Ten questions for…Earl Gordon

This edition of the Ten Questions is going to be intriguing to say the least.

One of the candidates for Senate on the Republican side is Earl Gordon. Because he listed no e-mail address, I mailed his copy to him. About two weeks later, I received a large manila envelope in the mail from the “NWGOP”. Earl Gordon is the creator (or at least I assume so) of what he calls the “Nationalist Wing” of the Republican Party.

The problem I had is that this envelope came with the cover letter, and two sets of documents. Both are double-spaced, but “Domestic Policy” was 31 pages, and “Foreign Policy” was 16 pages. Obviously in answering my Ten Questions, he chose to send me ALL of his positions.

As a sacrifice to the cause of informing voters, tonight I sat down and reread both of these treatises. Twice. And still I couldn’t find answers to all Ten Questions, he skipped over the ones on ethics and campaign finance, and sort of glossed over pork spending. Plus his Iraq answer would’ve taken me all night to retype, so I put in what I saw as the highlights.

So I tell you what. If you want the full 47 pages sent to you, his address is P.O. Box 1513, Olney, MD 20830-1513. I did the best I could, and have transcribed his answers as they appeared on my copy. Any misspellings I found were marked (sic). But capitalization, punctuation, etc. are true to the original and I sourced the pages I found what answers I did find to these questions.

My Ten Questions work out to just about two pages in a WordPerfect file. His answers that I typed make it just under four, so he did have some depth to his answers, just not enough answers.

Question #1:

There are several schools of thought regarding the problem of illegal immigrants, or as some would call them, “undocumented workers.” Some solutions offered range from complete amnesty to sealing the border with a wall to penalizing employers who hire these workers. Currently there are competing House and Senate measures – in particular the House bill has spawned massive protests around the country. While I have listed some of the possible solutions, it’s no exhaustive list. What solutions do you favor for the issue?

“The United States does not face an immigration crisis. The United States is just lacking an appropriate refuges (sic) policy to deal with people who were displaced by the socioeconomic disaster that was created by the pro American Neo Cons brutal military-political dictatorships in Central and South America over the past years. The United States should treat these refugees with respect and human dignity, mindful of the contribution many are making to the economic stability of the food supply (farm workers) and housing market (construction workers.) Whatever financial cost is incurred by the United States in its treatment of some of these refugees should be charged to the nation from which they came, by subtracting the cost from the foreign aid that is given to these nations by the U.S. (All foreigners should be fully aware that English is the official language of the United States, there is no need for an amendment to the constitution on this issue).” (Domestic Policy, Page 25)

Question #2:

Another top-burner concern is the current spike in the price of gasoline. Again, this is a broad issue with many scenarios that can be played out. Possible solutions that have been bandied about in recent days are a temporary suspension of the federal 18.4 cent a gallon tax on gasoline and easing environmental restrictions on gasoline blends (as happened after Hurricane Katrina). Further down the road but possibly affecting prices on the futures market would be the approval of additional oil drilling in ANWR and the Gulf of Mexico. If you were elected, what solutions to this issue would you pursue and why?

“The energy policy of the Neo Cons presents another act of deception. The American people are told that, due to the demands for oil by nation (sic) such as China and India, the availability of oil on the world market is very limited. So based on the gospel of supply and demand, the prices are high at the gas pump.

The claim by the administration is as deceptive as Iran/Contra and Iraq WMD claims. There are absolutely no shortage (sic) of oil on the world market. The former Soviet Republics have so much oil that they can sell America that, even if the Middle East was up in flames, gas prices should not have been where they are. Moreover, whether one believes it or not, there is enough oil and gas in Central and South America that could serve this nation’s needs for the next one million years at the rate of the present consumption level. This oil could be made available to the American people in a flash, if America’s politics were free of corrupt Neo Cons influences.” (Domestic Policy, Pages 27-28)

Question #3:

Recently the news has featured ethics scandals involving GOP donor Jack Abramoff and former House member Duke Cunningham of California as well as Democrat House members William Jefferson of Louisiana and Allan Mollohan of West Virginia. If elected, what steps would you take to help eliminate ethical improprieties among our elected representatives?

