Daily Kos

Boy would that be a breath of fresh air. I might even put on hold my plans to move to Canada.  

Sooner the better.

I've been pressuring my Senators to vote against this energy bill. We're in Wyoming, where a whoooole lotta drillin' is gonna be goin' on, methinks. Unfortunately, this creates jobs here, but spoils the lands. They'll be drilling the daylights out of some beautiful country, let me tell you...

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has recently released a supplemental draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Jack Morrow Hills of the Red Desert. Unfortunately, the new plan discounts overwhelming public comments favoring protection of this national treasure, allowing the development of several hundred oil and gas wells and the construction of numerous roads, utility lines and pipelines. The BLM's unbalanced plan refuses to consider the trade or buyout of mineral leases in the area, ignores citizens' proposals to expand wilderness study areas and will negatively impact crucial wildlife habitat, decrease recreational opportunities, and forever scar this rich desert landscape.

MORE INFO

I'm not kidding myself... the Jack Morrow Hills (above) will be drilled to pieces.

At least they're staying out of ANWAR, I suppose. Maybe I will move there!

it's time to be partisan. being nice has just gotten us marginalized.

and yeah, there are a ton of republicans who oppose this bill. they're the good ones. i really wish we could just create a new party with people who care about the american people even if they oppose certain things (thinking about mccain with abortion). kick out the republican hardliners and the cowardly democrats.

I oppose the bill, but I also oppose a filibuster. This is clearly an economic issue, and economics bills shouldn't be filibustered because 1) it's only money and 2) they can easily be reversed once your team gets back in power. The thing about judges is that they have a lifetime appointment, which is why filibustering is valid there.

As a practical matter, I don't think the bill can be filibustered, as the Republicans can then bundle the energy bill provisions as part of this years budget bills. The reason the Republicans could filibuster the Clinton's health care plan was that the Democrats, for some idiotic reason, didn't bundle the health care bill with that year's budget bills.

Daschle is kind of a putz. He did the same thing with stock options accounting last year, too. And his wife is a big money lobbyist for some less than pristine causes. But it wouldn't be smart to try and oust him now.

http://daschle.senate.gov/webform.html

Any suggestions anyone?

Any ideas on who Daschle could be replaced with if he ever steps aside? Not Sen. Harry Reid, who won his last election by 500 votes. Sheesh, can't we elect party leaders who have stable seats?

When Daschle gets angry it's like he stamps his foot and whines. Bye, bye.  

IIRC it takes 4 gallons of oil to make 3 gallons of ethanol. This wacko part of the energy bill is just there to buy the likes of Daschle (who needs to be dumped as minority leader). Mary Landrieu sold out for a Hooters bar plus the other pork Billy T. got for their state.

The bill also locks in the long-term electricity contracts California was extorted into signing.  It is a disaster & a disgrace. McCain calls it a bill for Hooters & Polluters.

Public Citizen makes it easy to send a FAX on this subject to your senators. This will be very close, lean on your senators--it's time to fight back & Daschle has gone AWOL.
http://www.citizen.org/fax/background.cfm?ID=225&source=31

And if the bill is likely to face a filibuster with or without Daschle's support, then shouldn't Daschle shore-up his reelection chances?  We need all the Senate seats we can hold next year - there is serious cause for concern about Democrats losing seats next year.    

Having said all that ethanol subsidies are greasest of pork.

It's more important to boot Terry McAuliffe. But then we should jettison Daschle.My vote is for Dick Durbin as a replacement.

We don't lack for replacements. Durbin is my top choice, and his reaction to this bill seals it. Schumer would not be half bad, though he's no statesman. Dodd would be fine. Leahy would be fine. Biden might be okay. Reid would be preferable to Daschle, but if his last election was that close it's probably not a good idea.

"I disagree with the decision. I believe that the Defense of Marriage Act that we passed in the Congress is constitutional. I think that will be borne out," Daschle told reporters on Tuesday.

Dean says he'll do "everything in his power" to repeal DOMA as President.

Buh-bye, Daschle.

The Democrats need to get their shit together and just make it an SOP: If we aren't included in the development of the bill, regardless of what it is, we vote "NO!" I mean, as long as Democrats behave this way, the Republicans can say, "We are leading this country and the Democrats aren't doing anything." They're correct. That's the problem.

