Rudy hints he’s against pardoning Libby
posted at 2:54 pm on March 13, 2007 by Allahpundit
Someone accused me of not being a Republican in the comments here because I didn’t think Libby should be pardoned. I hate to tell you, pal, but by that logic Rudy’s not a Republican either.
Actually, Rudy isn’t really a Republican. So maybe our commenter had a point.
Mayor Giuliani is cool to the idea of an immediate presidential pardon for I. Lewis Libby Jr., a position that puts him out of step with some conservatives who say President Bush should not wait to grant the convicted former White House aide a legal reprieve.
“The pardon power is a very, very important power that the president has, and it has to be exercised very judiciously and very carefully,” Mr. Giuliani told reporters in Washington yesterday. “You certainly shouldn’t speculate about it while a criminal case is still ongoing.”
He added: “It seems to me you let it go through the process.”
69% of Americans agree.
Chin up. He also said he agreed with the D.C. Circuit Court’s ruling last week on the Second Amendment. Welcome news, except it seems to contradict what he told Sean Hannity back in February where he distinguished between gun ownership in rural areas versus densely-populated cities. Watch the first clip; it comes at about three-quarters of the way through. Federalism is all well and good, but I don’t know he can take that position and then say he supports the D.C. ruling finding an individual right to bear arms. If a federal constitutional right exists, it exists everywhere. The states have nothing to do with it.
Still, a sound enough position for him to pick up the Dennis Miller endorsement.
Exit question one: With fully 19 months to go until the election, should this concern us? Quote: “Just 34 percent of all respondents said they had a favorable view of the Republican Party, and that is the lowest it has been since December 1998. By contrast, 47 percent of respondents said they had a positive view of the Democratic Party.” Note the numbers for flexibility vs. commitment in Iraq, too. Exit question two: Doesn’t this put added pressure on the GOP to nominate a moderate and try to snatch back some of those blue-trending voters?
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
I’m with Mark Levin on this one.
thirteen28 on March 13, 2007 at 2:58 PM
Rudy is a NE Republican which is like a Blue Dog. He’s not a real Republican like Fred Thompson. Mitt played the part of a NE Republican but he’s a real Republican. He had to fake it to get elected here.
TheBigOldDog on March 13, 2007 at 3:02 PM
Just say no to Rudy
Wade on March 13, 2007 at 3:06 PM
I’m supporting the Rudy/Newt ticket.
Verbal Abuse on March 13, 2007 at 3:07 PM
Mitt played the part of a NE Republican but he’s a real Republican. He had to fake it to get elected here.
So youre saying he had to lie about being “Moderate” to get elected? How do you know he isnt lieing about being conservative now?
Rudy was a good Mayor for NY. He wont get my vote for president though. He is far too much of a Lib to me.
It’s Fred Thompson or bust for me.
amish on March 13, 2007 at 3:10 PM
Oh, and as far as exit question #2 goes, no.
Nominating a moderate under the premise you propose tells the voters that we don’t have any confidence in our conservative beliefs. It’s pandering to non-conservatives, and it’s running scared instead of running confident.
thirteen28 on March 13, 2007 at 3:11 PM
Fred/Newt in 08!
Romeo13 on March 13, 2007 at 3:15 PM
I don’t know Mitt personally but I know several (4 off the top of my head) Mormon HBS grads/profs/consultants/VC of his generation. They are amazingly alike. They make me feel like a liberal at times. So, that’s how I know.
If you want a laugh, take a look at what has happened to MA since Mitt left. The new Moonbat Gov (we call him Coupe Deval) has had more scandals in 10 weeks than the Republican Governors had in 16 years! Now, in what, week 10, he’s announced he’s cutting back his hours and letting the Lt Gov take over… You can’t make this stuff up. His approval ratings dropped 20% in 1 week!
TheBigOldDog on March 13, 2007 at 3:19 PM
Because Mitt is a mormon, remember utah is the only state that voted Bush with over 70% of the vote.
I think the question is: Is mitt a real mormon?
jp on March 13, 2007 at 3:20 PM
I agree with Rudy and Allah. He shouldn’t be pardoned, at least not yet.
amerpundit on March 13, 2007 at 3:20 PM
Actually, let me rephrase that…I’m supporting any Republican over any Democrat in ’08…nothing will keep me from the polls. Even if I’m voting against a Democrat, I won’t think twice about it, nor will I feel in the least bit guilty.
