<![CDATA[Grist - Comment Feed for Analysis of Waxman-Markey vote from around the web]]> Grist Comment Feed en Comment #1 by Catmoves http://www.grist.org/article/2009-06-29-analysis-waxman-markey-vote/ Tue, 30 Jun 2009 07:53:35 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/2009-06-29-analysis-waxman-markey-vote/1 I find it difficult to understand why Grist would put such a poor, amateurish hodge podge together other than to create enmity among the only two political  groups now capable of electing a President? This should be a time of uniting, not dividing.

If a person's political stance is of such importance that shallow, personal attacks are the modus operandi of Grist, then perhaps its purpose should be more deeply inspected by those of us of the Democrat Party.

In these trying times, I would suggest we all remember E Pluribus Unum.

]]> I find it difficult to understand why Grist would put such a poor, amateurish hodge podge together other than to create enmity among the only two political  groups now capable of electing a President? This should be a time of uniting, not dividing.

If a person's political stance is of such importance that shallow, personal attacks are the modus operandi of Grist, then perhaps its purpose should be more deeply inspected by those of us of the Democrat Party.

In these trying times, I would suggest we all remember E Pluribus Unum.

]]> Comment #2 by E2 http://www.grist.org/article/2009-06-29-analysis-waxman-markey-vote/ Tue, 30 Jun 2009 09:56:41 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/2009-06-29-analysis-waxman-markey-vote/2 I spoke to a lobbyist who had an interesting perspective that aligns well with your analysis about Dems from McCain-carried districts voting against it. He said the vote was so close because it could be so close. The Dems knew exactly the number of votes they needed, given the number of Republicans they knew would vote for it. They didn't need 240 votes, they only needed 219, and since it is such a politically charged issue, the Dems from red districts had a lot at stake and potentially more to lose politically for voting for it than against it. So they hung back and watched how the vote went, and as soon as there were 219 votes for it, they knew it had passed and could protect themselves politically with their constituency by voting against it, while knowing their vote would not change the outcome. 

While we environmentalists may have prefered a more comfortable margin and a more resounding support of climate protection measures regardless of concerns for upcoming elections, politics is politics and the game must be played.

]]> I spoke to a lobbyist who had an interesting perspective that aligns well with your analysis about Dems from McCain-carried districts voting against it. He said the vote was so close because it could be so close. The Dems knew exactly the number of votes they needed, given the number of Republicans they knew would vote for it. They didn't need 240 votes, they only needed 219, and since it is such a politically charged issue, the Dems from red districts had a lot at stake and potentially more to lose politically for voting for it than against it. So they hung back and watched how the vote went, and as soon as there were 219 votes for it, they knew it had passed and could protect themselves politically with their constituency by voting against it, while knowing their vote would not change the outcome. 

While we environmentalists may have prefered a more comfortable margin and a more resounding support of climate protection measures regardless of concerns for upcoming elections, politics is politics and the game must be played.

]]> Comment #3 by crotach http://www.grist.org/article/2009-06-29-analysis-waxman-markey-vote/ Tue, 30 Jun 2009 11:45:03 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/2009-06-29-analysis-waxman-markey-vote/3 My Rep (AZ CD 1) voted against it. I am not a political naif and I realize "politics is politics and the game must be played". I also realize that even though Democrats outnumber Republicans in my district, the GOP has been able to win here quite often. But we have a Democrat back in the saddle and she voted against it (even though support here for Obama was strong). What drove me into a rage was reading her press release explaining why she voted against it. Not once did she even mention the words climate change. It was all about eliminating waste, decreasing federal regulation, and saving all of us hard-working folks from even more taxes and costs. Coming as this did on the heels of her voting against the tobacco regulations for the same reason, I am seriously struggling with how things changed in my district by kicking the GOP out and voting the Dems in. I've been involved in climate change work since 1998, and back then we were bemoaning the fact that as a nation we were doing far too little, too slowly. Reading my Representative's statement that this bill did "too much too fast" chilled me to the bone.

]]> My Rep (AZ CD 1) voted against it. I am not a political naif and I realize "politics is politics and the game must be played". I also realize that even though Democrats outnumber Republicans in my district, the GOP has been able to win here quite often. But we have a Democrat back in the saddle and she voted against it (even though support here for Obama was strong). What drove me into a rage was reading her press release explaining why she voted against it. Not once did she even mention the words climate change. It was all about eliminating waste, decreasing federal regulation, and saving all of us hard-working folks from even more taxes and costs. Coming as this did on the heels of her voting against the tobacco regulations for the same reason, I am seriously struggling with how things changed in my district by kicking the GOP out and voting the Dems in. I've been involved in climate change work since 1998, and back then we were bemoaning the fact that as a nation we were doing far too little, too slowly. Reading my Representative's statement that this bill did "too much too fast" chilled me to the bone.

]]>