I suppose as an enviro-blogger I'm supposed to have something insightful to say about the death of the Lieberman-Warner bill. Yet I find myself strangely apathetic. So much buildup, so much debate, and then ... hell, it was just another Republican filibuster. Why did I waste all those brain cells in the first place? It's not like I have many more to spare.
I guess I'm inclined to say that this is actually the best possible outcome. It looked to me like Dems stumbled into this debate unprepared to respond to the objections they knew (should have known?) were coming. An extended debate over amendments would have allowed Republicans to hammer their line about rising energy costs for two weeks, and the bill never would have passed regardless. Some crappy amendments would have been included, lowering the bar for what Congress will produce in 2009.
Republicans overplayed their hand. Their congressional delegation no longer knows how to do anything but be maximally hostile and obstructionist. As a result, the message coming out of this fight is that Democrats tried to do something about a serious and widely acknowledged problem, and Republicans blocked them. This should be hung around the neck of every Republican running for reelection.
What does this mean for the next effort, in 2009? Mainly it drastically underdetermines it. Dingell and his House energy committee co-conspirators want to take charge of the process and re-orient it around what they produce. Boxer in the Senate and Pelosi in the House will be working to avoid that. The big, big wildcard factor, of course, is the presidency. McCain would mean disaster -- a weak, inefficient bill at best. Obama could -- not would, could -- change the landscape considerably.
I wrote more about Obama's potential to affect the green debate over on Huffington Post.
And, that's about the best I can do for Friday afternoon. Is it beer-thirty yet?
John McCain’s troubles are the world’s troubles
George Voinovich (R-Ohio) [UPDATED]
Al Franken (D-Minn.)
Comments
View as Flat
GreyFlcn Posted 7:44 am
06 Jun 2008
Permalink
ce1907 Posted 11:10 am
06 Jun 2008
Any analysis of the Balkens requires the consideration of many different groups
and shifting alliances over time
if you want to follow the story, then you should aspire to more detailed information, plus an appreciation of past records
only then can you appreciate the meaning of statements
and the possibilities for successful coalitions
good luck
Permalink
Russ Posted 6:22 pm
06 Jun 2008
These are certainly true:
1.This is all the Republicans know how to do.
2.This is the message the Democrats should hammer home.
Which beg the question: Why did the Democrats take so long to let things come to this kind of gridlock? It's sickened me how, ever since they nominally took over the Congress in 2007, the Dems have complacently accepted this new dispensation (which somehow didn't exist in 2003-06) that 60 votes are needed to get anything done, that they need to know ahead of time that these 60 votes are available, and that if these 60 votes seem unavailable, they should just cave in and not do anything.
Am I the only one who remembers how it backfired when Gingrich "shut down the government" back in the 90s? How the Reps were widely reviled as childish and loutish, and how they had to come crawling back?
If I were Reid, I would've been thinking from the start, "bring 'em on". I would've pushed important bill after important bill, and forced the Reps into the position of really having to engage, before the eyes of the people, their scorched earth obstructionism. Meanwhile there would be no problem existing where the Dems couldn't say, "We're trying to find constructive solutions, but as you can see the Republicans won't even allow a single bill to come up for a vote. So you can see who cares about your problems and who doesn't."
Even leaving aside the potential political bonanza, how long could the Reps keep up such obstruction, as a matter of simple attrition? I imagine many of them would get tired of it.
When you have the majority, you have the advantage in wars of attrition, if you're willing to use it. So it's just baffling that the Dems have been so craven in the face of mere filibuster and procedural threats.
But, unfortunately, that's all-too-typical of their record throughout the Bush administration.
I certainly hope you're right, that the outcome on this bill can be the beginning of a change on this front.
Permalink
GreenMom Posted 9:28 am
07 Jun 2008
Congressional Dems have been doormats for so long -- they just can't help themselves. It's mind-bending.
Someone please let them know they have the majority now.
Please explain to them that they control the agenda.
Tell them they can make the Republicans look like obstructionist simpletons.
Tell them to just keep repeating the sound bites -- here's what Republicans stand in the way of:
Efficient cars. Clean Energy. Green Jobs. Get off foreign oil.
It's really not that hard.
Recently, people have started stopping me in parking lots again, the way they did back in late 2003 when I first bought my (04) Prius.
Only now they know what my car is, and they're stopping me to tell me they're jealous.
There's a lesson for Congress in that.
Permalink
stuflash Posted 2:52 am
10 Jun 2008
What the Democrats seem to lack most is an exciting long-term vision of how this entire country could look in a successful fight against global warming.
Permalink