It doesn't look good for the climate bill. The MA Senate election had consequences.

[beachmom]

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/103737-climate-bill-teetering

Climate change legislation appears dead after two setbacks in quick succession — first from the Oval Office and then from Congress.

Sen. Scott Brown (Mass.), a crucial Republican swing vote, met with President Barack Obama on Wednesday and told him he would not support a cap-and-trade plan or carbon fee to limit greenhouse gas emissions.

But this blow came after Obama delivered the first setback Tuesday night. In his primetimes speech, he called for comprehensive energy reform but did not propose an emissions cap.

This stance may parallel his rhetorical backing for a public healthcare option that, however, was later excluded from reform legislation.

The White House has told Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and environmental activists that it supports the carbon cap in his bill, but the presidential bully pulpit has not been used to demand it.

I cannot disagree with this article at all. I said at the time that Pres. Obama not mentioning a carbon cap during his oval office address was devastating to getting that bill passed. And also, the Murkowski amendment vote seems to have had tea leaves after all. Scott Brown delivers a big F.U. to the state of Massachusetts which overwhelmingly supports dealing with global climate change.

[karynnj]

1. I unfortunately agree with you here

The support has been tepid. It is also given either at a distance (Gibbs confirming it) or to Democratic partisans (as in the OFA email). He did support it in the CMU speech.

As to Brown, I wonder if MA Democrats and Independents can put sufficient pressure on him. One question I have is whether, given that MA overwhelming supports this, it is a big enough voting issue that he should fear re-election. (Maybe Kerry can take him on another bike ride, or wind surfing - or invite Brown and his wife to dinner at his home. If it were someone else, I would say that he has said too much to shift, but he did on the Finance reform bill. Maybe Kerry could even get Brown his basketball date with Obama - after all the yes votes needed.)

[beachmom]

2. No, it's too late for that. Brown is not hedging here.

He has made his choice and is using the worst right wing talking points about cap & trade. He is a right wing hack, and I have no idea why Mass. elected him. Martha Coakley, flaws & all, would have voted for Kerry's bill. Which is why I don't vote based on personality. Pity so many Americans do.

[karynnj]

4. true, but he spouted all the right wing points on the wal street reform

and he even ran against that - where he didn't really run against cap & trade. He voted for the regional cap & trade while in MA. I agree with you on the voting choice. (I also am not impressed with his personality, though it would be fine in a somewhat goofy next door neighbor.

I think it is clear he wants to win re-election in MA. I hope he hears from many MA voters.

[ProSense]

3. This is not good, but I'm taking reports on the bill with a grain of salt

The White House has told Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and environmental activists that it supports the carbon cap in his bill, but the presidential bully pulpit has not been used to demand it.

Between Obama's June 2 energy speech, his address, Gibb's statement and the President's engagement of OFA to push climate legislation, I really don't see how they can keep saying that he isn't pushing it.

Interestingly, I noticed this statement from Kerry announcing funding fo MA:

Kerry Announces Massachusetts To Receive Additional $9.1 Million In Science Investments

It's not unusual for Kerry to issue a statement on his own, but often these kinds of statements were issued jointly with Senator Kennedy. Of course, Brown would have to concede the importance of science to join in announcing this funding.

[karynnj]

5. Interesting catch on the funding

There were several early announcements where Kerry graciously included Brown - even when it was clear that Kerry and the Congressional delegation got the funding put into bills before January.

It might also be that Kerry and his staff were annoyed by Brown's showboating on being agaisnt earmarks while accepting credit for funding MA projects.

[karynnj]

6. He wasn't listed in a big expansion of cummuter rail in MA either

Kerry has worked with the state to help on past expansions - so it may be that's why the state government only includes Kerry and the House delegates in that area.

http://www.mvtimes.com/marthas-vineyard/news/latest.php?id=305

[wisteria]

7. Here is the video put together by Sen. Kerry and Sen. Leiberman making their pitch before Congress

and corporations today,

http://bit.ly/dD0TRx

[beachmom]

12. Do you have another link? It says the video is "private".

[wisteria]

13. No, it was working yesterday. Sorry, I copied it from a twitter post.

I have to assume it wasn't meant for everyone to see.

[ProSense]

8. I really, really

dislike some Democrats.

[Inuca]

9. Rockefeller

probably (possibly?) means well in his own way, but is WAY too parochial and short-sighted. From what I know of him, his heart is in he right place, his head less so.

