putting U.S. Ground troops into Pakistan in force, as Obama has said he would do, with or without Musharraf's OK. How do you all feel about that?

That's some shiny bait. You must have mistaken me for a fish. A fish that has all night.

don't slip into the void! Before it's too late!

Question 1:

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

Mitt Romney:

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.

This is clearly a long-winded yes. I don't expect every word out of Romney's mouth to drip with legal/constitutional meaning, but by saying that "our most basic civil liberty is the right to be kept alive," followed up with the statement that the President's paramount duty is to "keep America safe," he is signaling exactly the same cynical theories on presidential power that have gripped the executive branch for the past several years: absolute presidential power to act on even the most improbable of threats to the "freedom" to be safe.

Romney's fear-mongering statement, condensed, was that absolute government power is the only true form of liberty. This is not only Orwellian to the extreme, but also perfectly in conformity with the Bush/Cheney Republican Party.

Romney is also building staw men in his quote. Intelligence and surveillance as tools are not being questioned by the premise of Savages question. Legal intelligence and surveillance are also not being questioned by Savage. Also Romney uses the word 'proven' to describe successes. I suspect he is trying to bring to mind some of the made up or exaggerated BS terror plots that have not been proven to have even existed much less taken down by 'intelligence and surveillance'.

All true. Also note that Romney tries to sound reasonable by saying the President must use all "legal" tools at his disposal. This is simply shorthand for the duplicitous, pseudo-legal argument that the President's doing something that violates a statute is nevertheless "legal" because the Constitution affirmatively allows him to do so. This is a classic John Yoo-ism, and strongly reminiscent of Nixon's "when the president does it, that means that it is not illegal."

Needless to say, the Supreme Court has repeatedly rejected this pernicious view of presidential power, most famously in the Youngstown "Steel Seizure" case.

(1) Britney Spears will not do as well in the New Hampshire primary as originally hoped, because apparently she is craaaaazy.

(2) Obama Girl could beat Obama in the New Hampshire primary, and probably also South Carolina. All hail YouTube.

(3) Obama is the Kenyan Candidate, a plant from the "third world," in Chris Matthews' terminology. He will appoint his enthusiastic Kenyan uncle, and hundreds of people from his father's village, to his cabinet.

And something I learned from equally insightful, full-time blog commenters: Obama is Dick Cheney times Donald Rumsfeld. Boo!

LOL DCLaw1

was that a nibble? ;)

Haha. No, I generally only mock, not directly engage, obnoxious blowhards.

I just don't have nearly as much free time as them, which puts me at a "disadvantage."

Ciao!

he will win the general election in a landslide. All the race-baiting and "Hussein"-chanting, while deplorable beyond belief, will seem so unbelievably small and irrelevant by comparison.

Although we must remain ever-vigilant against the lizard brain that always threatens to engulf the popular sentiment, it appears increasingly obvious that the "genius" Karl Rove, like every other sweaty misanthrope the GOP brandishes as a formidible thinker, has done immense damage to the entire Republican Party brand.

Let the primaries decide the victor of the Democratic mantle -- this will be our next President. Yes, we must always think critically, but let's try not to cannibalize ourselves in the process. Not because it might threaten the Democratic Party's chances in November (it won't), but because there is a train about to roll through this country, and one can't determine its direction by laying on its tracks.

Smartly skeptical, but for once hopeful -- allow yourself the moment to appreciate what is undeniably happening. As I knew it would, despite the crushing sadness of the day, on November 2, 2004.

You made me smile for saying so well what I am feeling today. Thanks. It feels good to have hope for a change. Its been a long cold lonely winter.

I'm only passing along the energy that has come through me from another source, my friend. I am one part curmudgeon, one part doe-eyed idealist, and the latter is definitely winning the fight these days.

I'll go out on a limb here and risk a piranha attack -- seeing Obama win Iowa so decisively, and then hearing his transcendant victory speech, was one of the most inspiring moments in recent memory.

Something just feels profoundly different right now. I can't describe it, but the closest comparison is when a terrible flu starts to lift, and simply feeling close to healthy -- by comparison to the weeks of blurry suffering -- feels like pure bliss.

If it makes anyone feel superior, call me a naive for all I care. Such accusations have about as much effect on me as Rudy grunting "911."