Brendan Nyhan

This latimes.com online poll might be the least scientific ever:

Do you agree with Pres. Bush that 30 months in federal prison is excessive for telling a lie?

There’s, um, a crucial fact missing: Libby was convicted of lying under oath. (Note to the LAT: Lying is not a federal crime.)

Today, the Washington Post’s John Solomon devotes 1200+ words to an interview with John Edwards’s hair stylist. The Founders would be so proud.

Bill and Hillary Clinton’s joint campaign swing through Iowa is inspiring both pathological press coverage and the incoherent hatred that made the Clinton years so special:

Mr. Clinton’s presence was mostly but not universally welcomed here. While the couple drew cheers from hundreds at the parade — homemade “Hillary 2008” signs adorned front porches and one woman thanked Mr. Clinton for “saving Africa” — a couple of men booed Mr. Clinton along the way. “Go back to Canada!” another man shouted at him — eight times. Mr. Clinton walked on.

“Go back to Canada”? Clinton isn’t from Canada, so I’m guess the crazy guy thinks (incorrectly) that Clinton went to Canada to dodge the draft during Vietnam, and now wants him to go back. Or something.

(PS Is the woman who thanked Clinton for “saving Africa” any less crazy?)

Writing on Talking Points Memo, Steve Benen bashes self-described independents who told the Washington Post that they wouldn’t seriously consider supporting an independent presidential candidate:

There was, however, one piece of information from the report that struck me as odd.

While these independents swung substantially to the Democratic side in 2006, 77 percent of them say they would seriously consider voting for an independent if one were running.

Is it me, or is 77% a little low? Nearly one-in-four self-described independents wouldn’t consider voting for an independent? Then why even consider yourself an independent?

Must be part of that no-idea-what-they’re-talking-about bloc.

Many of these voters may be confused partisans who call themselves independents, but isn’t it also possible that some of them recognize the futility of independent candidacies? Why should they have to waste their vote out of principle?

According to the Congressional testimony of Paul Charlton, the former US Attorney for Arizona, Alberto Gonzales supported the death penalty for a crime in which DOJ was too cheap to actually dig up the body and examine it for forensic evidence (but Scooter Libby’s sentence was excessive!):

The facts underlying the case of United States v. Rios Rico allege that the defendant, a methamphetamine dealer, murdered his supplier. The majority of the government’s case relies on the testimony of cooperating witness, witnesses who have pleaded guilty to a charge and agreed to testify against the defendant. This evidence justifies, in my opinion, bringing a case against the defendant and, in the event of a conviction, seeking a term of prison for a term of years or life.

What removes Rios Rico from the realm of a death penalty case is the lack of forensic evidence directly linking the defendant to the victim’s death. That means, for example, that there is no gun, no ballistics, no victim’s DNA on the defendant. In fact, there is no body.

This paucity of forensic evidence, evidence that doesn’t forget and cannot lie, means, in my opinion, that Rios Rico should not be a death penalty case. If a government seeks to take another person’s life it should do so on only the best of evidence. I argue, therefore, that it is right to consider not just that the government is likely to win a prosecution, here I believe that there is a great likelihood of success, I argue that it is right to consider the quality of the evidence before seeking death. Where the evidence is largely testimonial, and forensic evidence is lacking, the risk that we are wrong, that we might convict and execute the wrong man, however slight, is too high.

Just as compelling though, is this additional fact: the government knows where the body lies. The victim is buried in a landfill in Mobile, Arizona. For the price of between $500,000 to $1,000,000, the government can exhume the body. While I served as the U.S. Attorney, we asked DOJ to pay for the exhumation. DOJ refused.

The body of the victim, were it recovered, might provide the forensic evidence that would ensure sufficient evidence to allow the government to seek the death penalty in good conscience. The body might, on the other hand, provide evidence that exculpates the defendant in some manner. Either way, it is wrong for the government to both seek the death penalty and at the same time refuse to provide funds to obtain evidence that could prove a vital link in supporting or negating its position.

