<![CDATA[Grist - Comment Feed for Why did Dems bargain down the energy bill?]]> Grist Comment Feed en Comment #1 by GreenEngineer http://www.grist.org/article/why-did-dems-bargain-down-the-energy-bill/ Mon, 17 Dec 2007 09:36:47 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/why-did-dems-bargain-down-the-energy-bill/1 Right

In short: they badly need something, anything, to show voters.

So they sacrifice the potential for real policy progress on real problems so that they can pass some feel-good, do-nothing (or worse than nothing, in the case of the ethanol mandate) legislation.

All they've shown this voter is that the Democratic Party has no principles, no spine, and no actual interest in progressive action.  Just like the Republicans, all they care about is remaining in power.  They're just not nearly as good at it.

]]> Right

In short: they badly need something, anything, to show voters.

So they sacrifice the potential for real policy progress on real problems so that they can pass some feel-good, do-nothing (or worse than nothing, in the case of the ethanol mandate) legislation.

All they've shown this voter is that the Democratic Party has no principles, no spine, and no actual interest in progressive action.  Just like the Republicans, all they care about is remaining in power.  They're just not nearly as good at it.

]]> Comment #2 by GreenEngineer http://www.grist.org/article/why-did-dems-bargain-down-the-energy-bill/ Mon, 17 Dec 2007 09:43:22 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/why-did-dems-bargain-down-the-energy-bill/2 acutally, I take that back

Just like the Republicans, all they care about is remaining in power.

In truth, I think that the Republicans actually do care about more than just power.  Many of them seem to have real ideological positions that they are interested in promoting and political power is simply a means to that end.  Granted, these positions are variously simpleminded, selfish, hateful, fear-driven and evil.

So we can choose between the party with no principles, and the party with evil principles.  Great.  Welcome to the twilight of the empire.

]]> acutally, I take that back

Just like the Republicans, all they care about is remaining in power.

In truth, I think that the Republicans actually do care about more than just power.  Many of them seem to have real ideological positions that they are interested in promoting and political power is simply a means to that end.  Granted, these positions are variously simpleminded, selfish, hateful, fear-driven and evil.

So we can choose between the party with no principles, and the party with evil principles.  Great.  Welcome to the twilight of the empire.

]]> Comment #3 by ce1907 http://www.grist.org/article/why-did-dems-bargain-down-the-energy-bill/ Mon, 17 Dec 2007 12:36:19 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/why-did-dems-bargain-down-the-energy-bill/3 not cynical enough to be fair

when you are 51 in the Senate, you know at the start of the year that there will be little you can do

also, you know that you will be tagged as "do nothing"

the way to move forward the things you believe in is to get closer to 60 votes

so you have to fight the "do nothing" label

it is not an absence of goals; it is a difference in timelines.  you have to plot down the road.  there is little choice

the energy bill had two main purposes, in the Senate, at the start of the year

ethanol to get rural votes in the plains and midwest; a "demonstration" that we were fighting high gasoline prices by opening up an alternative source

the climate change stuff was a throw-in that took on a life of its own

(see what stuff came out of what committees)

so, at the end of the year, when it was time to grab the brass ring to fight the "do nothing" label, the choices seemed obvious to the people who designed the play a year earlier

]]> not cynical enough to be fair

when you are 51 in the Senate, you know at the start of the year that there will be little you can do

also, you know that you will be tagged as "do nothing"

the way to move forward the things you believe in is to get closer to 60 votes

so you have to fight the "do nothing" label

it is not an absence of goals; it is a difference in timelines.  you have to plot down the road.  there is little choice

the energy bill had two main purposes, in the Senate, at the start of the year

ethanol to get rural votes in the plains and midwest; a "demonstration" that we were fighting high gasoline prices by opening up an alternative source

the climate change stuff was a throw-in that took on a life of its own

(see what stuff came out of what committees)

so, at the end of the year, when it was time to grab the brass ring to fight the "do nothing" label, the choices seemed obvious to the people who designed the play a year earlier

]]> Comment #4 by ce1907 http://www.grist.org/article/why-did-dems-bargain-down-the-energy-bill/ Mon, 17 Dec 2007 12:38:14 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/why-did-dems-bargain-down-the-energy-bill/4 stop whining and start organizing

solar and wind need more organized lobbies

deliver

then you will have a place at the table

]]> stop whining and start organizing

solar and wind need more organized lobbies

deliver

then you will have a place at the table

]]> Comment #5 by justlou http://www.grist.org/article/why-did-dems-bargain-down-the-energy-bill/ Mon, 17 Dec 2007 20:44:30 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/why-did-dems-bargain-down-the-energy-bill/5 Counting the Ethanol and CAFE Votes

Here's the deal. In recent elections, the Republicans have established solid majorities in the South and the Mountain states, while the Democrats have secured strong footholds in the Northeast and the West Coast. But in 2004, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Ohio, and Michigan were "swing states," defined by a projected margin of victory for either major political party of 3% or less. These five states are at the core of a rapidly disappearing American center composed of 64 electoral votes, which neither party can afford to lose.

