The Tim Bjorkman U.S. House campaign corrects and clarifies one point in my morning post on Bjorkman’s desire to keep state and party money at arm’s length. I noted that FEC records show Bjorkman’s campaign received $250 from the South Dakota Democratic Party on November 25, 2017.
That $250 was not a contribution. As the Bjorkman campaign explains, the state party cashed a check made out by a donor to purchase an item put up for auction by Bjorkman, then reimbursed Bjorkman that amount. It is thus accurate to say that Bjorkman has not taken any money from the South Dakota Democratic Party and that the state party did not make a contribution to the candidate’s campaign before it was known whether the candidate would even face a primary challenger.
Why is Bjorkman not taking SDDP money?
Why did Bjorkman run as a Democrat if he will not take support from the party that nominates him. Looks like a big win for Dusty Johnson.
Bjorkman made a stupid pledge to not accept pac or party money. This is the big time, it ain’t intramurals brother.
Money in politics is a top five concern of Democrats and Independents. 80% of Independents feel strongly about the issue. Drey Samuelson is a senior adviser so I guess if you think you know more about winning in South Dakota than him Greg, you should reach out. I know I’m really impressed that you’d go on such a limb to say it looks like a big win for the other guy when no Dem has come close in decades.
We need someone who knows law in Washington as we are gonna have to dump this mongrel in charge. He just screwed the military with his deal with Rocket Man. State run tee vee will say that trump knew that the B-1’s were grounded so he canceled the “war games” that were to take place this August. So where does that put us? It means that Russian influence has won the day.
We can ill afford to send a kid in to do a legal job like trying to run this country in the midst of republican induced chaos. Here come the judge. Turn him loose and bring some pride back to South Dakota.
Note, Jerry, that at no point have I disagreed with your thesis that Bjorkman is the best choice on the ballot to represent South Dakota in the U.S. House. When I criticize Bjorkman’s statements on campaign finance and the Democratic Party, I’m making a different argument, and not an argument for Dusty Johnson.
Paul T, maybe you should do a little research on SD political history. There have been several US House members that have been Democrats. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin as recent as 8 years ago. Also count in Tom Daschle, Tim Johnson and others. It has not been decades.
Duly noted Cory. I am trying to make that same argument. The idea is to win and that takes money. One of the things that I faulted Rick Weiland on was that he was too stubborn to see that in order to win the day, it takes the pay. You do not have to be beholding to anyone that sends money to your support, why should you be? I would never ever collect money from the NRA as that has way too many Russian ties to it so they can launder money. After I got the job, I certainly would not do the dialing for dollars either as this is South Dakota. Start working for the people and the people will keep you in the office, if you are a Democrat. If you are a Republican, you can be a slacker and do nothing for the state. I am talking about you NOem and you Thune and of course, you Mike Rounds.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/dnc-ban-fossil-fuel-donations_us_5b20116ae4b09d7a3d77d094
the resolution ― proposed by Christine Pelosi, a party activist and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi’s daughter ― bars the organization from accepting contributions from corporate political action committees tied to the oil, gas and coal industries. The executive committee voted unanimously to approve the motion.
good move.
DNC doesn’t appear to be funding any woman of color congressional races this year and are instead focusing on rural whites.
Not taking donations from fossil fuels doesn’t mean they aren’t supporting fossil fuels.
Because today wherever renewables go, fossil fuels inevitably follow.
Even the communities that say they are 100% renewable will receive power from another community outside their footprint to make up for intermittency. Somebody else burns the gas or coal so they do not have to.
The DNC has not committed to powering any of their facilities or activities with 100% renewable energy only without fossil fuel back-up, which means they too must consume some of that energy from fossil fuels.
But I would be fine if the political commercials fade out when the solar or wind energy isn’t available :^).
Since energy storage isn’t ready, the only non-nuclear position for the DNC is using fossil fuels better if they are pushing more renewables.
Or they must be honest and tell people they cannot have energy whenever they want it. But I don’t think that is a winning message for Democrats.
It’s like taking a knee, Doc, don’t you think? https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/feb/22/university-chicago-divest-fossil-fuel-professors-climate-change
https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/fossil-fuels-roman-catholic-church-boycott-climate-change-clean-energy-carbon-neutral-lobby-pope-a7980356.html
https://www.stanforddaily.com/2018/04/12/why-you-should-vote-to-divest-from-fossil-fuels/
You argue persevering w/ nuclear technology while not having a waste solution. Yet you discount DNC’s taking a knee, like trump howls. Is it any different? :)
What the Democratic Party is doing with regard to care of the planet is truly light years ahead of the GOP’s ongoing efforts to destroy it faster than they already are. The Democrats’ efforts aren’t flawless, but I’ll take them as the best option.
Indeed, Debbo, Robert is arguing specific policies, while you point out the fundamental value paradigm: Democrats believe the planet is at risk and that we need to act; Republicans deny the problem and think everything will work itself out.
Debbo,
I am definitely in favor of a waste solution for nuclear, as well as a waste solution for solar and wind as well. Democrats are sadly silent on the latter while pushing for renewables :^(.
