Michael Goldfarb, McCain's Newest Official, Says President Has "Near Dictatorial Powers"

Bill Kristol today proudly announces that one of his Weekly Standard staff members, Michael Goldfarb, was just named the Deputy Communications Director of the McCain campaign. Last April, this newest McCain official participated in a conference call with former Senator George Mitchell, during which Mitchell advocated a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq. Afterwards, this is what Goldfarb wrote about what he thinks are the powers the President possesses in our country:

Mitchell's less than persuasive answer [to whether withdrawal timetables "somehow infringe on the president's powers as commander in chief?"]: "Congress is a coequal branch of government...the framers did not want to have one branch in charge of the government."

True enough, but they sought an energetic executive with near dictatorial power in pursuing foreign policy and war. So no, the Constitution does not put Congress on an equal footing with the executive in matters of national security.

Read full story here. (Subscription required)

Comments

[lynneann]

Yipes -

It's the big D for me - Democrat all the way!! =)

[TimRivers]

While this is revealing, it shouldn't suprise anyone. This administration has trampled on the Constitution ever since 9/11 and cloaked it all in "patriotism" and/or "national security".

True patriots do not sit still for this drivel. WE NEED TO REMAIN VIGILANT NOW THAT THE PRIMARY RACE IS OVER. We need to continue to stand tall and strong and UNITED against the GOP and their quest for totalitarian rule.

Obama 08!

[Susanfrom29]

Just hope that some Democratic operative is taking notes on this for a campaign ad.

[nomoron]

As far as I'm concerned this is the one most important issue of this election cycle. The notion of execuive power and it's far reaching authority should be of primary concern to the american people. We've spent the better part of eight years stuck with an administration believing whole heartedly in an executive branch immune to the accountability of checks and balances legislative and judicial branches are empowered to utilize. The constitution expressly states each branch has equal authority. The president took an oath to defend that document, yet we've seen time and again Bush and Co.'s outright contempt for anyone placing limits on their activities. Then we hear Bush and McCain talk about refusing to speak with adversaries around the world? Give me a fucking break! If they really think they're any better than those they won't talk with they're clearly not looking at approval ratings, nor do they care about the wants and needs of the people they allegedly represent. I've never believed in monarchies or dictatorships. The last few years have been as close a demonstration to living under those conditions as I've ever seen. It's time to stand up and elect a leader who believes in the rule of law and return this country to it's standing in the world. Nothing is more important.

[catfood]

No surprise here. Unchecked executive power is perfectly acceptable to Republicans, provided the executive in question is a Republican. If the executive is a Democrat they will use every available means to marginalize or remove that individual from power.

[lisakaz2]

Yep. Okay for Bushie but not Obama (not that Obama would want it). So maybe Obama could get the anti-Constitutional crap rolled back.

[ObamaOhio08]

MAKE THIS VIRAL!!!!!!!!!!!

WE CANNOT LET THE MSM GET AWAY WITH NOT REPORTING THIS.

NO. MORE. DICTATORS.

Not. This. Time.

OBAMA '08

[gakabani]

They think we are stupid, like we did not know! He is a dictator a la Saddam!

[soot]

Gee, that's just... great.

[IraqVet04]

"Congress shall have the power to declare war" Sounds like a co equal branch to me. Sounds like someone wants to deny powers of Congress.

[MissKaren]

That is the best argument for the impeachment of George Walker Bush and Richard Cheney. We need to demonstrate that the powers of the Presidency should not be used to destroy the Constitution.

Bush used bin Laden to destroy the fabric of our government of laws. BinLaden was a godsend to Bush. He would never have had a second term without Osama and I'm almost tempted to ask what bush promised Osama to keep him in the picture. Maybe telling him the USA would never try seriously to capture or kill him.

[itmaybetoolate]

If only one of the democratic candidates would stand up and call for this! Not likely though. It is not politically "wise."

[AmbroseChapel]

And this is the key. This ideological answer literally frames the past eight years. This should be on a constant loop and should be played for everyone to hear. This is a complete misunderstanding of government. It looks like McCain and Co should not only learn a little bit more about foreign policies but maybe they should take a refresher course on domestic as well.

