newsrackblog.com

a citizen’s journal by Thomas Nephew

  • Recent Comments

    • Thomas Nephew on Ladies and gentlemen: your infinitely cunning Democratic Party
    • Nell on Ladies and gentlemen: your infinitely cunning Democratic Party
    • Thomas Nephew on A city’s ‘city issue’ issue
    • Seth Grimes on A city’s ‘city issue’ issue
    • Joe Blunt on How’s that lesser evil thing working out?
    • Thomas Ray Worley on National Popular Vote vs. fixing the electoral college
    • Dan on County Council’s retreat loses respect — and Busboys
    • Thomas Nephew on From sundown towns to a midnight county
    • Bruce Godfrey on From sundown towns to a midnight county
    • Thomas Nephew on Were recalls the way to go?
    • ballgame on Were recalls the way to go?
    • Thomas Nephew on Were recalls the way to go?
  • Recent Trackbacks

  • Real News

  • RSS my delicious

    • In Congress, Dem and GOPer Working Together to Change the NDAA | Mother Jones
      "Smith and Amash's effort comes amid a bipartisan backlash against indefinite detention that has already produced legislation on the state level. Republican-dominated legislatures in Arizona, Maine, and Virginia have passed anti-NDAA legislation. Proponents of indefinite detention argue that Congress' 2001 authorization of the use of military force against Al Qaeda and the Taliban permits the indefinite detention without trial of American citizens, even those apprehended in the United States. But the Supreme Court has not definitively ruled on the issue. Opponents counter that indefinite detention of American citizens in the United States is unconstitutional."
    • Review & Outlook: The Tea Party's Inner ACLU - WSJ.com
      The Wall Street Journal has a conniption fit about conservative opposition to the NDAA: "The ACLU tea partiers may be well-intentioned but they are woefully uninformed about the war on the terror. Their efforts would undermine executive war-fighting authority and the legitimacy of a terrorist detention and military tribunal system that has been established over many Congresses, endorsed by two Presidents and confirmed by the Supreme Court. They should stick to shrinking the entitlement state."
    • Arizona Joins Virginia in the NDAA Exodus. Is Nullification the Next New Thing? (Cutting the Gordian Knot)
      "In less than a week’s time a second state has put a foot down making it clear that it will not cooperate with Federal Law which is blatantly unconstitutional. Yesterday Arizona became the second state to pass a nullification of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA)."
    • How Obama Became a Civil Libertarian's Nightmare | | AlterNet
      “The major defining feature of the Obama administration on this issue is the eagerness with which it embraced the stunning evisceration of civil rights and liberties that was a hallmark of the Bush administration, and then deepened those outrageous programs,” said Mara Verheyden-Hilliard, executive director of the Partnership for Civil Justice Fund, who is an attorney representing many Occupy protesters swept up in last fall’s mass arrests. “He has successfully counted on the acquiescent silence of the liberals.”
    • ‘I withdraw’: A talk with climate defeatist Paul Kingsnorth (Stephenson, Grist)
      I don’t think any “climate movement” is going to reverse the tide of history, for one reason: We are all climate change. It is not the evil “1%” destroying the planet. We are all of us part of that destruction. This is the great, conflicted, complex situation we find ourselves in. I am climate change. You are climate change. Our culture is climate change. And climate change itself is just the tip of a much bigger iceberg, if you’ll pardon the terrible but appropriate pun. If we were to wake up tomorrow to the news that climate change were a hoax or a huge mistake, we would still be living in a world in which extinction rates were between 100 and 1000 times natural levels and in which we have managed to destroy 25 percent of the world’s wildlife in the last four decades alone.
    • Chris Hedges: Someone You Love: Coming to a Gulag Near You - Chris Hedges' Columns - Truthdig
      “You are unable to say that [such a book] consisting of political speech could not be captured under [NDAA section] 1021?” the judge asked. “We can’t say that,” Torrance answered. “Are you telling me that no U.S. citizen can be detained under 1021?” Forest asked. “That’s not a reasonable fear,” the government lawyer said. Advertisement “Say it’s reasonable to fear you will be unlucky [and face] detention, trial. What does ‘directly supported’ mean?” she asked. “We have not said anything about that …” Torrance answered. “What do you think it means?” the judge asked. “Give me an example that distinguishes between direct and indirect support. Give me a single example.” “We have not come to a position on that,” he said. “So assume you are a U.S. citizen trying not to run afoul of this law. What does it [the phrase] mean to you?” the judge said. “I couldn’t offer any specific language,” Torrance answered. “I don’t have a specific example.”
    • America brings the ‘war on terror’ home (Wolf, Daily Star)
