by Dave Jarvis, First District Congressional Candidate

As the economy suffers with oil prices up and a credit crunch freezing up liquidity at a rapid pace, the people of New Hampshire watch two career politicians personalize the First District elections and turn it into a brutal slugfest less on ideas than on mud. From the beginning of this election cycle Jeb Bradley and John Stephen have been the frontrunners in the campaign and fought for the title of most conservative. I, as a candidate in the First District as well, wanted to do nothing to stop this exchange. I never wanted to interfere with their roles as frontrunners or in their fight for most conservative. It is much easier to go to where the campaign will be at the end of the race than to beat oneself up going in the wrong direction only to have to return later to a point of reason.

First, it was never wise to fight for the “ultra-conservative” title. If you win it, you have a tendency, especially these days, of alienating moderates and independents. People have learned to mistrust conservatives during the Bush years because they mistakenly believe he is one. So taking the title of most conservative has very little political sense and opens up the door to people like myself to call myself a moderate and get a ton of votes because of it.

Second, it was never wise to let the fight between Stephen and Bradley become as brutal as it has. Neither candidate is looking good because of it, and neither is preparing themselves effectively to face Carol Shea-Porter. In this current economic environment people want fighters but fighters for ideas, not fighters for political advancement. And in so brutally attacking each other, both Stephen and Bradley run the risk of showing that an extreme desire for personal advancement may be behind their mutual rage. Again, I never have a problem watching my political foes shoot themselves in the foot, so distance has been a strategy of mine.

Third, making the race a two person race is completely understandable on their parts because Geoff Michael and I both joined the race rather late. However, after learning of our candidacy neither campaign recognized the wisdom of calling it a four person race. If they had, expectations would be lowered a bit, and votes may have gotten spread amongst the four of us, making the competition slightly easier for them. According to their own perceptions as this being a two person race, the winner will need to take at least fifty one percent of the votes. Forty nine would be easier to take, as would forty eight, etc. Again, I never had a problem with them thinking this way because I knew that with them so doing eventually the campaign would focus on me.

I am a smart politician. In fact, I am the smartest politician in this race. Today, as the two “frontrunners” for the Republican nomination knock each other silly over the conservative moniker, I am fighting for the largest block of New Hampshire voters, many of whom are likely to vote in the Republican Primaries. I am talking about the undeclared and Independent voters of New Hampshire, the people who will decide this primary, and who will decide the general election as well. Those voters have much more pragmatic beliefs, and much more complex political needs. And it takes a rare political mind to convince them. They like to see ideological independence, something Bradley and Stephen lack. They like to see political courage, something not yet seen in this election by either. They like to see a caring personality, and a crafty mind in the policy of their candidates. Historically, they are not all that concerned about money or experience. They read between the lines and are very good at sniffing out quality. That's where I come in. They will be voting for me.

As the race winds down, Bradley and Stephen are someplace I would not like to be. They are in a two man brawl that will be decided by a third man, me. And as they realize it they will become anxious, both of whom are worried about the epithet of “two time loser”. Locked in a downward cycle, they will become more frustrated and if they are not smart they will demonstrate the depth of their personal ambitions and the part those ambitions play in this race.

I will not say I will win this election. Not because it is impossible, but because it is not something the people of New Hampshire are ready for. However, I will spoon feed you all with the important political news of the day. I am very much in this congressional race. I will be getting a good amount of votes. I will be much more competitive than anyone in this state, barring myself, is aware. And, if this streetfight between Bradley and Stephen continues, I will be the First District Republican nominee.

By Peter Bearse, Candidate for NH CD1 US House District

The price of gas is now declining after a huge jump to $147 per barrel of crude oil was followed by recent decreases to $114. Why? -- NOT DUE TO CONGRESS! On the demand side, credit the resourcefulness, self-reliance and do-it-yourself strengths of the American people. They've been finding all kinds of ways to reduce reliance upon foreign oil -- pellet stoves, ride-sharing, better insulation, telecommuting, cutting down on unnecessary trips, etc. So, the people have reduced the price of oil by reducing their demand for it.

