On the immigration before climate issue, I'm going to go out on a limb...

[YvonneCa]

...here and ask some questions I have. All of you know how much I support Senator Kerry and everything he does for our country. I have been reading the posts and links here and am EXTREMELY sad for the Senator today. I completely support his work on climate change, and today must be a very disappointing and frustrating day.

But I'm having a hard time blaming anyone but Lindsey Graham. I have a slightly different perspective on the immigration issue, coming from majority/minority state. And I have a lot of questions.

I'm just going to list them here, in the hope that some of you will respond. I respect all opinions here, even when mine is different. :)

1. Could this be less about Arizona and more about California?

2. Is this about turnout in November? In a majority/minority state like California, it could make all the difference. Our majority would turn out for Democrats (Jerry Brown and Barbara Boxer)?

3. Does it matter that California...under Swartzenegger...put many positive energy policies in place that could be jeopardized under a Republican governor?

4. Why trust Lindsey Graham? Is it possible he has always done what his party tells him to do?

5. Remember how, prior to big elections, Republicans have ALWAYS brought up a divisive issue to help them win? In California's last important election,it was gay marriage (Prop 8). Isn't this the same thing? Maybe they started by the Arizona law, knowing it would arouse the immigration issue and force out everything else? Graham would have known this, wouldn't he?

6. Why blame President Obama? Didn't we elect him to be smart about both policy AND political issues? I...for sure..have some policy disagreements with our President (education comes to mind :) ). But isn't he doing what we wanted him to do?

I fault Graham for either wimpish ly or purposefully misleading John Kerry. I don't think Kerry should EVER have trusted him...although I get why he had to try. Thoughts?

[Mass]

1. The question is to know when it is time to care about global warming. The answer that was

sent by those rumors that Reid refused to debunk was : NEVER, which actually corresponds with what we had seen for a large part of the Democratic caucus (not your senators, but people like McCaskill, Webb, Warner, Dorgan, ...). There are elections every two years in this country, so when do we tackle important issues that actually can have an impact on the life of every single citizen?

1/ It may be about California. It may be about Nevada. It may be about making the GOP look weak (which clearly will not happen).

2/ If Boxer cannot win against Fiorina, (Reid against Lowden), it should tell us a lot about the way the government is dealing with communication. May be this will help Boxer at the margin (are Hispanic voters so gullible that they dont see this for what it is?), but it will hurt other Democrats in other parts of the country.

3/Nice for CA, but what for the rest of the country? It is no surprise that the bills in both the House and the Senate were led by people from MA and CA, but it is because they want these rules to apply to the whole country, not a few islands. There is very little chance that a global effort on climate change happens in the US do not pass their laws.

4/I dont particularly trust Graham, but president Obama wants bipartisan bills, and Graham was the one ready to play, at considerable risks for his Senate seat. He obviously has his own agenda, but who does not/

5/ Of course, they did that. Do we have to follow suit? The problem is that, each time the GOP starts a divisive campaign, the Dems follow up.

6/Well, we elected him to put in place somewhat progressive politics. There was no question, even in my mind, that healthcare and financial reform had to be first, but, and we go back to the first point: when is it time to deal with important issues like climate change, and the answer that was given for the last two weeks (remember it did not start yesterday, but two weeks ago, was NEVER).

May be Graham was wimpish (and I am not surprised by that), but I dont see how Reid is not to be faulted. He let these rumors spread while there is NO laws for immigration ready. Given the lack of enthusiasm for these issues by many Democratic senators, it is difficult for me to think they did not know what they were doing by not answering the rumors.

[karynnj]

3. Both your and Beachmom's comments are very thought provoking

I can see why a well written immigration bill that fairly treats the 12 million plus illegal immigrants already here and contains intelligent border control would be both a good and useful thing to do. It also is true, as I was told on Daily Kos, that they already have the 2007 bill as a starting point. But, while that seemed a very good starting point to me, it failed badly in 2007. The same forces that caused it to fail are still there. In fact, with the far higher unemployment rate, it could do worse - even though we have more Democrats.

So, is the likelihood really a comprehensive bill? The Republicans are saying, as they did for healthcare, let's just start with the pieces "we all want". To them that means securing the border. It might also mean some way to find and deport people here illegally. What it clearly isn't is the pathway to citizenship - which is the key piece for Hispanics.

