Mr. McCain:

Isn’t it true that part of Cheney’s assignment on behalf of his overlord, David Rockefeller, was to ensure that the OVP became the most powerful (above the law) position in all the land, even more powerful than the office of Potus? Wasn’t that done specifically with the understanding that the ONLY way to put Lieberman in the seat of ultimate power was to make the VP’s seat the most powerful?

Isn’t that part of the “discernible reality” that Rove taunted Suskind about?

Aren’t you really just a tool, John?

I was watching several news shows last night (as I surf around if I cannot tolerate the stupidity in front of me) and was amazed to find that they never used the terms hatch act violations.(at least on the cnn segment I watched with wolfie) They never explained who had committed the violations. They never explained that all of these people quit thereby avoiding any consequences. They referred to it as doj political bias. I cannot get over the white washing. It literally makes me want to weep.

I would hope that the first peice of business for Obama would be to regulate the media again. Put back the fairness doctrine, and split up the media moguls into smaller companies and create competition again.

Or maybe there is a better alternative but right now, the only ones speaking to the average american voters are the television stations. And the white wash on the wrong doings of this administration are horrendous.

My colleague at work said in response to the doj hatch act violations…”well Clinton fired over a 100 doj’s when he first got into office”. She has a master’s degree, but her husband watches fox news. She really doesn’t understand that she isn’t hearing the truth.

She sent me an article the other day about how more troops were killed during the Carter and Clinton administrations. Now, the idiot who wrote the peice included a link to gov’t documents. When you check the link you find out that they have all the numbers turned around on the front page. It literally takes the stats from Bush and puts them under the Clinton administration and then the same for Carter and Reagan. Turns them around and presents them on the front page as if this is the truth. If you follow the link you have to page through lots of documentation to find the error. Which I did and sent back to her encouraging her to check the link.

The misinformation being sent is propaganda at it’s finest, and because it fit her mindset she didn’t bother to check the link. It’s malicious to put out information like this purposely, knowing that they are perpetuating a lie. What is behind such an act, but unadulterated greed and zealotry?

Evil. Truly Evil.

Senator McCain does it concern you that only 9% of the American public have any faith in congress?

What role will lobbyist play in your administration if you are selected?

I like the question Devilstower asks in dkos yesterday:
Is 0% Too High for Corporate Taxes?

Of interest but admittedly OT to this thread but more the subject of the one before it:

As I think we’ve all suspected Mukasey promised Bush and Cheney he would never appoint a Special Counsel. And remember that Scott Horton for years was a member of the same law firm where Mukasey practiced before and after he was on the SDNY bench.

Scott Horton August 12:

Prior to his confirmation, Michael Mukasey fessed up, in a written response to Senator Dick Durbin, to a meeting the White House arranged with a group of movement conservatives. The team he met with had a simple agenda: They wanted his assurance that he would not appoint special prosecutors to go after administration figures involved in serious scandals at the Justice Department, including the U.S. attorneys scandal and the introduction of torture with formal Justice Department cover, and they wanted his assurance that Justice would continue to provide legal cover to “the Program.” The team who met Mukasey included figures on the periphery of the scandal who may have had personal reasons to fear an investigation. But Mukasey is clearly keeping the understanding that brought him to the cherished post of attorney general. And that’s bad news for the Justice Department and its reputation.

But the failure was systemic in that the system–the institution–failed to check the behavior of those who did wrong. There was a failure of supervision by senior officials in the Department. And there was a failure on the part of some employees to cry foul when they were aware, or should have been aware, of problems.

Note how Mukasey plays the entire affair down and uses the traditional language of the criminal defendant–for him it was a “system failure.” His language is passive: things evidently just happened. But in fact a closer read of the Inspector General’s report shows that the figures involved and the schemes adopted had a clear provenance in the White House, and specifically in the warren of Karl Rove. The actors under investigation, Kyle Sampson and Monica Goodling, had come with Alberto Gonzales from the White House. They benefited from an extraordinary delegation of authority from Gonzales that allowed them, two thirty-somethings with little experience, to exercise the authority of the attorney general in the hiring and firing process. This didn’t “just happen.” It was the result of a careful plan for partisan entrenchment at Justice—consciously pursued in defiance of the law. A serious investigation would have focused on the senior figures responsible for this program. So what is the penalty for such a systematic violation of the law? Well, according to Mukasey, there isn’t one. Those involved have already suffered enough. Yes, they suffer because their misdeeds are now known.

