fa04a29e-e540-4ea2-892b-e2f05d84341a.jpg

From the Carpetbagger:

Over the weekend, Giuliani reportedly told the Cato Institute’s President Ed Crane that a president should have the authority to arrest U.S. citizens with no review. Then, complicating matters, a Giuliani campaign appearance in New Hampshire raised eyebrows even further.

Rudy was asked about the Iraq supplemental. He said he finds it “irresponsible and dangerous.” Then he began to muse about, after a veto, “would the president have the constitutional authority to support them [the troops], anyway?” He said he’s a lawyer so he wouldn’t offer an opinion “off the top of his head,” then he proceeded to do just that.

He seemed to suggest that Bush could fund the Iraq war without Congress providing funding, but it was confusing. In an interview with a New Hampshire TV reporter after his remarks, he seemed more categorical and said, since the war had been authorized by Congress, the president has “the inherent authority to support the troops.”

National Review’s Rich Lowry was kind enough to note that Giuliani’s comments “could be seized on by his critics to argue that he has a dangerously out-sized view of presidential powers.” Ya think?

I guess we all kind of expect this kind of self-aggrandizing authoritarianism from crazy Rudi -- you can see his ego virtually swell as he envisions himself telling Congress to go Cheney themselves. But it does raise the question -- you don't regularly hear a whole lot from the '08 Presidential candidates on George Bush's egregious overreach, or criticism of the Unitary Executive.  Certainly not everyone is as megalomaniacal as Rudi and it's understandable that some may not want to stitch themselves up today with hypotheticals that may infringe on tomorrow's realities, but the BushCo. abuses have been so gross and so flagrant that it would be comforting to hear a few of them come out swinging for the fences.

And completely off topic...much love and thanks to Jeralyn.  She was a gem.