On the supply side lies a do-nothing Congress. They have been part of the problem for a generation. They have restricted drilling offshore and onshore -- in Alaska [petroleum deposits in the Alaska National Wildlife Reserve], Colorado [oil tar sands] and other inland U.S. locations where oil has been discovered. Congress has also mounted high hurdles of environmental and other regulations that builders of oil refineries and nuclear plants must jump. So, is it any surprise that we are enriching Arabian sheiks and shipping Alaskan oil to Japan? In addition, "at least 65% of America's undiscovered, recoverable oil, and 40% of it natural gas, is hostage to the Congressional drilling moratorium." [Wall St. Journal, July 24, 2008]

Increasing domestic supplies of oil and accelerating development of alternative, renewable sources would serve to further reduce the price of oil, cut our dependence upon foreign sources, and break the backs of speculation that the price of oil has nowhere to go but up.

CONGRESS SHOULD BE CALLED BACK INTO SESSION IMMEDIATELY -- to get back to work on an aggressive energy policy agenda. This should include a spectrum of elements, from short-term to long-term, such as:

* Immediate actions to remove bottlenecks to exploitation of domestic oil fields -- DRILL, and DRILL NOW!

* A long-term strategy implemented by way of a public-private partnership financed by the U.S. Government and private entrepreneurs to develop and use renewable sources -- to reduce and ultimately eliminate our dependence upon foreign oil. We not only need a domestic "moon-shot" type of plan to be carried out over at least 15 years; we also need a public/private energy counterpart of DARPA -- the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency.

* A gradually rising charge on power plants' emissions of carbon -- to provide a strong incentive to reduce such emissions and generate financing to help bring alternative energy sources to market more quickly. The charge per ton implied by the European 'cap and trade' system is much higher, but an initial rate might be as low as $5 per ton. This carbon effluent fee approach would be superior to the European - less bureaucracy, less corruption, and less scope for games to be played by big businesses for their own advantage.

* A goal that by 2020, 20 percentage points more of energy be generated from renewable sources.

We can't allow a repeat of the late '70's when, after the price of gas went down, Americans said 'problem?, what problem?,' quickly forgetting that we had a long-term energy supply problem that we needed to face. If we had faced it then, we wouldn't be in the fix we're in now. One of Congress' major weaknesses is short-term-itis, marked by a quick-fix fetish and knee-jerk reactions, driven by attention spans focused on media, fundraising and 2-year reelection cycles.

By contrast, note what our current Representative, Carol Shea-Porter, has done on this issue:

> She has opposed efforts to "remove bottlenecks to exploitation of domestic energy resources";

> She has again (continuing her earlier 98-99% support) supported Nancy Pelosi's and her Party's shutdown of the Congress for a holiday of re-electioneering at the taxpayer's expense rather than deal with Republican efforts to enable oil drilling offshore and inshore. She refers to this in her Newsletter -- self-advertising for more electioneering at the taxpayer's expense -- as an "August District Work Period."

> She has introduced a bill to require investors in oil futures' contracts to take delivery of the oil called for in their contracts. She has proudly patted herself on the back for this initiative during her late flurry of "town meetings" (that also amount to more electioneering at taxpayer's expense, the way she holds them) -- as a bill that would reduce oil speculation and therefore, the price of oil.

Look at these moves in light of the facts of economic life. On the supply side of the oil market, Shea-Porter's initiatives amount to pandering to voters while continuing to block efforts to increase supply. As for "speculation," her initiative is careless and dumb, revealing an ignorance of how the futures markets work. The anti-speculation bill would make the market less responsive to forces to reduce the price of oil. Why? -- Because the futures market is basically a market providing market information about commodities, not the commodities themselves. Limit the futures market to only those who are prepared to take deliveries of oil and you limit the information that market signals can provide about the future. Beware members of Congress who, hankering for reelection, meddle in matters that they know nothing about!

