Well after John McCain had become the presumptive Republican nominee for President, Liberal commentator and apparent Liberal favorite EJ Dionne began a typical Washington Post Column with the following, somewhat extraordinary statement.
The following is an email I sent to EJ Dionne yesterday evening, which is self explanatory:
[In reference to his quote about McCain presenting "a test of integrity and consistency" for Liberals, and, thus by implication, even more strongly for Democrats and Independents].. Once again, and while [Charles] Krauthammer and his gang are busy cracking away unmercifully (and often manipulatively) at Obama, you seemed to be unhelpful to the party that you specifically support. And you pose a false dilemma, even if to you it appears real and relevant enough to choose to write a column about.
I am a Democrat, and have always liked John McCain, and still do. But his positions have evolved over the past several years -- and in fact have also become extremely garbled, sometimes contradictory, and often all over the place.
As far as some of the non garbled ones, I believe, in the words of Karl Rove, that he is deeply, and profoundly wrong. As an example, I think the zealotry over Iran which he has come to solidly reflect, is a classic example of how man continues to falsely manufacture its own problems. Not that Iran is not a legitimate issue or potential threat, but this current approach [unilateral in perspective and ironclad, non communicational, overly demonizing, and warmongering] is myopic, ill reasoned, and I believe continues to greatly exacerbate rather than solve.
Also, on what is to me perhaps the most important question that the country actually faces (in some part also because the underlying issues are being ignored) -- Are we shifting away fromperhaps the most important purpose of the Constitution and the underlying reason for its creation (that is, to prevent the creation of unchecked governmental powers) -- McCain either has completely flip flopped, or high ranking officials in his campaign simply can not be believed.
This is a critical point. I also do not believe that many who actually do reference it necessarily understand the issue very well, nor that it has received nearly the coverage (let alone accurately) that it requires.
To summarize herein, in clarifying McCain's position, senior McCain advisor Doug Holtz Eakin wrote in support of actions that, in his words, "most people, except for the ACLU and the trial lawyers, understand were Constitutional and appropriate in the wake of the attacks on September 11, 2001."
Except that right wing conservative Attorney General John Ashcroft, did not. Acting Attorney General James Comey did not. F.B.I. Director Robert Mueller did not. Assistant Attorney General and head of the Office of Legal Counsel, and staunch conservative Jack Goldsmith did not. (Goldsmith essentially retired over this, Mueller threatened to, reportedly, and Comey did prepare an official resignation letter over it, and ultimately left in 2006, reportedly over ongoing zealous White House control over the Justice Department.)
Reagan Deputy Associate Attorney General and staunch conservative Bruce Fein essentially called the implementation of this program as such, tyrannical. Oklahoma conservative (and long time Congressman) Mickey Edwards, because of this (and signing statements used to disregard, rather than interpret) the law, called it Monarchal. Staunch conservative and constitutional studies fellow Robert Levy testified before the Senate Judiciary that the program was clearly illegal as undertaken, and other experts, used far, far harsher language than Levy. The ABA voted overwhelmingly to condemn it.
Here is the essence of what occurred: Under FISA, a "person is guilty of an offense if he intentionally engages in electronic surveillance, except as authorized by statue." Moreover, the Federal Wiretap Act, which along with FISA also clearly prohibits spying on U.S. citizens (which, under FISA, at 50 U.S.C. 1801(f), 1801(i), FISA defines specifically as targeted by the behavior in question; that is, specifically, "To or from U.S. Citizens or permanent resident aliens in the United States") at issue, states that it and FISA shall be "the exclusive means by which electronic surveillance may be conducted." And FISA was amended shortly after the depraved acts of September 11, 2001, offered as the ostensible "justification" for this behavior (and specifically under the USA Patriot Act (at Sec's 206, 207, 214, and 215 therein)).
Courts that have addressed the matter have allowed for exceptions to FISA in specific instances; after the fact, and with again, a record for review and oversight -- which is the most important aspect of FISA. This is very different from simply disregarding it, or any other laws, as a policy.
Yet what the administration did was even more grave than this. 1) It also did so secretly. And 2), what it did also constituted an unchecked (and intrusive, and very easily abusable -- that is, unchecked and abusable) power over the citizenry. Precisely the type of thing (as well as "rationale" for it), that the Constitution was established in the first place to prevent.
On top of that, this was a power which, through their representatives in Congress -- and thus through the only constitutionally viable means -- the citizenry had also expressly prohibited. (Nor does this consider serious 4th, 5th, and potentially 1st and 10th Amendment concerns, regardless of any such express prohibition.) And this is the position that the McCain camp ostensibly now embraces; and one that goes to the heart, again, of what we were founded upon: At all costs, ours is not a "trust us" form of government (still very much relevant to the ongoing FISA "debate" today). Ours is a government of checks and balances, and limited, checked, powers -- and for very good reason.
Also, while it is not necessarily as big an issue for me (although I do not agree with McCain on what I view as this closer issue, either), there is also Iraq (which you do mention). And for others, McCain's position on the Iraq war is not only untenable, but in many ways central to his candidacy. He also apparently does not believe in a right to privacy, and would apparently, at a time (as I have written to you before) that our Federal and Supreme Court in particular, have moved to a "conservative" being the "middle position" (at least with respect to the Supreme Court) continue to stack the Courts with Right Wing appointees.
Summing it up, on Meet the Press in June of 2005, McCain also stated, "And on the transcendent issues, the most important issues of our day, I've been totally in agreement and support of President Bush."
One of the things that I admired greatly about John McCain was that he seemed to have a great deal of integrity and honesty. That may still be true in some regard, but he has repeatedly changed his message, and, apparently, his positions, and recently often has also, again, (and badly) garbled his statements. And he also holds, and more rapidly, has adopted, some rather intrusive big government and anti privacy views. (And he also apparently supports yet another extension of the rather ridiculous and federal debt imploding "temporary" tax cuts on the wealthiest Americans: as well as, which may be even worse, even more corporate tax breaks at the expense of ordinary Americans and our soldiers currently fighting in Iraq who continue to bear the burden of the resulting debt -- both in future debt and current interest payments on it -- and which along with other proposals is in the opposite direction of what is needed regarding one of the "supposed" Republican platforms that in general I strongly support; i.e., fiscal responsibility, and more specifically, lessening the gargantuan additions to our national debt.)
McCain presents an extreme contrast with Barack Obama. Yet you are writing about a false test of "integrity, and consistency" for those (or at least yourself, you later and rather unconvincingly and somewhat irrelevantly qualify it as) who liked or like McCain; as if to imply that not supporting his candidacy is somehow lacking in those two elements, and subtly at least planting the again wholly false, and manipulative notion that there are questions of integrity (apart from those that constantly exist anyway) for those who may support Obama.
As I believe I have amply demonstrated above, this is not only detrimental (while at the same time communicating little positive) to the positions and party which you presumably profess to support, but in fact, at least for those who know the issues and are clear about their views on them, is also unequivocally erroneous, and potentially very misleading.
I know you write, rather lukewarmly, about a couple of these latter policy points mentioned above, as well, but that does not substantially change the gist of your piece, as framed.
--Ivan Carter