Senate Republicans should be embarrassed by the floor debate on energy this week. Their transparent pandering to oil and gas interests and hedge funds should outrage every American with genuine concern about our nation’s future. Senators acting as oil company hacks, echoing half-truths and untruths like puppets while they stall any meaningful progress on our energy problems. America is less addicted to oil than these senators are to the oil industry and their lobbyists’ pocketbooks. Have these senators forgotten their duty to promote the general welfare? Indeed, they read the constitution to promote instead the oil industry welfare so that oil company coffers open to them, and likewise the speculators.  

You don’t cure heroin addiction by finding a new hood where you can “cop your score” closer to home; you can’t cure alcoholism by changing your brand of vodka; and you won’t cure oil addiction by drilling in ANWR, the OCS, or anywhere else, except Detroit. You climb out of an addiction using sublimation, substitution and redirection.

Sublimation, the first step, requires finding and committing to a higher purpose. That higher purpose is slapping us all in the face right now. It is the emerging climate crisis that hangs over us. Unchecked, humankind is facing a global holocaust more dreadful than all the wars and famines of the twentieth century combined.  For centuries we have reached into the bowels of mother earth and retrieved her sequestered waste. We have smeared it across the face of her lands, her oceans, and her skies. The higher purpose is survival. It is to preserve a habitable planet earth for humankind to live upon and prosper.

Thus the central principle of our sublimation must be to minimize use of fossil fuels in every form. This is the “having the guts” part, where you really make the decision to fail or to succeed. So far, the clinical reality is that the decision has been indecision, and failure looms as the clock ticks toward the tipping point. Eventually congress will decide because the pain we in the public feel will be reflected back upon them. That level of dissatisfaction is approaching fast as congress plumbs the historical lows of public approval. The dictates of wisdom should move them to action before that occurs, but the dictates of self preservation demand action now.

How do we minimize fossil fuel consumption? Conservation is certainly number one, and billions of barrels of oil can be drilled out of the soil of Detroit at a fraction of the cost of drilling the OCS, while improving rather than worsening our carbon balance. Beyond conservation and the gains of enhanced efficiency, substitution is the second rung of the ladder from addiction. We are a mobile society and our mobility is currently predicated on liquid fuels. That will change as advances in energy storage technology move us toward electric vehicles. However, today, liquid fuels are the most efficient means of portable energy storage. One kilogram of gasoline contains 46.9 MJ (Mega Joules) of energy whereas a one kilogram state-of-the-art lithium ion battery will hold less than 1 MJ. Even assuming an electric motor to have double the efficiency of a gasoline engine, liquid fuels still store power 20 to 25 times more efficiently than any battery on the horizon.

Biomass conversion into liquid fuels is the only avenue open to us at this time. Even with rapid deployment of electric vehicles, the fleet turnover rate in the US will require liquid fuels for the next several decades. Ethanol is only a stopgap in the change to biofuels. Ethanol is a satisfactory oxygen carrier for blending with hydrocarbons, but it is a less than satisfactory fuel in itself. However, new biologic processes are already available to produce hydrocarbons from myriad forms of biomass including forest waste, municipal waste, agricultural waste, construction debris, old tires, and various energy crops like switchgrass and miscanthus that can be grown on marginal lands. Much of the current ethanol production capacity can be retrofitted to produce hydrocarbons, and at a much lower cost since, unlike ethanol, hydrocarbons are immiscible with the water environment in which they are produced. They simply rise to the surface like fat to be skimmed off, saving the enormous energy cost of distillation. Biogasoline, biodiesel, and biojetfuel can all be produced and profitably retailed at half the cost of today’s petroleum-based products.

We have the capacity to substitute hydrocarbon biofuels for petroleum fuels, and end our reliance on foreign energy sources within a decade. To do this, no food crops are necessary, and no food producing cropland need be diverted to energy crop production. During a recent congressional debates it was said that there are 34 million land acres under lease to oil companies who are not drilling. This is double the energy cropland necessary to make us petroleum independent. There is an excellent analysis of this issue in a white paper by venture capitalist Vinod Khosla, entitled “Where Will Biofuels and Biomass Feedstocks Come From?”  This paper and others are available on the Khosla Ventures web site, http://www.khoslaventures.com. I urge anyone interested in our energy future to read it.

