An honest Congressman: Kucinich votes against Waxman-Markey

[GliderGuider]

Dennis Kucinich votes against climate change bill

Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), who is widely known as an advocate for the environment and for clean energy, announced on Friday that he had voted against the climate change legislation passed earlier that day by the House of Representatives.

“I oppose H.R. 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009,” Kucinich stated in a press release. “The reason is simple. It won’t address the problem. In fact, it might make the problem worse.”

“It sets targets that are too weak, especially in the short term, and sets about meeting those targets through Enron-style accounting methods,” he continued. “It gives new life to one of the primary sources of the problem that should be on its way out — coal — by giving it record subsidies.”

Kucinich was especially scathing in his criticism of the bill’s extensive compromises with the coal industry — compromises that were largely negotiated by Representative Rick Boucher (D-VA), who hails from a coal-mining district in Virginia and has been the recipient of generous coal company donations.

Kucinich is one the the very few political rascals in the US that I have the time of day for, and my respect for him is unbounded. The comparison between his political stands and career and those of Obama show clearly the price of power.

[Egalitariat]

1. I disagree. He's grandstanding to beef up his uber-liberal credentials for his next presidential

campaign.

"An honest congressman" would have opposed the bill before the vote instead of after it, as Kucinich did. He waited to oppose it only after he knew it had passed instead of working to defeat it. Straight politics.

[RBInMaine]

2. But, politics is the art of compromise, like it or not, or things will never get done.

This bill has many good features. It was strongly opposed by R's which should tell you there were some good things in it. Sometimes you need to make a start and not make the perfect the enemy of the good. Ideological purist zealots seldom achieve much.

[Birthmark]

4. Let's hope that the climate knows how to compromise.

Doesn't seem likely, but maybe if we explain to the climate about the good features and artistic compromise, the climate will cooperate with us.

Chances are, though, not enough is going to turn out to be not enough.

[XemaSab]

5. Anything is better than nothing

And nothing is what we're going to get if we have to hold out for a bill that meets DK's standards.

[Birthmark]

8. Anything is better than nothing?

Um, that ain't necessarily so, is it? Think about it.

[RBInMaine]

11. Most adults know you don't always get all you want all at once in politics. Try growing up.

[Birthmark]

13. Thank you

...for one of the more brainless posts I've seen recently. It was quite entertaining.

Hey, do you suppose if you fall off a cliff and try to compromise with gravity (in a most grown up fashion, of course), that you will fall more slowly? If so, then please stay away from ledges.

[jefferson_dem]

3. There's a reason why Obama is a leader and Kucinich has been relegated to cartoonish "gadfly" status

Politics...American style...is all about the art of compromise.

As usual, Dennis is too cute for his own good. For all his blustery claims of principle, the end result of his posturing is promotion of the status quo. Perhaps he can go back on FauxNews and help us better understand why the bill isn't good enough for him.

[bananas]

15. Kucinich is one of the people Obama has to compromise with.

Kucinich is a leader, Obama is just a follower.
Obama is just going with the flow, following the course of least resistance.
Without Kucinich, Obama would be compromising between DLC DINO's from coal states and Repubicnut wackos.

[nevergiveup]

6. I like Dennis

but this was a publicity vote and everyone knows it. Maybe a call from Gore would have helped to ground Dennis but I doubt it.

[pscot]

7. Forty Democrats voted against WAxman Markey

I'm not sure all were motivated by a desire for a tougher bill. Crippled as this package is, it will have a very hard road in the Senate. The Democrats need 60 votes, and they are nowhere near that. Clearly, not everyone in the country or in the Congress shares our sense of urgency. For this to get done at all, it will have to be done in stages. It may well be too little, too late, but that's the way things work.

[pjt7]

9. good post

~

[depakid]

10. Dems COULD take care of this through reconcilliation

though that would require political fortitude.

[pscot]

12. One of the Bluest of the blue dogs

Gene Taylor of Mississippi, was pissed that the leadership forced a vote on the bill. He said it would damage Democrats in conservative districts and was going to die in the Senate anyway, so what was the point. "A lot of people walked the plank on a bill that is never going to become law." said Taylor. The quote came from The Hill via David Kurtz over at TPM. Taylor is kind of an asshole, but he's no dummy. I wouldn't give even money right now on this thing passing the Senate.

[excess_3]

14. does anybody actually believe the 'only costs $200 per household'

story, if so, that same person

probably also believes/d the story that California gasoline
will only be 5 cents more when the formula was changed.

[HamdenRice]

16. Many people who have studied the issue think "cap and trade" actually works better

It is not a matter of honesty or dishonesty. It's a matter of what people think actually works.

The problem with Kucinich's position is that cap and trade have worked very, very well for other forms of pollution -- iirc, in fact, much more quickly and efficiently than even those who first proposed it thought it would. If I were voting on it, the fact that this mechanism has worked in the past would be a big factor in my decision.

I believe there are very serious potential problems applying cap and trade to carbon emission and to applying it internationally.

But it is absolutely wrong to assume that every congress person who prefers cap and trade to carbon tax is dishonest compared to Kucinich being honest. Support for one or the other method is a topic over which reasonable people can disagree reasonably.