Powerful interest groups stymie Democrats' energy bill (AP/CNN)

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Three powerful lobbying forces -- automakers, electric utilities and the coal industry -- are confounding Democrats' efforts to forge a less-polluting energy policy.

Disputes over automobile fuel economy, use of coal as a motor fuel, and requirements for utilities to use more wind or biomass to generate electricity have threatened to stall energy legislation in both the Senate and House.

The issues have been the focus of intense lobbying by the coal industry, electric utilities heavily dependent on coal, and by automobile manufacturers trying to block new fuel economy requirements from Washington and in a dozen states.

Unless agreements can be worked out in the coming days, the impasse could dash hopes by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to produce an energy bill -- the first since Democrats took control of Congress -- before Independence Day as promised.

Democrats this week are trying to find a way around a threatened filibuster and resurrect a proposal to require electric utilities to use more renewable fuels and spur development of wind, solar and biomass energy sources.
***
more: http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/06/18/congress.energy.ap/index.html

But ... but ... I thought a filibuster was political suicide! :eyes:

When I get a sales phone call otherwise known as "intense lobbying", I just hang up the phone.
Why cant our elected leaders (the Dems we voted for) just hang up the phone?
I mean really, what are these lobbyist's doing to them?
Holding them over hot coals, pulling their fingernails?
Oh thats right....the lobbyist's are talking to them.
Oh boy, watch out Harry and Nancy, those lobbyist's are using
WORDS. Duck for christ's sake.
GIVE THEM WHATEVER THEY WANT.
Pathetic.

Well, indirectly, of course.

The oil industry sends out it's lobbyists. The politician votes FOR that "special" bill or AGAINST that regulation change and Hey! Presto! - A big campaign donation from Exxon or Conoco.

Money talks. And politicians are listening.

... if your caller was offering you loads of cash and other goodies
simply for you to say something (e.g., endorse their product without
needing to pay for it) then you would not hang up - unless you were
already pretty well off and had managed to retain your moral sense
whilst getting there.

Sadly, that is exactly why most of the Senate and Congress are totally
useless when it comes to representing the people rather than their buyers.

Bought & sold: that's politicians in a nutshell.

:puke:

Nobody voted for me to answer the phone.
In that case I am only responsible for myself
an elected official is the voice of the people.
Big difference

> an elected official is the voice of the people.

Once upon a time that was true.
Once in a while it may still be true (in some countries).
In today's America (and other countries) it is not true.

An "elected official" is someone who is rich enough to recruit
enough supporters so that together they can con enough people
to vote the team into cushy jobs for as long as possible.

As this scheme requires copious amounts of money to keep the
machine running smoothly, the rich interest groups (e.g., the
energy industry, the arms industry, the pharmaceutical industry,
the car industry ...) pay their bribes to the "elected official"
in order that both sides profit: the latter from the cash
(remember money=support=ongoing cushy job) and the former from
the lax "laws", subsidies and single-bid projects that such
fully-owned pets pass between them.

Sorry if I wasn't clear in my previous post: I was not sick at
your (perfectly reasonable) attitude towards the phone-callers
but towards the approach that politicians and their associates
have adopted over the years.
:hi:

If the situation wasn't so serious, this would almost be funny. Decades after it became obvious that more fuel-efficient cars were a necessity, the auto companies are still crying the blues.
Big coal evidently has enough money to keep digging and burning.

The use of coal as a motor fuel??? Is this an alternative energy idea or an industry proposal? I can't think of anything much worse but I guess anything goes when it comes to keeping the motoring public happy.

I read that alternative energy requirements would be just too expensive. No can do say the utilities.

The only difference between Republicans and Democrats is the amount of time required to roll over for the lobbyists. Republicans are in it from the beginning. Democrats need some stroking.

Unless (until for the optimists) there is a people's lobby, you can forget about any meaningful change. Since all people really care about is maintaining an affordable supply of some kind of motor fuel, it is reasonable to come to the conclusion that things will continue on the same dismal track that we've followed over the past 25 years.

Sell out Dems and the far right.

Then target each and every one of them.