I mean, don't they have any pride in their work anymore? Have they truly become so soulless? What's the quote,"All that is required for evil to triumph is that good men (and women) do nothing."? Hey Daschle, thanks for nothing; OK, you get credit for the Judge filibuster, but that behavior should be happening every time you step into the Senate, not once in a while as long as the Republicans continue to piss on Democracy.

Its just too important for the Dems not to show party unity.

The grassroots that are building(Dean, move on, etc) may be distracted this cycle, but come 2006 we will remember all this crap.

Right now its important that any Repubblican crafted giveaway has to be defeated.

Daschle has shown very little leadership.

Aside from fealty to the Minority Leader, what in the world do Inouye and Akaka get out of this bill?  The rest of the possible or probable Dem proponents are from corn-growing states or petrochemical states.

They come from Hawaii, and are trying to protect themselves from political fallout in a state where a Republican (Linda Lingle) won the governor's seat for the first time in over fifty years.

Are there offshore oil reserves near Hawaii?  I wouldn't be surprised.  But I'm no conspiracy theorist or anything...

Another thought...

Alaska and Hawaii are totally different from the forty-eight states that joined the union before them...

Anyone who has been to all fifty states should understand this.

Who does this bill serve but the big corporations?  No one.  But money is power, and we live in a plutocracy.

Time to wake the f-ck up.

The question that always comes up in my mind is, who would be better?  I would take Reid over Dash, but I am perplexed by the idea of Clinton as minority leader.  Would she be a net plus or not?  I think a net plus, but she has some big minuses, like always keeping one eye on the WH, a polarizing national image, and the DNC/DLC old guard behind her.  For example, if Dean were Pres and she was minority/majority leader, the Dean-DLC/Clinton wars could be in the papers for four years.  That would not be good.

When will the interests of the common American ever be relevant to politicians again instead of, say, Archer Daniels, or any energy company.

All bills should be crafted in the full light of day and debated openly so EVERYONE knows what kind of special interest bullshit is being shoved down our throats.  For example, the "Patriot Act", no one read it, just knee jerked and signed it.  That is just plain wrong.

Byb, bye, Daschle!

Now, who can we get in SD (viable candidate) to replace this whore?

There is NO question that the energy bill is one of the worst pieces of legislation to come down the pipe in years.  

However, Daschle's decision to quietly support it is purely strategic.  IF he did not support, he'd be toast in '04...there is no question about it. I think he's also hoping that we get 40 votes to filibuster the bill...but he has NO choice but to support it.  South Dakota wants it BIG time for the ethanol provisions.

Finally, Daschle really had to choose his battles here.  And we should all applaud him, Pelosi and Kennedy for leading the fight to block the Medicare prescription drug bill.  

As far as replacements for Minority leader, what is everyone's take on Barbara Boxer (CA)?  I haven't heard much about her, but I really liked her style during the filibuster filibuster.  She seemed to have a lot of fight.

That would make both minority leaders women.  (I'm not sure what this means, but it did come to mind after I thought of her.)

California seems like a pretty safe place to be a Democratic Senator.  (Sorry Arnold.)

Not enough experience?  (10 years)

I'll be interested to hear your comments.

Should be "AR"