As for advancing the development and widespread adoption of alternative/renewable sources of energy; here, too, Rep. Shea-Porter has been focused on approaches that generate good election-year publicity. She advertises her votes for a package of legislation to provide incentives to those developing alternative/renewable sources, stating that these would be paid for by removing "corporate welfare" for "big oil." She fails to recognize, however, as she failed to recognize when voting for the Agriculture Act, that many incentives would continue to provide "pork" for big operators. Big oil companies are also developing alternative sources and buying smaller, more innovative companies to position themselves to dominate the alternatives market as oil supplies diminish. Here again, we see Congressional initiatives based on ignorance, ideology and the politics of good intentions rather than careful legislating for the good of the country. More targeted incentives are required, focused on innovators, entrepreneurs, specific industry segments and technologies (solar, wind, geothermal, biofuels & others), rather than on good intentions seeking reelection.

What's the common denominator here? It cuts across all issues. It's the need to "Change Congress" - to change the way Congress conducts the people's business. People should count for much, much more than the big money interests in Washington. It's the start of a growing national movement. See Change-Congress.org. Join us.

PETER BEARSE, Ph.D., International Consulting Economist and Independent Candidate for Congress, NH CD 1.

Released by Supporters of Peter Bearse for Congress,

Bio: Peter Bearse, Ph.D., International Consulting Economist, author of Mobilizing Capital & Services: The New Economy (co-author), and Candidate for Congress, NH CD #1.

By Dave Jarvis

Today in the ancient news icon of New Hampshire, the Union Leader, Jay Ambrose laments the waning influence of newspapers and their financial hardships. I find it hard to share his emotions. He discusses the inability of other news sources to provide the same level of credibility, the same amount of information, or appeal to the same broad audiences that newspapers do. Give me a break.

I have been trying for about a week to get a letter to the editor published, one much more polite and less inflammatory than the readers of nhinsider may have seen, and using the most gentile argument possible, stating my belief that the threat of conflict with Iran has been the major player in the rise of oil prices. I got an extremely volatile version, utilizing the fullness of the capabilities of the English language, published online within five minutes reaching the largest audience possible.

The mainstream media has clogged the information market with ideas that too much buying and selling in Chicago and London is why oil is too expensive or that in the last few years supply has screeched to a halt, while demand has quintupled. None of these arguments make any sense. I truly believe the energy markets have been bracing for yet another war, something that has been considered a very real possibility, and that war with Iran who has been reported to have sleeper cells in Saudi Arabia and throughout the gulf ready to sabotage oil production, would mean a break down in global oil production…something the CIA has been warning about for years. But, because so many intelligent people have bought into either of these other brilliant arguments and written extensively about them no newspaper in the country is willing to publish yet another opinion discussing why we are facing the threat of depression.

Frankly, I am glad to see the rise of internet news. It is wild. It is crazy. There are kooks. There are hotheads. There are those who walk the line that separates fringe thought from mental illness. And there are those who are so committed to providing their unvarnished opinions without the aid of an editor that the news becomes unpolished and much more human.

Attempting to invade the mainstream media with a factoid of heartfelt opinion is a depressing ordeal, while attempting to share with those of New Hampshire willing to ride the crazy wave of open source information is like a warm knife through butter. So, the king is dead you say? Whatever… Long live the king.

by Dave Jarvis

While American politicians and journalists debate the inner workings of our capitalist economy a clear sign appears that the price of oil has not been the product of either supply or demand issues, but instead the product of speculation regarding future supply. With the price of oil plummeting on news that the American government is getting more serious about diplomacy with Iran and even rumors that we are making headway toward a permanent diplomatic presence in Iran, some people must be feeling especially foolish. Those who sided with extremely unpopular oil interests asking for congress to allow oil companies to drill anywhere, including in your grandma’s back yard are faced with glaring evidence that speculation did actually have a great deal to do with oil prices. And those advocating for an intrusive investigation into the nefarious business of trading futures contracts (without ever expecting delivery of a thousand barrels of oil, god forbid) are faced with the reality that there actually was a potential supply issue staring us in the face, albeit a suspected future supply issue.

