We'll Always Have Paris

"Do I disagree that sometimes the smart stuff is drowned out? No. Do I disagree that the tone can sometimes be fierce, bullying, or often witless? Mmmm, no. How about that often, anyone who doesn't move in lockstep is savaged and ridiculed? Hmm, no, not with that, either.

"My difference with Klein here is this: blogging hasn't changed things here. Some portion of your readership always thought these horrible things about you (though admittedly, there are probably plenty of people who have recently come to that). All blogs have done is allowed them to say it, and for you to hear it."

Why do the media fact-check some things and blow off others? Such as one of Mitt Romney's answers at the New Hampshire debate? Brian Beutler ("Languishing in Obscurity Since 2007") cites Romney saying that if Saddam "had complied with the United Nations resolutions to allow IAEA inspectors into his country, we wouldn't be having this conversation." But Saddam did let the inspectors back in before the war.

"This is interesting for two reasons: It's evidence that--at the very least--Romney has been bandying about this malapropism for weeks and nobody on his staff either realizes he's wrong or dares correct him. It's also evidence that he didn't just screw up his Iraq history at the debates on Tuesday, but rather that he's in a constant state of either denial, ignorance, or deception.

Most reporters will now be spared the glories of Ames, Iowa in August, and, like me, Dick Polman thinks that's just dandy:

"Rudy Giuliani has performed a valuable public service. He declared that he will skip the Iowa Straw Poll, a Republican summer ritual that has long deserved to be exposed for what it really is -- a con job. Iowa Republicans have been staging this event since 1979, and for some inexplicable reason it has become a fixture on the political calendar, even though it is little more than a fund-raising hustle for the state GOP, and even though the presidential candidates who have scored well in the straw poll generally don't wind up in the White House unless they have a visitor's pass.

"But Giuliani isn't skipping out because he thinks the August event is phony. It's strictly a political decision. He knows that rival Mitt Romney is making a serious financial and organizational bid to 'win' the non-binding skirmish, and that his own standing in Iowa is weak, in part because the conservatives who dominate the GOP caucuses might be wary of his liberal views on social issues. He figures that it'd be smart to just de-emphasize Iowa and focus on the big states that are voting early next year (Florida, New York, California). And that means skipping the straw poll -- a ballyhooed prelude to the winter Iowa caucuses -- and thus pre-spinning a Romney 'victory' as meaningless. (John McCain decided that he would skip the straw poll, as well.) . . .

"By tradition, the winner is the candidate who can most effectively buy the most votes. That is literally how it works. Any Iowan who wants to show up and participate must first pay a $30 fee to the Iowa GOP, but that never happens -- because the candidates always vie to pick up the tabs. The candidates also provide free bus service to the event, held in the town of Ames. The candidates also spend up to $3 million apiece to ply their 'voters' with food and drink and all manner of apolitical allure -- swing dancers, skeet shooters, barbecuers, celebrity crooners, you name it . . .

"What I remember best about '99 was that the Iowans were very happy with self-funding candidate Steve Forbes, because Forbes had installed air conditioning inside his hospitality tent. He was the only candidate who had AC. He also bankrolled the equivalent of a small amusement park for the kiddies. Sure enough, he finished a strong second in the straw poll -- a fact that ultimately meant nothing, because he was virtually gone from the race once the real voting began six months later. In the competition to become the chief alternative to candidate George W. Bush, Forbes was quickly eclipsed that winter by John McCain . . . who didn't bother to show up at the '99 straw poll, dismissing it as a 'sham' and a financial arms race."

McCain skipped the Iowa caucuses too, which he can't get away with this time around.

The pardon debate is in full swing, and conservatives who howled about Bill Clinton lying to a grand jury have a very different view of the Libby case.

"I feel terrible for Scooter Libby's family," says Bill Kristol. "Millions of Americans feel terrible for Scooter Libby's family. But we can't do anything about the injustice that has been done. Nor can we do anything to avert a further injustice looming on the horizon--Judge Reggie Walton seems inclined not to let Libby remain free pending appeal.

"Unlike the rest of us, however, George W. Bush is president. Article II, Section Two of the Constitution gives him the pardon power. George W. Bush can do something to begin to make up for the injustice a prosecutor appointed by his own administration brought down on Scooter Libby. And he can do something to avert the further injustice of a prison term.

"Will Bush pardon Libby? Apparently not--even if it means a man who worked closely with him and sought tirelessly to do what was right for the country goes to prison . . .

"So much for loyalty, or decency, or courage. For President Bush, loyalty is apparently a one-way street; decency is something he's for as long as he doesn't have to take to take any risks in its behalf, and courage--well, that's nowhere to be seen. Many of us used to respect President Bush. Can one respect him still?"

Loyalty? Injustice? What about lying to a grand jury?

Another conservative, Captain Ed, is less sympathetic:

"I cannot just disregard a jury's conviction and claim no crime occurred. They found Libby guilty on four of five counts of perjury and obstruction of justice -- crimes that go to the heart of our justice system. Whether or not the investigation in question resulted in an indictment on the original charges, we cannot allow people to lie and obstruct justice, even when they believe they act with the best intentions. Keeping the conviction and the fine while commuting the prison sentence would be a good middle ground to acknowledging the adventuresome nature of Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation, and it also allows Libby to continue to pursue his appeals on the conviction."

Sure, sure, but what about Paris?