The Occasional Observer

As the day has gone on, the chattering classes have come to Mitt's defense, admitting that Rudy is trying to push Romney's words about "lawyers" too far.

Over at CNBC, John Harwood points out that Mitt's reference to lawyers was dismissive. His answer was, substantively, that the President needs to do what the President needs to do in order to keep the American People safe. Lawyers get consulted to determine what form of authorization is required. In other words, do first, ask permission later, all in the name of safety. A generous interpretation by Harwood to Mitt's benefit, no doubt. But an interpretation that is, I think, supported by the words Mitt used.

Harwood also pointed out that some anti-Mitt folks are stretching the truth and their own credibility:

To suggest that Romney was articulating a different view is simply to grab hold of a cheap hook -- only Democratic sissies care what lawyers think -- and run with it despite the fact that Romney was espousing the Bush position on this question.

Rudy is engaged in these strained attacks, according to Jonathan Martin at the Politico (a copy of the Giuliani campaign's email is at NRO's The Corner here).

Powerline, another big-time pro-GOP blog, which I had the impression of being largely pro-Rudy, also came to Mitt's defense with Paul Mirengoff's post here. A sample:

There's little doubt that Rudy Giuliani had an excellent debate yesterday. Moreover, although Mitt Romney did well too, it's pretty clear that he had a bad moment when, in his answer to the question of whether he would need authorization from Congress to take military action against Iran's nuclear facilities, he focused on consulting with lawyers. Finally, we all understand the urge of a candidate's operatives to want to convert a less than well-stated answer into a "gotcha" moment.

Nonetheless, the Giuliani campaign is over-the-top in claiming (in one of its many emails about the debate) that Romney's references to lawyers constitute a "lawyers' test for national security." Even worse is the suggestion that Romney's answer is akin to that of John Kerry, "another Massachusetts politician," who proposed a "global test" for use of force by the U.S....

Let's try to evaluate this objectively. First, no candidate has been more forceful or specific than Romney in insisting that a nuclear Iran is unacceptable. Romney was perhaps the first announced candidate to stress this position, doing so in a January 2007 speech to a gathering in Herziliya, Israel. I haven't seen a better statement on the subject since, though Giuliani has been excellent on the issue too.

Second, as is clear from the exchange quoted above, Romney gave his answer about consulting lawyers in the context of questions about a president's legal obligation (if any) to obtain congressional authorization. In this context it was natural, though probably not very savvy, for Romney to talk about lawyers. Debaters points aside, I would expect a president contemplating military action against a foreign country to seek the opinion of administration lawyers on legal questions regarding the proper role of Congress under the Constitution in the matter.

Third, Romney made it clear that, bottom line, he "would make sure that we would take the action necessary to keep Iran from having a nuclear weapon." So Romney's answer cannot be construed as imposing either a "lawyers' test," much less a "global test" with respect to this issue.