno, [president of the family planning association in 1991], had asked him to recommend someone for the lobbying work and that he had suggested Thompson. He said it was "absolutely bizarre" for Thompson to deny that he lobbied against the abortion counseling rule.

Susan Cohen, a member of the association's board of directors in 1991, said in reference to DeSarno and Thompson: "We were looking, of course, for a Republican who might have some inroads to the White House at that time, and so that's how she came upon contacting him."

Of course, Thompson's camp is denying that he ever lobbied for the group. Thompson spokesman Mark Corallo adamantly denied that Thompson worked for the family planning group. "Fred Thompson did not lobby for this group, period," he said in an e-mail.

In a separate interview, John H. Sununu, the White House official whom the family planning group wanted to contact, said he had no memory of the lobbying and doubted it took place. "I don't recall him ever lobbying me on that at all. I don't think that ever happened. In fact, I know that never happened."

In response to Sununu's denial, DeSarno said Thompson "owes NFPRHA a bunch of money" if he never talked to Sununu as he said he had.

Fred Thompson - Another Leaker

When asked what he thought of Fred Thompson's criticism of his new movie, Michael Moore smiled and said, "Fred Thompson is one of my favorite television actors!"

Thompson was a vocal proponent of Scooter Libby's pardon and ran a defense fund for him. He thought that the perjury and obstruction of justice conviction of Libby was a ""shocking injustice . . . created and enabled by federal officials." It's no wonder that Thompson felt that way because he's been there before.

As the Boston Globe reports, back in July, 1973,"The day before Senate Watergate Committee minority counsel Fred Thompson made the inquiry that launched him into the national spotlight -- asking an aide to President Nixon whether there was a White House taping system -- he telephoned Nixon's lawyer.

Thompson tipped off the White House that the committee knew about the taping system and would be making the information public. In his all-but-forgotten Watergate memoir, "At That Point in Time," Thompson said he acted with "no authority" in divulging the committee's knowledge of the tapes, which provided the evidence that led to Nixon's resignation. It was one of many Thompson leaks to the Nixon team, according to a former investigator for Democrats on the committee, Scott Armstrong , who remains upset at Thompson's actions.

So Fred Thompson sympathizes with Scooter Libby because he knows what it's like to be a leaker. Birds of a feather... Of course, Thompson did the ol' sidestep when asked about the matter this week, and responded via e-mail without addressing the specific charge of being a Nixon mole: "I'm glad all of this has finally caused someone to read my Watergate book, even though it's taken them over thirty years."

Well we're reading now, Fred. I hope it makes you happy.

CLINTON DID IT TOO

On a side note, I understand the GOP wagons circled again and pulled out the reliable "Clinton did it too" excuse when it came to the commutation of Libby's sentence.

Let's get something straight: Bill Clinton issued 140 pardons and commutations on his last day in office. All of the people he pardoned had served part or all of their jail sentence. He never pardoned or commuted the sentence of anyone working in his administration during the middle of a term.

As for the pardon of Marc Rich, the international commodities trader who fled the US while being prosecuted on charges of tax evasion, let's not forget that even Rich's attorney, whom Clinton described as a "distinguished Republican lawyer", supported Rich's pardon and never wavered on his claim of innocence.

That distinguished Republican lawyer was Irving Lewis "Scooter" Libby.

UPDATE:

Also read: Dan Froomkin's White House Watch

Bush Commutes Libby's Jail Time

I knew this was going to happen, but I am stunned it happened so soon.

George W. Bush, a pathetic sociopath of a president, has commuted the sentence of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, the former Chief of Staff to Vice President Cheney. And why shouldn't he? This is a clown of a man who claimed after the stolen 2004 election that had political capital: "I earned capital in the campaign, political capital, and now I intend to spend it. It is my style."

Well, Chimpy, your wallet is empty. It's been empty for a long time. Now you are using credit from the Republican Party - credit that will have to be repaid in November of 2008. And the interest rate is a bitch.

On September 30, 2003 Bush said, "There's leaks at the executive branch; there's leaks in the legislative branch. There's just too many leaks. And if there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. And if the person has violated the law, the person will be taken care of." I suppose by "taken care of'" he meant since they do his dirty work for him, he'll take care of any trouble they get into with a flick of a bic.

In July of 2005 Bush said, "If somebody committed a crime, they will no longer work in my administration." But Scooter Libby continued to work in the White House until he was indicted. Yet another lie in the long list of the Bush legacy. And now he plays judge, jury and excuser, reversing a decision handed down by the courts just hours after learning that Libby would not be freed on bail while pending an appeal.

Bush, July 2, 2007: "I respect the jury's verdict. But I have concluded that the prison sentence given to Mr. Libby is excessive. Therefore, I am commuting the portion of Mr. Libby sentence that required him to spend thirty months in prison."

You respect the jury's verdict? You respect the jury's verdict?! You just spat in the face of the judicial system, commuted the sentence of a man who committed perjury at the very least, something a former president was impeached for. You commuted the sentence of a man who possibly got people killed by helping to leak the name of a CIA operative, we'll never really know because he also obstructed an FBI investigation into the matter, and you dare say you "respect the jury''s verdict"? There's a special place in hell for people like you.

And let's not forget our upcoming presidential candidates' reactions to Chimp-Man's decision:

Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois
“This decision to commute the sentence of a man who compromised our national security cements the legacy of an Administration characterized by a politics of cynicism and division, one that has consistently placed itself and its ideology above the law..."

Sen. Joe Biden, D-Delaware
“...It is time for the American people to be heard — I call for all Americans to flood the White House with phone calls tomorrow expressing their outrage over this blatant disregard for the rule of law.”

Former Sen. John Edwards
“Only a president clinically incapable of understanding that mistakes have consequences could take the action he did today ... George Bush and his cronies think they are above the law and the rest of us live with the consequences. The cause of equal justice in America took a serious blow today.”

Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-New York
“Today’s decision is yet another example that this Administration simply considers itself above the law... This commutation sends the clear signal that in this Administration, cronyism and ideology trump competence and justice.”

But let's not stop there. What do you think the Republican candidates have to say about Bush's decision? I think you can guess where this is headed.

Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani
“After evaluating the facts, the President came to a reasonable decision and I believe the decision was correct.”

Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney
“I believe that the circumstances of this case, where the prosecutor knew that there had not been a crime committed, created a setting where a decision of this nature was reasonable.”

What part of "obstruction of justice" and "perjury" doesn't ring in Romney's head? It drives me to the brink of insanity when these jokers claim that a crime wasn't committed because the initial investigation was about finding out who leaked a CIA operative's name to the press. Am I wrong, or didn't the investigation hit a wall with Libby's lies? Hey Mitt, lying to FBI investigators and a Grand Jury ARE CRIMES!

And what does Golden Boy Fred Thompson have to say about commuting the sentence of someone who committed perjury? The same Thompson that voted for the impeachment of Bill Clinton for... wait for it... perjury!

Former GOP Sen. Fred Thompson, likely presidential
candidate
"I am very happy for Scooter Libby. I know that this is a great relief to him, his wife and children. While for a long time I have urged a pardon for Scooter, I respect the President’s decision. This will allow a good American, who has done a lot for his country, to resume his life."

Does it surprise you that a possible Republican presidential candidate who voted to impeach a Democratic president for perjury in the case of an extramarital affair would then urge for a pardon of a Republican aide to the White House for the same offense when it comes to matters of national security?

It doesn't surprise me either.

Also read: Jeralyn Merritt: Hyposcrisy, Thy Name is Bush