dick@durbin.senate.gov

Dear Senator Daschle,

   I was literally appalled when I heard you intended to vote for the "leave no lobbyist behind" Energy act.  Notwithstanding the fact that, as Democratic leader, you should simply say it's unacceptable to have the representatives of more than 100 million Americans completely shut out of negotiations while the Republican leaders completely re-write the entire plan in a secret, authoritarian manner, the fact that this bill is vitally important to the future economy and security of this nation means you CANNOT play personal politics in this matter.  
   You seem like a very nice man, I'm sure we would agree on most issues if we sere sitting down for a polite conversation, and I wish you well in your bid for re-election.  To actually vote for this abomination because, presumably, your constituents like the corn subsidies, is utterly irresponsible and a complete abandonment of your duties, both as Senator and especially as Minority Leader.  Hint: there is only about a 70% return on energy investment to convert corn to alcohol and then blend it into gasoline.  This bill will attempt to lock our nation into a disastrously wrong-headed approach to energy use and production for the next decade at least.  Apparently, venal political concerns or fears are what drive you.  
    The position of Congressional leader comes with responsibilities as well as privileges, as you should well know.  If you find those responsibilities onerous, then please resign the position and allow someone who understands the concept of opposition to take the seat.  I've heard you boasting that you could have run for president but felt you had an important role to play in the Senate.  So far, you have done the Democratic party and the nation no favor by your decision.  The idea of a Daschle Presidency is so sad and clueless it's impossible to find it amusing.  Presidential candidates need to show some self confidence, drive and ambition; "fire" if you will.  You have yet to demonstrate any of these characteristics.  Soft spoken words of compromise will not get you noticed in the path of the rampaging boar of the religious extreme right.  You seem to be honestly ignorant of the fact that these people who have captured virtually all of the leadership positions in the Republican party see themselves as "take no prisoners" crusaders.  They have  holy mission to make the country see the world the way they see it and behave the way they think appropriate.  They stop at nothing and perceive compromise as "date rape".  As long as the corporate media ignore the most outrageous conflicts of interest, far worse than Teapot Dome, ignore the wholesale flouting of international and constitutional law, and fail to report on a pattern of deception that would have brought awed admiration from Joseph Goebbels, your pathetic plans to pander to this or that splinter of an ethnic group are doomed to ignominious failure.
   The time has come, finally, to put the good of the nation ahead of personal ambition and resign the post of Minority Leader.  As leader of the opposition, you have been a miserable failure.  The dreams of the DLLC, the Democratic Limp Leadership Committee have proven to be just that, dreams.  We have steadily lost ground in the last 6 election cycles, with the unique exception of Bill Clinton and make no mistake, his success was entirely personal charisma, not your leadership.  The Democratic party is not the minority party.  Our core positions are usually preferred by the public.  We have started from what should have been positions of strength and strong advantage and managed to eke out narrow defeats on FAR too many occasions.  The reasons are obvious.  Our "Leadership" has been woefully lame.  The new model for the Democratic party is being developed as we watch by the grassroots organization structure developed by the Dean campaign.  Instead of embracing an aroused and engaged voter base, you seem determined to thwart it by venal sniping, apparently out of fear of losing power, such as it exists today.  Make no mistake, tepid leadership will be swept aside whether you like it or not.  I sincerely hope you and others don't poison the well out of spite or ignorance.
   Do the right thing, resign your leadership post and run for re-election however you think you must.  In the meantime, until you do, make sure you have a large supply of KY jelly handy.  Apparently, the Republican leadership have already seen their doctors about Viagra and, as they have amply demonstrated, they are insatiable.

Couldn't he stage something where he was forced to choose between the SD farmers and the rest of the Democratic party, and he stood up for the SD farmers so the party kicked him out?

The majority leader would ideally be left of the presidential nominee, to make him look more moderate. If Daschle's going to join the swing state re-election caucus (of which Dorgan is a founding member; he is not a good choice), he'll do the opposite. He'll be worse than useless. He'll also be designing his own election strategy rather than a good national senate campaign.

Overall, I think we're better off if he goes.

To suggest that the current energy bill, or even the 2002 Farm Bill, is a give-away to farmers is ludicrous.  It is a mere pittance of support to local family farmers and will do nothing to begin healing the affects of the last 25 years of farm devastation.

Although farmers provide an essential service to our country, the influence of farmers on actual farm policy is minimal.  The influence of large agricultural corporations on policy, however, is quite substantial.

These corporate "give-aways" are the result of our nation having no coherent farm policy that addresses the basic needs of our local farmers to have a decent, respectable income.  If the Senate Democrats want to filibuster this bill, they had better have a new substantial farm program to run on in the plains states; I doubt they do.

I will agree that Tom Daschle and other Plains Senators have not taken the necessary lead in this area.  But to characterize the states of kansas, nebraska, south dakota, and north dakota as bastions of conservativism is to misunderstand the more progressive historical roots in the region.

Democrats have an oppurtunity to present ideas and solutions with and for rural communities that have been left-out of the process for the last 25 years.  I, however, have seen little interest shown by either national party to address these issues in a serious way.

I read comments like this:
>we're democrats, goddamnit, not pork eating >subsidy hounds without the guts to bite when >we're kicked in the head.
and I wonder whether people understand the political reality Daschle deals with every day.  