To be fair, Climate change will be a tough vote too - and one that will take time to show the value. I don't think Graham was lying - from some comments like, "Am I suppose to write all the bills?", I suspect that he was blindsided. He also might feel the Democratic leadership does not value him as much as he thinks they should. It has to be tough to be trashed by a large part of your party then not treated well by the party he is working with. Remember he did get concessions from Kerry for being involved.

Reid owed it to Kerry, Lieberman and Graham to tell them of any decision that was made soon after it happened. The way it came out is awful. It also makes Reid look weaker than before.

[YvonneCa]

9. Mass, I really appreciate your answers...

...and the time you took to detail each one. That helped me a lot with my thinking on this. While my opinion on the policy part of this is unshaken, I am still trying to understand the politics.

You asked, "There are elections every two years in this country, so when do we tackle important issues that actually can have an impact on the life of every single citizen?"

I think that is THE important question. If it were up to me, the answer would be YESTERDAY. Climate Change, Immigration Reform, Education...all are critical for me (as was the urgency for health care and financial reform). But I am clueless when it comes to the 'how' part...the politics. I am trying hard to trust our leaders on this...the President and Senator Kerry. And Al Gore.

This legislative, electoral environment is insane. I'm watching the first test vote on financial reform...looks like it's going down.:( Maybe Dems have decided the public has to watch everything be defeated in order to learn who is on their side??? If Tay is right(below), she said neither immigration nor climate bills would pass...

So, does that mean Democrats just give up and instead pursue the legislation that will improve turnout in November? And THEN we get something done?

Sorry for rambling. :) What a mess!

[YvonneCa]

13. Mass, did you see this? It was posted by Democrafty...

...in beachmom's open Twitter thread:

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/04/26/climate_bill_still_moving_forward/index.php

[beachmom]

2. I'll answer one question: Yes, this is also about California and Boxer's race.

That's my thing. This is all about politics and not good policy. I am all for immigration reform and to be offered up for debate in the Senate when it is ready. However, I am not getting the impression it is anywhere near being ready, except to be used as part of the political campaign of supposedly getting the Democratic base out. Gee, wasn't passing hcr supposed to get them out?

I don't see the need to TOTALLY trust Graham; the guy has an uncanny ability of talking on both sides of his mouth, infuriating both the Right and the Left. He is kind of the McCain/Lieberman type but he is all we have for BOTH climate and immigration reform.

Still, I am mostly getting the impression that Democrats are playing games. Many don't want to have to vote on the climate bill, and they want to use immigration reform as a campaign issue while substantively doing nothing. It is that sleaziness that concerns me most. Lindsay Graham is one Senator who can walk away any time he wants. But I simply can't put all the blame on him, as I think he is effectively bailing out a lot of Dems who don't care about the environment. They all made a sigh of relief this weekend.

[TayTay]

4. I think that is essentially correct

The Arizona legislation is a real overreach and has created a backlash in the Latino community. That community wants protections now from the Democrats. (Latino activists are ratcheting up pressure on Obama claiming, perhaps rightly, that Obama owes his Presidency, in part, to Latinos who supported him in overwhelming numbers.)

The point of bringing up immigration is to NOT have a bill. That is the whole point. It is negative politics intended to force a vote, on the record, that can be exploited in the fall. There is no chance that an immigration bill would pass cloture, or prevent a filibuster, so this is a "vapor ware" of the highest order. It is also pretty good politics, albeit hardball stuff that we rarely see from the Dems.

I suspect inside politcs among Dems is killing the climate change bill. I don't think a whole lot of Dems want to vote on this bill. It is not a popular bill in a very challenging election year for Dems. i think it is a factor in many Senate races, including Illinois, a coal-producing state, and other states where economy is trumping good policy. Sad but true.

Neither bill is going to pass. The odds were stacked against the Climate Change bill from the get-go and the fact that Byron Dorgan, Kent Conrad and others were getting major airplay on this shows that opposition within Dem circles was always there. This bill, however needed and vital, is a sort of orphan. It doesn't break the numbers for the fall.

