Just as surprised to see his mane in MSM print as you are, readers:
"Candidates on executive power: a full spectrum; They assess use of signing statements" by Charlie Savage, Globe Staff | December 22, 2007
WASHINGTON - Answers to a Globe survey of the presidential candidates about the limits of executive power.
In 2000, George W. Bush and Dick Cheney were not asked about presidential power, and they volunteered nothing about their attitude toward the issue to voters. Yet once in office, they immediately began seeking out ways to concentrate more unchecked power in the White House - not just for themselves, but also for their successors.
Once again, the MSM FAILED the American people!
Bush has bypassed laws and treaties that he said infringed on his wartime powers, expanded his right to keep information secret from Congress and the courts, centralized greater control over the government in the White House, imprisoned US citizens without charges, and used signing statements to challenge more laws than all predecessors combined.
What is known as a DICTATORSHIP!
Legal specialists say decisions by the next president - either to keep using the expanded powers Bush and Cheney developed, or to abandon their legal and political precedents - will help determine whether a stronger presidency becomes permanent.
They will keep it! Other than Ron Paul, who looks to give up power?
Six Democrats and three Republicans provided answers to the Globe survey. Three GOP candidates did not respond to the survey: Former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani, former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, and former Tennessee senator Fred Thompson.
The Giuliani campaign instead provided a general statement by its top legal adviser, former Bush administration solicitor general Ted Olson. He said that a president "must be free to defend the nation," but provided no specific details about what limits, if any, Giuliani believes he would have to obey as president - in national security or otherwise.
Rudy is so far into the 9/11 cover-up, I'll bet his nose is stinking out its asshole!
What is Olson doing in his campaign, huh, readers?
"Ted Olson — Solicitor General of the United States on 9-11; alleges that his wife, Barbara, phoned him from AA Flight 77 to report that it was highjacked by men with knives and box cutters; Flight 77 allegedly crashed into the Pentagon though there was no wreckage of a 757 at the site, no bodies, no luggage, and the hole in the side of the Pentagon was much too small to accommodate a 757 (Barbara is not likely alive, but she was not killed at the Pentagon event)"
The refusal by some candidates to answer the questions drew a rebuke from Representative Ron Paul, the Texas Republican who has made strict adherence to the Constitution a centerpiece of his campaign.
Paul asked:
"What are they trying to hide? Why are they embarrassed to answer the questions?"
Because THEY WANT TO PLAY DICTATOR soon!
Of the nine candidates who answered, Romney expressed the most positive view of Bush's approach to presidential power:
"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."
What a surprise (see below post)!
By contrast, the other two Republicans who responded - McCain and Paul - both expressed reservations about legal claims Bush has made. For example, both rejected the idea that a president, as commander-in-chief, has "inherent" power to wiretap Americans without warrants, regardless of federal statutes, as the administration has argued.
McCain, an Arizona senator: "I don't think the president has the right to disobey any law."
Then why you supporting this one?
Peter Shane, an Ohio State University law professor who studies executive power, said Romney's answers suggest that the former Massachusetts governor will probably embrace the Bush administration's legal theories on executive power:
"It's fair to say that the Democrats, Senator McCain, and Representative Paul are united in supporting a reinvigoration of checks and balances and the reassertion of a meaningful congressional role in national security affairs."
As do ALL the AMERICAN PEOPLE!
But there were some disagreements that fell along party lines, such as the scope of the president's power when it comes to troop deployments.
McCain and Paul suggested that it would be unconstitutional for Congress to "micromanage" wars by capping the number of troops that the president may deploy to a particular nation, but most Democrats said Congress has the authority to do so.
Looks like I've bucked Mr. Paul on that one, seeing as I want the DemocraPs to get them the hell out of there!
Of course, if Dr. Paul had been president, they would never have gone there!
Former North Carolina senator John Edwards criticized Bush's "abuses," but did not categorically rule out invoking the same expansive theories of executive power in other circumstances.
Then EDWARDS is a FRAUD!!!!
There were some differences among the Democrats. For example, Hillary Clinton, a veteran of congressional investigations of her husband's administration during the 1990's, embraced a stronger view of a president's power to use executive privilege to keep information secret from Congress than some rivals.
ANY SURPRISE that the CLINTONS WOULD WANT TO KEEP SECRETS, readers?!
For those who believe in Ms. Hitlery, you should be ashamed of yourselves!
And while all the Democrats condemned Bush's use of signing statements, Clinton, Edwards, and Obama each said that they would use them too.
These DemocraPs are SOMETHING, aren't they?
What a bunch of SCUMMY, LYING HYPOCRITES!!!!!!!
Obama said the problem with Bush's signing statements is not the device itself"
"No one doubts that it is appropriate to use signing statements to protect a president's constitutional prerogatives."
Sigh!
None of these candidates are really going to be any different than what we have now, are they, readers?
Gonna FOLLOW the BUSH PATH!
Readers, for the love of God and this world, please vote RON PAUL!
By contrast, Biden, Dodd, and Richardson called for an end to signing statements altogether. Among the Republicans, their stance was echoed by McCain and Paul, both of whom said they would never issue a signing statement. Romney, by contrast, praised signing statements as "an important presidential practice."
Well, Mitt sure wants to be a dictator, huh?
And if America doesn't get Ron Paul as president, we are in a whole heaping pile of shit.
