In a recent letter to this paper Mr. Roger Clarke-Johnson congratulated Lara Lewison for a well written editorial in one sentence, then corrected her in the second sentence for her inaccurate progressive ideals she learned in school. If someone is wrong then a correction is appropriate to set them on the true course. But when you argue the point make sure that you research your facts about progressive ideals.

Nothing illustrates the unintended (or intended) consequences of conservative spin better than the ethanol lobby. Mr. Clarke-Johnson makes a bold statement in his letter to Ms. Lewison that the mandated use of ethanol from corn in our motor fuels is a liberal ideal gone wrong. To clarify, this legislation was sponsored by a House Republican from Texas, passed in both the House and Senate by overwhelming Republican majority votes in favor, and signed into law by a Republican president. Unless Republicans in the House and Senate in the year 2005 were liberal I think this proves the ethanol lobby being squarely in the conservative pocket.

If this example was an ideal of the liberal party then why have the Democrats repeatedly tried to overturn this garbage legislation? If a lesson is to be taught then perhaps conservatives should stick to facts and not fiction and do a little research like Ms. Lewison learned in school.

H.R. 6 (109th): Energy Policy Act of 2005

Both House and Senate passed bill on majority vote

House passed bill with 208 R and 41 D voting in favor. Over 202 Democrats voted nay in the house while only 24 Republicans voted nay.

Senate passed bill with 48 R and 36 D voting in favor. Even if all Democrats voted nay the bill would have passed as there were only 45 Democrats in the Senate.

Mike Jeffers, Kirkland