Our current president could have been more vigorous in his discussions with Iran from the beginning. He could have been more vigorous in prosecuting our war in Iraq, and in executing some semblance of diplomacy with regard to the Israeli/Palestinian question. He has made a gamble on Israel. He has said that he either wants both sides to agree to the other’s legitimacy or he will step away from the table. He either fails or chooses not to recognize that our position is at the table. It gives us leverage, and if each side agrees to the other’s legitimacy we actually lose a position of power in the Middle East. Limited conflict in Israel is not our greatest danger. Losing our place at the table, or in Bush’s case giving it away, is the loss of a bargaining chip with Iran. Our current administration has been either too stupid to recognize it or cognizant that diplomatic holes in the Middle East lead to higher oil prices, thus abetting our current energy shock. Either way, that SOB should be kicked to the street, TODAY!

I agree 100% with Dennis Kucinich and I think anyone trying to turn the case for impeachment into partisan politics should have their head examined. We are walking a precarious line with global depression because of George W. Bush. He is a threat to peace. He is a threat to the economy. He is a threat to the Constitution. And he is a drain on public morale when we need it most.

The current drop in oil prices is nothing less than proof that the Middle Eastern diplomacy of George Bush, or lack thereof was responsible for the exorbitant oil prices we have been experiencing. Democrats have been too stupid to point that out and instead point to capitalism as being the problem. Instead of pointing to increased oil revenues and bonuses as evidence of a problem, the mindless minions in the Democratic Party point to increased profits for oil companies. Profits are always minimized when windfall revenues come in. Companies have to pay taxes on profits. They give themselves large bonuses and reinvest money in other companies, where they also happen to be investors, and give themselves large bonuses there as well. They are making a ton of money, and because the opposition party in Washington is too stupid to understand the game some people continue making money hand over fist; that is until their boy in Washington signals time-out by opening up negotiations with Iran.

Republicans point to non-existent supply issues, playing the stooge for the oil lobby assuming that the public will never catch on to the game. Of all the crises we face, economic, environmental, security, etc., nothing quite compares to the crisis of stupidity we are facing. Our politicians are failing us drastically.

We need to impeach Bush. We need to do it quickly. I don’t care if there is only one day left in his administration. He does not deserve to be allowed to finish his term. I think every American politician should be able to get together on this. He serves as no political value to Republicans and only helps Democrats politically. Through either calculated mistakes or flat out incompetence he has taken our nation to the brink and a strong message of our national disapproval should be sent, and sent today.

by Marshall Cobleigh, former NH Energy Chief

Jeanne Shaheen's television Advertisement proves conclusively that she does not propose a real world solution to high gas prices. In that advertisement she places the blame for high gas prices on commodities and financial market speculation.

Perhaps Jeanne Shaheen should read what noted liberal economist Robert J. Samuelson said July 1, 2008 in the nor very conservative Washington Post. Samuelson  said "Speculator bashing is another exercise  in scapegating and grandstanding. He points out that steel which is not traded on the commodities futures Market rose 117% during the same time frame. "The better explanation is basic supply and demand" Samuelson explains.  

The Harvard trained Samuelson points out "That financial trading does not directly affect the physical supplies of raw materials. Politicians (like Shaheen) promise to tighten regulations of futures markets, but futures markets are not the main problem. Scarcities are. Restrictions on oil production in the U.S. have limited global production and put upward pressure on prices. If politicians wish to point the finger of blame, they should start with themselves," the noted Harvard trained Samuelson concludes.

Jeanne Shaheen may have had a term at the School for defeated politicians at Harvard, but is crystal clear that she does not understand freshman economics. Her demagoging about gas prices in her TV advertisement without providing real world solutions proves that Jeanne Shaheen is unqualified to serve in the U.S. Senate.