The amount of solar energy striking earth every 40 minutes is sufficient to provide enough electrical power to meet our planetary consumption for a year. We can capture that energy the old fashioned way (biologically), or we can capture it more directly using advanced photovoltaic and solar-thermal techniques. We must forget about coal which, like fast food, is cheap, plentiful, and accessible, but very unhealthy. The use of coal is a blight; it is damaging to the air, the land, and the water. Like petroleum, it is the sequestered waste from earth’s dim past. Let it lie! Instead of removing mountain tops and destroying their surrounding valleys and waters, dot those mountains with solar collectors and wind turbines. This should be the course of our redirection, the final rung on that metaphorical ladder from addiction to freedom. Sustainability. Electricity the common currency of energy, and the sun, our source of energy, sustenance, and life.

So, please, can we get beyond the rhetoric, partisanship, and the control of government policy by fossil fuel lobbyists? Stop the nonsense of drilling for petroleum to battle the scourge of petroleum, dispel the oxymoron of clean coal, and end the fraud of nuclear power. The sun will provide us with all the biomass required to fulfill our liquid fuels needs, all the photovoltaic, solar thermal, and wind power required to fulfill our electrical energy needs, and both are scalable to meet all our energy needs for generations to come. All without pollution and greenhouse gases. It is there for the taking.

Please contact your senators and tell them that it’s time get real and make this new energy paradigm a reality now.  If you have a Republican senator who's up for re-election, sock it to 'em!

John McCain stopping in Louisiana to meet with potential VP candidate, Gov. Bobby "the Exorcist" Jindal.

This is an inspired choice to succeed the Evil One in residence at the Naval Observatory. 

Change that we can believe in! Yes indeed. Change that's happening right before our eyes.

To change... to switch, ah there it is.

That change we can believe in, it's the old bait and switch.

In Newsweek, George Will proposes  a series of 12 questions to Obama. Many (most) of the questions were inane attempts a gotchas, but there were a few of them I would like to discuss, mainly because I don't like their mime - they're pushing lies of the "we all know" variety.

Question:

• During the ABC debate, you acknowledged that when the capital gains rate was dropped first to 20 percent, then to 15 percent, government revenues from the tax increased and they declined in the 1980s when it was increased to 28 percent. Nevertheless, you said you would consider raising the rate "for purposes of fairness." How does decreasing the government's financial resources and punishing investors promote fairness? Are you aware that 20 percent of taxpayers reporting capital gains in 2006 had incomes of less than $50,000?

The interesting thing about that statement is that 20% of taxpayers reporting capital gains make less than $50K sounds a lot like 20% of capital gains taxes are paid by taxpayers earning less than $50K. But they are not the same thing at all, and Will's question is irrelevant on its face. This is the same rhetorical device Bush used when he claimed that the majority of his tax cuts went to middle income and working people. A true but meaningless statement. The cuts went to the people but the money went to the rich. The  same is true of capital gains and dividend taxes.

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities finds that middle-class American taxpayers reporting capital gains and dividend income derive very little monetary benefit because the vast majority of that income is concentrated among the wealthy. The Tax Policy Center estimates that 83 percent of total capital gains goes to the highest-income 5 percent of U.S. households.

According to the Tax Policy Center, the average household in the middle of the income spectrum received $20 from the 2003 capital gains and dividend tax cuts.  The average household earning over $1 million received $32,000, or 1,600 times as much.

So can we rephrase or at least append the last part of your question, Mr Will? Are you aware that 20 percent of taxpayers reporting capital gains in 2006 had incomes of less than $50,000, and they each saved about 20 bucks off their taxes? Isn't that wonderful?

Question:

• You favor eliminating the cap on earnings subject to the 12.4 percent Social Security tax, which now covers only the first $102,000. A Chicago police officer married to a Chicago public-school teacher, each with 20 years on the job, have a household income of $147,501, so you would take another $5,642 from them. Are they undertaxed? Are they rich?

