So, what do you think of President Bush’s decision to commute Scooter Libby’s jail sentence?

Passions run high and, predictably, it’s political ideology, not objective reasoning, that dominates most opinions. How else can you explain the fact that every prominent Republican supports the decision while their Democratic counterparts call it a betrayal of public trust? Reasoning seems to start and end with one fact – is it my guy or their guy?

Although I have over the last ten years struggled to be objective and avoid political labels, every time I venture into the arena of politics, I receive letters from previously loyal listeners who decide I’m no longer worth listening to because they now identify me as an ideological enemy.

So why comment and risk a label? What can I add? Perhaps this: Politics is not an amoral venture. Its practice will be judged in terms of ethical principles, not who you want to win.

Justice and the rule of law must transcend politics, and it’s a violation of public power to use the law to help political friends or punish enemies. Although the political implications of the Libby trial were obvious, he was convicted of lying and obstructing justice by a jury. The sentence was imposed by a judge appointed by the President after an extensive and expensive investigation and trial conducted by a special prosecutor.

Blatant political intervention reinforces the cynical perspective that justice is about who you know, not what you did.

It’s a cruel irony that the reporter who tried to protect Libby’s identity was sent to jail while Mr. Libby, a convicted felon, will never spend a day behind bars.

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.