(Politcs is not the same as good policy. It never was. None of these comments talk about the vital need for a bill. We need a start on a climate change bill, and even this weak bill is a start.)

(Where have you been Tay? Pursuing a chance at employment, a really good chance. Unfortunately, my laptop died and othercomputer time was few and far between. My apologies.

[beachmom]

5. Nice to see you, Tay. Hope that prospect works out!

Yes, your post speaks of the cold realism of politics.

But it is now evident that this planet is not going to do anything about global climate change, and will soon need to go to the next step: DEALING with global climate change. I agree with Sen. Kerry. The moment was this year. After that it is too late. Now things are collapsing in Europe as well:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,691194,00.html

Merkel Abandons Aim of Binding Climate Agreement

Frustrated by the climate change conference in December, German Chancellor Angela Merkel is quietly moving away from her goal of a binding agreement on limiting climate change to 2 degrees Celsius. She has also sent out signals at the EU level that she no longer supports the idea of Europe going it alone.

"I have three children," German Environment Minister Norbert Röttgen said during a speech in Berlin last week, as he ventured to explain why climate policy still remains important after December's failed summit in Copenhagen. He said that a maximum rise in temperature of 2 degrees Celsius "is the highest amount that we can still tolerate, because beyond that life will no longer be possible as we know it."


Currently the prospects are not so good that his children will enjoy a life that remains unchanged. True, starting this weekend, the German government will attempt to rekindle international efforts to save the Earth's climate as it hosts a conference at the Petersberg Hotel near Bonn. But, at the same time, German Chancellor Angela Merkel has now decided to change the course of her climate policy.

As recently as last December she said: "If we don't succeed in limiting global warming to 2 degrees, then the costs of the resulting damages will be many times higher than what we now, with a change in our lifestyle, can achieve."

Now it's a different story: Merkel will no longer endeavor to contractually implement the 2-degree target -- in other words, to reach a legally binding agreement with specific reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. She doesn't want to be snubbed again because she has realized that important countries won't lend their support the next time around either. This was confirmed two weeks ago at the nuclear summit in Washington by Chinese President Hu Jintao and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.

I think had the U.S. led, we may have been able to move the Chinese and Indians. Simply put, Germany can't do it on its own. I did not realize that the Chancellor shouted at Chinese officials in Copenhagen things got so contentious. My point is this is not just about the U.S., or the next election. I would be willing to sacrifice Congressional majorities to get this done. But those in power think differently.

[wisteria]

6. Well, all I will add is my opinion that if the climate change bill is given a chance, it will pass.

My opinion yes, but I remain optimistic if it is introduced.

Oh, and nice to hear from you. Good luck on the new employment prospect.

[beachmom]

7. A writer at Grist seems to echo much of what you have said:

http://www.grist.org/article/2010-04-26-climate-and-immigration-in-the-u.s.-senate-a-tale-of-two-issues/

The general argument is there is not a sizeable movement for the climate bill but there is for immigration reform. My opinion is that there will not be a BIG climate movement until after it is too late -- that is what is so hard about this issue. And I resent him saying those of us who say climate should come first as being "immoral". Hell, I backed the Bush/McCain/Kennedy immigration reform plan in '07, so this is an absurd argument. It has less chance of passing this time than in '07.

I think what Mass has asked is the right question: when are Democrats going to say global warming is important? I would add in liberal activists. What I am seeing is little enthusiasm of dealing with this problem. This country has decided to kick this can down the road, and we can no longer blame only Republicans for that. Democrats had the power to do something, and they failed.

I fear that even if Graham comes back to the table and a bill is introduced that it will not get very far. Democrats have shown their hand -- THEY DON'T CARE.

[wisteria]

8. Immoral? Why, because we know that an immigration bill is not what the Dem's have in mind

by bring this issue to the forefront? I certainly do not think the Arizona legislation is good, and I think it will have many days in court. But, to suggest that we are taking sides and ours is the immoral side is ridiculous. Actually, we are being practical, we know the difference between politics and real policy.

[karynnj]

26. I agree that a movement is not there

and further if a movement were to coalesce it would likely be too minimalist. You can see that in the things he listed as exciting - green jobs and stopping coal fired plants. A large part of what pricing coal would do is to great more incentives for the research and development of green technology.

