Earlier today, while promoting his book “No Apology: The Case For American Greatness” at the National Press Club, former Gov. Mitt Romney (R-MA) staked out a stance against a brand of populism which he describes as scapegoating, or looking for someone to blame for the fundamental problems that face the U.S. — specifically immigrants:

There’s another branch of the word populism which I’m referring to when I say these words, and that is that there are some people who are scapegoating — who look for someone to blame for more fundamental problems that we have as a society. It may be a politician, it may be a Wall Street banker, it may be immigrants, it may be a certain ethnic group…

You’ll see people take on immigrants and suggest that immigration is the source of America’s challenges. Our problems are more significant than that and that kind of scapegoating in my view doesn’t make sense. And I would note that it exists.

Watch it:

Romney, who ran smear ads in 2008 portraying fellow presidential contenders as soft on immigration, appears to be in the process of changing his position on the issue yet again. In his book, Romney echoes today’s remarks, writing “populism sometimes takes the form of being anti-immigrant, and appearing anti-immigrant, and that likewise is destructive to a nation which has built its economy through the innovation and hard work and creativity of people who have come here from foreign shores.” With his eyes on a 2012 presidential run, Romney is amongst a growing number of Republicans who have recognize the need to adjust their immigration rhetoric and regain the trust of a growing Latino demographic that might otherwise be voting Republican.

Ironically, back in 2008 Romney embraced the powerfully symbolic political backing of anti-immigrant hysteric, former Rep. Congressman Tom Tancredo (R-CO), and Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio, who is currently under investigation for racial profiling and civil rights allegations related to his immigration policing efforts. Perhaps Romney himself succumbed to the “temptations of populism” he discusses in his new book when he enthusiastically accepted the endorsements of two public figures who have essentially built their careers on the kind of nativist populism that Romney warns against.

Despite his disdain for the politics of scapegoating, Romney still described the tea party movement as “an encouraging development” at today’s Press Club appearance.

National Review’s resident birther/deather fruitcake Andy McCarthy argues that “If a deal to grant military commissions in exchange for closing Gitmo happens, it is a major win for the Obama Left and an enormous loss for public safety.”

Senator Graham and others will tell you such an outcome will be a great victory for national security conservatives who think terrorists should be tried by commission. Don’t buy it. The deal would be a great victory for the terrorists. [...]

In sum, we were winning the argument. But instead, in Gang of 14 style, Senator Graham and whoever else are treating the president like he has cards to play. Rather than just be quietly embarrassed over their loopy position that Gitmo causes terrorism, these senators are using that fiction as a reason for trading away Gitmo (i.e., a facility we need) in order to achieve military commission trials for enemy combatants (i.e., something we’d get anyway without the trade).

Last year, Chairmain of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mullen told ABC “the concern I’ve had about Guantanamo in these wars is it has been a symbol — and one which has been a recruiting symbol for those extremists and jihadists who would fight us… That’s at the heart of the concern for Guantanamo’s continued existence.”

Explaining why he supports closing Gitmo, CENTCOM Commander General David Petraeus told Fox News last year “Gitmo has caused us problems, there’s no question about it. I oversee a region in which the existence of Gitmo has indeed been used by the enemy against us.”

I’d love to see McCarthy explain to Adm. Mullen and Gen. Petraeus why their support for closing Gitmo is “loopy.” After that, maybe he can ask them if they’ve actually seen the president’s real birth certificate.

The Washington Post reports that “President Obama’s advisers are nearing a recommendation that Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the self-proclaimed mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, be prosecuted in a military tribunal,” reversing Attorney General Holder’s plan to try him in civilian court:

Marine Col. Jeffrey Colwell, acting chief defense counsel at the Defense Department’s Office of Military Commissions, said it would be a “sad day for the rule of law” if Obama decides not to proceed with a federal trial. “I thought the decision where to put people on trial — whether federal court or military commissions — was based on what was right, not what is politically advantageous,” Colwell said.