With this in mind, I sought to convince the Death Penalty Committee not to recommend death in this case. The line Assistant U.S. Attorney’s, the prosecutors assigned to the case, made their arguments to the Death Penalty Committee in person and we submitted a written memorandum setting out the reasons in support of my view that the death penalty was not appropriate. Under the previous Attorney General, when the Death Penalty Committee disagreed with my decision, I was notified of that disagreement. Here, the Death Penalty Committee rejected my position and that of the line Assistants. I received no word of their disagreement until I received a letter from Attorney General Gonzales “authorizing” me to seek the death penalty. No one had sought my opinion or provided me with an opportunity to give additional input after our initial presentation to the Death Penalty Committee.

Once I received the Attorney General’s letter, I asked to have the decision reconsidered. In so doing I spoke with a number of individuals, including people within the Office of the Attorney General and the Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division. My most memorable discussion took place with Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty. After speaking with McNulty, I received a call from his chief of staff, Mike Elston. Elston indicated that McNulty had spoken to the Attorney General and that McNulty wanted me to be aware of two things. First, that McNulty had spent a significant amount of time on this issue with the Attorney General, perhaps as much as 5 to 10 minutes. Second, McNulty wanted me to know that in presenting my view, he, McNulty, had remained neutral, neither supporting nor opposing my position. I was struck that on an issue as important as whether to execute someone, so little time would be devoted to the topic and that the Deputy Attorney General would maintain a neutral position. Elston reported that the Attorney General remained in favor of seeking the death penalty.

When I asked to speak with the Attorney General personally on this issue, he denied my request.

My favorite part is that 5-10 minutes is supposed to be “a significant amount” of the Attorney General’s time. A man’s life is at stake!

Unfortunately, this is part of a pattern. Gonzales prepared notoriously sloppy memos about scheduled executions for then-Governor Bush in Texas, which they reviewed in only 15 minutes. According to Gonzales, Bush reduced the time slot from 30 minutes because “over time, I became more efficient in giving him that information … [a]nd he became more comfortable in making his decision based on the information I gave him.” Right.

The decision by Bill and Hillary Clinton to campaign together has prompted a predictable onslaught of annoying press coverage. The New York Times referred to Bill as Hillary’s “helpmate”; the AP broke out “Billary”; and Maureen Dowd has returned to her late-1990s schtick of making up dialogue between them. I don’t know if I can handle another round of this nonsense. (It’s yet another reason to oppose dynastic politics in any form.)

Matthew Yglesias and Ezra Klein are upset with the Washington Post editorial page. Here’s Yglesias:

The Washington Post endorsed the confirmation of John Roberts. The Washington Post endorsed the confirmation of Samuel Alito. Now, The Washington Post has gone an excoriated the recent spate of 5-4 decisions in which Roberts and Alito, predictably, joined with fellow conservatives William Rehnquist [Yglesias means Anthony Kennedy], Antonin Scalia, and Clarence Thomas to do the sort of things that conservative judges do.

One wishes, at this point, that the Post would simply endorse the decisions as well.

And here’s Klein:

Imagine if the dining section of the Washington Post had an editorial page. And on that page, they weighed in on both the quality of restaurants, but also the hiring processes of kitchens. And let’s assume, finally, that the page repeatedly endorsed cooks who promised to make dishes the Washington Post didn’t like, and then the Post repeatedly wrote editorials condemning those dishes, and the direction of the restaurant, and the state of dining today. Wouldn’t that seem…weird?

And yet, it would almost be less weird were the stakes actually confined to a satisfying meal, rather than the direction of the Supreme Court…

However, it’s worth thinking the issue through more deeply. As the agenda-setter in Supreme Court nominations, President Bush gets to choose who the Senate votes on. Even if one nominee gets rejected, Bush picks the next one. And he would never nominate anyone to the left of Anthony Kennedy, who became the de facto median justice after Sandra Day O’Connor’s retirement. What this means is that Kennedy was going to be the pivotal vote on the Court no matter what (and indeed he has been). Hence the debate focused more on qualifications and judicial temperament — dimensions on which the case that the Post made for Alito and Roberts was not necessarily implausible (remember, Bush first chose Harriet Miers as his nominee for the seat eventually filled by Alito).

Media Matters reports on the conservative talk radio host Glenn Beck (who also has a CNN Headline News show) promoting a listener-created satirical ad for a company that makes fuel from the bodies of illegal Mexican immigrants:

On the June 28 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, Glenn Beck commented on a mock ad — produced by subscribers to his website known as “Insiders” — depicting a “giant refinery” that produces “Mexinol,” which, according to the ad, is a fuel made from the bodies of illegal immigrants from Mexico. Beck read from the ad: “At Evil Conservative Industries, we know four things for certain. The country needs cheap, alternative fuel source. Two, the human body is 18 percent carbon. Three, carbons can be turned into hydrocarbons. Four, we have a buttload of illegal aliens in our country.”