[athenasword]

"they sought an energetic executive with near dictatorial power in pursuing foreign policy and war"

Whoa! The Framers would disagree, I think.

[abeattie]

Probably not actually -- check out Washington, Adams, and Jefferson.

[michelv]

Look deep into those eyes and check out the smirk. The guy has dementia :-)

[Sundialsvc4]

It is axiomatic in world history that all societies devolve from an attempt at democratic rule, to an attempt at dictatorship, to ... oblivion.

For instance, "what is Italy today?" Answer: not much. But a few thousand years ago it was The Roman Empire. For a time, it sought to be a civilized society, and for a time, it was. But then, when things started to get a little tough, the Roman Emperors sought to crush all opposition. When that happened, the great Roman society started to devolve into nothingness.

Historians of our future may look curiously upon "the Great American Experiment," which flickered into life in 1776 and disappeared into nothingness a mere 232 years later in 2008 (or so). They will say that it flourished, then ran afoul of human nature exactly as one of its greatest Generals (Dwight D. Eisenhower) foresaw, and then... simply... imploded (what a shame...) and was... gone.

Although the United States of America consists of about 300 million people, the total population of the world is many times that number. In the long-and-short of things, those folks are not going to live under "our" thumb. If "we" don't want to be "the people" anymore, then we'll be pushed off the playground and the planet will continue to orbit around the Sun, regardless. If the leaders of this country want to play with totalitarianism ... dreaming that their nuclear toys give ultimate power ... then this planet will continue to orbit, regardless.

[starboymikey]

For instance, "what is Italy today?" Answer: not much.
__________­__________­__________­__________­__________­___

I'm sure millions of Italians would take issue with this. But even if they are not a "world power", their quality of life is pretty damned good.

And then there is Germany, which totally disproves your theory. Germany went from being about as democratic as any European country in the early 20th century to becoming the model of totalitarian brutality. Yet today it is once again a thriving democracy, more sound in every way than it was before Hitler's Nazis came to power.

The key lesson to learn is that the Germany of today has few if any ambitions of becoming a military superpower or empire. Thus they are able to put most of their resources into building a stronger, more prosperous society. Sure there are economic and political problems, but they have hardly fallen into *oblivion.­*

Meanwhile, we, as head of the putative American Empire, pour over 30% of our resources into a military machine that is stuck in the Iraqi quagmire, while we go deeper into debt, our infrastructure crumbles and tens of millions of us go without health care.

But this does not mean that our decline can't ever be reversed. What it will take is for enough Americans to wake up to how our leaders have abused their trust, and then for those same Americans to bring about a radical change of direction through new leadership.

[Nofoolhere]

I wholeheartedly concur. We as a nation have tolerated MULTIPLE ACTS OF TREASON from the executive branch, Bush and Cheney in particular, and then their Justice Department. Why has the Congress refused to take the essential steps? Because of the common denominator that links and controls them, CORPORATE POWER.

When rising fuel and food cost precipitate angry demonstrations in the streets, they will be seeded with violent right wing thugs (per Nazi Germany in the 1930s). Then comes brutal repression and martial law. That will complete the fascistic corporate coup d’etat that has unfolded since Bush-Cheney’s falsified and manipulated our elections in 2000 and 2004.

The economic impact of ruthless corporatist power has been the focus of a relevant, timely and brilliant international best seller: The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism, by Naomi Klein. I urge you to visit the following site to see some professional reviews that extol the relevant importance of Klein’s magnificent book that validates the above assertions:
http://www.naomiklein.org/shock-doctrine/reviews/

Please read this book and pass it to others. The social shock of food and fuel rapidly becoming unaffordable by increasing numbers of our society is DELIBERATELY intended to provide the shock that will justify in the fascistic mind, the permanent removal of the inhibiting nuisance of democratic practices. THEN IT WILL BE TOO LATE. Before you scoff at my claims, read Klein’s book. The threat is DIRE, REAL AND IMMANENT.

[DGregory]

after this i doubt this new official will be there any longer