I sincerely hope Newt is going to run on Rudy’s ticket, and i’m getting the feeling that he’s going to because he’ll certainly provide a conservative anchor to him. However, his opinion on whether the president should elect Libby has absolutely no effect on my opinion of the man. As much as I love Mark Levin, I tend to think that there is validity to Rudy’s opinion.
Verbal Abuse on March 13, 2007 at 3:21 PM
jp,
That isn’t exactly straight logic. He’s a Mormom, yes, and Utah is a major Mormom state, also yes.
However, Look at it this way: If the Vatican said tomorrow it was against Bush and Iraq, would you change your point of view?
amerpundit on March 13, 2007 at 3:23 PM
Isn’t there a downside to a pardon where Libby would not be able to take the fifth in any subsequent Congressional investigations (of the “leak” not the pardon)?
The President should consider commuting the sentence when it is handed down, assuming that it is more severe, to one that is proportional to that received by Sandy Berger. Include a full pardon that will be implemented when the sentence is complete in order to restore voting rights and such. After a few $100k in fines and several years with a suspended security clearance, the pardon would automatically go into effect.
rw on March 13, 2007 at 3:24 PM
How do we know Newt is running at all? And if so, how do we know he’d accept VP?
amerpundit on March 13, 2007 at 3:24 PM
A much better, indirect way, of pardoning him. That’s my view, not an outright pardon.
amerpundit on March 13, 2007 at 3:25 PM
I’m not catholic so….I think the odds that Mitt is a smart politician who wanted a career and actuaally get elected in Mass is greater than Mitt being a mormon and in favor of abortion.
jp on March 13, 2007 at 3:26 PM
Hey BigOldDog,
I was a Romney fan too until i found out his position on Terry Shiavo. While i was looking up some of his other positions i found out that he had flip flopped on a ton of positions – several of whitch are pretty important to me.
I can understand people changing their minds about things, but i just dont buy it when their beliefs change 180 degrees the day after they decide to run for president like Mitt and Rudy have done.
Heres a link put to most of Mitts flip flops. it’s a long list. It was put out by the DNC so you probably want to wash your hands after clicking on it. Feel free to check up on the individual claims if you dont believe them but from what i can find their claims seem to be true.
Link
Fred in ’08!
amish on March 13, 2007 at 3:29 PM
Lots of winks and nods.
Verbal Abuse on March 13, 2007 at 3:29 PM
“However, Look at it this way: If the Vatican said tomorrow it was against Bush and Iraq, would you change your point of view?
I’m not catholic so….I think the odds that Mitt is a smart politician who wanted a career and actuaally get elected in Mass is greater than Mitt being a mormon and in favor of abortion.
jp on March 13, 2007 at 3:26 PM”
Yeah, jp feel free to correct me if I’m wrong but what I think jp meant was that the Mormons lean Republican and since Mitt is a real Republican they will overwealmingly vote for him. They won’t vote with him because he’s a mormon, they’ll vote for him because he is more Republican then any other candidate.
Zetterson on March 13, 2007 at 3:35 PM
Mitt had to say those things to get elected here in Moonbat Mecca. He may believe the Shiavo thing but that’s as far as his “liberal” leanings go. Trust me. You’ll see. He’s the only real conservative in the race right now. If Fred Thompson enters then that will chance.
Right now, I’d back Mitt, followed by Rudy. If Fred entered he’d be my first choice.
TheBigOldDog on March 13, 2007 at 3:36 PM
umm, amish… on which issue has Rudy changed 180 degrees?
I’m pretty sure his biggest detriment is that he hasn’t moved to the right hardly at all…
Lehosh on March 13, 2007 at 3:38 PM
No, AP. You and Rudy are perfect Republicans…that’s the whole problem.
Perchant on March 13, 2007 at 3:38 PM
I quoted George Will in the other Romney post earlier. For those of you who didn’t go there here it is again. I think TheBigOldDog will approve:
“At CPAC, Romney gave the most polished speech, touching all the conservative movement’s erogenous zones, pointedly denouncing the “McCain-Kennedy” immigration bill and promising to seek repeal of the McCain-Feingold law regulating campaign speech. Romney, however, is criticized by many conservatives for what they consider multiple conversions of convenience — on abortion, stem cell research, gay rights, gun control. But if Romney is now locked into positions that these conservatives like, why do they care so much about whether political calculation or moral epiphany moved him there?”
Zetterson on March 13, 2007 at 3:38 PM
No. It puts added pressure on the GOP to nominate an actual conservative. People are uncomfortable with the Republican Party because it’s taken a sharp left turn.