No, George, they're not rich. You are. They're not stupid, either. How about you? FICA taxes are on individual income up to $102,000. Unless the cop or the teacher makes over that amount, they already pay FICA tax on every cent they earn working. Unlike you, Mr. Will. How early in the year do you stop paying FICA? March? February? January?

Question:

  • You denounce President Bush for arrogance toward other nations. Yet you vow to use a metaphorical "hammer" to force revisions of trade agreements unless certain weaker nations adjust their labor, environmental and other domestic policies to suit you. Can you define cognitive dissonance?

Can you define cognitive disability? Let's see, one the one hand we have Shock & Awe delivered against a third rate, third world dictator by the most powerful military machine the world has ever known. On the other hand we have the "metaphorical hammer" to negotiate with two of our largest trading partners. Why there's scarcely a hair's difference between the two.

Oy what  a schmuck!

And last but not least, he asks :

• You want "to reduce money in politics." In February and March you raised $95 million. See prior question.

This has got to be my favorite. For years the Republicans have shouted from the roof tops that MONEY EQUALS FREE SPEECH. But now that somebody has come along with the ability to raise a lot of money from the people at large rather than special interest donors who only give with strings attached, that old right wing mantra doesn't ring so well, does it, MR Will?

You Republicans pooled your corporate resources to buy your way into control. Now it's our turn. Now the people are pooling their resources to buy you out - to drive all of you corrupt corporatist bastards out of our Government. First we have to disinfect. Then we'll work on public campaign finance and getting all of the special interest money out of our elections..

And finally,

But coming next, questions for John McCain.

Oh, gee, I can't wait.

I'm sure glad John McCain explained his position to me on the 100-year presence in Iraq.

He explained that it's going to be just like Japan, right? You have to give it some time. I mean, look how long it took to get a stable, nonviolent occupation in Japan. We dropped the bombs on August 6th and August 9th, 1945, and V-J Day wasn't until August 15th. It took about a week. So, like Japan but ... not quite.

It's going to be more like Germany, right? That took some time. We didn't just drop the big one and move in. We had to invade Europe and beat the Nazis back - the greatest war machine in the history of Europe! Let's see, we invaded on D-Day, June 6th, 1944 and V-E Day was May 7th, 1945. Eleven months. So it's going to be like WWII, only it going to take longer.

How much longer?

Korea! that's it. It's going to be just like Korea. It took 37 months to get North Korea to the bargaining table and get a cease fire. So it's a lot like Korea only it's taking a little longer... longer.

C'mon people, It's only been five years since King George  strapped on his official presidential "Mission Accomplished" codpiece. You have to give Victory a chance! We stayed in Viet Nam for 16 years and we'd still be there if I had my way. Damn Gooks! We gotta get 'em before they get us! Bomb bomb bomb, bomb-bomb Iran. Bomb bomb bomb, bomb-bomb Iran.

Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.........

So, clearly, it's only those seriously out-of-touch bitter elitists who distorted McCain's 100 year presence position.. 

Looking back over the past few weeks, my take on the Obama-Wright situation is a little different from what I am generally hearing. After Obama gave his speech on race relations, that should have been enough to put it to bed and it seems to me that Reverend Wright was keeping a pretty low profile. But the wing nuts kept stirring the pot and keeping the issue alive so that it could be used to hammer Obama in the debate. That was a successful ploy by anti-Obama forces on both sides. Obama's numbers went down and Clinton's went up.

Now Obama is in a catch-22. He has already vowed not to throw his pastor and friend under the bus, even while disavowing all of Wright's controversial statements. But the right wing and corporate media have continued to make Wright the albatross around Obama's neck. Having defended Wright and his relationship with him, how does Obama now shake Wright off without tainting his own reputation?

If I am in Rev Wright's position and I want to help Obama, I can see what's happening. Staying quiet for a while didn't help at all, they're not going to let this die. If I am Rev Wright I know what I have to do to give Obama a way out of this mess. Just grab the spotlight and the microphone push it over the top - be a big enough public jerk to give Obama a good reason to denounce me and put some distance between us. 

I'd do that for my friend, and I bet Jeremiah Wright would too. At least, those are the romantic speculations of this old fart.