But in fact, the Justice Department didn’t willingly lay this bare. It had to be dragged kicking and screaming to the truth. Its instincts throughout the entire process were to cover up and lie about what was being done—as the inspector general documented in excruciating detail. And while Michael Mukasey praises the career professionals around him, the facts are that he has surrounded himself with political flacks who were deeply enmeshed in the cover up.

FYI ScienceDebate 2008 website for progress to date of engaging the candidates in substantive science and technology policy and issues.

The Questions

On behalf of the American science and innovation community (see who here), we have submitted these questions to the candidates for President and asked them to do two simple things: A) provide a written response, which we will publish here, and B) discuss these questions in a nationally televised forum.

1. Innovation. Science and technology have been responsible for half of the growth of the American economy since WWII. But several recent reports question America’s continued leadership in these vital areas. What policies will you support to ensure that America remains the world leader in innovation?

2. Climate Change. The Earth’s climate is changing and there is concern about the potentially adverse effects of these changes on life on the planet. What is your position on the following measures that have been proposed to address global climate change—a cap-and-trade system, a carbon tax, increased fuel-economy standards, or research? Are there other policies you would support?

3. Energy. Many policymakers and scientists say energy security and sustainability are major problems facing the United States this century. What policies would you support to meet demand for energy while ensuring an economically and environmentally sustainable future?

4. Education. A comparison of 15-year-olds in 30 wealthy nations found that average science scores among U.S. students ranked 17th, while average U.S. math scores ranked 24th. What role do you think the federal government should play in preparing K-12 students for the science and technology driven 21st Century?

5. National Security. Science and technology are at the core of national security like never before. What is your view of how science and technology can best be used to ensure national security and where should we put our focus?

6. Pandemics and Biosecurity. Some estimates suggest that if H5N1 Avian Flu becomes a pandemic it could kill more than 300 million people. In an era of constant and rapid international travel, what steps should the United States take to protect our population from global pandemics or deliberate biological attacks?

7. Genetics research. The field of genetics has the potential to improve human health and nutrition, but many people are concerned about the effects of genetic modification both in humans and in agriculture. What is the right policy balance between the benefits of genetic advances and their potential risks?

8. Stem cells. Stem cell research advocates say it may successfully lead to treatments for many chronic diseases and injuries, saving lives, but opponents argue that using embryos as a source for stem cells destroys human life. What is your position on government regulation and funding of stem cell research?

9. Ocean Health. Scientists estimate that some 75 percent of the world’s fisheries are in serious decline and habitats around the world like coral reefs are seriously threatened. What steps, if any, should the United States take during your presidency to protect ocean health?

10. Water. Thirty-nine states expect some level of water shortage over the next decade, and scientific studies suggest that a majority of our water resources are at risk. What policies would you support to meet demand for water resources?

11. Space. The study of Earth from space can yield important information about climate change; focus on the cosmos can advance our understanding of the universe; and manned space travel can help us inspire new generations of youth to go into science. Can we afford all of them? How would you prioritize space in your administration?

12. Scientific Integrity. Many government scientists report political interference in their job. Is it acceptable for elected officials to hold back or alter scientific reports if they conflict with their own views, and how will you balance scientific information with politics and personal beliefs in your decision-making?

13. Research. For many years, Congress has recognized the importance of science and engineering research to realizing our national goals. Given that the next Congress will likely face spending constraints, what priority would you give to investment in basic research in upcoming budgets?

14. Health. Americans are increasingly concerned with the cost, quality and availability of health care. How do you see science, research and technology contributing to improved health and quality of life?