Enter Fred Thompson and suddenly all is well.
Gregor on March 13, 2007 at 3:39 PM
What I mean is I think there is good chance he’s not really pro-choice, that it was a “All politics are local” thing and that he really would be a pro-life president since he’s campaigning on that.
I also think, the fact Mitt is a mormon means he’s very likely really pro-life himself, not just as a calculating politician trying to appeal to moonbat voters.
jp on March 13, 2007 at 3:40 PM
Feel free not to read the site or comment, Perchant. Plenty of non-problematic Republican websites out there for you.
Allahpundit on March 13, 2007 at 3:40 PM
I wonder what the poll numbers would be regarding prison time for Sandy Burglar.
Gregor on March 13, 2007 at 3:41 PM
I’d like to give Libby a chance to let the appeals court tell Fitz to shove it before talking about pardons.
jeffshultz on March 13, 2007 at 3:50 PM
That’s been my take on the potential candidates too.
As long as they’ve been shown to deliver on their campaign promises and they are promising me conservative principles, I don’t have a problem with them.
Would I rather elect a conservative that has always been a conservative and I know for certain lives and breathes conservativism….sure.
However, if I found out Reagan was actually a liberal that just did and said conservative things because he thought it would help him get elected….well, my opinion of him personally would go down, but, I’d still be willing to vote for him as long as I was confident that he would still enact conservative policies.
Same goes for Rudy, Mitt, and the rest of them. McCain’s the only one I have a problem with, but, that’s because he talks the conservative talk, but seems to walk the liberal-ish walk.
JadeNYU on March 13, 2007 at 3:51 PM
So you’re saying that we should vote for a person who claims to be a religious follower, who would sell out his personal and moral obligations in order to gain votes?
We should trust this person why?
Your explanation just gave us more reason to NOT like this man.
Gregor on March 13, 2007 at 3:53 PM
I’m counting on Iraq turning around. I’ve seen some promising signs lately. I think the troops’ message is starting to be received. If Iraq starts to look more stable, look for the “Republican favorable” numbers to turn around. Then look for the Dems to scramble for higher ground, relying on the old tried and true Medicare, Social Security, and rich vs. poor canards.
Matticus Finch on March 13, 2007 at 3:56 PM
if you want to characterize it that way, yes. For the most part politicians do what the people that put them in office expect and what they campaign on. I think Mitt is a northern Bill Clinton.
Take Santorum for example, he held the social conservative views and barely got elected in Penn., then look what happened to him.
Remember, Reagan wasn’t the best family man in the world. Produced two idiot children and was divorced, however his policies were very pro-family. I want to elect someone that will get things done and beat Hillary, if they aren’t perfect then oh well.
jp on March 13, 2007 at 4:00 PM
However, Look at it this way: If the Vatican said tomorrow it was against Bush and Iraq, would you change your point of view?
———————————————
I believe the pope already has come out against the war on many occassions. However, he has also spoken against birth control, abortion and homosexuality and that didn’t seem to sway many catholics.
stenwin77 on March 13, 2007 at 4:15 PM
Rudy is the man.
He is an imperfecr flawed man (just like most of us) that I do not agree with 100% on the issues.
He is also the one candidate on the Republican side that can BEAT any of the Demo frontrunners.
Hillary can’t beat Rudy. Rudy takes NY and without NY, no Dem can win.
Try to think strategically people. Maybe we can get Mitt on as VP to throw a bone to the Cultural Conservatives.
JayHaw Phrenzie on March 13, 2007 at 4:43 PM
We need a Newt/Steel/Delay/Thompson ticket.
- The Cat
MirCat on March 13, 2007 at 4:48 PM
How does that follow from my comments? How do you define “non-problematic Republican website”?
I think it’s right to point out that conservatives are the true RepublicansInNameOnly.
Perchant on March 13, 2007 at 4:49 PM
I believe that Blogs are 40% enemy to conservatives. They are great at getting information…but instead of doing something the rest of the time is spent bitching about the problem on those very same blogs.
tomas on March 13, 2007 at 5:01 PM
Not at all. The NYT/CBS poll didn’t consider others entering the race (because they probably hadn’t spotted the Thompson picture yet, or didn’t want to because it doesn’t fit their projection).
Thompson/Giuliani, or Giuliani/Thompson, or them in any other combination suits me fine. Perfection is not out there, for any of us. This scenario makes me very hopeful/happy, and not worried yet. The current spectacle in D.C. is fairly entertaining, and so long as Messrs Bush/Cheney are there, warts et all, it’s not that dangerous.