I think his analysis is also ONLY true if this is a genuine, legitimate attempt to pass legislation that will do what he says. Many stories imply or state that it might be more politics than policy - then everyone on both sides get nothing they want. It is beyond obvious that both have to be done. My middle daughter went to the DC rally for immigration reform on the day the House passed the healthcare bill. She and some of the people she works with helping homeless families - some possibly illegal, drove to DC to join it. This is a genuine civil rights movement - and at least in the part she was in, it had more in common with the tone and passion of the civil rights movement, than with the angry tea partiers or the anti-war movement (which she long ago went on rallies for.)

My fear is that playing games with this before the election might further harden people on this issue. Also, while I understand the urgency, the worse the economy the harder it will be to pass anything the right will call "amnesty". Now, I realize that a climate change bill is similarly hurt by the economy, but the US failing - which looks to be the case - could doom the international effort as well.

[karynnj]

17. Hi Tay!

Best wishes on the job!

[YvonneCa]

10. Thanks for the response, beachmom. I'm still...

...trying to understand this. Do you think it's possible that the political 'games' (and I agree that's what they are) will eventually get us to the policy? Sometime after November?? :7

[karynnj]

11. They will likely further poison what is already a poisonous atmosphere

As it is all the Republicans voted against cloture on the Dodd bill. This is just to debate the bill! They could still amend the bill, but they have yet to give a single honest change they want. It is possible that they would have done the same with climate change - with Nelson being 41 if Graham votes with us.

Already Fox is calling this a vote Obama wanted to fail - which in this case I don't think is true. However a cynical immigration bill pushed with no legwork beforehand, will validate their claim that WE are playing games.

[beachmom]

12. The politics? Not really. But I do think that a policy was being

worked on. I was for it even with (grind teeth) Schumer's name on it. But it was way behind Climate. Again, Climate has passed the House. After this session of Congress is over, that is nullified. Immigration reform is so contentious that the House refuses to take up the issue until after the Senate does. After 2010, it won't look good for CIR either. In fact, I foresee a lot of gridlock after the midterm elections if Republicans do well (which will probably be the case).

[TayTay]

14. Republicans are going to do well, but I don't think they will take either Chamber

But that is beside the point. (I still don't think the pundits know any more than anyone else. They are just noiser about it.)

The bird's eye view of this is that Climate Change legislation would probably have been blocked in the Senate. (Nelson of Nebraska voted against Financial Reform. If he can't vote against Wall Street, there is no way in hell he is going to vote for the climate change bill.) That does not mean that climate change action is dead. I don't think it is. The federal action was weak to begin with, despite the best efforts of people like John Kerry.

Yes, the country needs action on climate change. No, it is not going to get it from the Congress. It can't. The Congress is pre-programmed to not pass it because the very nature of the action violates the way the Congress runs. It doubly is not going to pass in this economic climate. (I think the timing of this is off. The time was last year, but Baucus and his inept mishandling of the health care bill doomed that.)

The people are way, way ahead of the Congress on this. The developments on climate change are out in the states and with people. The climate action bill was not going to affect that much, it's chief virtue was taking any action at all, which, again, was always a long shot.

We haven't lost anything. We just haven't gained anything in Congress yet either. But, the pressure for this is not going to come from Congress, which is institionally unable to do anything anyway. (Congress is broken, this is but a symptom of that breakage.)

[TayTay]

15. The immigration situation is not games

neither is the climate change bill. It is just what can and cannot pass the Congress and what the *** threat *** of doing something can do to actually get something done.

The recent EPA action threatening to deal with emissions has spooked a lot of people. Republicans are scared of it, as is many in polluting industries. Congressional action was a way to assuage the fears of industry that the EPA was going to regulate them and their emissions as a public health issue. If the Senate action collapses, as it well might, then the action moves to another level. What is truly scary is introducing a bill with all carrots, as some Senators want, without any sticks. Or, worse of all, a Senate bill that prohibits the EPA from taking action. That would be a killer.