The vitriol from us on the non-right and the media critics at large over the Phreakshow in Philly has been very properly directed at Stephanopoulos and Gibson. These pages have been full of rhetoric from my fellow TPMers expressing that general feeling of deep outrage, so I need not repeat those sentiments that we all share.

However, the more I think about this, the more firmly convinced I am that our candidates share significant responsibility for what we witnessed. Clinton and Obama stood on that stage, vying for the Democratic nomination for the presidency of the United States of America and the putative Leader of the Free World, and both acted like deer in the headlights of 52 minutes of media inanity. Neither one of them possessed the leadership capacity to turn this media hit job into a real debate. Obama's attempt was anemic at best, and an utter failure. Clinton never even bothered to try. So, if you're keeping score: Leadership - ABC 1, Candidates 0

How about the Elite Mr Gibson and his protestations about the capital gains taxes. Rather than simply accepting Gibson's erroneous frame, which of our candidates came prepared to refute the Republican talking point? So now the leading Democratic candidates and probably - hopefully - the next POTUS, have endorsed this falsehood to the ten million people listening in to the debates. Score: ABC&TheRight 1, Candidates 0

Eventually they got to issues, but the candidates never took control and almost nothing substantive was discussed. Candidates hit on their talking points and moved on. It was pretty awful. Both of our candidates had this national forum, broadcast television, ten million Americans watching, and ...... nothing! I expected them to go after McCain. Nada. They were in Constitution Hall. I thought maybe some real discussion of constitutional issues. Nope. The Court? Nah. The economy and socialized corporate risk? Not so much and don't go there. It was worse than awful. They were both pathetic. They were Un-Presidential!

Final Score: Who's counting any more? Here's the promised poop......

Winner: John McCain and TheRight
Losers: US

How did we screw this up so bad? Again?

I watched with great interest the hearings conducted by Senator Biden on April 2, in preparation for the two days of testimony by General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker before the several Senate and House committees this week. Given the background of the April 2 testimony, the statements and responses of Petraeus and Crocker can be examined through a much clearer lens. That examination cannot be reassuring to the American people.

One of the most bothersome messages that I took from both the general’s testimony and that of the ambassador is the so-called Sunni Awakening. Although they try to frame this as a positive, what their testimony discloses is that there is a cadre of former Sunni insurgents who we now identify by the patriotic moniker: Sons of Iraq. The interesting thing about the Sons of Iraq is that we pay them not to hurt us! Petraeus himself asserted that what we pay these local thugs and villains is less than the cost we would otherwise bear in “blown-up vehicles and equipment, not to mention the price of life.” The idiocy of this proposition is astounding. The most advanced and powerful military force the world has ever know has fallen victim to a protection racket – and our military governor not only lauds this as a major step forward, he lobbies for more funds to continue paying the extortion.

But perhaps I’m being too harsh. Perhaps General Petraeus has hit upon a plan for sure and certain success in Iraq. A plan so elegant in its simplicity that perhaps the general himself has not yet fully grasped it. We need not limit our payments to the Sunni Awakening and the Sons of Iraq. At twelve billion dollars ($12,000,000,000) per month in war costs, we could pay each and every one of the 24 million (24,000,000) Iraqis – every man, woman and child – a $500 per month stipend to simply behave themselves. Since the median income in Iraq is $144 per month (in 2004), this would be a real boon. For a family of four it would be a $2000 per month income without ever lifting a finger. That’s equivalent to a $12.00 per hour full time job for the head of the household. All for simply for keeping the peace! No bombs, no bullets, no blood, no problem. Brilliant.

And of course, while we’re at it we can send a one-time payment of $600 to some Americans to try to purchase their loyalty, too. That money will go to Americans who work for $12.00 per hour – many working two such jobs just to make ends meet. Americans who can’t afford health care and are just a paycheck or two or a serious illness or injury away from losing everything, but they’re not parked on top of one the worlds largest oil reserves. Americans are apparently not contained within the Washington, and particularly the Neocon (neoliberal) definition of “America’s vital interests.” It betrays a greater interest and lust for the American Empire, than patriotic care and love for the American Republic. A trillion dollars a year to support an empire founded on the antithesis of our own founding principles.