(He didn’t have an answer for this.)

Question #4:

Along that same line, many people have seen the vast sums of money that seemingly are required to run for public office and were under the impression that campaign finance reforms such as those enacted with the McCain-Feingold bill were supposed to relieve this inequity. On the whole, however, the money trail has not ceased even with these laws. How do you favor strengthening these laws to make them more effective, or do you agree with some First Amendment advocates who think these laws should be eliminated?

(Nor did he have an answer for this.)

Question #5:

While the above issues have captured the headlines, our War on Terror (particularly in Iraq) is never far from our minds. It goes without saying that the vast majority of us support our troops; but the question is whether you favor our current approach or something different in terms of sending additional troops, seeking more multinational support, or a complete pullout. Maybe your thoughts are someplace in between these listed or would be considered “out of the box” thinking. What approach would you favor?

“Mr. Gordon believes that it is full time for the voters and the legislative branch of our government to give an ear to Generals Scowcroft and Abizaid, and Director Goss as well as the other Americans who are expressing grave concerns about the Administration’s Iraq doctrine, and to further warn the administration of any military ventures into Syria or Iran (1) without the expressed permission of the United States Congress and (2) acting upon irrefutable evidence that those two nations were in the process of implementing a military strike against the United States mainland or on its military bases abroad. The administration has turned the Iraq war into a quagmire and possibly worse, in terms of potential for a wider war.” (Foreign Policy, Page 5)

“Mr. Gordon strongly supports Congressman John Murtha’s call for the withdrawal of American Military Forces from Iraq. Congressman Murtha is acting in the best interest of the U.S. long term security needs. Any one who condemns Congressman Murtha’s proposal, in light of the revelations of what is taking place in Iraq, should read the history of the German sixth army in Russia during the reign of Hitler.” (Foreign Policy, Page 12)

Question #6:

Related to the above question is the controversy over Iran’s nuclear program. The oil-rich nation claims that this program is for the peaceful use of generating electrical power for its citizens, yet on the other hand its leadership has threatened the nation of Israel with annihilation hinted as being from a nuclear bomb. While the President has the final decision, what course would you advocate he take (a pre-emptive military strike, diplomacy either through the UN or some other way, or leaving them alone as a sovereign nation) and why?

“It must be noted that during the administration of Gerald Ford, the US wanted to sell nuclear reactors to Iran, because Iran was led by the Shah, a man they saw as America’s friend. The reactors the Americans wanted to sell to Iran were the kind that could produce the materials to construct nuclear weapons. Many of the senior government officials who wanted to sell nuclear reactors to Iran are some of the same people who are now pushing the war in Iraq and for democracy throughout the Middle East.

Today Iran is ruled by a group of men who would have loved to inherit those nuclear reactors from the Shah. Had they done so, Iran would have at least five hundred to a thousand nuclear bombs today. And they would have to be thankful to the Neo Cons.” (Foreign Policy, Page 9)

Question #7:

Back to domestic issues. One pillar or goal of the Bush administration was to enact Social Security reform in the second term, but it has stalled because of claims there’s no problems with the program and privatization reforms are simply a way to enable Wall Street to profit. Do you think the Social Security program is fine as it is, or what changes would you advocate happening with the program?

“Mr. Gordon opposes every effort by the administration to tamper with the social security system. This system is the only federal program that guarantees citizens some form of social security from complete economic destitution. There are no valid reasons to disturb the program at this time, without replacing it with a system that offers better social security guarantees to the American people, something the President’s plan does not do. If the administration wants to tackle a big issue that is of value to the American people, it should tackle the national health care issue. Ducking this issue in the light of the frequency of international travel and the international medical situations that are presented by AIDS, SARS, the Asian Bird Flu, and international terrorists using chemical and biological weapons, is tantamount to ducking a vital national security issue.” (Domestic Policy, Page 11)

Question #8:

Some in Congress have raised the question of “pork” or excessive earmarks because our federal budget always runs in deficit and eliminating these earmarks would be a simple way to help balance the budget. But no Congressman or Senator wants to cut their district’s or state’s project. To balance the budget, would you consider sacrificing some of your district or state’s federally-funded projects or would you prefer measures to enhance federal revenues to meet the gap?

