Pizza Diavola

Dear Financial Times,

While your recent headline is a description of Senator McCain’s speech, and therefore might not be representative of your views on his speech and candidacy, it remains misleading:

By headlining your article with “McCain puts faith in sober experience,” you lend credibility to the idea that McCain has experience and that it’s worth something. I’ll grant you that he’s held state office since 1983 and does have experience working in the House and Senate, but to imply that his experience is “sober” and that it’s something that he, or you, or any voter should put “faith” in is highly misleading, primarily because his performance in the past few years consists of rejecting his former principles and stances.

For instance, in February the Senate voted 51-45 to ban waterboarding and torture by the CIA. McCain, despite previously opposing torture, voted against the ban. There are some principles and experience, right there–the experience of caving into the Republican party and abandoning not only personal principles, but the principles of humanity as well as the Geneva Convention and international law, all in one vote. From the NYT,

Senate Republicans generally opposed the bill, but several of them also did not want to cast a vote that could be construed as supporting torture, and so were relying on President Bush to make good on a threat to veto legislation limiting C.I.A. interrogation techniques….

The prohibition of harsh interrogation techniques is part of a wider intelligence authorization bill and would restrict all American interrogators to techniques allowed in the Army Field Manual, which bars the use of physical force.

The House approved the bill in December by a vote of 222 to 199, mostly along party lines. Wednesday’s vote in the Senate was also along party lines. All the “no” votes were cast by Republicans, except for those of Senators Joseph I. Lieberman, an independent from Connecticut, and Ben Nelson, Democrat of Nebraska. Five Republicans and Senator Bernard Sanders, independent of Vermont, voted “yes.”

But the White House has long said Mr. Bush will veto the bill, saying it “would prevent the president from taking the lawful actions necessary to protect Americans from attack in wartime.”

…

Mr. McCain, a former prisoner of war, has consistently voiced opposition to waterboarding and other methods that critics say is a form torture. But the Republicans, confident of a White House veto, did not mount the challenge. Mr. McCain voted “no” on Wednesday afternoon. (emphasis mine)

In another instance of betraying past principles, McCain once advocated for lobbyist reform. From the Washington Post,

Appearing as a witness on the opening day of a Senate hearing on lobbying reform, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) was one of several senators to denounce earmarking, a practice he called “disgraceful.” He outlined one of several proposals to tighten rules and require greater disclosure of lobbying activities. But he told the committee, “We’re not going to fix this system until we fix the earmarks.”

Nowadays, however, he is receiving money from 507 bundlers and 70 lobbyist bundlers. Among their number are representatives of large financial institutions (e.g. JP Morgan, Credit Suisse, UBS, Blackstone, Granite Capital, Merrill Lynch, Bear Stearns [heh], Kohlberg Kravis Roberts, NYSE Group, Goldman Sachs), health care firms (e.g. Vanguard Health Systems, Blue Cross Blue Shield, AMN Healthcare), energy firms (e.g. Mosbacher Energy, TXU), and assorted large corporations (e.g. Disney, Sony BMG Music, Starwood Hotels, Anheuser-Busch, Johnson & Johnson, AT&T, Visa, MGM, FedEx). He’s not just taking cash from lobbyists, however; he’s also staffed his campaign with them. From Washington Post,

But when McCain huddled with his closest advisers at his rustic Arizona cabin last weekend to map out his presidential campaign, virtually every one was part of the Washington lobbying culture he has long decried. His campaign manager, Rick Davis, co-founded a lobbying firm whose clients have included Verizon and SBC Telecommunications. His chief political adviser, Charles R. Black Jr., is chairman of one of Washington’s lobbying powerhouses, BKSH and Associates, which has represented AT&T, Alcoa, JPMorgan and U.S. Airways.

Senior advisers Steve Schmidt and Mark McKinnon work for firms that have lobbied for Land O’ Lakes, UST Public Affairs, Dell and Fannie Mae.

More recently, McCain’s campaign declared that warrantless wiretapping by the executive branch is A-OK, no court oversight required. This position might come as a shock, considering that he had previously said,

“There are some areas where the statutes don’t apply, such as in the surveillance of overseas communications. Where they do apply, however, I think that presidents have the obligation to obey and enforce laws that are passed by Congress and signed into law by the president, no matter what the situation is.”