Beck continued to read from the ad: “Evil Conservative Industries is proud to present the fuel of the future, Mexinol. A clean-burning, cheap alternative to gasoline, Mexinol’s future seems unlimited in its potential. There are other gasoline alternatives available such as ethanol. However, Mexinol has certain advantages from corn. Corn has to be grown, harvested, and processed. With Mexinol, raw materials come to you in a seemingly never-ending stream. Go ahead and purchase that boat-sized SUV. There’s plenty of Mexinol for everyone.”

Beck introduced the discussion by saying, “Sometimes the Insiders go too far,” and later said, “I don’t think we need to make the illegal aliens into fuel.” Beck also said, “That would be evil conservative, yeah. I don’t even know if that’s conservative. That would be … [p]sychotic, perhaps? Sociopathic, perhaps?” Beck’s executive producer and head writer, Steve “Stu” Burguiere, added, “Just evil, pretty much.” However, as of June 29, the ad was posted on the front page of Beck’s website under the title “Picture of the Day,” with a caption that described the “ad” as a “brilliant creation.”

How has CNN not come under more fire for putting this guy on the air every night?

(To read my previous posts on Beck, click here.)

President Bush’s commutation of Scooter Libby’s prison sentence has unleashed a predictable series of simple-minded reactions.

Liberals and Bush opponents are, of course, outraged. Joe Wilson and Atrios (here and here) are claiming that the commutation is “obstruction of justice” — a nonsensical claim on its face (the president’s pardon power is absolute except for impeachment). Meanwhile, Josh Marshall (here and here) and Andrew Sullivan are asserting without evidence that the decision was made or influenced by Vice President Cheney.

On the other side of the aisle, the Wall Street Journal editorial page denounces Bush for failing to pardon Libby. As Noam Scheiber suggests, other conservatives are likely to do the same, though many are keeping the volume low for the moment.

As for me, I’m torn. It appears Libby did perjure himself, which is a serious matter under any circumstances. But he wasn’t the original leaker — Richard Armitage was — and it’s highly unusual to prosecute someone for perjury in a case where the underlying crime wasn’t prosecuted. The most obvious example where this did happen is, of course, Bill Clinton. And as David Brooks notes in a column that captures some of my ambivalence, almost no one has a consistent position on the two cases:

Republicans who’d worked themselves up into a spittle-spewing rage because Bill Clinton lied under oath were appalled that anybody would bother with poor Libby over lying under oath. Democrats who were outraged that Bill Clinton was hounded for something as trivial as perjury were furious that Scooter Libby might not be ruined for a crime as heinous as perjury. It was an orgy of shamelessness. The God of Self-Respect took sabbatical.

With all of that said, it’s hard to justify circumventing the normal commutation process and overruling a judge and jury before Libby has served a day in jail.

At a more general level, Matthew Yglesias may be right that the pardon power is too strong, particularly given the frequency with which associates of the president are prosecuted in the contemporary era.

Finally, from a political point of view, I’d guess that this will push Bush’s abysmal approval ratings to new lows. Glenn Reynolds suggests it will improve his standing by appealing to disaffected conservatives, but a snap Survey USA automated poll found that conservatives are actually split on the issue. One big loser would seemingly be Fred Thompson, whose stalwart support of Libby is now much more salient (his quote: “I am very happy for Scooter Libby”).

Here’s a quiz — Nora Ephron’s New York Times op-ed about the idiosyncrasies of email (it’s a new medium! I get a lot of spam! I have too many messages in my inbox!), which could been published in 1999, is:

(a) A column Ephron submitted to the Times that they held for a decade or so (remember, her movie “You’ve Got Mail” came out in 1998);
(b) A reflection of how far Ephron is from the cultural zeitgeist;
(c) A reflection of how far Times editors are from the cultural zeitgeist; or
(d) A reflection of how far Times editors think their readers are from the cultural zeitgeist.

Next week: Fran Drescher muses about how loudly people talk on cell phones.