That Was Then, This Is Now

by hilzoy

December 20, 2007:

"1. Does the president have inherent powers under the Constitution to conduct surveillance for national security purposes without judicial warrants, regardless of federal statutes?

McCain: There are some areas where the statutes don’t apply, such as in the surveillance of overseas communications. Where they do apply, however, I think that presidents have the obligation to obey and enforce laws that are passed by Congress and signed into law by the president, no matter what the situation is.

Okay, so is that a no, in other words, federal statute trumps inherent power in that case, warrantless surveillance?

McCain: I don't think the president has the right to disobey any law."

Now:

"A top adviser to Senator John McCain says Mr. McCain believes that President Bush’s program of wiretapping without warrants was lawful, a position that appears to bring him into closer alignment with the sweeping theories of executive authority pushed by the Bush administration legal team.

In a letter posted online by National Review this week, the adviser, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, said Mr. McCain believed that the Constitution gave Mr. Bush the power to authorize the National Security Agency to monitor Americans’ international phone calls and e-mail without warrants, despite a 1978 federal statute that required court oversight of surveillance."

Here's the letter posted to NRO; here's Andrew McCarthy discussing it, and here's Glenn Greenwald. Glenn sums it up:

"These days, in order to please the self-proclaimed "small government" conservative movement, a candidate must now vow to spy on Americans with no warrants or oversight of any kind; reserve the right to torture; and even break the law -- ignore popular will as expressed through acts of Congress -- whenever such lawbreaking is deemed beneficial. Those are now defining planks in the limited-government "conservative" movement."

Yep. It's a strange, strange world. To see how a real believer in Constitutional limitations on government power answered the Dec. 2007 questionnaire cited above, see here.

Comments

[Zifnab]

To be fair, in December of 2007 McCain was nothing more than a long-standing Senator of the Republican Party. In June of 2008, he's the heir apparent to King George's throne.

So... I mean... situations change.

[cleek]

blah. what a freaky and uninspiring toad McCain has turned out to be. i can't believe i used to think i would've voted for him if he'd won the nomination in 2000.

[John J.]

It's amazing what hiring a few lobbyists can do...

http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2008/06/mccain-campaign-staffed-telecom-immunity-lobbyists

[Model 62]

"These days, in order to please the self-proclaimed "small government" conservative movement, a candidate must now vow to spy on Americans with no warrants or oversight of any kind;

Well naturally small government advocates support the policy. Remove the oversight and you remove one (or more!) tiers of Federal bureaucracy.

[Gary Farber]

Von, comment?

[JakeB]

Model 62--
not exactly, my friend. Spying on Americans sans oversight is only "small government"-conservative when the spying is contracted out to business.

[Daniel Merritt]

There's something else ironic and hilarious in McCain's questionnaire. The final question asks if he thinks "candidates answering questionnaires like this one" is important to democracy. McCain answers yes. Only problem? He directly declined to answer the two questions immediately proceeding that one. And on one more question, he completely dodged the question in a nauseating manner.

So it's important, just not for him.

[EarBucket]

John McCain's become completely driven by what he thinks his base wants to hear. If he thought they wanted him to wear great big Elton John glasses, he'd have them on his face by this afternoon.

[farmgirl]

EarBucket -- Now THERE's an idea I'd pay to see implemented.

[Nell]

Thanks for reminding us of Obama's answers to the Charlie Savage constitutional questionnaire, hilzoy.

His clear statement (Warrantless surveillance of American citizens, in defiance of FISA, is unlawful and unconstitutional.) could be put to good effect right now if he were to have a little talk with Silvestre Reyes, Steny Hoyer, and other House leaders about the undesirability of immunity for telecoms who broke that law.

Politically, it looks pretty stupid to be supporting the opposing candidate's policy, and to be carrying out the desires of corporate PACs. Constitutionally, and in policy terms, it's wretched for Congress to insert itself into the judicial process, to undermine the rule of law, to block a full understanding of what the current administration has done.

[Nell]

The optics of Tuesday night's speech would have been improved if McCain had worn big Elton John glasses.

[Nombrilisme Vide]

Cleek - I hear that. I'm trying to remember at what point I went from thinking of McCain as a reasonable if slightly misguided sort to a posturing, unprincipled sycophant. I'm wanting to say it happened in the '05-'06 period, but it now seems so inconceivable to think well of him that I can't precisely say.

[farmgirl]

This is a job for ... PhotoshopMan!

(anyone? pretty please?)

[hairshirthedonist]

I third that, cleek. Somehow I still like McCain just as a guy, but would fall into utter dispair if he were to beat Obama.

