Groups on Left, Right Ask Candidates to Reject Bush's Wider Powers

[Hissyspit]

Source: San Francisco Chronicle

Groups on left, right ask candidates to reject Bush's wider powers
Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer

Sunday, October 14, 2007

President Bush's drive to expand executive power over surveillance, detention, interrogation and the meaning of new laws has drawn largely ineffectual protests from Congress. But a group of liberals and a handful of prominent conservatives are pressing would-be successors to renounce those powers before they take office.

Both the liberal American Freedom Campaign and the conservative American Freedom Agenda have adopted platforms complaining of administration muscle-flexing on issues ranging from the treatment of prisoners at the U.S. naval base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to the Justice Department's threats to prosecute reporters for espionage.

The liberal group also has asked all presidential candidates to sign a pledge of limited executive authority, reading, "We are Americans, and in our America we do not torture, we do not imprison people without charge or legal remedy, we do not tap people's phones and e-mails without court order, and above all we do not give any president unchecked power. I pledge to fight to protect and defend the Constitution from attack by any president."

None of the nine Republican candidates has responded. The pledge has been signed by five Democratic hopefuls: Sens. Barack Obama and Chris Dodd, Rep. Dennis Kucinich, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson and former Sen. Mike Gravel. The other three Democratic candidates, Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Joseph Biden and former Sen. John Edwards, have not signed, but issued promises covering roughly the same ground. Letters from all three included renunciations of torture, wiretapping of U.S. citizens without court approval and imprisonment without judicial review.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/10/14/MN4ASL450.DTL

[Syrinx]

1. Naomi Wolf/Bruce Fein 2008!

I'm an Edwards guy so far, but why in the heck would he and Clinton and Biden refuse to sign such a thing?

:shrug:

k&r

[ShortnFiery]

2. Because they are hoping against hope to BOTH snag the Presidency and enjoy those powers.

Politicians have NO shame. :evilgrin:

[Syrinx]

3. Oh yeah, I forgot!

Not really. ;)

Maybe this pushes me over more to Obama's side.

I really like Kucinich's platform. I just don't have faith in the American people to vote for a pipsqueak. :D

[Demit]

4. The American people have a perfect representative in you.

Smiley or not.

[Syrinx]

5. I think that's a shot

EDIT: I don't think it's a shot. I'm paranoid, I admit it. :)

But I will pretend it's praise.

I feel helpless now.

I see my country sinking to the bottom of the ocean. And I have little clue.

I don't know what to do to help. I really don't.

I don't know what to do. It seems totally out of my control.

[Demit]

12. You like Dennis Kucinich's platform, then refer to him as a pipsqueak.

You didn't put the word in scare quotes, and I've never seen it used to describe him anyway. So it's your description. Which you pass off as the American people's. No, I didn't mean my comment as praise.

[bluerum]

15. They may need those powers to reverse a lot of the crap that has been

enacted over the last 7 years.

I wonder why a democratic administration should reduce executive power that republicans claimed was needed to run the country?

The republicans again (as always) want it both ways. When they are in office they keep everything behind closed doors and let the executive keep everything that they do from the citizens and democratic members of government.

Now that there is a real chance that they may not only lose the general election, but that democratic majorities will increase, they want to roll it all back.

I don't favor an all powerful ruling executive, but I find the prospect the double standard that reigns in democrats and turns republicans loose on the world even less appealing.

Don't throw the national crisis/war-time president crap at me. Anyone can concoct such a disaster and taking innocent lives to sow the fear and hate that can be used to expand ones own power simply demonstrates the craven mercenary nature of our leaders.

[Frances]

18. I think that Clinton and Biden and the other Dem

who didn't sign are playing hardball. If Dems sign a document saying that they won't use these extraordinary powers, then the Repubs are off the hook. They can use the powers themselves but they don't have to worry that a Dem president will not use the same powers against them.

It's essential that NEITHER a Dem or a Repub administration have these powers.

[bluerum]

22. They better play hardball, and slap a few republic heads. To back down

and knuckle under to the republics request would send a very poor message. It would reinforce the image of of spineless democrats s that can't stand up to the republics.

Not that this would be unusual, but it would be a nice change to ram this one down the republic throats.

I agree - neither democratic nor republic presidents should be all powerful. But I think that the elected democratic president, or even the nominee, needs to make this a campaign issue and frame it such that an unchecked executive can wreak havoc and HURT the country and the world (see Bush et al.). An unchecked executive becomes a target for business interests, well moneyed lobby groups (see Bush/oil and weapons businesses) and general corruption. The fact the the democrats have not moved on impeaching bush et al simply demonstrates their spinelessness.

This is their best path I think. To hold out for and promote an unchecked executive will invite the republics to to fabricate another impeachment of a democratic president. And don't think that not having the votes will even slow them down. They will frame it such that a number of spineless dems will jump the fence because they can't be seen as not rejecting the notion of an unchecked executive.