[Blaukraut]

11. You're being kind to Rockefeller

He and others like him might mean well, but their actions end up hurting not only their own state, but the country, and our planet. To paraphrase Bill Maher: @#$% the jobs in industries that destroy our planet. Time to rethink, rebuild, and regroup. Drug dealing and pimping are jobs, too. Do we want to save them?

I'm so sick of the myopic vision of some of our elected officials.

[karynnj]

18. Agreed

On other issues, Rockefeller has been very good, but he really is putting politics first here. He is in a state where he might be casting a career ending vote if he voted with Kerry. That said he entered the Senate at the same time Kerry did and this is a good stage in a career to be forced to make such a vote. (Thinking of the senior Gore who cast a vote for a civil rights bill and that is now one thing he is (positively) remembered for.)

[ProSense]

10. Good piece

from 2009 on cap and trade posted here.

[wisteria]

14. There is a nasty hit piece on Sen. Kerry in Politico with Rockefeller

being quoted prominently.

http://dyn.politico.com/members/forums/thread.cfm?catid=1&subcatid=1&threadid=4180327&start=1¤tPage=1

Of course, it has become a haven for Republicans to slam Kerry with every falsehood and smear they can come up with. But for Rockefeller to be complaining about Senator Kerry's style of trying to gain votes, publicly like this, makes me think less of Rockefeller and suggests that something else is going on. Just my opinion, but it seems as though they are trying to make Sen. Kerry the scapegoat for not voting for the climate change bill.

[Inuca]

15. Seems like

Blaukarut was correct above, I WAS being too nice to Rockefeller. I am half way through the article, the ROckefeller comments in the first page are rather nasty (and silly).

All in all it seems a rather good article as far as Kerry is concerned. And it made me feel like I want to hug him :-):

“I’ve asked my closest friends in the environmental community to swallow hard on some pieces that matter enormously to members of our caucus, and I think most senators appreciate that,” he added. “I believe it’s been worth the effort to fight. I feel this issue very intensely. I care about it more than anything I’ve ever worked on in my life. And I’ve always said to my colleagues, ‘I know this is tough, and I know it’s not everyone’s favorite issue, but I only push because I care so much and I desperately want to see us tackle it together as a caucus with one voice rather than giving up.’”


“I’ve never met anyone more committed to an issue than John,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who worked with Kerry for nine months before abandoning the talks because of immigration politics.


Graham took note of Kerry’s decision to meet last month on natural gas policy with T. Boone Pickens, the Texas oilman who funded the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ad campaign that helped derail Kerry’s 2004 bid for the White House.


“John’s willingness to sit down with Boone Pickens speaks volumes about him as a person and his willingness to find a solution to this issue,” Graham said.

[karynnj]

17. I had the same reaction - those that care if something is done really should be supporting Kerry

He is amazingly strong and focused on this. Luckily, he has in Teresa, someone who is in complete agreement on the importance of what he is doing and is just as strongly committed.

I took Rockefeller's comments differently. I think he likes Kerry. I suspect that he is in a tough position and Kerry is bugging his conscience and pushing him to do the right thing. It would be a lot easier for Rockefeller and others if Kerry weren't there making them face the choice. (What is clear is that the author was pushing Rockefeller to trash Kerry - but he really didn't.)

[karynnj]

16. This is an interesting article - especially if you read it analytically

I suspect that the main perspective is that of an unnamed senior Democrat, who really does not buy the importance of doing this now.

In terms of what Kerry is doing:

Kerry said that he’s following direction from Democratic leaders and other senators who wanted him to meet with industry representatives and other groups from across the country."

(short summary - he has worked like Hell on this and has reached out to everyone.)


I think Rockefeller and Kerry actually like each other - at least from interactions in the Finance and Commerce committee. Reading this, the ONLY reason pricing carbon did not die a year ago is Kerry.

Rockefeller refers to Kerry's method as similar to be courted. Kerry is trying to win people over. The analogy would suggest that he is being both persistent and nice. In fact, that is the only way that would stand a chance of working here. Kerry is asking people, like Rockefeller, to make a possibly career ending statesman vote putting themselves on the right side of history. Kerry's persistence and his use of reason would make it hard for those who know that they will pay a price for the vote but who hear and believe Kerry's words on the planet.

What you hear from others named in the article - are mostly positives.

Conrad and Beiglish praised him for reaching out to their constituents. Graham spoke of never seeing anyone as committed on an issue - and think of all the people that Graham has worked with. His comment that Kerry's willingess to sit down with Pickens speaking volumes about him as a person was clearly high praise. In a documentary on McCain/Kennedy, Graham had an almost Kerryist way of speaking about how what they did had to mean something - policy over politics. I would not be surprised that if Kerry managed to get 59 - Graham would return - doing the right thing knowing his political career would end January 2015.