What became abundantly clear in this week’s testimony is that General Smedley Butler’s words are as apt today as they were in 1935 when we published War is a Racket.

"I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents."               

Rather than focus on the Sunni Awakening, senators and congressmen ought to look closer to home. There is an American Awakening, too, and we are not rising in a good mood. Not a good mood at all.

Dear Senator Roberts:

I am deeply concerned by the outrageous assertions made by Director of National Intelligence J M McConnell during a March 28,2008 speech at Furman University. In his comments, Director McConnell attempted to disparage the Senate and some of its members with what can only be described as outright lies. In describing recent Senate action on the FISA Amendments Act of 2008, McConnell stated:   

"We had a bill go into the Senate. It was debated vigorously. There were some who said we shouldn't have an Intelligence Community. Some have that point of view. Some say the President of the United States violated the process, spied on Americans, should be impeached and should go to jail. I mean, this is democracy, you can say anything you want to say. That was the argument made. The vote was 68 to 29."

I watched the debate on C-SPAN. There was vigorous debate, alright, but no Senator at any time even remotely suggested that we “shouldn’t have an Intelligence Community.” That never happened, and if you were there doing your job at the time of those debates, you know that this is a bald face lie.

McConnell’s other assertion, that “Some [Senators] say the President of the United States violated the process [and] spied on Americans,” might have been accurate had he not amplified it with another blatant lie when he added that some Senators said the President “should be impeached and should go to jail.” No Senator ever said such a thing during those debates. I know it and, once more, if you were at work, you know it too.

I have no patience with public appointees who lie and deceive for base political reasons. I have no respect for a public appointee who denigrates our great institutions of government, or one who cynically casts aspersions – nay, who accuses of outright treachery, our elected officials who are acting honorably and responsibly.

Senator Roberts, you are a member of that august body that Mr. McConnell treats with such mendacity and disrespect. How can you countenance this offense? You must write to Mr. McConnell immediately and demand a public apology for this outrage. You must also look at all of Mr. McConnell’s future statements with considerable skepticism given his penchant for making up facts from whole cloth. I, for one, will certainly find it difficult to believe any future pronouncements from this political hit man.

Sincerely,

I don't care who beats John McCain in November. The important thing is that he is beaten - hopefully in a landslide, but that doesn't matter either.

That said, I have read nothing in these pages discussing what either Obama or Clinton would DO about the last eight years of wholesale corruption. There is ample discussion on either side about what they would do going forward, and frankly the differences are insignificant given that all of their programs will be run through the grinding machine of the legislative process, and none will emerge intact.

But here's where I think Hillary has it all over Barack. You see, Barack Obama is a gentleman and he has been forthright in saying that he wants to move ahead and put these disastrous years behind us.

I am not that forgiving. I don't think Hillary is, either. In fact, I think she is a conniving, vindictive bitch who will woo the support of her adversaries only to turn on them when the opportunity arises. I think Hillary will go after the "Great Right-Wing Conspiracy" with a vengeance, and I would love to see that, vengeful SOB that I am!

C'mon Obama fans, admit it, wouldn't that be fun?

This is how we select out candidate for president:

First get eight people who are willing to run so that there can be a horse race for the media pontificators..

Next, divide them into two groups: most experience on one side, least experienced on the other. Have a couple of debate and a few caucuses and primaries to determine whether experienced leadership is what Democratic voters want.

Apparently they do not, since the four with the greatest experience in government office, Biden, Dodd, Kucinich and Richardson, are blown out -- Gone.

Now that we are left with the four least experienced to chose from: Clinton, Edwards, Gravel and Obama, here's what we do. As in judging certain athletic competitions, we throw out the high and the low scores - the most and the least electable - and say good bye to Edwards and Gravel.

So we're down to Clinton and Obama and, aside from the petty bickering among the sycophants and the cheap shots from surrogates, they now try to differentiate themselves on the basis of --- you got it experience and electability! Talk about your cognitive dissonance, no wonder the people can't decide between them.