The candidates need to come out against it now, keep it through at least the first three years of their first term while working on an efficient way of rolling it back and undoing a lot of the damage the current cabal has caused.

[IndianaGreen]

24. This is not a Democrat v Republican issue. The Constitution MUST be restored!

Tyranny is tyranny no matter the political party in power.

[Tarheel_Dem]

6. Expect the complaints from the right to grow stronger.....

the closer we come to election '08. There's no way they want a unitary executive under a Clinton administration. These people have no shame. I know there are some groups who have been complaining all along about the extraordinary powers this administration has given itself, but so many on the right have been fine with it as long as a Repuke occupies the White House. Expect that to change very soon. Shameful......

[ixion]

9. this is the point I've been trying to make...

all the while the GOP was giving endless power to little lord pissypants, I've been making the argument that as soon as a Dem had the office, they'd be back-peddling like mad to rescind these powers.

IMO, this goes hand in hand with the MSM acting as enablers for the neocons. They've been cheerleading the concept of the Unitary Executive for years now, brutally bashing any Dem who had the nerve to mention the unconstitutional aspects of it.

All of a sudden, with a Dem poised to take back the WH, suddenly the concept of the Unitary Executive is not-so-cool with the MSM.

Go figure. :grr:

They're right. There is nothing cool about dictators. So it would be ideal if the idea of the Unitary Executive was thrown on the scrap heap right along with the the so-called Bush Doctrine.

[Zambero]

17. It was the same with the line-item veto under Clinton

This precept of the GOP's 1994 Contract With America suddenly turned sour on conservatives when Bill Clinton used it. Not long afterwards, the right-wing component of the Supreme Court lined up to rule the line item veto as an unconstitutional violation of the separation of powers principle. Which was absolute hogwash, since Congress already has the power to legislate and submit appropriations by individual line item.

Increasing the power and discretion of the executive branch is fine and dandy, as long as it's being wielded by an ultra-conservative administration. Once tossed out of power, there'll be profound wailing and gnashing of teeth.

[aquart]

20. Can't wait for the screeching to begin.

[IndianaGreen]

23. Conservatives like Jonathan Turley, Bruce Feinn, John Dean, and Bob Barr

are longtime opponents of Bush's power grab, and they all support impeaching Bush and Cheney.

Defending the Constitution is not a partisan issue.

[Tarheel_Dem]

25. If you'll re-read my post, I concede that there have been

groups who have been opposed and that includes some conservatives, but my point is that the closer we get to electing Pres. Hillary, the opposition will grow much stronger from conservatives who have been complacent and provided no oversight of this administration. That was my point.

[izzie]

7. Maybe these people running want more power?

After all Bush got this grab for power from some type of thinking he did. I am sure their are others out their running that think more power for that office would be a good thing. I frankly think they should sign on to go back to the Constitution. But face it a lot of Am. seem to like to take orders from the likes of a Bush. Many even think that we take oaths to him and not the Constitutions and they are in Congress and the Military.

[MGKrebs]

8. Ah yes, the drumbeat of interest group "pledges" continues.

I believe this is why Hillary at first resisted signing that thing from MoveOn promising to uphold the oath of office. It legitimizes and opens the door to every interest group to get their own pledge from the candidates worded in a very specific way that may or may not be appropriate. But it's bad publicity if they don't.

[Arkansas Granny]

10. It's a good example of a conundrum.

Damned if you do and damned if you don't.

[peaches2003]

11. Guiliani

Can you imagine Guiliani as President with these powers??? I'm sure he's already having Blackwater measured for their brown shirts.

[Zambero]

19. Do you mean Benito Giulliani?

I reckon Il Duce would adorn Blackwater with the same line of cocktail gowns he wore in his infamous cross-dress groping video with Donald Trump. Sort of a continuation of Bush's "kinder and gentler" principle, applied to thugs in this instance.

[kurth]

13. More presidential powers only if president is R

Fucking hypocrites.

[HeraldSquare212]

14. Must be done before elected

It has to be a firm pledge before a candidate is elected, otherwise the temptation will be too much when that person is in office. Thomas Jefferson was elected based on a theory of limited federal and particularly executive power; once elected, he dramatically expanded both, based entirely on what he felt were good reasons and extraordinary events. With all due respect to the current field of candidates, if Jefferson couldn't restrain himself, they certainly will not be able to do so.

[aquart]

21. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

And those signed pledges are worth exactly nothing, btw. Utterly unenforceable.

If we do not impeach Bush, his usurped powers pass intact to the next president. Hopefully, Roberts will get off his tight, narrow-decision making little ass and do something about it. Doubt it.

For two years, the new president is going to have undreamed of power. Then the midterm elections will alter that. We have TWO YEARS to end the war and undo the damage. ONLY two years. Does anybody think we're ready to hit the ground running?

[DeepModem Mom]

16. K&R