For a while now, I've thought that if I could ask one question of the presidential candidates, it would be, "Which specific power or powers that President Bush has claimed for the president or the executive branch would you voluntarily relinquish if you were president?"
This Glenn Greenwald post makes clear, yet again, why this litmus test is necessary. And the post also points out that Charlie Savage has already asked this question. Or rather, that he's given each candidate a questionnaire that amounts to a more detailed version of the same thing.
The results are not all that instructive. Both Obama and Clinton are admirably forthright in their rejection of Bush's abuses and affirm quite clearly that they will not claim such powers for themselves. There's so little daylight between them, that if one were to decide between the two based strictly on this, the only relevant question to ask yourself is, which one is more likely to be saying whatever she has to to get elected. She or he, I mean.
It's also a relief to see that while McCain is more vague and slippery than the Democrats (possibly because he seems to be speaking, while the others are writing), he basically comes down on the right side of almost every answer, with the exception of his claim that Congress can't regulate troop deployments. I wouldn't vote for him, but on this issue alone, I could live with him.
Mitt Romney, on the other hand, is batshit insane. He's basically promising another four years of Bush-Cheneyism.
And, yes, I still think either Republican would beat Clinton, though Romney might have a tougher time. Obama could probably, though by no means definitely, win against either of them.
