From the endorsement interviews: A pro-breaching congressional candidate

The dam breaching debate has hit a standstill in the Northwest, partly because Idaho politicians have been unwilling to support a step that may give Idaho salmon their best and only shot at recovery.

Instead, Idaho politicians have parroted the downstream company line, defending the dams.

The debate has to change sometime, one candidate at a time, and is a breakthrough in Idaho's 2nd Congressional District. Democratic candidate David Sneddon says he supports breaching the eastern Washington dams, saying a free-flowing river system is "necessary" to help Idaho salmon migrate to the Pacific Ocean and back.

"We're losing our wild stocks," Sneddon said in a Statesman editorial board meeting a week ago.

Sneddon stands alone among the candidates in the 2nd District, which encompasses salmon spawning grounds such as the fabled Redfish Lake near Stanley. Fellow Democrat Deborah Holmes said she isn't sure breaching would help salmon, and said she supports any energy source "that isn't using carbon-based fuels." Republican incumbent Mike Simpson and challengers Jack Wayne Chappell and Gregory Nemitz all oppose breaching.

Sneddon also is the first major-party candidate in Idaho to take a pro-breaching position since 1998, when Democratic gubernatorial candidate Robert Huntley supported breaching. It's considerably easier for a Second District candidate to support breaching, however; opposition to breaching is strongest in and around Lewiston, which would lose its seaport if the dams come down.

Since 1997, our paper has argued for the removal of these dams — saying the power and the slackwater shipping provided by these dams can be replaced. We have also argued that breaching will help the region wean itself from boosting salmon numbers through costly and sometimes counterproductive hatchery production, a strategy underscored by the federal government's recent $900 million deal with downstream Indian tribes and a separate $65 million deal with Idaho.

Sneddon's support of breaching certainly was a factor in our endorsement in the 2nd District Sunday. More importantly, a pro-breaching congressional candidate could help revitalize the breaching debate.

Someday...

No dams to challenge wild salmon.
Wolves in every campground.
No sheep or cattle on public land.
Snails under every rock.
Wilderness permits required to leave the city limits.
Spotted owls in every burnt out tree
And cool breezy summers with growing polar ice caps.

Most politicians are normal and only breach...

ethics.

A breath of fresh air...

is a candidate with an open mind, who will look for solutions to the salmon/water/energy issue, without pledging allegiance to simply continuing what we're doing now. What the federal government is doing now is wasting taxpayer and ratepayer money for ineffective salmon programs, displacing thousands of jobs and families, and setting the region up for a train wreck.

Any politician who wants to take a fresh look, and seek new ideas, is worth considering. I wish David Sneddon the best in his upcoming election.

Liquid Coal

His opponent says he wants to replace the dams with liquid coal plants. Is this good for the environment?

Wouldn't that be called, like...

OIL or something?

Oil vs Sneddon's Liquid Coal proposal

I've been looking up liquid coal on the Sierra Club website and a couple others, and here's what they say:

"Although its proponents claim that liquid coal is a cure-all to our nation's energy problems, the truth is that liquid coal is plagued with economical and environmental downsides from the time coal is mined until long after the liquid is burned. Liquid coal releases almost double the global warming emissions per gallon as regular gasoline, making a hybrid filled with liquid coal as dirty as a Hummer H3 running on regular gas.

Liquid coal also requires huge amounts of water, and would lead to an over 40% increase in coal mining just to replace a mere 10% of our nation's transportation fuels. Proponents of liquid coal also want the government to funnel billions in subsidies and tax breaks to artificially create an entirely new industry. Liquid coal is arguably the dirtiest, most expensive energy gamble we could take."

Liquid coal also apparently has higher CO2 emissions than oil plants. If Sneddon wants to tear down the dams and replace them with this (Sneddon apparently even wants to fully subsidize liquid coal plants), I don't think I could support him.

Like Social Security, breaching will be an endless

battle until rivers dry up with Salmon the loser when gone, much the same as taxpayers broke because our representatives can't or won't get the job done. They shirking their responsibility!

I was watching TV last night, didn't get the name of the program but it was all about alternative energy. It pointed out the advantages & disadvantages. Wind, can't understand why we haven't been all about this for the past 35 years, wind is still blowing. Water, beat it to death while destroying Salmon & fighting over water rights, solar, same as wind, sun is still shining. Oil, can't seem to kill enough people to feed the war machine while burning billions of gallons of fuel & oil. Geo Thermal, is that correct, seems to have potential. Nuclear? We're all about attacking other nations for developing nuclear but have had our own & want more? How safe would we feel if we didn't have nuclear & the empire, the one that attacked our neighbor like we did Iraq, & has used nuclear in the past, did have?

What would be the best? How about a little bit of a mix to cover all the bases while not destroying or killing anything like Salmon, anybody, or caused illness to downwinders while denying? Balance? Like that eight cyclinder engine missing on two cylinders, our energy policies aren't running very effeciently.

