Bush I was clearly Reagan’s successor in every sense, including as leader of the “Reagan Revolution.” But any Republican who succeeds Bush II will have won the election by distancing himself as much as possible from the Bush II Admin. He would find it politically embarrassing to begin his term by pardoning that administration’s malefactors.
Good point. The media should make a point of getting all the candidates on the record regarding a pardon for Libby. If they refuse to commit one way or another, it could be a useful campaign issue.
I don’t think so. The American public couldn’t care less about this case, could they?
Could they? I am basing the level of interest on the coverage by the media. They know their audience better than anyone.
Which media would this be? The Post, the Times, the partisan blogs, the cable pundits. I don’t think this is on most people’s radar. I could be wrong, I suppose; actually being in the fishbowl means it’s sometimes tough for me to get a perspective on things that are going on outside of it.
But hell, even many knowledgeable Dopers weren’t even following the case closely enough to understand why the defendant was still being charged when (paraphrasing) “we already know who the leaker is.”
I think it’d be a useful issue in the Dem primaries, where a big chunk of the vote is Dem activists. And they DO care about this.
Of course, expecting the media to get the Dem candidates on record about this is a pipe dream. Dem activists will have to do it, because the media’s either (a) apathetic, or (b) in Scooter’s corner, on this one.
Speaking of the media attitude, I can’t believe the bullshit that’s been in the WaPo - even after all the other trash they’ve published in recent years. Poor, poor Scooter. No underlying crime. Just some irrelevant inside-the-Beltway nonsense. When’s the pardon coming down?
I guess the CIA just gets its kicks out of referring inside-the-Beltway trivialities to DoJ for action. Oh yeah, Hiatt didn’t mention that. :rolleyes:
Are you kidding? It would be easier to name the media outlets that are not covering this story. Are there any?
Everyone is covering this story and it is hyperbole to suggest that no one cares, but at the same time I think the court proceedings over Anna Nicole Smith’s burial got at least as much coverage as this trial did and that is an absolute shame.
If Bush intends to follow Justice Dept. guidelines and wait five years on this then why no comment from the White House about a potential pardon? They could simply say their policy eliminates any consideration of such a move. Yet they stay silent so Libby will too.
Eventually, however, long after Bush has left office I think the story will come out. It usually does. Cheney might be dead by then, though.
Far more coverage. Faaaaaar more coverage.
To what extent, for example, did The Oregonian or the Minneapolis Star-Tribune or, hell, the Ashland Daily Tidings cover this story? It’s a genuine question, but my educated guess is that the answer is, “not a great extent at all.”
What is your definition of a “great extent”? The Oregonian online edition lists 6 articles in the last nine days. This article appeared yesterday.
This is a really silly thing to argue about, so I’m just going to say that the amount of coverage this trial may have gotten from the end of closing arguments through the verdict is wholly different than the amount it has gotten, or will get, in the country at large at all other times. I stand by my sense that almost no one out there in, I don’t know, Kansas or New Mexico or Mississippi or Oregon cares whatsoever about the trial or even knows what the defendant was being charged with or who he is.
None of my real life friends or co-workers, and only 2 of my family members are aware that Scooter Libby or Valerie Plame exist.