I in no wya think that this is a totally depressing scenario. I never felt that Congress would pass a bill with teeth in it. (It can't. Congress is essentially non-functional right now.) The action on climate change is not in the Congress. It's in industry and it's in the country at large, and will be again as energy prices start to rise again due to the lessening of the recession. Things are going to move, they are just going to move without the Congress. I firmly believe that.

Immigration has been a simmering issue for a long time. It is about to become an uglier issue. Republicans don't want to deal with this issue because they can't. Leaving immigration where it is benefits the monied interests in this country as it depresses wages, especially in this economy. Yet the Republicans are trying to out-teabag each other in their efforts to be xenophobic and appeal to a base that hates non-white immigrants. So Republicans have no real interest in raising this issue, it's a lose-lose for them. (They will not deal with immigration because they can't. They are beholden on both sides of this issue and it is not resolvable because Congress is broken.)

The Democrats, should they choose to play hardball, have a win-win here. (Though it has nothing to do with climate change. Graham wants to conflate the two. I think that's disingenuous at best and a cover to hide pre-existing sins, but that just IMHO.) The Democrats gain voters and an energized base. They take a stand against the teabaggers, who wouldn't vote for them anyway. It sharpens "what they stand for" in an election year. So, yeah, they should take up immigration and financial reform. They are core Democratic issues.

[YvonneCa]

16. Nice to see you back here. I always value...

...your perspective.

I agree the issues are serious and not games...that was probably an unfortunate choice of words. But the in/out up/down of politics sometimes does feel like a game for me, even though the goal is serious. Politics confuses me.:)

I want to ask about a couple of things you said:

1. "I in no wya think that this is a totally depressing scenario. I never felt that Congress would pass a bill with teeth in it. (It can't. Congress is essentially non-functional right now.) The action on climate change is not in the Congress. It's in industry and it's in the country at large, and will be again as energy prices start to rise again due to the lessening of the recession. Things are going to move, they are just going to move without the Congress. I firmly believe
that."


2. "Immigration has been a simmering issue for a long time. It is about to become an uglier issue. Republicans don't want to deal with this issue because they can't. Leaving immigration where it is benefits the monied interests in this country as it depresses wages, especially in this economy. Yet the Republicans are trying to out-teabag each other in their efforts to be xenophobic and appeal to a base that hates non-white immigrants. So Republicans have no real interest in raising this issue, it's a lose-lose for them. (They will not deal with immigration because they can't. They are beholden on both sides of this issue and it is not resolvable because Congress is broken.)"

My question: Do you think our leaders (Obama, Kerry, etc.)...knowing Congress is broken...have decided to take a non-legislative path to accomplish action on climate change and/or immigration reform? For example...climate change will be helped if California gains a Democratic governor and retains Boxer. One way to do this is to bump up turnout in Ca. with the immigration issue. Other blue states would benefit similarly. Congress may not be able to resolve the immigration issue in its current configuration, but might that improve after November (and surprise everybody)?

[karynnj]

19. I don't think the non-legislative path on climate change can work

While I think that what California, the North east and a few other places have done is extremely commendable, it can not replace a national effort. The controls strive to successively bring down the allowable emissions. If some areas truly commit to it and others don't, it will create ever greater arbitrage opportunities. This is comparable to what Kerry et al are trying to deal with on an international level by something that is a tariff, but will not be called that that will add a tax to products from countris not complying to the degree we are equivalent to the cost of carbon produced. The reason Sherrod Brown and others fought for that (and why Kerry was very open to it in the Finance Committee is there is a basic fairness in it. There is no way to do this between states.

The biggest value of the regional efforts, other than the obvious gact that they are reducing emissions is that they are now prototypes of how this could be done, just as the 1980 regional acid rain effort was the protype for the later national effort. (There, as the science was different going national had an even better reason, the NE even if it cut sulfur emissions to zero would still have lots of acid rain. The EPA for other reasons had required higher smoke staffs to avoid the high level of toxicity around power plants. But, this meant that sulfur from Indiana was shot high in the air and affected the NE, not Indiana.

Assume CA has the strictest rules and Nevada is less willing to regulate it and opts to become the low cost provider by not regulating. What stops a company from building or expanding power plants in Nevada and then through the grid offering their cheaper energy to CA electric companies?

