1. Did you flip-flop your position on offshore drilling to facilitate 10 donations of $28,500 each by Hess Corporation executives and family members to the McCain Victory 2008 campaign fund? If not, is it just a coincidence that you received the donations days before you flip-flopped your position? Two of the $28,500 donations came from a Hess office manager and her husband, an Amtrak foreman, who rent a home in a lower middle class neighborhood in Flushing, Queens. Do you think campaign fraud has been perpetrated? If so, will you return the money?

2. In 2002 and 2003, you voted to close the Enron loophole, saying at the time that “we’re all tainted” by Enron’s money. Since then, you’ve hired former Enron board of directors member Phil Gramm (who helped pass the Enron loophole), Enron loophole lobbyist Charlie Black, and anti-price gouging lobbyist Wayne Berman. Do you plan to introduce or vote to support legislation that closes the Enron loophole, despite your affiliation with beneficiaries and architects of the loophole?

3. The one war you were directly involved in resulted in your imprisonment for 5 years and ended in failure. What specific experiences in your military or political career have taught you how to win wars?

4. How many aircraft have you crashed while serving in the Navy? What’s the average number of aircraft Navy pilots crash in a career?

5. Is it typical for a bottom-of-the-barrel Naval Academy graduate — who places 5th from the bottom of 899 — to be assigned duty as an aircraft carrier pilot? If not, did your position of privilege as the son and grand-son of 4 star admirals grant you unearned access?

6. Given your experience as a prisoner of war and your apparent support for CIA torture, do you think torture works? Does it produce accurate intelligence? If so, were your confessions of war crimes in propaganda tapes and signed statements accurate? If not, what will you do to remove torture as a federally-sponsored activity?

7. Did you leave Naval service for civil service because you knew you’d never earn the rank of Admiral? Senator William Cohen, Senator Gary Hart (both of whom participated in your weddings), Admiral Peter Booth, and Admiral John R. Batzler have suggested that you left Naval service for civil service because it was established that you’d never earn the rank of Admiral. Do you disagree with their assertions?

8. Do you think presidential candidates’ spouses should receive media and public scrutiny? If so, can you comment on your wife’s felonious behavior in the 1990s, when she stole prescription drugs from a charitable organization to fuel her own drug addiction? Is there any correlation between Michelle Obama’s comment “For the first time in my adult lifetime, I’m really proud of my country…” and your comment “I really didn’t love America until I was deprived of her company”? Are you both unpatriotic traitors, or two people who realized through significant experiences what America has to offer?

9. Given your admission of ignorance about economics and utter incompetence when attempting to answer related questions; your evident lack of general geographic knowledge of the Middle East and Europe; your confusion between Sunnis and Shiites; your mistaken time-lines of the Sunni Awakening and the surge; and, your endless flip-flops, what qualifies you to be President of the United States? Do your many recent gaffes suggest your incompetence, or is it a reflection of your old age and decreased mental acumen?

10. Why have you decided to abandon your call to run a “respectful campaign”? Have you become desperate to win and see going negative as your only option? Do your trivial attack ads detract from the real issues facing our nation?

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?

I beg to differ; I wouldn’t cite Miss Dowd as proof of any contention except her continuing decline. Unlike Miss Dowd, you’re capable of correcting the obvious.

Great! I directly linked the You Tubes proving what I said was right. Feel free to argue the You Tubes don’t exist or they aren’t the 200 millionairess begging for money when she could easily pay her debts but like rich bitch Helmsely is stiffing little business people all over the country right now because she won’t tap her illicitly gained fortune.

I linked the memos from Atlantic Monthly and I linked You Tubes of Clinton that support what Ms. Dowd quoted and quoted accurately.

Forget Maureen Dowd. I understand she gets under your skin because she skewers someone you don’t want skewered.

I’ll try the same tack I try with people I want to stop smoking when I say forget you have lungs and then trot out the coronary artery occlusion stats>MIs>CVAs as a result of smoking more than a pack a day over age 40.

Forget Dowd exists. Tell me that these You Tubes don’t have Clinton trying to undermine Obama with a roll call; have her asking for signs at the convention from her supporters that are detrimental to Obama using the words “Nobama” and one of the You Tubes has the greatest hits where Clinton bold face lies.

And btw do you expect Bill to power point his 2007 Income Tax Returns, the Foundation Contributors, or the Library Contributors and the illegal deals he participated in with them, including the rides on the Burkle plane with the convicted sexual molester of under aged girls? Because I don’t.

Once more with feeling for your eyes (no Dowd is present in this documentation):

Hillary: Let’s All Fuck Obama I You Tube

Hillary Let’s All Fuck Obama II You Tube

Again Earl, these are videos I’m linking, not anything Maureen Dowd. But the videos do proove that Maureen Dowd cited them accurately. They also take your excuse to bash Dowd out of the equation, and underscore she got her facts right. You can proceed to argue that it’s a Hillary impersonator in the Videos if you like. And you can argue she underwent thoracic surgery after being hit by sniper fire if you like. And you can argue Brett Favre didn’t throw an interception last year that knocked them out of the playoffs or he isn’t a Jet if you like. Feel free.

Clinton Memos Written by Penn, Doyle, and Ickes Writ Large Not Dowd

This information was gathered by Josh Green, at Atlantic and contains actual memos handed over by the Clinton staff:

To find out, I approached a number of current and former Clinton staffers and outside consultants and asked them to share memos, e-mails, meeting minutes, diaries—anything that would offer a contemporaneous account. The result demonstrates that paranoid dysfunction breeds the impulse to hoard. Everything from major strategic plans to bitchy staff e-mail feuds was handed over. (See for yourself: much of it is posted online at http://www.theatlantic.com/clinton.)

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.