Bush got 62% of the vote in South Dakota in 2000.  Sixty-two percent.  He represents a state where one out of five residents are farmers.  This may be hard for DKossers on the coasts to understand, but the ethanol provisions in this bill will DOUBLE ethanol production in midwestern states.  

Is it a subsidy?  Yes, and far less than the subsidies the oil and gas industry receive.  And, unlike nuclear power, you can produce ethanol without needing a waiver to cover your ass if the plant blows up.

Is it expensive?  Not much.  California and New York drivers will pay $0.01 cent more/gallon to ensure that we get more of our gas from domestic sources than from our Saudi friends.  Is that worth it?  How is there even serious debate over that?

Is it energy efficient?  According to the USDA, for every 1 BTU that goes into producing ethanol, you get 1.34 BTU's out.  http://www.usda.gov/oce/oepnu/aer-814.pdf

Look--there's a lot not to like about Daschle's time as leader.  But he represents the people of South Dakota, and this bill is inarguably good for them.  Would you prefer he voted against it, and his constituents, and lost his seat next year?  Then we'd be down one more seat and out one more reliable Democratic vote.  

Some of you would say that's ok, that if Daschle doesn't meet some Democratic purity test then fuck him.  Keep it up, guys: that's the kind of bullshit that will ensure the Democrats never take back the Senate.  

The addition of oxygenated molecules to the petroleum, such as alcohols (ethanol) or ethers (MTBE), serves to decrease engine knock by changing combustion temperature and fuel viscosity, the result being slightly fewer of some polluting gases. While the political fight in favor of ethanol has focused on its low toxicity in the environment and its source (corn fermentation), good things, you rarely hear that these additives are no longer necessary in your gasoline.

Here in California we now have other high-tech additives to minimize nitrogen oxides (smog) and carbon monoxide production from the tailpipe. yet we are mandated to put the water-polluting MTBE in the gas, at extra cost and no extra value.

Ethanol will ne the same story. A pork-barrel surcharge on the American commuter. Daschle understands the science and understands the pork-barrel politics. As if he were a (gag) Republican.

Let's toss Porky on the scrap heap of former Democratic leaders. If he needs the pork to get re-elected in SD, so be it. But let's put a real Democrat in charge of the fight.

What I find interesting is that there are very few actual attacks on the Energy bill.  There is little discussion about the amount of money going to the oil industry, etc.

Instead, it's all attacks on fellow Democrats like Daschle, Harkin, etc.

Well I come from Iowa, and I support Ethanol.

Most people who oppose Ethanol don't have a fucking clue what they're talking about.  The only legitimate complaint that I have seen is that it costs about $1.75/gallon to produce.  So from an economic efficiency standpoint, maybe there is an argument.  However the reason gas is the price it is today is because we subsidize that with tax dollars by going to war in Iraq, etc.  So are we really comparing apples?

You want to lose in 2004, just go out and attack the farm states.  If you want to win, recommend an alternative farm policy than the lack of one we have now.

Look... every Senator needs to compromise on some parts of the Democratic message to get re-elected.  That's fine.  However, some Senators need to compromise more than others.  If Tom Daschle truly feels that the only way he can get re-elected is by caving on major Democratic issues (first the war, then the environment) then I really don't see how he can claim that he's fit to be the party's leader in the Senate.  The purpose of a Senator may just be re-election, but the purpose of the Minority Leader is to advance the entire party's agenda.  As such, it's bizarre that our party leader has such a vulnerable seat.  If Daschle truly thinks that strongly supporting a core Democratic ideal will hurt him in his state, then kicking him out of the minority leader slot will only help him.  It'll help us as a party too as we have a number of Democrats-- Durbin and Schumer come to mind-- who are willing and able to actually support the party's core ideals without constantly looking over their shoulder.

Let me put it this way: the Republicans draw their party leaders from places like Tennessee, Mississippi, and Texas because they provide bases of ideological strength.  The exception is Illinois' Denny Hastert, but even he is rapidly being eclipsed by that rootin tootin Texan Tom DeLay.  They don't give Olympia Snowe or Lincoln Chafee the slot for obvious reasons.  The Democrats need to stop selling out our core voters in order to look "strong" by relying on leadership to come from marginally Democratic states.  

ADM. The nature of things to come [cue ominous music].

