Romney's "Anti-Endorsement"

When was the last time a candidate was explicitly rather than implicitly rejected by a newspaper's editorial board? The usual practice is to select a candidate for endorsement from the available list, but New Hampshire's Concord Monitor veered from that path to non-endorse Mitt Romney:
"if you followed only his tenure as governor of Massachusetts, you might imagine Romney as a pragmatic moderate with liberal positions on numerous social issues and an ability to work well with Democrats. If you followed only his campaign for president, you'd swear he was a red-meat conservative, pandering to the religious right, whatever the cost. Pay attention to both, and you're left to wonder if there's anything at all at his core."
His political makeover is certainly notable but far more so are his answers to questions on the limits of executive power posed by the Boston Globe's Charlie Savage. As Savage reminded readers, "in 2000, George W. Bush and Dick Cheney were not asked about presidential power, and they volunteered nothing about their attitude toward the issue to voters. Yet once in office, they immediately began seeking out ways to concentrate more unchecked power in the White House - not just for themselves, but also for their successors."
Here are Romney's responses to the first two of 12 questions on executive authority:
1. "Does the president have inherent powers under the Constitution to conduct surveillance for national security purposes without judicial warrants, regardless of federal statutes?"
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 "right to be kept alive" has become a useful cover to violate legal statues such as FISA. The "legal tool(s)" Romney refers to are related to Savage's fourth question on "signing statements" which President Bush has used to disregard Congressional statutes.
Walter Dellinger, former head of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel from 1993 to 1996, wrote of this issue that, "the Bush administration’s frequent and seemingly cavalier refusal to enforce laws, which is aggravated by its avoidance of judicial review and even public disclosure of its actions, places it at odds with these principles and with predecessors of both parties" (this complicated matter is discussed in detail here).

What about the so-called "Bush Doctrine of pre-emption," which permits attacks on other nations who might, at some point (but not imminently), pose a threat to the United States?
2. "In what circumstances, if any, would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress? (Specifically, what about the strategic bombing of suspected nuclear sites -- a situation that does not involve stopping an IMMINENT threat?)"
Romney: "A President must always act in the best interests of the United States to protect us against a potential threat, including a nuclear Iran. Naturally, it is always preferable to seek agreement of all – leadership of our government as well as our friends around the world – where those circumstances are available."
Naturally, one ought to seek agreement of, among others, "leadership of our government" (read Congress) "where those circumstances are available." A better response, if he'd actually intended clarity in his answer, would have been to say that in the absence of imminent threat the president has no inherent war-making authority and must seek "a use-of-force authorization from Congress." Or, as Sen. Biden answered it, "our Founding Fathers vested in Congress, not the President, the power to initiate war, except to repel an imminent attack on the United States or its citizens."
Romney deserves credit for responding to the Globe's questions on executive authority (Huckabee, Giuliani and Thompson refused to participate). His answers though are, arguably, beyond the pale of how a president ought to conceive of the office. But when combined with his easy shifts on policy positions (whether on abortion or gay rights), he merits not only the rejection by the Concord Monitor but by any reasonable person.