The McCain campaign is lagging behind the Obama campaign in national opinion polls in many subjects, most recently polls that show the American public believes Obama is better prepared to deal with the energy crisis than Senator McCain. So, like the good little neo-con he has spent the last eight years becoming, Senator McCain has resorted to making bombastic, misleading claims.

In his latest campaign commercial he has basically said that Barack Obama is the reason for high gas prices:

Now, as I am an independent, I don’t have a horse in this race (although I will not be voting for McCain, that’s for sure). However, I hate negative political tactics and more importantly, I hate it when politicians lie to the American public in an attempt to stir up fervor for their own campaign. And while McCain may be right that Obama doesn’t support offshore drilling (or drilling in the ANWR, which McCain also opposes), but to claim that Obama’s stance on off-shore drilling on the continental shelf equates to high gas prices is ludicrous.

Point of fact, Senator Obama has proposed over $150 billion in spending over 10 years for the development of bio-fuels, plug-in hybrids, low-emission ["clean"] coal plants and the rapid development of other new, clean energy technologies (including nuclear power, as long as it’s “safe”). Factcheck.org did a nice little examination of an RNC ad about Senator Obama’s energy policy a few weeks back that applies well to this commercial as well.

This is an important issue in the upcoming election, and a recent conversation that I had with my father really got me thinking about the way the campaigns are handling the truth. In today’s society people are overly influenced by 30-60 second snippets of often misleading information, especially when it comes to politics. Only a small percentage of voters actually take the time to get accurate information and make educated decisions, and that is the biggest problem we face at this time, uneducated voters casting votes based on lies, spin and emotion rather than fact and logic.

The real question we should all be asking ourselves is what we can do to change this? How do we educate a society that is more interested in Britney Spear’s life than in the future of their government? I wish I had the answer to that question, I think we’d all be better off if people actually knew what they were voting for instead of picking their favorite tv commercial for President. Sasquatch in ‘08.

The new book by Jane Mayer (writer for the New Yorker called The Dark Side asserts that President Reagan issued a secret executive order sometime in the 1980’s that “established a means of re-creating the executive branch” that violates the accepted (and legal) order of succession. Bruce Ackerman asks a pertinent question in a recent article on Slate.com, Does the Bush Administration have a similar executive order in place?

If Ms. Mayer’s book is correct and President Reagan did issue an executive order that bypasses the Presidential Succession Act of 1947 then we may have a true constitutional crisis on our hands. Especially in an era where there is the palpable threat of a terrorist attack that just might succeed in taking out the current executive branch.

Now, that being said, would it be hard to believe that an administration that has played fast and loose with Constitutional doctrine over the last 7 years might have a contingency plan to prevent a democratic Congress from taking over the Executive branch should such a disaster occur? It certainly wouldn’t be a very conservative move (if we’re speaking in terms of conservative political doctrine), it would be a revolutionary act that would be the final stroke of an administration that sometimes appears to care very little for the rule of law embodied by the Constitution.

As I have no idea if such an order actually exists, this is all speculation, but, somehow I would not be surprised. It has nothing to do with party politics (I have no party) or red state v. blue state fervor, for me this has serious implications about the stability of our system of government. President Bush II has issued 278 executive orders since 2001 (not to mention hundreds of “signing statements”), 17 of those executive orders have defined orders of succession in the Department of Defense, the Department of State, the Department of Homeland Security and many others. Is it possible that there is a “secret executive order” for the Executive Branch, and if so, does it hold any weight?

I am not one for conspiracy theory (well, aside from loving the theories as a form of entertainment) but this administration is one of the most secretive we’ve ever had, and when these kind of theories are presented, sometimes you just have to wonder. The real question may be, will the next president rescind such an order if it exists?

Yet again, the Bush administration has blocked a request for documentation from the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform (chaired by Dem. Henry Waxman - CA). The latest request from the committee pertained to internal FBI documents that had information regarding the investigation into the leaking of Valerie Plame’s identity. According to Atty. General Michael Mukasey, some of the reports contain summaries of conversations between President Bush and his aides, which are covered by executive privilege. Mukasey stated that he “is greatly concerned about the chilling effect that compliance with the committee’s subpoena would have on future White House deliberations…”

I suppose that Atty. Gen. Mukasey has a point, perhaps if these conversations were not protected by executive privilege our chief executive and his staff wouldn’t be able to hide behind the constitution while laying out the details of illegal acts. Maybe it’s just me, but I’m ready for there to be a little more accountability in our political process, especially in terms of back door dealings involving Washington insiders (regardless of which side of the aisle they’re sitting on.)

Perhaps I am the one who’s wrong here, maybe we should allow our government to keep us entirely in the dark, yet, if they get to tap my phone for no apparent reason, shouldn’t I get to listen in on their conversations as well? I’m not the one doing anything illegal.