To be completely honest, I feel sort of the same way about GWB. If I didn't know what a screwed up president he was, I'd probably enjoy his company. He seems like a fun guy. Too bad so many vote for presidents on that basis, or so it would seem.

[EarBucket]

farmgirl, just for you:

Elton John McCain.

[farmgirl]

EarBucket, that is the pinnacle of awesomeness. Thanks.

Hmm, this seems right up Andrew Sullivan's alley...

[von]

Von, comment?

I think that (1) a lot is being read into a clause line in a letter that is otherwise quite non-controversial and (2) the clause in question is ambiguous, but (3) it's quite obvious that said "read-into" was intended, because McCain's staff is bashing everyone over the head with it.

So:

1. I generally dislike the tactic of making an ambiguous statement and then having your people put a particular spin on it when before the "right" group of people -- but then you do it deny the interpretation if and when it becomes politically untenable. It's sleazy.

2. A lot of politicians do this kind of thing, however. Some even do it in reverse: Obama's disconnect on NAFTA is an example (Obama to union crowd: it needs to be negotiated / High-level Obama surrogate to Canada: Obama doesn't really mena that). So, while disappointing, it's the kind of thing that is likely to be meaningful to partisans and few others.

3. If this does reflect a true shift in McCain's position, I'm disappointed and of course disagree with it.

[von]

Sorry for the typos in the above.

[Jeff]

To be completely honest, I feel sort of the same way about GWB. If I didn't know what a screwed up president he was, I'd probably enjoy his company.

GWB seems like a bully. I doubt I'd enjoy his company under any circumstances.

[Gary Farber]

"He seems like a fun guy."

He's always struck me as being a classic of the sort of guy who at school was a jock anti-intellectual bully, the sort who reveled in beating up or mocking the pinheaded four-eyes folks, and enjoyed towel-snapping, but these are subjective perceptions, perhaps.

[hairshirthedonist]

Jeff and Gary, don't make me kick your asses.

[farmgirl]

von -- can you find a different example than NAFTA? that seems to have been conclusively debunked as the Harper government's attempt to smear Obama in favor of Clinton (whose campaign DID reassure the Canadians).

[Platosearwax]

To be completely honest, I feel sort of the same way about GWB. If I didn't know what a screwed up president he was, I'd probably enjoy his company.

I'll have to second the confusion there. He always seemed to me to be the guy at the bar with a group of people who, when he left to go to the can or something, half the people say, "who the hell was that tool?". My brother has a friend like that, and he irritates me in precisely the same way as listening to GWB does.

[Nombrilisme Vide]

He's always struck me as being a classic of the sort of guy who at school was a jock anti-intellectual bully, the sort who reveled in beating up or mocking the pinheaded four-eyes folks, and enjoyed towel-snapping, but these are subjective perceptions, perhaps.

I can definitely see this perception; it does seem to fit with the complacently-self-assured, intellectually incurious posturing he tends towards. But as we're invoking a scholastic context, I'm forced to try to square it with him being a cheerleader. And my brain is throwing an exception.

Meh, who needs consistency?

[hairshirthedonist]

Now you're on my list, too, Platosearwax.

(cracking knuckles)

[hairshirthedonist]

Seriously, though, I always got the impression that GWB would be a glad-handed, greet-you-with-a-smile, always-use-your-first-name-until-he-gave-you-a-nickname kind of guy - a bit phoney, but not unpleasant. Not a guy to become the best of friends with, but a friendly acquaintance you could hang out with now and then.

[The Modesto Kid]

I've always had the sense that George Bush would be the kind of guy who grimpshkritzles the paddyhammers beyond recognition -- He really seems like a walloping dandylion of a scrumgullion. In my ideal fantasy world, we would all be shnarkwoggling sleemitzers with George Bush and his gang of weisenheimers.

[hairshirthedonist]

I keep re-reading that, and I laugh every time.

[The Modesto Kid]

Thanks!

[Gary Farber]

All mimsy are my borogoves today.

[Jeff]

as we're invoking a scholastic context, I'm forced to try to square it with him being a cheerleader.

If you notice, he never goes after anyone himself -- he always has attack-dogs for that (Cheney, Rove, etc). He a dainty kind of bully.

[von]

von -- can you find a different example than NAFTA? that seems to have been conclusively debunked as the Harper government's attempt to smear Obama in favor of Clinton (whose campaign DID reassure the Canadians).