      "(Judge) Forrest also repeatedly asked for assurances – at least five times – that the NDAA would not sweep up people like the plaintiffs: journalists engaged in journalism and citizens engaged in peaceful protest. Again, every time, the lawyers for Obama and Panetta said that they could not give her such assurances. [...] We now have it from the U.S. government lawyers’ own mouths: This law may put journalists at risk, or at least the lawyers explicitly refused to rule out that option for their client – and, as Forrest put it, they have “one very big client.”"
    • Obama’s evolution: Behind the failed ‘grand bargain’ on the debt (Wallsten/Montgomery/Wilson, WaPo)
      "That night, Obama prepared his party’s congressional leaders. He warned Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) that he might return to the position under discussion the previous Sunday — that is, cuts to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid in exchange for just $800 billion in tax increases. [...] White House officials said this week that the offer is still on the table."
    • Not All Labor Leaders Happy With AFL-CIO’s Obama Endorsement (Elk, In These Times)
      “There's not a lot of choice here, that’s the sad part of this,” says Matt McKinnon, political and legislative director of the Machinists union (IAM), which is affiliated with AFL-CIO and endorsed the president earlier this year. “He’s been a disappointment in several areas, but he came through with some decent appointees.” The expected endorsement represents the reality that organized labor leaders still feel trapped in a two-party system, with a not-always labor-friendly Democratic Party on one side and a downright hostile Republican Party on the other.
    • Elections: What Are They Good For? (Swanson, War Is A Crime.org)
      Voting isn't everything. "I think Emma Goldman had a point in saying that if voting changed anything they would ban it. I think Howard Zinn had a point in saying that it doesn't matter who is sitting in the White House so much as who is doing the sitting in. The relentless ubiquitous question of how you can change the world if you refuse to engage in electoral politics strikes me as crazy. Women didn't vote themselves the right to vote. Workers didn't elect the eight hour day. India didn't vote the British out."
    • Part II Infiltration of Political Movements is the Norm, Not the Exception in the United States (Zeese, Occupy Washington, DC)
      "When the long history of political infiltration is reviewed, the Occupy Movement should be surprised if it is not infiltrated. Almost every movement in modern history has been infiltrated by police and others using many of the same tactics we are now seeing in Occupy. "
    • Critiques Of Libertarianism: A Non-Libertarian FAQ (Huben)
      "The purpose of this FAQ is not to attack libertarianism, but some of the more fallacious arguments within it. That done, libertarians can then reformulate or reject these arguments. This is also needed to help people place libertarianism and its arguments in context. It is very hard to find any literature about libertarianism that was NOT written by its advocates. This isolation from normal political discourse makes it difficult to evaluate libertarian claims without much more research or analysis than most of us have time for. Compare this to (for example) the extensive literature of socialism and communism written by ideologues, scholars, pundits, etc. on all sides. Libertarianism is scantily analyzed outside its own movement. Let's fix that."
    • UPDATED: Limbaugh's Misogynistic Attack On Georgetown Law Student Continues With Increased Vitriol (Media Matters for America)
      Always good to have a reference, this is it. "Rush Limbaugh is not backing down after widespread condemnation over his misogynistic attack on Sandra Fluke, a Georgetown University Law School student who testified before Congress recently about the problems caused when women lack access to contraception. " Multiple clips for future show and tells.
    • America's Death Squads (Davies, PDA Community/ZCommunications)
      "Barack Obama has halted the macabre parade of hooded, shackled suspects in orange jumpsuits stumbling off American planes into the tropical sunshine at Guantanamo, but he has not done so by restoring the rule of law. Instead, to a great extent, he has replaced Bush’s policy with a global campaign to simply kill a wide range of people in cold blood: terrorism suspects, resistance fighters, and anyone else added to secret lists for secret reasons. From a uniquely American “exceptionalist” point of view, killing suspects instead of capturing them is a convenient way to avoid the embarrassment of sweeping up hundreds of mostly innocent people in an indiscriminate global dragnet and then not knowing what to do with them. The dead tell no tales. Public outrage is contained within the faraway countries where the killings take place and does not cause domestic political problems."
    • Corruption in Iraq: 'Your son is being tortured. He will die if you don't pay' (Abdul-Ahad, Guardian)
      Iraq ten years after: instead of one Saddam, many little ones. "Yassir was detained in 2007. For three years she heard nothing of him and assumed he was dead like his brothers. Then one day she took a phone call from an officer who said she could go to visit him if she paid a bribe. She borrowed the money from her neighbour and set off for the prison. "We waited until they brought him," she said. "His hands and legs were tied in metal chains like a criminal. I didn't know him from the torture. He wasn't my son, he was someone else.""
  • Subscribe