(This is the closest answer for this question I could gather.)

“…This economic expansion should take the shape in many forms including the following:

(1) This country should seek an 80% improvement in the quality of life for all its citizens in the next twenty five years, because at present America is becoming one big, congested, semi-socially dysfunctional society.

(2) One of the best way (sic) to reverse this trend is by the impostition of a national economic development plan that is coordinated by a Office in the Federal Government that should be designated the National Economic Development Counsel. This counsel would be responsible for choosing at least ten different areas in this country, in ten different States where the Federal Government should then designate as national economic expansion zones and to build twelve new Philadelphia-size cities in the next twenty five years, with the surrounding industrial, living, and social infrastructure to support a population of at least sixty million Americans.

This project should be funded by private and government funds. This kind of economic activity would generate a boom in economic growth and at the same time creating a society where congestion would decrease and the quality of life would improve tremendously, not only for the present generation of Americans but for all future generations. (These cities and their surrounding areas would be built with the most advanced environmentally friendly technology and human imagination in history.)

The revenue that would be generated from all of the above economic activities would be sufficient to augment the other sources of income that would go to pay for a national health care plan as well as a more advanced and humane national education system. What the Republican Party and this nation need is not narrow minded so called sham compassionate conservatives. This nation needs constructive, visionary, and big thinking compassionate capitalists with big investment plans.” (Domestic Policy, Pages 14-15)

Question #9:

Now to the question of trade. When I go to a store, many’s the time that I see a product is made in China – hence we run a large trade deficit with that nation. President Bush has advocated a hemisphere-wide free trade zone that would add Central and South American countries to the umbrella originally created by the NAFTA agreement a decade ago. Given these items, and knowing also that the number of manufacturing jobs in this country remains flat to slightly lower even in this era of steadily expanding employment, where do you stand – do you see free trading eventually shifting our economy to one mostly comprised of service and technology jobs, or do you feel we should take more steps to preserve our core manufacturing positions?

“What America needs is an economic anti-desertion law that makes it illegal for American firms to close a manufacturing plant in this country and go build the same kind of plant in a foreign country. This law should be based on the law that makes it a crime for a member of the U.S. Armed Forces to desert the Armed Forces. A clause should also be added to this law that makes it a crime for any public official or private banking entity to give support to any deserter. If we do not take these kind of legislative actions the neo cons are going to lead this nation down the path that the Romans of ancient times tread.” (Domestic Policy, Page 9)

Question #10:

This question should present you with the shortest answer. Given that in 2008 either you will be seeking re-election to the House and hoping for some coattails at the top of the ticket, or preparing to work with a new President (for the Senators), if you had a short list of 3 to 5 names you’d like to see seek the job, who would they be? Please note that they do not have to be candidates who are considered to be running for the post at this time.

(I couldn’t find a specific answer to this question, but this is Mr. Gordon’s self-description.)

“Mr. Gordon is John Adams/Teddy Roosevelt/Lincoln/Goldwater/Ike/William P. Rogers/and Melvin Laird oriented.” (Domestic Policy, Page 31)

******************************

This is the final set of prewritten answers to the Ten Questions that I have. But I just sent copies to the final four stragglers who entered the race, and one has written me back saying he’ll answer the questions once he gets through the questionaires that have a deadline. (You mean I’m not the only one asking questions? Wow.) So on Friday there may not be anything in this space, but most likely on that day I’ll go back over the people who have not answered the Ten Questions yet and prod them once again to answer.

And one week from tomorrow I’ll begin the Ten Questions for the state Delegate and Senate races. I have three answers back, so I suppose until more arrive I’ll just do one each Wednesday and Saturday until I get really backed up. This is an executive decision I made about 10 seconds ago. Besides, I’m going on vacation in August so hopefully things will collect in my mailbox and I’ll have a crush those last 3 weeks before the primary.

Author: Michael

It's me from my laptop computer.