We're silly puppies, chasing our tails.

I have made my choice for the Democratic nominee. When you compare Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama ....  Well, your can't really do that because there is no comparison. The choice is soooo obvious and you all know exactly what I mean.

To our opposition and their supporters I say, your candidate has failed to get a mandate from the voters and caucus-goers, and you have no possibility of winning the nomination on the pledged (elected) delegates from the remaining ten races. The only way you can win is to get enough super-delegates to carry you over. Meanwhile, all that dirt your campaign is throwing at my candidate is going to make it easy for McCain in the fall.

And don't just think a McCain victory in November will be a third Bush term, McCain will be Bush without the lithium and Prozac; Bush on steroids, Bush on LSD! The court? Gone for thirty years. The economy? Gone for the next generation. Health care? What health care? Infrastructure, sell it! And, of course, the ever-popular "there'll be more wars, my friends," and we'll "stay in Iraq for 100 years."

So, that's it! The only honorable thing for you to do is GET OUT NOW!

Last night a guest on one of the Air America Radio shows quoted Franklin Roosevelt’s stark description of the Republicans of the day. FDR said they were “frozen in the ice of their own indifference.” My parents lived through those times, and my mother related stories that merged with my own study of the period to suggest Roosevelt was correct, that corruption of the distinctly American principle of government for the common good sent the Republican Party into a tailspin. It took two decades for it to recover

When the Republican ranks finally cleansed itself of those corrupt influences, it was able to regain the respect of the people, and forward-thinking men guided by core American conservative principles were given the opportunity to lead. Both Eisenhower and Nixon were the embodiment of what I think of as “Progressive American Conservatism.” The intelligent use of government and the People’s Purse for the common good as expounded in the preamble of our constitution:

“…to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence [sic], promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity…”

But in the end poor Nixon went mad. Overcome by his megalomania, he lost his office and he lost the people. But the real tragedy of Nixon’s disgrace was that he so weakened the Republican party that those same corrupting cliques regained their foothold. Ultimately they seized the reins of power and united behind a clever spokesman, Ronald Reagan, who preached a subtle disestablishmentarianism cloaked in faux populist rhetoric. I voted for Reagan over Daddy Brown for Governor of California. I thought the state needed “change.” We got change alright, we witnessed Reagan’s decimation of the University of California system over the ensuing years. Watching California’s crown jewel decline into near-mediocrity was an eye-opening and heart-breaking experience.

For the past eight years of retirement I have focused as a keen student of America and her marvelous government. Now I must ask if we have not come full circle? I fear that Mr. Roosevelt’s observation is once again valid, but this time it seems that Republicans and Democrats alike are frozen in the ice of their own indifference. I think it is important now that we question our elected representatives, whether Republican, Democrat, Independent or Green, about their core beliefs. Since my (Blue Dog) Democratic congressman, and Republican senator are both asking for my vote this November, I feel they are obliged to explain their theories of ethical governance. To that end I have written to them with a single question that I posed to them in both narrow and general terms.

In the context of the current economic downturn and the housing credit crisis, I pose my question as follows:

Government of, by and for the people has declared that it must and should open the People’s Purse to bail out bankers and speculators who failed in their due diligence out of greed. Please make me understand why we must not and should not do the same for those people who failed in their due diligence out of yearning for the American dream.  

In a broader context, I put the issue this way:

Government of, by and for the people has declared that it must and should open the People’s Purse to insure the economic health of multinational corporations. Please make me understand why we must not and should not do the same to insure the physical health of our Nation’s greatest asset – her people, our citizens, ourselves.

These are fair questions that we have both the
right and duty to ask. They go to the very core of the ethics and morality of
governance. But we must be prepared to reject any recitation of proposals made
or supported, and snub the inevitable litany of partisan talking points void of
critical analysis or factual basis. It is their core principles, and how they apply
them to any particular issue of governance, that we must understand. Make them
proclaim their principles so that we may hold them accountable now and in the
future.

Dear Senator Roberts:

As a solid conservative, fundamental principles such as fairness, justice, playing by the rules, and taking responsibility for one’s acts, should be embedded in your DNA. Conservatism, after all, is the enduring connection with our forbearers and traditions and founding principles.