Ahh, no. Before we get to the blog you linke, here's the actual story (from http://www.slate.com/id/2185753/entry/0/):

On Feb. 9 Austan Goolsbee, the senior economic adviser to Barack Obama's presidential campaign, had a meeting with Georges Rioux, consul general for the Canadian government. The two men met in Chicago, where Rioux maintains a consular office for the states of Illinois, Missouri, and Wisconsin and where Goolsbee teaches economics at the University of Chicago. (Slate readers may also remember Goolsbee as a onetime "Dismal Science" columnist.) Afterward, Joseph DeMora, a consulate staff member, wrote an enthusiastic summary (see below and the following two pages) for Canadian Ambassador Michael Wilson. In the memo, DeMora praised Goolsbee's "intellectual prowess … approachability, curiosity and youthful enthusiasm" and alerted Wilson that the Obama brain-truster "appeared genuinely … impressed by the magnitude" of the economic relationship between the United States and Canada (see below).

For the Canadians, a key point of concern was Obama's sharp criticism of the North American Free Trade Agreement. DeMora wrote Wilson that in the Chicago meeting, Goolsbee "candidly acknowledged the protectionist sentiment that has emerged, particularly in the Midwest, during the primary campaign" but reassured Rioux that Obama's NAFTA-bashing "should be viewed as more about political positioning than a clear articulation of policy plans." Three weeks later, Canada's CTV News reported that a "senior member" of Obama's campaign had phoned Wilson personally to advise him to "not be worried about what Obama says about NAFTA." The Obama campaign denied that story, which (if you believe DeMora's account) was only slightly off the mark, and declined to elaborate. On March 3 the Associated Press released the DeMora memo, which by then had circulated widely within the Canadian government. Asked once again to comment, Obama said his campaign provided Canada no such reassurance while Goolsbee maintained that DeMora "misinterpreted" his comments. For its part, the Chicago consulate smoothed things over with a statement saying, "there was no intention to convey, in any way, that Senator Obama and his campaign team were taking a different position in public from views expressed in private." It looks like President Obama may owe one to our friendly neighbors to the north.

The blog you link concerns the subsequent phone call -- not the (undenied) meeting in Chicago or the (undenied) Demora memorandum, which, if believed, is in some sense more damning (effectively, "don't believe what Obama is about to say about NAFTA; he doesn't mean it").

The Obama campaign's response to the Demora memo was, "my advisor was misinterpreted." And perhaps that the case, although I frankly suspect not. Renegotiating NAFTA would be so extraordinarily stupid that one would want to send assurances that it wasn't really on the table, whatever the rhetoric sounds like.

Moreover, even if Obama believes in the natural results of his rhetoric -- and I suspect he doesn't -- Goolsbee is among the sharper of the sharp blades. He certainly doesn't. When the subject of NAFTA came up, it would be completely out of character for him to embrace the rhetoric thus far and to come. His undoutable (and not denied) coolness on the subject almost certainly led to the alleged "misunderstanding."

[von]

I can understand liking McCain -- I sure do. But I never got the whole "I have the guy, but wouldn't mind having a beer with him" Bush-meme. Just as Bush's intelligence has been consistently underestimated, his personability has been consistently overestimated. Bush struck me as the classic entitlement bully from the start. It starts with his annoying penchant for nicknaming his subordinates -- Really, who but a complete ass does that? -- but it doesn't end there. (It's also a crappy management style, which suggests an inability to respect and accept candid advice. The best managers that I've had have gone out of their way to encourage a free-flow of information and ideas, which begins by treating their subordinates as equals. Since I've assumed more of a manager's role, I've tried, imperfectly, to follow their example. Nicknaming my senior associate "Stinky" while insisting that he call me by my proper name does not seem to keep with the spirit.)

[von]

"I have the guy, but wouldn't mind having a beer with him" should be "I hate the guy, but wouldn't mind having a beer with him". Probably some folks would like both to have George Bush and to have a beer with him -- although maybe not in that order -- but they weren't the focus of my comment.

[The Modesto Kid]

who but a complete ass does that?

My boss at my previous job addressed all of his subordinates by nicknames. It was a little annoying sure but he was not an ass -- he was about my favorite thing about the job, which I disliked for other reasons.

[von]

My boss at my previous job addressed all of his subordinates by nicknames. It was a little annoying sure but he was not an ass -- he was about my favorite thing about the job, which I disliked for other reasons.

OK; but did your boss require you to be formal with him? I can see how, in some circumstances, a completely informal, we-all-give-each-other-crap atmosphere can prevail. A long trial, for instance (I'm an attorney). Otherwise, you're talking about a high degree of difficulty move.