Blah.

I suppose I ought to weigh in on the Libby commutation, since everyone else is. But actually, I mostly find it gives me a sense of ennui and exhaustion. Reading David Brooks' unrelentingly inaccurate, hyperbolic, and overwrought column this morning, I found myself wondering how he mustered the energy.

Look, from my point of view, no serious argument can be made that Bush -- of all people -- has any business commuting Libby's sentence; and certainly, I'm willing to give credence to the full range of arguments that hold that this was always a quid pro quo, where Libby was promised he'd never serve a day if he took the fall; or that the commutation was not a pardon for the precise reason that a pardon would have cut off Libby's 5th amendment claim to silence; or any of the many scenarios that involve Cheney.

And, of course, it's worth reiterating that Patrick Fitzgerald himself says that Libby's perjury had the effect of preventing him from completing his investigation, and thus provides the reason for the very lack of an underlying crime that the right likes to complain about.

But really, I think this episode is a kind of perfect example of the endless hopelessness of the next 18 months. The cynic's view held that Bush would pardon Libby when he left office. This would have meant Scooter would have served 1/2 of his sentence. If you think the sentence excessive, surely you wouldn't find half of it equally offensive? So why the rush? Why outdo even the most cynical among us?

There's much complaining about the rule of law going around, and an equal amount listing other abuses of the presidential pardon, either for the purpose of saying "Clinton did it too" or by way of pointing out that the pardon is a residue of a monarchical system that perhaps we should let go. But the pardon isn't the offence of the thing, nor is the commutation. It's the speed of it. What was the rush?

The rush, of course, proves the quid pro quo as much as it's ever likely to be proved. But it makes a more basic point that this administration isn't even trying to keep up appearances anymore. All of the fussing about was Valerie Plame covert, and was Joe Wilson an honest broker, and was the judge a lunatic -- it's all just a wordstorm to distract from this very basic point: they don't give a good goddamn what any of us, liberals, moderates, or even the base, think of them. What on earth are the next 18 months going to look like? Isn't the meaning of democracy that the government at least pretends to give some semblance of a shit what the people think?

Aren't you exhausted???