HIlarious! Romney's economic advisers refuse to back his gas price claims

[font size="4"]Mitt Romney Gas Prices Rhetoric Doesn't Get Support Of His Own Economists[/font]

WASHINGTON -- Mitt Romney on the campaign trail has chided President Barack Obama for failing to curb prices at the pump, even as prominent economists have debunked those talking points, saying there's little the president can do to lower prices in the short term. Now the latest twist: No one from Romney's economic team will step forward to defend him.

After Romney insisted that more drilling in Mexico and in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge could bring down the cost of gas, The Huffington Post contacted members of Romney's economic team -- two revolving-door lobbyists and two former chairmen of the Council of Economic Advisers under President George W. Bush -- to ask if they would vouch for the claim.

"I will pass. Sorry," prominent macroeconomist Gregory Mankiw, a Romney advisor, replied when contacted by HuffPost about an interview. Other queries were similarly denied or unreturned.

Other economists haven't been shy about debunking the claim, explaining that U.S. energy policy has very little effect either on oil prices or on overall U.S. employment. Recent studies have backed them up. The Associated Press' statistical analysis of 36 years of monthly, inflation-adjusted gasoline prices and U.S. domestic oil production found no statistical correlation between gas prices and how much oil comes out of U.S. wells.

Crash Course

Mickey D's

Genetic modification gone too far

Meetings Make You Dumber

When I see "SOPA-PIPA" I keep thinking of sopapillas

If Romney gives Santorum his VP nom... it'll be a Man-on-Dog-on-Roof ticket in 2012.

The Republicans always have the darnedest priorities

How the superheroes & supervillains will vote this year

Feel free to add to the list. Feel free to revise my guesses, too, but some explanation of your choices would help the discussion:

Lex Luthor - Total neocon billionaire. He's gotta be a Rick Perry supporter, but I think he's probably nudging Jeb Bush to get into the game. He's probably behind Newt's heated rhetoric on the Middle East, since most of Luthor's money comes from selling arms to both Israel and the Palestinians. But Newt's an expendable pawn to Luthor, and a little too megalomanical for Lexi's taste.

The Joker - The ultimate libertarian and the ultimate white supremacist--the Joker's clearly a Ron Paul supporter.

Bruce Wayne - sees a kindred spirit in Mitt Romney: wealthy, secretive, morally maleable. Batman just loves this NDAA and is fed up with Obama's constant talk about hope & unity. But Wayne's ideal candidate is Lindsey Graham. "Shut up, you don't get a lawyer" was like a love poem to Bruce. Plus isn't Lindsey Graham an orphan? Hmmm...

Clark Kent & Lois Lane - Two socially liberal elitist members of the national press. They both supported Obama three years ago, but keep pretending to be objective. Kent's downright two-faced about this. Of course Kent can't actually vote since his parents can't produce a birth certificate and, for some reason, he never applied for a driver's license. Anyway, the dude just seems duplicitous to me--I suspect he's involved with those pro-Hillary robo-calls.

Peter Parker - reluctantly pro-Obama. He's afraid of Republicans cause he fears the Patriot Act will give the police enough powers to discover his identity. Yet as the most emo of superheroes, Spiderman has a soft spot in his heart for Newt Gingrich after he started crying at all of his public appearances. He's also drawn toward professorial mentors, even though, in the end he knows he'll end up fighting Gingrich to the death. And really, isn't Gingrich the Republican candidate most likely to end up taking Mary Jane hostage on top of a bridge?

Wonder Woman - wraps herself in the flag, but then again many immigrants do this--if only to get away from the rampant xenophobia Republicans stir up. Wonder Woman would be voting straight Democrat this year. Sadly, she'll be in Sheriff Arpaio's jail on election day, although what the charges are won't be too clear. Apparently most Paradise Islanders look just Latina enough to come under suspicion for just whatever Sheriff Joe comes up with. Damn voting suppression efforts...

