When listening to a presidential candidate, there’s often a significant difference between what he or she literally said and what he or she clearly meant.
For example, when listening to yesterday’s Republican debate live, I heard Mitt Romney talk about congressional approval for military strikes in Iran. At the time, I knew what he meant, so his response didn’t seem controversial. But on further reflection, this might come back to haunt him.
MATTHEWS: Governor Romney, that raises the question, if you were president of the United States, would you need to go to Congress to get authorization to take military action against Iran’s nuclear facilities?
ROMNEY: You sit down with your attorneys and tell you what you have to do, but obviously, the president of the United States has to do what’s in the best interest of the United States to protect us against a potential threat. The president did that as he was planning on moving into Iraq and received the authorization of Congress.
MATTHEWS: Did he need it?
ROMNEY: You know, we’re going to let the lawyers sort out what he needed to do and what he didn’t need to do, but certainly what you want to do is to have the agreement of all the people in leadership of our government, as well as our friends around the world where those circumstances are available. (emphasis added)
On the substance, that’s not a particularly bad answer. There is some difference of opinion about congressional authorization when it comes to military strikes, so, depending on circumstances, it’s not unreasonable for a president to check with counsel about what’s required.
But that’s dealing with the obvious, intended meaning. If you work for Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson, or John McCain, there’s another way of looking at this: Mitt Romney said he’d deal with a military crisis by checking with his lawyers. In fact, he said it twice.
TNR’s Jason Zengerle makes a very good point.
It seems to me that Romney’s answer alienates two diametrically opposed sets of voters. For voters who think the president should consult with Congress before going to war, Romney’s answer is so lame and weaselly that it only serves to re-enforce the perception that the candidate has no core convictions. And for voters who think we should “bomb, bomb Iran,” Romney’s reliance on “the lawyers” will be read as a sign of abject weakness — no different from John Kerry’s “global test” remark in 2004.
In a GOP primary, it probably makes more sense to pander to the latter type of voter rather than the former; but with his answer, I think Romney runs the risk of not winning over any of them.
I think the “global test” analogy is spot-on. Kerry was talking about international credibility in the context of a military invasion, but the Bush gang made it sound as if Kerry wouldn’t act on national security matters without getting approval from other countries. It was absurd, but the argument quickly went to the top of the GOP’s talking points in October 2004.
Likewise, Romney’s assertion that, when facing a crisis, lawyers will “tell you what you have to do,” could soon be a TV ad on New Hampshire airwaves. Hell, if Romney gets the nomination, and Dems want to play hardball, I could imagine this quote hanging around for quite a while.