I agree that sure sounds like it presages something super wanky, but I don't think the substance of Robert F. Bauer's argument is especially worthy of the wanker of the day prize:

Progressives are not so much appalled by Libby's lies as they are frustrated that this is all they have: Libby and only Libby. Left with only this, they want this small victory unspoiled. They want someone to pay.

But if the President pardons Libby, and by this act makes the case his own, he will have picked up a portion of the cost. Libby will fall back, restored to obscurity. Bush will step forward and take the lead role. He will have to explain himself; he will have to answer questions.



That seems true enough to me, if a bit bank-shottish. Indeed, this is exactly why I think most people think Libby will be pardoned, if at all, during the lame duck phase of the Bush presidency. But there's the rub -- if Libby's in jail, then Libby's the villain. If Bush springs Libby, then he's officially sanctioning involvement in a coverup, and he becomes the villain, which is as things should be.

Matthew Yglesias is a former writer and editor at The Atlantic.