Reid is described as "impressed".

Durbin is described as fearing it will hit a brick wall - which could happen - if it does, nothing has really been lost - they can then go for an energy bill. I suspect that the "senior Democrat" who expressed concern on responding to BP and said "typical Democrat" is likely Schumer. As to nonsense of "popularity" among the Democrats - it is highly unlikely that anyone will vote for or against this because they like or dislike the leader. Levin even contradicts himself after saying Kerry is not the leader on this - suggesting he is the leader of the leaders. I doubt that it is Bingaman's great popularity that makes many prefer his bill, it is that they really don't want to price carbon. (Menedez is being a jerk - trying to make points with the liberals, who actually will never accept him due to other issues.)

Note the implicit assumption that the centrists are the popular people that can make these deals (but Leiberman doesn't count). The fact is that Ted Kennedy did. Also note that Baucus, who can go on for hooouuurrss in the Finance committee thought the presentations too long - but refused to single out Kerry.

The most infuriating thing about the situation is that Kerry is doing what the liberals always say they want a leader to do - fighting hard to gain an elusive but incredibly important goal - yet they are attacking him.

[Inuca]

20. I agree, very interesting article

Among other things, some quite intertesting "insider" bits. I was truly impressed by Graham's comments. I know he can be a jerk, but he is an honest jerk, and quite a gutsy one. I don't exactly like him, but I do respect him (most of the times).

[karynnj]

19. Wonderful response to this " head-scratching piece about how Kerry is just, well trying too hard"

from Tree Hugger:

I have an explanation as to why Kerry is pushing the issue so hard, and is reluctant to switch to a near-worthless energy-only bill: he gets it, and his colleagues do not.

He knows that a so-called "energy only" bill would have a severely limited impact on clean energy generation and would do alarmingly little to reign in national carbon emissions. He knows an "energy only" bill would not stop global warming. And his colleagues do not.

Perhaps John Kerry understands not only the historical importance of passing such a bill, but that history would also look kindly at an instrumental player in the legislative battle to preserve a livable climate. His colleagues, those like Sen. Rockefeller, who are "put off" by Kerry's "zeal" surely do not fully understand the threat presented by global climate change. Kerry should be emphatically urging his colleagues to rally behind a clean energy and climate bill -- he should be displaying fervor. The issue, as we know, certainly warrants it.

Which is why I say that if this climate bill dies, as many pundits are predicting, it won't be Kerry's fault.

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2010/06/climate-bill-dies-dont-blame-john-kerry.php

[wisteria]

21. That is good commentary. n/t

[beachmom]

22. I guess it was a matter of time before the knives came out. SOMEBODY has to take the blame.

The truth is John Kerry has substantively (not in a show boat way but in a REAL way) not given up on a carbon cap. He's not given fawning articles in the Huff Post for his work, but he actually is DOING the work.

I hate to always be all over Chuck Schumer, but, ahem, he clearly considers John Kerry some kind of threat and has repeatedly undermined Kerry's efforts to get the Senate to deal with global climate change. (Remember that Schumer and Reid were behind the immigration push and this BS idea of having an energy only bill with a climate change amendment which effectively kills cap & trade). I mean, SERIOUSLY, they're saying he's being a pain in the ass, but you know, this isn't some rinky dink pet cause. This is something America needs to deal with.

Frankly, this reminds me of the articles in 2006 knocking Kerry's deadline for withdrawal from Iraq. Oh, that JOHN KERRY, he's such a pain. Why won't he go to the sidelines and just SHUT UP! Sounds like he is actually making a heroic effort over there in the most exclusive club in the world. And they don't want a boy scout messing up their system. They want to hodge podge together an EASY DO NOTHING energy bill and then run for re-election so that they can do nothing if they survive their races. Sigh.

Heck, go back to his days at St. Paul. It's always the same. It reminds me that he is one of the good guys, and we should be grateful for that.

Just checked the Twitter feed. LOVE this quip from David Roberts of Grist:

Max Baucus, who wasted 3 mos. in fruitless pursuit of bipartisan #HCR, says Kerry's presentation on #APA was too long: http://bit.ly/9k1M2O

Heh.

[wisteria]

24. If it wasn't so sad, it would be funny all of these attacks against Kerry working to hard to do some

good.

Your post contains a lot of very good points.