When he announced his decision to close Guantanamo Bay prison, President Obama said this:

“This is me following through on not just a commitment I made during the campaign, but I think an understanding that dates back to our Founding Fathers, that we are willing to observe core standards of conduct, not just when it’s easy, but also when it’s hard.”

If the Obama administration abandons its effort to try Khalid Sheikh Muhammad in civilian court, it would represent a significant capitulation by President Obama to his political enemies, and a betrayal of his supporters who took seriously his promises to bring America’s anti-terrorism policies back within bounds of the law.

It will also represent a significant propaganda victory for Al Qaeda, who crave the status and recognition that treating them as “soldiers” in a “war” bestows, and would love to be able to show the world that Obama, just like Bush and Cheney, will cast American principles aside when faced with a threat.

President Obama should understand by now that no matter how much he reaches out his hand to his neoconservative critics, they will never unclench their fists. They’ll just look for a new place to strike. The president’s struggle to cultivate bipartisanship is admirable. But a bipartisan consensus in favor of fashioning a new legal framework for dealing with an age-old problem — terrorism — is worse than worthless, it’s an admission to Al Qaeda, and to world, that our existing insitutions aren’t strong enough to deal with it, and that we’ll abandon our core values when it gets hard.

Soon after Attorney General Eric Holder announced that alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and other conspirators would be put on civilian trial in New York, the right-wing partisans launched a fearmongering campaign attacking the decision and the Obama administration for appearing weak. Dick Cheney called the move “a huge mistake” that would result in “a show trial,” while one GOP congressman said decision “may” mean that Holder and Obama have a “disdain” for America.

After the right-wing flare-up, New York congressional Democrats and New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg started to balk at the idea as well. Now, the Washington Post reports today that Obama’s advisers are caving to the pressure and “are nearing a recommendation” that KSM “be prosecuted in a military tribunal” instead of civilian court. However, the move does not appear to be based on any legal reasoning, but merely a political quid pro quo:

If Obama accepts the likely recommendation of his advisers, the White House may be able to secure from Congress the funding and legal authority it needs to close the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and replace it with a facility within the United States. The administration has failed to meet a self-imposed one-year deadline to close Guantanamo.

Indeed, various media reports have indicated that Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) is seeking a deal with White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel to try terror suspects in military commissions “[i]n exchange for some Republican support for closing the military prison at Guantánamo.” Emanuel, “particularly concerned with placating Lindsey Graham,” opposed Holder’s decision from the beginning. “Rahm felt very, very strongly that it was a mistake to prosecute the 9/11 people in the federal courts, and that it was picking an unnecessary fight with the military-commission people,” a source told The New Yorker.

The chief defense counsel at the Defense Department’s Office of Military Commissions criticized the recommendation’s political posturing:

Marine Col. Jeffrey Colwell, acting chief defense counsel at the Defense Department’s Office of Military Commissions, said it would be a “sad day for the rule of law” if Obama decides not to proceed with a federal trial. “I thought the decision where to put people on trial — whether federal court or military commissions — was based on what was right, not what is politically advantageous,” Colwell said.

The administration’s backtracking on civilian trials for terror suspects would come at an odd time given that just last week, the administration secured a guilty plea from terror suspect Najibullah Zazi in a federal civilian court for conspiring to detonate explosives in the U.S. In fact, a law enforcement official said “the threat of legal action against Zazi’s associates and family played a role in his decision to cooperate with the government.”

Beyond the right-wing fringe attacks, many conservatives had offered more support for Holder’s original decision to try KSM in civilian court. “[T]here is no question about the legitimacy of U.S. federal courts to incapacitate terrorists. Many of Holder’s critics appear to have forgotten that the Bush administration used civilian courts to put away dozens of terrorists,” said two former Bush officials. Former Secretary of State Colin Powell said just last week that he has “no problem” with trying KSM in civilian court.