Hey – you guys? Those of you who think Mitt Romney wouldn’t be such a bad Republican nominee? Those of you who think he’d be the least-bad Republican that could take office next year?
Last month, Charlie Savage, Pulitzer-prize-winning Boston Globe journalist and author of Takeover: The Return of the Imperial Presidency and the Subversion of American Democracy, wrote up the results of a questionnaire he sent each of the major presidential candidates regarding their views of executive branch power. Along with a summary, he presented each candidate’s responses to the questionnaire.
Romney gave some of the scariest answers, basically supporting everything that Dick Cheney and David Addington have done over the past seven years to create a monarchical executive branch that can do whatever it wants.
Excerpts:
1. Does the president have inherent powers under the Constitution to conduct surveillance for national security purposes without judicial warrants, regardless of federal statutes?
Intelligence and surveillance have proven to be some of the most effective national security tools we have to protect our nation. Our most basic civil liberty is the right to be kept alive and the President should not hesitate to use every legal tool at his disposal to keep America safe.
Surveillance without warrants is a-o.k., and damn any Congressional statutes — they’re only the law, after all.
4. Under what circumstances, if any, would you sign a bill into law but also issue a signing statement reserving a constitutional right to bypass the law?
I share the view of many past presidents that signing statements are an important presidential practice.
President Bush has issued a record number of signing statements that he claims allow him to bypass any laws he believes are unconstitutional. The proper response to such bills is to veto them. More on signing statements. (This was the basis for Savage’s Pulitzer.)
7. If Congress defines a specific interrogation technique as prohibited under all circumstances, does the president’s authority as commander in chief ever permit him to instruct his subordinates to employ that technique despite the statute?
A President should decline to reveal the method and duration of interrogation techniques to be used against high value terrorists who are likely to have counter-interrogation training. This discretion should extend to declining to provide an opinion as to whether Congress may validly limit his power as to the use of a particular technique, especially given Congress’s current plans to try to do exactly that.
Translation: Presidents can authorize torture no matter what Congress says.
8. Under what circumstances, if any, is the president, when operating overseas as commander-in-chief, free to disregard international human rights treaties that the US Senate has ratified?
The President must carry out all of his duties in a manner consistent with the rule of law, whether it is our Constitution or valid international agreements, so long as they do not impinge upon the President’s constitutional authority.
“[S]o long as they do not impinge upon the President’s constitutional authority.” These are code words for the unitary executive theory, which misinterprets the Constitution to grant the president near-monarchical powers in certain areas of law. For instance, each of Bush’s signing statements says that he will execute the law “in a manner consistent with his constitutional authority to supervise the unitary executive branch.” How broadly does Romney interpret “the President’s constitutional authority”? See question 10:
10. Is there any executive power the Bush administration has claimed or exercised that you think is unconstitutional? Anything you think is simply a bad idea?
The Bush Administration has kept the American people safe since 9/11. The Administration’s strong view on executive power may well have contributed to that fact.
That speaks for itself. Everything Bush has done is fine!
Romney may not be as socially conservative as he currently claims to be. But when it comes to executive power, Romney would be as much of a nightmare as Giuliani.
There is hope, as the AP’s best political writer Ron Fournier reports, that Mitt fails.
Mitt Romney’s victory in Michigan was a defeat for authenticity in politics.
The former Massachusetts governor pandered to voters, distorted his opponents’ record and continued to show why he’s the most malleable — and least credible — major presidential candidate.
And it worked.
Romney told voters what he thought they wanted to hear.
As is often the case with Romney, he has changed his tone, if not his mind.
This is a man who campaigned for governor of Democratic stronghold Massachusetts as a supporter of abortion rights, gay rights and gun control — only to switch sides on those and other issues in time for the GOP presidential race. The first thing he did as a presidential contender in January was sign the same no-tax pledge an aide dismissed as “government by gimmickry” during the 2002 campaign.
Here’s the puzzling part: Romney is a smart man who succeeded in both business and politics, by all accounts a solid family man who won over Democrats and independents in Massachusetts with his breezy charm and political moderation. He tackled one of the nation’s most vexing issues — the cost and accessibility of health care — and helped devise a system in Massachusetts that requires both personal responsibility and government empathy.
Rather than running on his record as a can-do pragmatist in an era of government incompetence, Romney listened to advisers who said there was a tactical advantage in turning himself into the field’s social conservative.
Their reasoning: Evangelicals and Republicans who put social issues atop their list had found McCain and Rudy Giuliani, the two early front-runners, unpalatable, so there was room to run on the right.
Exit polls suggest that Romney won among Michigan voters who cited the economy as their top issue and who said they were falling behind financially. McCain overwhelmingly won among voters who said they were looking for an authentic candidate, but the most-cited candidate quality was “shares my values,” and Romney led among those voters.
This still looks to be an authenticity election.
But to go all the way, Romney must overcome the original sin of his campaign — his choice to do whatever it takes to be president. The smart money says he can’t.
He’ll never, ever be president. Once the “sacred garments” and the Mormon questions start, people would freak out.
I read that Romney is getting a lot of support form evangelical voters. I found that curious. I would have thought staunch christians would be against a mormon candidate, but the numbers show differently.
Just thought it was interesting.
There is no least-unacceptable Republican nominee. If we don’t elect a Democrat this year, we don’t have a country anymore.
Luckily I don’t think any of these clowns would play particularly well in a general election campaign, unless one of them somehow figures out how to turn out the entire base and draw independents for a set of policies indistinguishable from Bush’s. They want to campaign on perpetual war and tax cuts for the rich? They have my blessing.
There’s not a single Republican candidate whose conceivable “reign” doesn’t scare me, right on down to “the Maverick” John McCain, who’s shown an almost-gleeful willingness to embrace the most ridiculous circus freaks in his party in a desperate attempt to get the presidency since “it’s his turn.”
Yes, it’s very scary. Thanks for bringing this to our attention.
But I have to wonder whether those “party-line” responses reflect his own views (whatever thay might be) or those of advisers who determined that he stands the best chance of getting the nomination if he continues the fearmongering tactics that Bush and Cheney have used to grant themselves dictatorial powers.