One word… Zogby,

Can we stop acting like Hillary will score a massive blowout in Pennsylvania? In a poll released this morning Hillary Clinton’s lead in Pennsylvania was reduced to one percent, 45-44. This poll was conducted from the 14th through the 16th, and as such does not reflect the effect last night’s debate may have. Why is this not in the news, regardless of how important Barack Obama’s bitter comment is. Let’s not forget that people by a 2:1 margin said it wasn’t an issue. Tonight David Gregory’s round table basically agreed, all except Rachel Maddow, that it was an issue as was Barack’s patriotism. This is getting ridiculous, and I may have to limit my MSNBC viewing to KO from now on.

Now that Rachel brought up John McCain’s campaign Co-Chair in Florida getting caught soliciting a police officer in a bathroom in Florida, can we ask him why he associates with people who solicit prostitutes, regardless of gender, in public bathrooms. How can Joe say that he won’t engage in a debate with her about a candidates acquaintances? Before she brought this up he was assailing Barack’s character in the exact same way.

If you must remain sunken to these depths, of hashing and rehashing the actions and words of acquaintances of the candidates, I demand you ask pundits on air about how this will hurt John McCain, and keep this on air for 5 days straight. Repeat in every segment how his campaign co-chair was at the very least attempting an act of public indecency.

What about the children? A child could have walked in on a sex act. Does John McCain favor sex in front of children? This is obviously an important issue about John McCain’s character, if one follows recent logic on your programming. This is certainly a deviation from the abstinence only education the Republicans have supported in the past.

If we are going to stick to only the words and actions of the candidates, yet still be sensationalist, ask how any woman could vote for a man who called his wife a “Trollup” and a “Cunt” as well as how any “Values” voter could vote for a man who uses profanity so regularly on the Senate Floor. Ask if political pundits think it is disrespectful to our nation as a whole when someone defiles that holy chamber.

Finally, don’t cast this letter aside as “hate mail.” It is constructive criticism for a network I used to hold in such a high regard. Stick to the issues. No one, not even “working class whites”, has failed to see through the amazing sea change of the past several weeks. We are smarter than you give us credit for. How about some fairness of coverage. Everyone has negatives that are non-issues, so air the other candidates as well if you intend to avoid real issues.

I have been told that peace in the Middle East is vital to our oil supply, but I came by some interesting information yesterday thanks to the USDOE. About 21.2 percent of our imported oil is from that region, and it accounts for only 11.66 percent of our total oil consumption. We could cut our consumption by 12 percent and forget that region ever existed. Before we meddled in the quagmire that is Iraq, and it was not to fight terror, regular unleaded sold for less than $1.40 per gallon. Imagine a sensible method to “fight” terror. We could limit our presence in the Middle East, and stop purchasing their oil. Someone else undoubtedly would, but we would not be directly financing the next generation of terrorists. Logic would demand an embargo on Saudi Arabia, origin of: 17.9 percent of our crude oil imports (9.8% of total consumption), as well as 19 of the 9/11 hijackers. An embargo may have increased the cost of fuel, though I would argue not by more than the ratio of the crude Saudi Arabia supplied to that of others. Conversely, maintaining demand in response to our embargo, OPEC would reduce prices to maintain production, resulting in decreased oil prices around the world. This is only an exercise in hypotheticals, an impossibility due to our ties with the Saudis as well as US oil companies, who would have undoubtedly cried foul. However, I would counter with another injustice. The Saudi’s provide stipends to the families of “martyrs of the intifada,” yet are not state sponsors of terror like Syria and Iran. Why do we have different rules for them? Because they are our friends? No. Because they are the good guys? No. Would an embargo against their nation be so unfair? We will not trade with Cuba because of their oppressive regime, but at least they allow women to drive and do not execute rape victims who cannot produce 4 Muslim men as witnesses. Which is worse?

Our task is simple. To effect change in a meaningful way, to undo the wrongs of the past, and most importantly to restore the ultimate primacy of the Constitution of the United States of America, we must believe that the civil liberties of all must be protected at any cost, even in the face of danger. In the words of Patrick Henry,“Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!” If we cannot restore America’s place as the great bastion of freedom and prosperity, then we must not be co-conspirators in its further descent. This is why I am betting that which is most precious to me, my citizenship, that America can be great once more, and that she can restore the glory, freedom, and prestige she once held throughout the world. I’m certain it is a safe bet, but please, help prove my case by speaking out against injustices, and castigate those who would use their power subverting the common good to serve themselves.