All kinds of news about Mars, space ladders, star wars, shooting meteors & satelites out of the sky before they hit the earth but we don't have the grid to support wind or solar? Technoloy gone wild like girls but no grid? When & where is the technology/grid to carry our electrical power through lasers from source to satelite to demand? Satelite is all good, music, lasers, & we're still piping electrical power along the old lines? Look what's in a computer chip, how much information, what we do with lasers, phones, cameras, & we're sending ships to Mars. Why have I never heard about transmission of power through laser to eliminate the grid which is an ongoing problem due to demand & continued service to keep it up & running? We had a major power outage just a few years ago in the Eastern US! Is it not feasible or just too expensive like wind energy was or patrolling the border to prevent illegal immigration, so it's not done or developed?

Our lawmakers promoted illegal immigration as a favor to contributors to hold down wages & break unions & look what it has done for US. Broken our health care, helped break Socail Security, Medicare, & Medicaid yet that all just gets more lip service while contributors make bank. Contributors cut pay, benefits, don't provide health care, & retirement like we do as taxpayers to our employees, lawmakers.

Our infrastructure is almost $2 trillion in need of funding & we have a national debt of over $9 trillion, we're in a war costing billions, but all the two controling parties & their loyal subjects can suggest is, we'll be fine. We've come back from trillions in debt before? The picture isn't the same as it was 25 years ago, Vietnam was over unlike Iraq with no end in sight while we spend billions with oil & fuel going up & taking evrything with.

If oil companies are making billions & we're paying out the wazzuooo, why aren't they contributing toward alternative energy through lease payments/taxes to better America as a nation? Is that a socialist though to be attacked by the GOP? Socialism, socialism, oh NOOOOO.

Billions in profit while claiming it's only 7% seems a little contradicting. It's a little short sighted to focus on only oil when oil is the obvious reason we're in this war. I've worked for companies, one in particular in the highly subsidized dairy industry which claimed a billion gross annually a few years ago but as little as a million or two net. They seem to be doing fine but it isn't 7%. Cooking the books or campaign contributions? Never mind the kickbacks in transportation which Idaho Gov, Otter isn't interested in.

I know of a large company that showed $17 billion gross in 2007 but only $750 million net, also Agriculture. Is that 7%? They seem to be doing quite well. AG seems to be doing well & just received a $260 or $280 billion bump from our representatives of millionaire status? The truth is, we can't believe any of those numbers. Corporations contribute millions & get millions if not billions in return in tax cuts & incentives. Who knows how much they pay in taxes, if any? Corporations which pay their CEO millions, lobbyist millions, & contribute millions to get those tax cuts & also hire lawyers & acountants. Anyone who believes the numbers when looking at an annual report, well I still have a bridge in Minnosta for sale. Lawmakers make possible through campaign finance anything, any amount of $ to the highest spender.

Accountants, lawyers, CEO's, lobbyists, contributions, & let's not forget our representation, are all about $. Enron ring a bell? Our representatives, if interested in balance & what's best for America, would have had alternative energy, not ethenol, {agri corruption is just another contributor collecting our tax $} in the works years ago. Alternative energy like Social Security, which the same lawmakers have run into the dirt to cover their excessive spending while doing nothing to address as it slips away, has not been taken care of. Big contributors, oil interest have been making billions so they can afford to spend millions, buy representation, & put an oil man in the White House. Wind, sun, geo thermal, & other energy sources have been held back by oil/$!

Is that in the best interest of America, taxpayers, Salmon, environment, or the world? Is it in the best interest of the party, representatives, or contributor? It doesn't take a masters degree to see the truth in simple math. Taxpayers can afford to carry the country, it's our country, our representatives are just employees playing US, & never accept responsibility because they don't have to. We don't make them! We are the boss, we just don't act like it or know how to be the boss. We're manipulated into being a boss that pays but doesn't enjoy what the boss of every coproration in the country through campaign finance, enjoy!

I think your point

...is that a good mix of wind, solar, clean coal, and nuclear power would relieve the east and northeast of the need for heating oil, and could supply much of the west and take some of the pressure off of hydroelectric. Spot on.

At least we know we won't be electing an oil man to the White House in November. We have a military man, who hasn't held much other work. A woman whose only work was with a corruption-ridden law firm, and a man who has really done no work.

These choices make very important our selections for the Senate and House of Representatives.

Bounce, for a guy with nothing but positive thoughts

you sure paint an ugly & negative picture. Are you sure your not sad & having a bad day? "We have a military man, who hasn't held much other work. A woman whose only work was with a corruption-ridden law firm, and a man who has really done no work."