  • Meta

Blogged.com

2008 presidential candidates on executive power: an interactive, downloadable spreadsheet

Posted by Thomas Nephew on December 29th, 2007

The spreadsheet below organizes the responses of twelve presidential candidates* to twelve questions about their views on executive power, in light of President Bush’s myriad abuses thereof. The questions were posed by the Boston Globe’s Charlie Savage; the Boston Globe web site with the questions and all the answers is here (”Candidates on executive power: a full spectrum,” Dec. 22).

I developed this so I could play around with grading the responses and see if I could find someone head and shoulders ahead or behind the rest of the pack. Rather than give the full answer to each question, I’ve excerpted the key part or summarized the answer; the full answer can be accessed via the candidate or question links. I graded on a fairly generous 0-4 scale, with answers I saw little or no problem with getting a 4, little problems getting a 3, and so on. I also gave -1’s to “declined to answer” or the like. The last two questions (about who advises the candidates, and whether they think all candidates should answer) struck me as less informative for my purposes, so I gave them lower weights in my results. The weighted average scores — 3.8 for Obama, 3.6 for Clinton in the image above — are the overall score to look at.

The upshot: I see much to welcome about the three top Democratic candidates — or at least expect of them — and little to make me think one or the other is definitely best on this score. Edwards spoke in more of a campaign soundbite format, Obama tended to give long answers. I was mildly surprised that I thought Biden (also prone to some very long answers) did the best overall of the Democrats, but again, the differences were slight. While I’m an Edwards supporter, his answers were sometimes not fully responsive to the question or my concerns for the future; thus, I didn’t reward him merely saying he didn’t “envision” disregarding a congressional statute limiting troop deployments. I’m not sure what happened to Kucinich and Gravel, but they’re missing from this survey, which seems a shame to me.

On the Republican side, I thought Ron Paul was far and away the best of the bunch, though he’d be merely in the middle of the Democratic pack given his answers to congressional limits on troop deployments, and making detainee habeas rights a matter of the specific war involved. McCain was, I thought, noticeably worse than any of the Democratic candidates — yet he’d be a huge improvement on Bush. Romney, on the other hand, distinguished himself by giving one disturbing answer after the other, perhaps most notably his answer to Question 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?

ROMNEY: A President should decline …to provide an opinion as to whether Congress may validly limit his power as to the use of a particular technique…

… but also Question 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?

ROMNEY: 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.

So given a chance to put some daylight, any daylight at all between himself and Bush, Romney chose not to. Elect this man at your peril, America.

But Giuliani, Thompson, and Huckabee, by contrast, distinguished themselves by not answering at all — something I can understand for one or the other question, but not for all of them. To me, the issue of overreaching executive power is one of the most fundamental and important issues of the past 7 years, and of this election; a candidate who refuses to inform the public about any of his positions doesn’t deserve anyone’s vote, and his voters are raising their hands that they’d like to live in a dictatorship.

But why take my word for it when you can download this spreadsheet and come to your own conclusions? I don’t see the stuff above as my final answer, for that matter; I could be convinced I’ve got the scores wrong for one set of questions or another, or for one candidate versus another.