As to regulation, one problem is that it does not have the ability to give carrots. We already know where the big losers are if this is done almost entirely by regulation - the areas that currently use coal. These already hard hit states can't financially bear the portion of the burden that just regulating plants would have. Look at this politically. What happens in 2012 if the rust belt (mostly coal states) all bear the unmitigated burden of the EPA regulating the emissions from power plants and manufacturing plants? How quickly would the regulation end under the Republican President? My prediction is that regulation would be in force probably just for just one - no more than two years in total - shifting as fast as the abortion "gag" rule executive orders.

I am not defending the legislation as perfect. I'm not even sure what perfect would be, but I know it could not pass the Congress. Sadly, I think the legislators ARE likely following their constituents' values here. Looking at the polling on environmental issues, there is one poll which has been done for decades that asks people to chose between the economy and the environment. The "environment" has meant different things over time. The results are stunning. There is a very strong correlation with the state of the economy. Only as the economy improves and people become very secure on their economic well being, do they move to allowing the "environmental side". (Scroll down to Gallup 4 -7, 2010, then look for question 4) What you see is that the late 1990s or early 2000s would have been a much easier time to push this.

This is a well written, interesting question and the results are not surprising. The hierarchy of needs would have predicted that when people fear losing or not getting a job, they are more concerned with that for obvious reasons. Further, global warming is harder to "see" until it is too late - the Cuyahoga burning was pretty spectacular as were the Niagra toxic dump stories. What this shows is that though this really is a critical time to do it, the stars are lined against the heroic efforts of Senator Kerry.
But, I agree with Beachmom, if the US comes to the talks without legislation in place, the rest of the world is not going to do what we won't. (As it was I think in retrospect, the US did more positive work at Bali than at Copenhagen. I suspect the prospect of a Democrat and the thoughtful language pulling in the third world with differently configured goals led to some hope of moving forward. Now, I will not pout and say that if there were a 6 ft 4 silver haired Secretary of State, our effort would have been more intense and productive, there are way to many variables to say that - and it is pretty clear that no one would have put in the passion, commitment and work in the Senate.)

[YvonneCa]

22. Great post, karynnj. I agree with you completely...

...that this is about U.S. leadership on this issue and...to do that... federal legislation is required to show we 'get it.' I especially liked this:

"Now, I will not pout and say that if there were a 6 ft 4 silver haired Secretary of State, our effort would have been more intense and productive, there are way to many variables to say that - and it is pretty clear that no one would have put in the passion, commitment and work in the Senate."

:7

FYI...this is already happening:

You said, "Assume CA has the strictest rules and Nevada is less willing to regulate it and opts to become the low cost provider by not regulating. What stops a company from building or expanding power plants in Nevada and then through the grid offering their cheaper energy to CA electric companies? "

Companies are leaving CA in droves. And there is at least one case I have read about of a power company near San Diego...promoting itself as green...that will import dirty energy from across the US/Mexico border and sell it as clean energy to California homes. THAT is why the federal law is needed...beside the fact that we need to be global leader on this issue.

[YvonneCa]

24. A couple of links on the SD imported power...

...issue:

http://legacy.signonsandiego.com/news/mexico/20030419-9999_1b19power.html


http://www.dailyfinance.com/story/coming-soon-to-the-u-s-alternative-energy-from-mexico/19302936/

[karynnj]

27. Interesting links

I never thought of the energy coming across the border.

[YvonneCa]

28. SignOnSanDiego is the online version of..

...the Union/Tribune, the local newspaper. It's very conservative (as in supportive of Duncan Hunter and son).

This has been a local issue for some time. California, Nevada and Arizona want to provide wind and solar, but present more hurdles to do so. There is even an initiative (Prop. 16) on the June primary ballot to require voters to approve electricity startups...requiring a 2/3 vote to approve them.

As I always say, our initiative process is REALLY broken. :(

So,IMHO, we need the federal leadership for this to work right.

[karynnj]

25. Wrote this quickly because I had an appointment - here's the link on polling

http://pollingreport.com/enviro.htm I apologize for the extreme number of typos and phrases with parenthesis on just one side.