You are still playing the republican blame game on the Clintons? While it might be true I haven't seen it in a conviction through the courts you speak so highly of. McCain, who can blame him for being a republican, he was beaten silly as a POW. If I were severly beaten about the head, neck, & shoulders for years on end I might be a republican as well.

I'm confused. A military man who was trained to lead as the mlitary does, according to you in the past, a woman, a lawyer/democrat whose only work is with a corruption ridden law firm, & a man who has never really done any work? In all my posts I don't know as I've battered anyone & everyone except politicians & Bush, as you have these three in just a couple short sentences. I spread the wealth, equal opportunity, blame everybody in politics, & even takle some blame myself as I don't do enough to do as I should as an American.

Yes Bounce, balance & it doesn't matter if women or blacks are in the game. I don't have much respect for lawyers or lawmakers, they're suppose to be crooks so I guess I'm just as discrimantory as you. I'm neither republican or democrat so I guess I'm not playing fair?

I don't know why you didn't just openly discriminate against women & racially attack blacks. I guess McCain, being a white military man is the man for the job. I expect those remarks from someone who doesn't know much about government, like myself as you keep pointing out, or a republican but then they're on their way out so I understand the losing mentality but not from everyday is a great day Bounce. The best lesson for the GOP might be that it's hard to run a country into the ground while blaming everybody else & remain in office.

"openly discriminate"

Don't know why I would.

You evidently missed the legal proceedings against the Rose Law Firm in Arkansas. Has nothing to do with Sen. Clinton being a woman, the firm she was in was mostly men, and some of them were evidently corrupt too. You might also have missed the story of her boyfriend committing suicide in a park, while she was First Lady.

There are women I would quickly support for President - Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, Ebay CEO Meg Whitman, Secretary of State Condi Rice, Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano, to name just a few.

Were I of more liberal leanings I would vote for Sen. Obama in a heartbeat - on his philosophy. I like him a lot still - but he has no resume, less experience than Dan Quayle when the Dems mocked him.

I highly respect Sen. McCain for his service in the military and in the senate, but find him very short on ideas for the future. His gas tax plan is very bad economics. That scares me about his other ideas.

Nobody gets or loses my vote because of what or who they are - they have to show a body of work that I support and they have to show promise of the same to come.

I think it is fair dicussion to offer that our slate of three right now is the weakest we have had in decades. Thus my point about the Senate and House - we must send our best there to ensure leadership should the new president not be fully up to the job.

Open discrimination should be slightly better than secret...no?

You figure it out.

Debbie Holmes is a moderate Democrat her opponent is not

Debbie Holmes holds to the platform of the Democratic Party. As far as I can tell my opponent chooses not to associate with fellow Democrats in the area. The reason to vote for me on May 27th is that I represent the Democratic Party and Idaho values. I have traveled throughout the 2nd congressional district and have found that my message of health care reform, foreclosure relief and similar core Democratic issues resonates with fellow Democrats. To set the story straight on the debates, my opponent did not turn in the paperwork for the League of Women Voters debate and failed to return repeated phone calls from the Young Democrats of ISU. I consider the refusal to talk to the Young Democrats as refusal to debate. Now the spring term is over. My opponent has not endorsed either of the Democratic candidates for President. Nor has he promised to support the nominee. I prefer Obama but will work tirelessly to support whoever my party chooses. They are both powerful candidates with similar messages of hope and change. Anyone who knows me knows that I am not a far "left wing" radical, as my opponent claimed I was but a normal moderate free thinking Democrats. I am a problem solver and this country has problems that need to be solved. I need Democrats to vote in the primary on May 27 so that I can continue to deliver the message of change and hope for the American people.

Mind using your name in the first person?

Your son wants to be a spammer, now at the least you could speak directly to Idahoans instead of the robot stuff.

If you ain't her the least you can do is not steal her name and make her look bad.

That was my post!

I started using my name so that you could be sure who I was talking about then switched to the first person. My son writes in his own name. My son is also my policy person.

OH BROTHER.

Please. You're killing me and I'd rather finish my stereo system. You have no idea how funny that works out to be. Are you experiencing a bad interaction with a prescription?

You are probably doomed. My honest opinion. Please hire somebody over 40.

Thanks for writing,

Politico Abby

To My Foreign Oregonian Friend

Thank you for your honest opinion. I hope you wouldn't be so pointlessly caustic if we were speaking face to face. The fact remains that, if your interested in discussing the issues in the campaign, rather than trivialities, my mother is a much better fit for Idaho Democrats than is David Sneddon. If you want to talk about these issues, then maybe you'll receive further response. Otherwise, it has been a pleasure.

I certainly would.

I'm this way in person too...If you are fishy.

You might buy a laugh track.

Perhaps if you really want to work for the public you ought to DEAL with them better.

First thing your mom needs to do is get real and find somebody who can be critical.

I'm saying you are A PR MESS.

Good luck anyway.

PS It's almost one in the morning, son, Get some sleep.