[karynnj]

26. I love David Roberts quip

The sad thing is that Baucus' comment likely translates to he was not really listening and wanted it to end - so they could avoid doing anything. You question what the point of having a majority or even a super majority is if you fail to actually try to legislate. The knifes are out, but looking at the articles spun from it - I think the knifers are the ones mostly losing.

I hope that much of the environmental community sees it like Treehugger.

The always snarky and tasteless Wonkettee skewers those wanting to just do nothing - though in a typically tasteless way. Eliminating their disgusting use of Rockefeller's comment:

Everyone in the Senate is annoyed and a little scared of 2004 sore-loserman John Kerry, who has decided to get super dedicated to making an energy bill that actually does something to make the world less likely to die soon. Wanting to pass something like this makes one a crazy person, they say, because the American public will not stand for making the planet less hot. Once you stop putting pressure on our lazy planet, it stops giving us oil, and we don’t want that, so why are you trying to stop us from turning up the heat, John Kerry?
<snip>
John Kerry, pick up a hobby! Go windsurf or something! Stop trying to use your political power to do anything but maintain the status quo! You’re grossing people out!
<snip>
Ewwwwww. Just stop it, John Kerry. Do we need to get a restraining order against you? Look, we’re gonna pass another huge energy bill that does little to nothing to actually fight climate change. You don’t have the votes for your gross ideas about protecting the planet, so STOP.

Read more at Wonkette: http://wonkette.com/416172/crazy-john-kerry-freaking-everyone-out-with-devotion-to-fighting-climate-change#ixzz0raDNWIbw

One thing that can be said is that it is unlikely that many are inspired by people like Reid or Schumer. Even when they succeed what have they accomplished?

[Blaukraut]

27. It takes courage to be ahead of the curve and take the lead

John Kerry has that courage. Unfortunately he has to pay a price for it, too. In the case of the climate change bill, you can't even say that he is ahead of the curve because, let's face it, cap and trade is less than perfect. But to be as woefully ignorant and behind the curve as Schumer, Reid, and others, is pathetic. They actually seem to take pride in their ability to maintain the status quo, or only moving such important legislation in puny increments.

Deliberative body, my ass. The senate has got to be the most archaic and crippling institution in history. Some serious change has to happen in the way the place operates. The system of rewarding mediocrity and being part of the 'in crowd' (the reward being reelection and/or cushy donations that create a conflict of interest) has to end.

[beachmom]

23. Excellent response from Treehugger:

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2010/06/climate-bill-dies-dont-blame-john-kerry.php

I have an explanation as to why Kerry is pushing the issue so hard, and is reluctant to switch to a near-worthless energy-only bill: he gets it, and his colleagues do not.

He knows that a so-called "energy only" bill would have a severely limited impact on clean energy generation and would do alarmingly little to reign in national carbon emissions. He knows an "energy only" bill would not stop global warming. And his colleagues do not.

Perhaps John Kerry understands not only the historical importance of passing such a bill, but that history would also look kindly at an instrumental player in the legislative battle to preserve a livable climate. His colleagues, those like Sen. Rockefeller, who are "put off" by Kerry's "zeal" surely do not fully understand the threat presented by global climate change. Kerry should be emphatically urging his colleagues to rally behind a clean energy and climate bill -- he should be displaying fervor. The issue, as we know, certainly warrants it.

Which is why I say that if this climate bill dies, as many pundits are predicting, it won't be Kerry's fault.

[wisteria]

25. It is a good response. n/t

[wisteria]

28. The Democrats met today on the climate/energy bill, and Senator Kerry released a statement

about the outcome. He sounds positive.


“I just left one of the most motivating, energized, and even inspirational caucuses that I’ve been a part of since I’ve been here in the Senate for twenty-six years. People spoke their minds. They spoke with passion and commitment about moving forward. Moving forward on what? On creating millions of jobs in America, on reducing our dependency on foreign oil, and securing control of our own energy future while reducing pollution based on the principle that the polluter pays for the pollution that they create.
“Everybody was in agreement that this is the moment. In January, the EPA has said it will move to regulate those sources of pollution in our country. Many companies have come to the table, many industries have come to the table. We have gas and coal and nuclear and renewable and alternative and energy efficiency and many others, all of whom believe this is the moment to create these jobs in our country and secure our energy future. We’re convinced that we can do it. We obviously need some Republicans to stand up and be with us, but we’re determined to bring a bill to the floor of the Senate that we think is reasonable, makes sense, and that will help Americans be able to grab a hold of the future and not leave it to China and India and Brazil and other countries that are moving much faster than we are.”


http://kerry.senate.gov/press/release/?id=ff4ff6a9-b9ab-43fc-a13b-80eb5caa98f0