This is why I find recent events involving your senate colleague and friend, Senator John McCain of Arizona, so very disturbing, for it appears Senator McCain is violating the very campaign finance law he helped pass – a bill that bears his name.

When Sen. McCain applied for federal matching funds for his presidential run, he agreed to limits, both overall and on a state by state basis, on all spending during the primary season through the date of nomination at the convention in September.

After securing a certification for federal matching funds, Sen. McCain obligated those funds in order to obtain a bank loan for his flagging campaign. He also used his public financing status to gain entrance into many state primaries and caucuses at a savings of several million dollars. So public financing not only secured Sen. McCain’s campaign going forward by getting him on state ballots at practically no cost, the bank loan against that certification kept his campaign afloat until his political fortunes changed.

Weeks later Senator McCain won a contest and found his fundraising ability significantly enhanced. So much so that his commitment to public financing was becoming a drag. Thus, on February 6, the senator notified the FEC of his unilateral intent to withdraw from his binding obligation. The FEC Chairman responded on 2/19/08 that Senator McCain was bound to his commitment, and that the obligation will remain in force unless and until the FEC meets and votes to find otherwise. The FEC has not, and apparently will not act on this, so Senator McCain simply announced the he would ignore the spending limits. I suppose Mr. McCain, being a presidential candidate and a senator, thinks he’s too big for the law. What do you think, Senator Roberts, is Mr. McCain too big?

Well, now he has followed through on his threat to break his own law. As of 2/29/08 Mr. McCain spent over $56.9 million, already $200,000 over the limit with half a year to go to the convention. So it seems that each time the McCain Campaign spends any of its funds between now and the convention it will be in violation of the law, and the McCain campaign officials are conspiring to continue this lawbreaking. Sen. McCain is fond of calling himself a maverick. But “maverick” is also a verb. It means “to seize something without holding a lawful claim to it.”

A man of high character, having been sent to the United States Senate by election of the citizens of the state, is bound by honor and duty to enforce the ethical standards of the chamber. Thus I call on you to prepare a complaint for submission to the Senate Ethics Committee. Since the ethical breech here is ongoing, I also ask that this be done on an expedited basis.

Sincerely,

Readers, do something! Go to Firedoglake and sign the petition!

Dear Congressman Moore:

I ask you to recall the 2004 presidential debates when Mr. Kerry was asked what he believed was the greatest danger America faces going forward. He responded that loose nuclear devices, especially in the former Soviet Union, was the greatest risk our nation and the world faces in the coming years. President Bush had no rebuttal other than to agree with Kerry.

Now, it seems to me that when the titular heads of both political parties agree on such an important issue, something positive would be forthcoming. But what has happened? Has Nunn-Lugar become a national priority? No, its funding is stagnant and the conservative think tanks such as The Heritage Foundation, continue to press the administration to use Nunn-Lugar funds for military build-up. Consequently, the real risks posed by nuclear devices falling into the wrong hands have increased substantiality. Logic dictates that it is only a matter of time before a group hostile to our interests gets their hands on a device. The only way we can prevent that is to get to the device first. Instead, our government focuses its attention on the Iraq and Afghanistan stalemates, and on abuses of civil rights at home and human rights abroad, the latter effectively adding to the ranks of those who would wish us harm. It is utter hubris to believe our chickens are exempt from coming home to roost.

Yesterday we learned that our government “accidentally” filled a Taiwanese military order for four batteries with four nuclear warheads sans fissile material. Ok, at least we know that they couldn’t have set the timers and put them right back on ships en route to Seattle, San Francisco, Los Angeles and San Diego. Because without fissile material, what do the have? Of course, with 18 months to study them before the sleepy Americans have figured out what has happened, we have essentially given them billions of dollars worth of Americas top secret weapons technology.

Give a man a nuc, he’ll bomb you for a day. Teach a man to make nucs, he’ll bomb you for a lifetime. Wonderful!

Sincerely,  

Edward L Siegel, MD
Associate Professor, Radiology & Surgery (ret)
Kansas University Medical Center