The Republican Party needs someone like Mr. Thompson to get them out of the doldrums. The WoT will not end any time soon (20-30 years) and we need a strong person, with vision and conviction, to lead these U.S. of America.
What happened in Nov. ’06 is self-inflicted and the conservatives/independents only have themselves to blame. Let’s wake up then, quit moping and fight to keep the Left out of that great house.
Entelechy on March 13, 2007 at 5:14 PM
Nov 2000 – Dec 1998 = ~23 months
Nov 2008 – Mar 2007 = ~20 months
So, no… it means nothing.
DaveS on March 13, 2007 at 5:19 PM
between the “top picks” and the “the blog” sections, there’s some very suggestive composition going on here. i almost believe you set it up this way.
jummy on March 13, 2007 at 5:23 PM
really, all the way down: bush-rudy thumbs up, tancredo-leonidas heroes, ried-edwards nutroots pissboys. it’s almost creepy.
jummy on March 13, 2007 at 5:28 PM
Yep. That’s worked well in the North. Republicans ALWAYS get elected up there, right? /sarcasm
lorien1973 on March 13, 2007 at 5:31 PM
Maybe I didn’t have enough coffee today. I guess I don’t follow your argument.
Anyhoo, I’m Rudy all the way. The Republican tent is big enough for all the current candidates. The “Newt or nothing” people are so deluded, they are like 9/11 truthers, IMHO.
Max Power on March 13, 2007 at 6:05 PM
The biggest RISK with Rudy is the SCOTUS.
TheBigOldDog on March 13, 2007 at 6:29 PM
Except for the issue of terrorism/wot, Rudy’s beliefs are in lockstep with the “9/11 truthers”.
How is Giuliani any different than Lieberman?
Perchant on March 13, 2007 at 6:36 PM
Fair enough. I don’t have the vim today to argue. I just didn’t understand your original argument that the conservatives are the real Rhinos. It was an inetesting statement, but I still don’t know what you meant by it.
Max Power on March 13, 2007 at 6:50 PM
You answered it yourself when you couldn’t muster up the vim to explain how Rudy Giuliani is any different than Joe Lieberman. If Rudy defines what a Republican is, then conservatives really don’t have a party.
Perchant on March 13, 2007 at 7:46 PM
That’s stupid, most people only know the MSM spin on what went down. I’d like to see a poll on how many people know that Armitage leaked the NON-classified information (making the term “leak” stupid anyway). Hell, I doubt that even 89% of the country has ever heard of Armitage. I’m sure that more than 69% think Libby leaked classified information that put a covert spy’s life in jeopardy. I bet 95% have no clue that Fitzgerald knew it was Armitage (know that Armitage is a Bush/Iraq war critic) before the investigation, and pointlessly proceeded anyway. As WE all know “leak” noise is just total bullsh**, but this accounts for that “69% don’t think he should be pardoned” stat. I wish we could count the amount of times “CIA leak trial” (a lie in and of itself) was uttered on network news, cable news, and on the front page of paperse across the country. I think it’s safe to assume it’s in the tens of thousands.
RightWinged on March 13, 2007 at 8:33 PM
I see where you are going. I thought you ment the text book definition of a conservative, but you were refering to the current state of conservatism. It all comes back to the size of the tent. Conservatives are welcome in the Republican party, but it’s up to them if they want to come. Some may argue that there are many forms of conservatism, but whatever.
Max Power on March 13, 2007 at 8:34 PM
I’ll tell you what I told my Priest…please have the Deacon keeps his thoughts to himself! I don’t go to church for an anti-war rant. I also have let him know my feelings on In Vitro, abuse by the priest and the handling/or lack thereof and Gay Rights…He still stops by on his bike rides, he still sits at my kitchen table, and I have yet to be struck down by lightening! I get pleading calls to help with this and that…I am the best Catholic I can be at this time :)
Pam on March 13, 2007 at 9:27 PM
There is nothing inconsistent with his position. You can believe that the 2nd Amendment provides the right to bear arms and still believe in “reasonable” regulation of that right. What is reasonable in NY, NY is not the same as what is reasonable in Tupelo, Mississippi. No assault rifles in NY. No RPG’s in Mississipi. It would be up to the Courts, unfortunately, to determine if a given locality’s interest in reducing crime and public safety outweighs the individual’s right to pack bitchin’ firearms.
tommylotto on March 14, 2007 at 6:47 PM