Tony Stark - see Lex Luthor

Aquaman - is voting Republican all the way. But that's because he's secretly in favor of global warming. Every time an iceberg melts, his oceans get a little bit bigger and human extinction gets a little bit closer. Whose powers are a joke now, assholes? Mwa-ha-ha-ha!

Green Lantern - total military-industrial complex supporter. His ring get its power from the green battery, but the green battery gets its power from fossil fuels (or maybe whale oil!). He's a drill, baby, drill Republican and in all probability a Scientologist, given the fact that he hangs out with aliens, has supernatural space powers, gets by on sheer will power, and treats women like expendable accessories.

Wolverine - "Votin's for pussies"

Dr. David Banner - Voting Democrat... the real reason he's on the run is because the AMA found out he supported health care reform. When he sees average Americans suffering and going further into debt because they can't afford health insurance... well, it just... grrr... makes him... so... grrr-r-r... angreeee.... (uh oh)

Hulk - Voting Green. Puny humans say Hulk throwing away vote. Hulk like throwing things. Hulk smash voting booth next. Then Hulk smash AMA.

Professor Xavier - Made billions on Wall Street in the 90s & early 00s, but used his mental powers to get out of the market before the bubble burst. Now he's kicking millions over to the Obama reelection funds through his friend Timothy Geitner. He was miffed at Obama for a little while, but is happy now that the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" allows mutants to serve openly in the military. After all, who do you think took out Osama?

The parts of the Constitution mainstream Republicans disagree with

While they call themselves conservatives and Constitution literalists, I mean "strict constructionists," in practice they only believe in those things when it suits their interests. Looking at the document itself, it's clear that there are parts they just don't care for and are willing to "liberally" reinterpret to suit their prejudices.

Starting with Gouverneur Morris's poetic Preamble--which is essentially the mission statement of our republican form of government--there are parts they just don't feel should apply to them. They tear away at the Union and threaten secession when there's a Democratic president, rather than giving full loyalty to the "more perfect Union" the Framers left us. Their "let 'em die" applause lines shows a contempt for "the general Welfare" that government officers take a pledge to promote. And their expansive view of executive power under the perpetual War on Terror is a direct attempt to whittle away "the Blessings of Liberty" laid out in 1787.

Article One declares that legislative power belongs to the Congress alone. Yet all the Republican candidates save Ron Paul enthusiastically supported Bush's declaration of military tribunals for suspected terrorists, which was legislation written by the executive branch in the hysteria after 9/11. When Bush later started issuing radically revisive "executive orders" that de facto amended the laws of Congress to be whatever the Bushies wanted, and pledged to ignore whatever they didn't like about the laws passed by Congress, again the Republican majorities meekly went along with this attack on separation of powers.

The mainstream Republican view of American government is anything but "republican." Unless there's a Democrat in the White House, they are monarchists--they practice and exalt the supremacy of the Executive Branch and, when there's a Republican president, they challenge the loyalty and Americanism of any who use the system of Checks and Balances in the framework of the Constitution. How often do have to hear "Democrats aren't real Americans" from them before we get that they only exhibit situational patriotism?

Article One also calls on Congress to "make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces." And yet the reliance on and support of the use of contracted mercenaries who are not subject to US military law is a direct repudiation of this duty, as well as an insult to the principle of the citizen-soldier being the security of popular government against despotism. It took Democrats to force thru laws that held private security contractors to at least some military discipline. But these contractors are, by their very existence a rejection of republican values. They are literally the land forces of the US government--guarding our embassies overseas, but the United States government can exercise very little control over who they hire and how they carry out their contracts. Now that these same mercs are seen working on American streets in time of disaster and protest, we are taking another step closer to despotic government. And yet the Republicans, including Ron Paul, support the US government hiring them. Unaccountable power is dangerous power.