I'll go one step further. Michigan, with its heavy dependence on the success of General Motors and Ford, also benefits from biofuel subsidies. Recent increases in fuel-efficiency standards have provided loopholes for so-called flex-fuel vehicles that can run on E85 (85% ethanol blended with 15% gasoline), whether consumers ever use E85 or not -- and Detroit has invested heavily in flex-fuel vehicles rather than in increased fuel efficiency. That probably won't change with the fuel-efficiency standards in the president's new plan. These loopholes, after all, allow GM and Ford to continue their dependence on trucks and SUVs -- two segments where they remain profitable.

Source: 'The Politics of Ethanol'
http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2007/05/15/the-poli ...



]]> Counting the Ethanol and CAFE Votes

Here's the deal. In recent elections, the Republicans have established solid majorities in the South and the Mountain states, while the Democrats have secured strong footholds in the Northeast and the West Coast. But in 2004, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Ohio, and Michigan were "swing states," defined by a projected margin of victory for either major political party of 3% or less. These five states are at the core of a rapidly disappearing American center composed of 64 electoral votes, which neither party can afford to lose.

I'll go one step further. Michigan, with its heavy dependence on the success of General Motors and Ford, also benefits from biofuel subsidies. Recent increases in fuel-efficiency standards have provided loopholes for so-called flex-fuel vehicles that can run on E85 (85% ethanol blended with 15% gasoline), whether consumers ever use E85 or not -- and Detroit has invested heavily in flex-fuel vehicles rather than in increased fuel efficiency. That probably won't change with the fuel-efficiency standards in the president's new plan. These loopholes, after all, allow GM and Ford to continue their dependence on trucks and SUVs -- two segments where they remain profitable.

Source: 'The Politics of Ethanol'
http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2007/05/15/the-poli ...



]]> Comment #6 by Sean Casten http://www.grist.org/article/why-did-dems-bargain-down-the-energy-bill/ Tue, 18 Dec 2007 00:08:34 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/why-did-dems-bargain-down-the-energy-bill/6 OK, but is this bad?

As Churchill said, democracy is a lousy form of government but for the alternatives.  The congress broadly is polling lower than Bush, in large part because of the sense that they haven't delivered on their promises to change washington.  So yeah, they had to get a big bill passed before the next election season.  And the R's knew it, and played their chits.  Such is the way of politics in Washington, but it doesn't make the dems bad or the system bad (at least compared to the alternatives).  

I'm not suggesting the outcome is ideal - but politics is the art of the possible, and in this particular climate, the bill we got was at least possible.

And I remain optimistic at heart that the provisions that got scuttled (e.g., RPS and the tax package) will find their way into other vehicles down the road.  All the intel we heard was that CAFE, RES and the tax breaks all individually had 60 votes to get cloture in the senate, but they weren't the same 60 votes, and when you bundled them together, you ended up with <60.  So tactically, it's not the worst outcome to pull those bits apart, get what we can now and then move forward on the others in smaller vehicles.  Which still, of course has to happen - but let's keep watching, because I don't think we're done with energy legislation yet.

]]> OK, but is this bad?

As Churchill said, democracy is a lousy form of government but for the alternatives.  The congress broadly is polling lower than Bush, in large part because of the sense that they haven't delivered on their promises to change washington.  So yeah, they had to get a big bill passed before the next election season.  And the R's knew it, and played their chits.  Such is the way of politics in Washington, but it doesn't make the dems bad or the system bad (at least compared to the alternatives).  

I'm not suggesting the outcome is ideal - but politics is the art of the possible, and in this particular climate, the bill we got was at least possible.

And I remain optimistic at heart that the provisions that got scuttled (e.g., RPS and the tax package) will find their way into other vehicles down the road.  All the intel we heard was that CAFE, RES and the tax breaks all individually had 60 votes to get cloture in the senate, but they weren't the same 60 votes, and when you bundled them together, you ended up with <60.  So tactically, it's not the worst outcome to pull those bits apart, get what we can now and then move forward on the others in smaller vehicles.  Which still, of course has to happen - but let's keep watching, because I don't think we're done with energy legislation yet.

]]>