The barriers to solving nuclear waste are not technical, they are political and economic. You can’t blame nuclear for not having a solution on one hand, while impeding the actual solutions from occurring on the other. It should be nuclear and renewables, not nuclear vs. renewables.
We both agree that climate change is a problem. I happen to think that we need to generate as much clean energy as we can to improve the human condition, reduce carbon, enhance energy security, and improve economic growth.
I get your point about taking a stance. There is definitely some belief in doing the JFK thing and throwing our collective hats over the wall so we HAVE to make renewables work.
But the laws of physics are the same on either side of the wall :^).
The intermittency is the primary problem that energy storage has yet to solve. We do solve that today by burning gas, and I hope tomorrow that flexible nuclear energy can help do that without emitting carbon.
We could be using renewables immediately for dedicated purposes when they are available instead of storing it or sending it elsewhere, but a lot of that is waiting for electric cars. Heating/cooling for public buildings and schools would be a good application.
Doc, here is how politics works: The party in power drives the legislation, the minority party works with the majority to make it all possible. Your statement, “Democrats are sadly silent on the latter while pushing for renewables”, therefore is empty and makes no sense given the political climate.
But the laws of physics are the same on either side of the wall :^).
You obviously haven’t been paying attention to wingnuts and their climate denials and attacking the environment lately.
Jerry,
If you want the high ground on sustainability and the environment, then there is a modicum of hypocrisy on the waste issue at the moment.
The waste from renewables is not being …well…for lack of a better term…renewed.
MFI, yes, one side ignores or significantly reduces the importance of climate change. But the other ignores or significantly reduces the importance of matching supply with demand. Both are important.
Robert, I’m not opposed to nuclear, which makes me at odds with most liberals, but my concern is disposing of the waste safely. The latest option I’ve seen, the bore holes that turn and slant, seems very promising. As long as nuclear plants are closely inspected and use all the latest safety technology along with effective, safe waste disposal systems, I have no problem with it.
I think some of the resistance to nuclear waste storage is that the areas that use nuclear energy are not sharing in the permanent storage of the waste, or that somehow other communities are being picked on.
Technically, we store the wastes today at those same power plants because there is nowhere else for it to go. That can work for a while, but long-term you need geologic isolation.
To make a long story short, you want to keep isotopes from traveling into sources of drinking water over a long time with several layers of redundancy for safety.
I agree that the more recent oil/gas drilling techniques have a lot of promise. You don’t need people underground, hard for people to access it, costs are lower, and you can drill into a wider variety of locations to access shale which is far below any water source.
I would prefer that there is less to bury in the first place, which means recycle first, then bury second. Otherwise, we throw away most of the energy from the fuel, and have to mine more. I think if you want to do things consent-based, then there is potential retrievability of the wastes.
The same techniques could in principle be used to isolate any toxic elements from renewable wastes too. They would need to isolate them from water bodies as well. The volumes may be large though, so recycle first, then isolate what you must.
Doc, I don’t want the high ground on anything, just pointing out your error. I can tell you this sir, not much is being recycled now since China does not want it. Everything is going to the landfills. No one wants the junk.
Every body forgets the jokers in the decks- the goofy wingnuts that are more concerned with protecting profits for energy friends than they are about the damage to the environment and planet.
It was revealed recently that Ptuitt has/had a team working to find employment for his wife, not just a Chik-Fil A franchise on the government dime.
Then are you saying Jerry that Democrats are helping Republicans with a fossil fuel agenda, because that is the job of the minority?
I thought the minority was typically the party that tended to be more vocal, but there is not a big push to deal with this right now.
It’s only now that renewable percentages have become large enough where the waste issue can be an issue.
There he goes again, picking winners and losers when government isn’t supposed to…first oil and gas, now Chick-Fil-A ;^).
I have only seen the publication that you linked to about the “possible” problem in 2050. The link is also kind of suspicious because it is like the deal going on in Minnesota right now dealing with “noise” and wind chargers. Anything to keep renewables in the closet, right doc?
It is already a problem…when it becomes a crisis is the issue. That will depend on the growth rate of renewables. The more we take care of it now, the better off we will be in the future.
I thought renewables were better than fossil fuels…so why is coal doing a better job at recycling its coal fly ash than renewables are its solar panels and wind turbine blades?
No time like the present to start doing better.
Sooo then, What??? Did you find that one article, that one article that leaps into the future. Wow. Here is something else doc, I am not even gonna step out on a limb. By 2050, recycling is gonna be the least of our problems if this EPA idiot continues. We will be back to drinking wine all damn day because what little potable water we have will be crap.
In the meantime, maybe you and your crew can come up with something that makes sense in how we recycle CAFO waste before Mickelson pours into the river. Don’t worry about things that are not so much around here, look in your own back yard.
Are they doing a better job? So now you are advocating coal…just like trump. While we keep going backwards, the rest of the world is not gonna wait, they are progressing while we look at our bellybuttons.
You have been waiting for how long to put in your nuke stuff? This is about Bjorkman and you are making it about you.
It’s really about the priorities of the Democratic Party. It is not enough to be just anti-Trump to win elections. Solutions matter.
Providing enough clean energy to improve the human condition, reduce carbon, enhance energy security, and improve economic growth is not bad to start with. Nuclear should be part of the mix.