Anyway, have a look. For a more convenient look at the spreadsheet itself, go here. To download it to your computer in a useable, interactive Excel form, click here.

=====
[permalink]
* Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel either weren’t asked or didn’t respond in time — judging by how they’re not listed as “declined to state” for any of the questions.

UPDATE, 1/15: For other reactions to the questionnaire, see the estimable law professors Marty Lederman and Jack Balkin (”Balkinization”), as well as Andrew Sullivan, Arianna Huffington, Glenn Greenwald, and more.

9 Responses to “2008 presidential candidates on executive power: an interactive, downloadable spreadsheet”

  1. tom Says:

    It’s odd how Giuliani et al. seem to think that, not only does a sitting president have a right not to reveal certain information, but candidates still on the campaign trail shouldn’t talk about how they would handle national security and relations with Congress. Maybe their ideas on immigration, trade, and infrastructure are top secret too? Maybe we could just do away with all this debate stuff, measure the size of each candidate’s erect penis, and give the prize to the most generously endowed. Sorry, Hillary. You’re out of luck.
    Ok, I should apologize for that imagery.
    Nice chart.

  2. Thomas Nephew Says:

    odd how Giuliani et al seem to think that …candidates still on the campaign trail shouldn’t talk about how they would handle national security and relations with Congress
    Yup. It’s even odder that they have supporters who think that’s smart or tough or something. Said supporters should have a look at “50 most loathsome people of 2007” thing I ran across today. Giuliani and Huckabee are in it — #6 and #40-something. But #9 is…
    #9: You — Charges: You believe in freedom of speech, until someone says something that offends you. You suddenly give a damn about border integrity, because the automated voice system at your pharmacy asked you to press 9 for Spanish. You cling to every scrap of bullshit you can find to support your ludicrous belief system, and reject all empirical evidence to the contrary. You know the difference between patriotism and nationalism — it’s nationalism when foreigners do it. You hate anyone who seems smarter than you. You care more about zygotes than actual people. You love to blame people for their misfortunes, even if it means screwing yourself over. You still think Republicans favor limited government. Your knowledge of politics and government are dwarfed by your concern for Britney Spears’ children. You think buying Chinese goods stimulates our economy. You think you’re going to get universal health care. You tolerate the phrase “enhanced interrogation techniques.” You think the government is actually trying to improve education. You think watching CNN makes you smarter. You think two parties is enough. You can’t spell. You think $9 trillion in debt is manageable. You believe in an afterlife for the sole reason that you don’t want to die. You think lowering taxes raises revenue. You think the economy’s doing well. You’re an idiot.

    Not *you*, of course. Happy New Year!

  3. tom Says:

    If I may say so myself, I believe the following apply to me:
    “You hate anyone who seems smarter than you.”
    “You love to blame people for their misfortunes, even if it means screwing yourself over.”
    “You think you’re going to get universal health care.” Well, I hope.
    “You can’t spell.”
    But correct spelling is overrated anyway.

  4. Kevin Hayden Says:

    OT: would you give me a hollah via email?
    Happy New Year to you & yours!

  5. eRobin Says:

    Happy New Year!! I’m going with the over on this year’s greatness. Yay, 2008!!

  6. Thomas Nephew Says:

    Happy New Year, everyone! We were in NYC the last couple of days; got out just before — well, just as — the New Year’s Eve hoopla got going. I’m in NJ right now, still with limited Internet access. I’ll get to e-mail tonight.

  7. newsrackblog.com » Blog Archive » The Biden pick: could have been worse, I guess Says:

    [...] by my admittedly subjective scoring, Biden had the best presidential powers survey score of all the candidates at the time. I gave him slightly better scores than Obama on questions on [...]

  8. newsrackblog.com » Blog Archive » September 17 is Constitution Day Says:

    [...] the candidates late last year for “executive power” issues (something I turned into a spreadsheet rating system and described in a blog post [...]

  9. newsrackblog.com » Blog Archive » How that worked out: an election followup Says:

    [...] my best to help raise the issues of Iraq, civil liberties, torture, global warming, Iran, and the rule of law during the election season, whether here on my blog or on doorsteps, at festival booths, and in [...]

Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>