From the NYT, his position these days is,

A top adviser to Senator John McCain says Mr. McCain believes that President Bush’s program of wiretapping without warrants was lawful, a position that appears to bring him into closer alignment with the sweeping theories of executive authority pushed by the Bush administration legal team.

In a letter posted online by National Review this week, the adviser, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, said Mr. McCain believed that the Constitution gave Mr. Bush the power to authorize the National Security Agency to monitor Americans’ international phone calls and e-mail without warrants, despite a 1978 federal statute that required court oversight of surveillance.

Mr. McCain believes that “neither the administration nor the telecoms need apologize for actions that most people, except for the A.C.L.U. and trial lawyers, understand were constitutional and appropriate in the wake of the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001,” Mr. Holtz-Eakin wrote.

In other words, McCain is saying that four more years of the Imperial Executive and unfettered power above the law are what he believes in. Corporations have no need to obey the law and respect the privacy of the little people, individual citizens, and neither does the executive branch.

McCain has repeatedly turned his back on his principles and abandoned the policies he once advocated in order to pander to the Republican party and its supporters, corporate and otherwise. He’s demonstrated experience in casting integrity and convictions aside for the sake of political expediency–and not for the sake of the public good, but for his ambitions. That is not the kind of experience that anyone with an interest in fixing the corruption and devastation wrought by the Bush administration should put faith in, sober or otherwise. So I’d like to suggest some alternate headlines for the article, which more accurately reflect the nature of McCain’s candidacy and are more in keeping with the content of the article:

* McCain Favors Extending Bush’s Aggressive, Imperialist Foreign Policy

While Mr Obama favours engagement with US foes and wants to end the war in Iraq, Mr McCain would seek to increase pressure on Iran, North Korea and Cuba and keep US troops in Iraq indefinitely.

* McCain Remains In Denial About Iraq. Possibly Contemplates Another Marketplace Stroll with Armed Troops and Helicopters As Escorts.

Mr McCain set out his case against the Illinois senator in Tuesday’s speech, portraying him as dangerously inexperienced on foreign policy and dangerously liberal on domestic policy.”He is an impressive man who makes a great first impression,” the Arizona senator conceded, before going on to explain why Americans would reject him once they got to know him better.

“Americans ought to be concerned about the judgment of a presidential candidate who says he’s ready to talk, in person and without conditions, with tyrants from Havana to Pyongyang, but hasn’t travelled to Iraq to meet with General [David] Petraeus, and see for himself the progress he threatens to reverse,” Mr McCain said, highlighting the two main foreign policy differences with his rival.

* McCain Puts Blind Faith In U.S. Efforts In Iraq

Mr McCain accuses his opponent of an ideological commitment to “surrender” in Iraq, ignoring evidence that US forces are making progress since last year’s troop surge.

Headlines are important because they’re the visuals that people first see and remember; they’re the first words people read in an article and therefore shape how they perceive the content of the article; and they’re nifty tag lines or summaries that people remember. Knowing that, I find the FT headline “McCain puts faith in sober experience” troubling. It presents a misleading image of McCain as a sober, rational person rather than the hot-tempered jerk he is–the article cited there was also published by the FT, back in April–and presents his experience as something worth a damn. He has all the wrong kinds of experience, in pandering, in working with lobbyists, in abandoning principles, in supporting the abrogation of the separation of powers (and therefore the Constitution and the limits it places on the executive branch), in serving the interests of corporations rather than the people, in ignoring the rule of law, and in voting for evil legislation.

————————————-

Financial Times, Andrew Ward, “McCain puts faith in sober experience,” 2008/06/05
NY Times, David Herszenhorn, “Senate Passes Interrogation Ban,” 2008/02/13
Washington Post, William Branigin, “McCain Calls to Reform Pork Barrel Politics,” 2006/01/25
Public Citizen
Washington Post, Michael D. Shear and Jeffrey H. Birnbaum, “The Anti-Lobbyist, Advised by Lobbyists,” 2008/02/21
NY Times, Charlie Savage, “Adviser Says McCain Backs Bush Wiretaps,” 2008/06/06