[beachmom]

20. I think immigration is not a win/win for Democrats. It pits interests

within our party against each other. Any move that legitimizes migrant workers with papers will anger labor and other working class voters. Even if it would help things long term, they don't want "illegals" legitimized. Also, look at the main boards when "H1B visas" comes up, and witness the anti-Indian computer engineer sentiments erupt. The Democrats have prejudices, too. And in the case of H1B visas, those are legal.

Perhaps it is a larger "third rail" for Republicans (with a polar opposite coalition of big business vs. old white resentment), but oh, you better believe it is a third rail for Democrats as well.

Without a national framework, any effort to stop climate change will fail. Why? If California is working over time to limit emissions while the southeast is pumping it out like never before, what is the net effect? Emissions will still go up. I will add that the international situation is even worse. Europe working hard to limit, the U.S. not doing much, and China and India INCREASING their emissions exponentially. I do not have faith in individual states and energy markets to fix this problem. It took a cap & trade regime to rid our country of sulfur dioxide and acid rain. Even if weak, any kind of national regime to start dealing with CO2 emissions is critical. Without it, we will see what has happened since the 1990 Earth Summit where the elder Pres. Bush signed a volunteery agreement to bring down emissions: NO PROGRESS.

Your mentioning of increases in energy prices is really what strikes fear in my heart. Why did the housing market crash which led to the global financial collapse in the first place? Rising gas prices. That happened first, and it hit the housing located in the far off suburbs of L.A. and San Diego. Those folks had long commutes, and when a long commute suddenly became astronomically expensive, nobody wanted to buy those houses anymore. Rising gas prices led to a squeeze on small businesses and even larger businesses, who had to deal with a variable cost that was out of control. The truth is our car/truck fleet is still inadequate to deal with the coming energy crisis. And who will be blamed for that disaster? Democrats and Pres. Obama. Who did NOTHING about energy and global climate change. Unless, of course they pass the B.S. sweet energy bill. Problem is pressure will build to pass that bad policy due to politics.

I guess you can see why I am quite pessimistic about all this stuff. Financial reform is the last thing on the agenda which really works for Democrats.

[Mass]

18. I reread this thread and other again and I am starting to understand the anger of the tea party

I am at the opposite range of the political spectrum, but is it enough to complain that Washington is broken. And it is broken: Democrats and Republicans.

As a committed environmentalist, this latest blow is hard to bear, but it comes on top of way too many blows that have happened in the last 3 years. As voters, we have to be as ambitious as those in power are, and I am not shocked that they have their personal ambitions and agendas. They would not be there if they had not. But the voters should as well. Don't we deserve better than a Harry Reid or McDonnell to lead this country?

I never considered I would consider to support a third party or nobody in any race. But, I have reached this point. I will continue to support those Democrats who have shown commitments on those issues I feel important, but Democrat after a name will not be enough anymore. In local as well as state races.

The tea party movement has one thing right: voters need to take back the lead and make sure they sent to Washington (or Beacon Hill, or whatever) politicians that are committed to making the country better.

So that there is no ambiguity here, I consider immigration as an important and moral issue, but clearly, the Democrats in the Senate do not, if they are only going to work on it when they feel a political gain is possible.

[beachmom]

21. I am leaning toward not voting anymore, although my reasons are different.

I live in Georgia in a very conservative district that will never change (the wingnut Tom Price is my rep.). My vote is a protest vote only. 2008 was the best shot at taking the presidency for Democrats but we fell short (and in fact, the Obama campaign pulled out in September '08 realizing it was not winnable), and it will be a worse result in 2012. Meanwhile, I am getting jury summons even though I am the caregiver for my children, but they don't care! I told them I do not have a day care provider or babysitter, my husband travels a lot, but come this fall I will be forced to go downtown Atlanta in a not great neighborhood, and I haven't a clue who will care for my kids. I have no support here (no family, etc.). In general, I don't mind the idea of jury duty, but when it is an undue hardship on my family, I am highly resentful. Jury duty comes from voter registration rolls and seems to penalize the most civic minded people who live very far away from the courthouse. I am thinking about getting my name purged from the voter registration rolls.

[wisteria]

23. I would like to see a little less politics and a lot more policy work.

Once in a while I have pangs of changing to an independent, but then I think I could not bring myself to give up on the Democrat Party.