Against the limits placed on legislative power, today's Republicans support limitations on Habeas Corpus writs (and get support from too many Democrats, despite the lack "of Rebellion or Invasion" required to suspend Habeas rights.

And where the Senate is obliged to "advise and consent" to the treaties and appointments made by the president, instead Republican senators consistently and routinely stall and block any action made by Democratic presidents, denying up or down votes and routinely placing anonymous holds on any executive action or appointment they please, even after its been authorized by Congress. In this case, they routinely violate their own oaths of office.

Republican contempt for the judiciary (and for the process of civil law) is well known. But in Section Three of the Constitution, it explicitly states that "The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed."

The Republican Congress eventually passed Bush's extralegal military commission system into law. But this system is categorically unconstitutional. While terrorists, who are clearly war criminals, caught overseas are properly put on trial "at such a Place as Congress may have directed," the Constitution clearly states it must be a jury trial. A military commission is not a jury, which specifically means a panel of one's peers, or one's equals under the law.

Excuses about this being a "time of war" do not make sense. The purpose of military law in times of war is to provide justice when civil authority has broken down or is, by reason of geography, not available. This cannot be said of people being put on trial at Guantanamo. There are civil authorities available. The Constitution doesn't give Congress the option of ignoring federal civil courts. But Republicans, in opposition to the Constitution, support the tribunals and denounce civil procedure of being unreliable.

In fact, US civil courts have a much higher success record of prosecuting terrorists. They have a 100% conviction rate. The military commissions have let a lot of the accused go. So Republican complaints that "we can't afford to give these people lawyers and procedures" is false. But facts mean nothing to ideologues. Their preference for martial law betrays contempt for small-r republican government.

Article Six specifies that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." While their continual harping on America being a Christian, rather than a secular, nation is not a technical violation of this language (the tests they have are for who they'll vote for, not who is allowed to take office), the continual harping on the need to infuse Christianity into the halls of power goes against the principle of disestablishment of religion, which almost all the Framers agreed on. The fact that so many of them reject Romney for not being "the right kind of Christian" indicates the potential for further attacks on the non-religious character of the government.

When we get to the Amendments, the Republicans continue to cherry pick which laws they'll honor. The First Amendment guarantees free speech, and yet their obsession with the non problem of flag-burning shows a willingness to outlaw speech they disapprove of. Unified Republican opposition to the "Ground Zero Mosque" shows they oppose the free exercise of religion when it's a religion they don't like. But it is the later parts of the Bill of Rights where their worst cherry picking occurs.

The Forth Amendment protects "people" (not just US citizens) from search and seizure. And yet the Republican presidential candidates (save Paul) advocate the most intrusive and unchecked use of policing powers for routine interactions with the public. They outright oppose the Fifth Amendment's demand for due process of law. The right to not bear witness against yourself when charged with a crime ("pleading the Fifth" ) exists specifically to prevent police authorities from using torture. The Fifth Amendment is the American law designed to prevent Star Chambers and Spanish Inquisitions from arising. This is reiterated by the 8th Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. But today's Republicans make a fetish of cruelty and an applause line of rejecting fair treatment of the accused.

The Third, Forth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments combined make it clear that Americans have a right to privacy. Yet it is always Republicans who say there is no right to privacy as an applause line. The Sixth Amendment lays out the right to speedy trial, an impartial jury, and the confrontation of witnesses. These declaration of human rights are the foundation of Republicans' opposition to using civil court procedures in terror trials. Again, no terrorist has failed to be convicted in American civil courts. The system works every time. Thus the only objection to the accused being allowed to confront the evidence against them, and to the right to a jury trial, and to the right to due process must be a philosophical one. Republicans simply hold the American system of justice in contempt. They do not trust nor approve of the Rule of Law.

Never take a lecture on fidelity to the Constitution or on "limited government" or one strict constructionism from a Republican. It may be a thing they repeat in speeches, but their leaders and their applause lines make it clear that it is not a thing they believe in.