Yes! Many of you posting here should go to the Green Party.

I wish this guy would run for Senate. He's about as passionate and intelligent as democrats come.

Corporate giveaways and malfeasance are a Democratic issue but not if pols like Daschle keeping selling out to their home state corporate interests.  Even repub senators are disgusted by the contents of this bill.

The Dems could use a real leader now and Reid may just be the one with a sense of how to fight while providing the Dems an image that appeals in Western and Midwestern states. Likewise a woman, particularly Mikulski could be the kind of bold leadership change that could ignite some excitement in the party.

As for those adovcating the need for someone who is respected by the Repubs in backroom negotiations, take note that only Dems willing to laydown are being allowed to participate in the conference committee negotiations of the energy bill, perscription drug bill etc.  There is no dealing with Reps, they see themselves are ruling not governing.

Personally, from what I've seen in this bill, it's a bad one and doesn't deserve passage.  It is important to keep in mind that senators represent states - those local issues are a big part of why they got elected to the body in the first place.  Perhaps a safer Democrat would be a better idea for minority leader.  But, even that Democrat is going to be influenced by local interests.  No senator can escape that.

I hope I haven't misrepresented anyone here; what I'm trying to say that we should all examine our positions carefully for our own local and regional biases before accusing someone else of having them.  You may not care much about South Dakota, but people do live there who care as much about what goes in in their nation as you do.  If you want to reject legislation that some see as helping them, then those people should get some kind of explanation or acknowledgement of their interests.  I think that's just good politics.

I think you have unnecessarily slammed Daschle and midwestern corn growers and would urge some additional research with the view of a possible retraction.

MTBE [I have also seen it referred to as MBTE] is a fuel additive which helps the fuel burn cleaner, and helps improve air quality.  That is a good thing.

However, as you pointed out, the substance has been proven to be carcinogenic and gets into drinking water, so that is bad.  It should be banned, but it doesn't look like it will be.  More on that below.

Ethanol can be used as a fuel additive to help the fuel burn cleaner also.   Plus, it is not carcinogenic.  Doubly good.

Therefore, why not replace MTBE with Ethanol?  Well, ethanol may be more expensive, but government help to develop the industry might help lower the price.  But that's not the real issue.

The real issue is that a major manufacturer of MTBE is located in the district of, guess who, Tom Delay.

Your article implies that the development of ethanol is worthless.  It certainly is not.  Therefore, you should retract your criticism of Daschle, at least on this issue.

It may be wasteful to develop the ethanol industry if Congress is going to continue to allow MTBE to be used as a fuel additive.  But the major blame for the wasteful policy does not belong to Daschle and innocent midwestern corn growers.  It falls on the behind the scenes maneuvering of Delay.

This is why we need a strong minoirty leader who will stand up and state that this bill is about give aways for Bush supporters and designed to damage the American environment, America's future, and the health of all Americans for years to come. It's legislative cyanide and we really aren't interested in turning all of America into a modern Jonestown for Bushco Energy.

1. MtBE is an 'oxygenate' gasoline additive, leading to slightly 'cleaner' internal combustion engines, or at least slightly more efficient because of a greater availability of oxygen (18% in air + a little more in the MtBE) to the combustion process
2. MtBE is a by-product of gasoline refining, a toxic waste in fact, until they realized that it had this effect.
3. Ethanol (EtOH) is ALSO an effective 'oxygenating' agent for petro-fuels, for the same reasons,more or less.
4. MtBE is water soluble, and toxic, therefore it is a pollutant which travels readily IN groundwater from a leaking storage tank or spill.
5. Ethanol is the active ingredient in beer/wine/etc... certainly a poison, but hardly a potent toxin.
6. Adding ethanol to gasoline increses the solubility of water into the gasoline.... seems small, but if you've ever had to add 'Drygas' (Methanol) to your tank, you can figure this out. This means that water in the underground tanks at your local gas station WILL RUST MORE SLOWLY AND FAIL MORE SLOWLY TOO.

The energy bill sucks and should be defeated. Yet if Daschle votes against it then he will lose his Senate seat. SD wants ethanol subsidies - we all want a Democratic Senate.

Get over it people - let Daschle do what he needs to do. When the Democrats regain control of the Senate then he can set the agenda - not now. Going after Daschle only helps the Republicans keep control.