Two Different Spins on the Cap and Trade Vote in the House . . .

by Little Miss Attila on June 27, 2009

The Hill:

Even though Sen. Majorty Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) holds the bill’s fate in his hands, House Republicans intend to hammer Speaker Pelosi’s signature climate-change measure over recess.

And GOP Conference Chairman Rep. Mike Pence (Ind.) said “we have only just begun to fight” as he left the Capitol Friday night.

Pence encouraged GOP rank-and-file lawmakers to hold energy summits in their districts over the Independence Day recess. In the recess packets sent home with members, he even included directions on how to organize energy summits.

The goal of holding an energy forum is to “educate your constituents about the Democrats’ national energy tax legislation and let them know what ‘all of the above’ solution you support.”

“All of the above” solution is a reference to the Republicans’ plan that would increase the use of and exploration for domestic energy supplies.

Further, officials with the House GOP’s campaign arm, the National Republican Congressional Committee, confirm that they will run with paid media over recess in districts of conservative Dems who voted for the bill. The official would not reveal details on the ad buys at this time.

One Democrat was upset that his leaders would needlessly force vulnerable Dems to vote for a bill that will come back to haunt them. Mississippi Rep. Gene Taylor (D) voted against the measure that he says will die in the Senate.

“A lot of people walked the plank on a bill that will never become law,” Taylor told The Hill after the gavel came down.

Stan Collender:

The margin was narrow but isn’t the big story. The ultimate political value for the White House is that it was able to get the bill adopted at all but still allow 44 Democrats to vote against it. Not asking Democrats to walk a political plank will pay huge dividends later this year and in the 2010 elections because those members who needed to vote against it were able to do so. And, of course, the White House didn’t have to use up huge favors in the process.

Having voted against the administration’s climate change bill on the record means that at least some of theese House Democrats will be able to vote for what emerges from a House-Senate conference later in the year. Therefore, the chances of a climate bill being enacted this year is now much greater than it was 24 hours ago.

But the bigger story is that the White House once again has demonstrated an excellent ability to get Congress to go along with the things it wants. In fact, the climate change bill is the latest in what has now been a steady series of legislative victories for the Obama administration.

Obviously, Stan thinks this bill will pass the Senate; his appears to be a minority opinion. It’s interesting that both articles discuss “walking the plank” in terms of voting for the bill, whereas Michael Goldfarb has a friend who posited that the 50 Dems who voted against the bill “lost their jobs” for no reason, given the supposed deadness of the bill in the Senate, which Inhofe seems quite confident of:

“It doesn’t matter,” he [Inhofe] declared flatly, “because we’ll kill it in the Senate anyway.”

Asked if he was confident that would be the case, Oklahoma’s senior senator said he was “absolutely certain.” He noted that it would take 60 votes to break an anticipated Republican filibuster over cap and trade and predicted the most the Democrats can muster is about 34.

He said all the hubbub in the House was over Pelosi’s desire to attend a conference in Copenhagen and be able to stand up and say, “Oh, we’ve passed this out of the House and we’re going to lead the way in America” but it’s not going to pass the Senate.

Would Pelosi really do such a thing just to make herself look good at a Danish conference on climate? Yeah. I think she would.

And yet Collender is calling this a victory for the White House; presumably Obama can use it as some sort of fig leaf as well. And yet one would hope that both the President and the Speaker would be above this sort of cosmetic silliness.

But the important question will be how those Democrats who angered their centrist constituents by voting for the bill, and those who angered their leftist constituents by voting against it, will feel if and when the Cap and Trade goes down in the Senate.

Not to mention the eight Republicans who voted for it and have ignited a firestorm among those who feel that Cap and Trade would be enormously destructive if it ever became law.

Hat tips to Memeorandum and the Air.

[Some of the copy in this entry has been reinstated after I didn’t save it properly last night.]

{ 3 comments… read them below or add one }

Glenn Cassel AMH1(AW) USN RET June 28, 2009 at 3:24 am

And “a walk up those 13 steps” would be much more appropriate.

Reply

Nicole June 28, 2009 at 6:55 am

I’m pretty sure that “cosmetic silliness” is a very appropriate way to describe about 85% of everything in politics at the moment. Good phrase.

Reply

smitty June 28, 2009 at 9:12 am

>Obviously, Stan thinks this bill will pass the Senate; his appears to be a minority opinion.

I submit that this is not the point. Obviously HR2454 won’t pass as-is in the Senate–there will be some mutation.
The real story is the increasing attention paid to the wild banana-republic nonsense going on in the Congress.
Disgraceful.

Reply

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: