Anyone else read the New Yorker article on Climate Change Legislation?

[hedgehog]

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/10/11/101011fa_fact_lizza

Maybe I misunderstood it, but the author seemed to be describing a dysfunctional Senate serving the interests of big corporations rather than the interests of the people. Lieberman, Kerry and Graham came off to me as not having a genuine understanding of the threat of carbon emissions. Rather, it seemed they saw the issue as a way of making themselves look important.

The goal seems not to have been to write a bill to cut carbon emissions but to write a bill that looked like it cut emissions while keeping all the current players (coal, oil, nuclear power) happy. Of course, the unspoken assumption was that unless these players signed on, the other Senators wouldn't support the bill. None of the players mentioned in the article was willing to go up against the corporations!. Every single senator mentioned thought it more important to get re-elected than to take a stand on this critical issue.

The irony to me is that somehow the Obama White House is at fault because this piece of shit didn't pass.

[polichick]

1. Just like healthcare and Wall Street "reform" - lipstick on the usual...

...status quo pigs.

(Yes, I did read it - thanks for posting it here.)

[hedgehog]

2. What I caught was the author blaming Obama for not passing the legislation,

while describing a Senate that was presenting the worst kind of window dressing as real reform. What exactly was Obama supposed to do when not one Senator would risk having the energy companies put up campaign ads against him?

Let me repeat that - not one Senator was willing to be attacked by the energy companies. They all decided ahead of time that crossing the energy companies was political suicide, and they all put re-election as their highest priority! Not one of them trusted the electorate to support them for doing the right thing.


Contrast that with the lead article in the same issue about the Chinese economist who risked loss of family, freedom and life to try to bring China out of third world status!


On edit: the worst part is that the Senate is backing the wrong horse. With or without Senate action, current energy suppliers will go the way of the whale oil. The only choice the Senate has is whether we will be manufacturing alternate energy technology or buying it from the Chinese!

[polichick]

3. imo the Senate is almost entirely corrupt and the WH fails to lead...

I think the prez should lead with no ifs ands or buts about it - and continuously announce the names of those Senators who refuse to support our critical move toward a green economy.

This paragraph is particularly telling:


In early December of 2009, Lieberman’s office approached Jay Heimbach, the White House official in charge of monitoring the Senate climate debate. For Obama, health care had become the legislation that stuck to the wall. As a consequence of the long debate over that issue, climate change became, according to a senior White House official, Obama’s “stepchild.” Carol Browner had just three aides working directly for her. “Hey, change the entire economy, and here are three staffers to do it!” a former Lieberman adviser noted bitterly. “It’s a bit of a joke.” Heimbach attended meetings with the K.G.L. staffers but almost never expressed a policy preference or revealed White House thinking. “It’s a drum circle,” one Senate aide lamented. “They come by, ‘How are you feeling? Where do you think the votes are? What do you think we should do?’ It’s never ‘Here’s the plan, here’s what we’re doing.’ ”

[hedgehog]

5. I think what you really mean by "lead the Senate" is

"force the Senators to get in line by threatening them in some way".

Kennedy had only leadership on his side; I think that's why he concentrated on foreign affairs.

LBJ personally threatened the Senators to get his way. Sometimes he had something on them, sometimes he had something they wanted and sometimes he just scared the living daylights out of them (he was a very forceful personality, probably certifiable but forceful none the less.)

Take another look at who was involved. Lieberman was going to guide a bill on energy policy through the Senate?

Consider also

"Lieberman coaxed nine Republicans into forming a group to write nuclear legislation that could be merged with whatever climate bill emerged from Boxer’s committee. By not automatically resisting everything connected to Obama, these senators risked angering Mitch McConnell, the Republican leader and architect of the strategy to oppose every part of Obama’s agenda, and the Tea Party movement, which seemed to be gaining power every day."

Read more http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/10/11/101011fa_fact_lizza?currentPage=2#ixzz12AuoUI62

Obama was never going to pass a single bill without every Democrat plus 1 Republican signing on. as far as I know, not a single Senator has stood up to demand a rules change allowing 51 votes to carry the day, nor have I seen any hint the Democratic leadership is willing to face a filibuster. Meanwhile, the article makes clear, Senators would not back the proposed Energy bill, as flawed as it was, unless they got something in return. Simply voting to protect and preserve life on Earth as we know it wasn't enough!

Obama had limited resources and put them where they would do the most good.

[polichick]

6. I didn't say "lead the Senate" - I meant lead the country...

He needs to make it clear that this country IS moving toward a green economy - and keep telling voters who is standing in the way.

The mistake this prez makes over and over is that he works with entrenched interests instead of working with the American people.

[hedgehog]

7. Until voters pay attention to what their Senators and Congressmen

are actually doing, Congress is going to pay attention to vested interests with deep pockets. So I agree with you, Obama has the next three weeks to pound home exactly who has been standing in the way of progress and the will of the people.

I think until he gets an activist Congress, Obama will be forced to work with entrenched interests because when they say "Jump", Congress responds "How high?" Unfortunately, people don't vote on legislation, Congress does.

[polichick]

4. What you say here is so true:

"On edit: the worst part is that the Senate is backing the wrong horse. With or without Senate action, current energy suppliers will go the way of the whale oil. The only choice the Senate has is whether we will be manufacturing alternate energy technology or buying it from the Chinese!"


The U.S. looks like a nation of idiots to the rest of the world.

[Mass]

8. delete.