The NYT has been wrong on the politics more than it has been right. They have declared the climate change part dead many times - only to have a later article marveling that it is not dead. Over the weekend, they had an article with Schumer speaking of how the right way to go on climate change was to have a group of moderates lead it - with quotes from people like Carper, who has never been helpful on this. It also ignores that clearly the fact that Reid is backing it means that Kerry has succeeded in getting far more support than was thought possible a year ago.
The one thing I take from this and from that article is that the decision REALLY is to have a climate bill. Otherwise, you wouldn't have the people who were completely willing to let it die vying to lead it. I do share your concern that there could be an effort to remove Kerry to weaken the bill, but I am not sure that is really happening.
Remember it was slightly over a week ago, that Politico had a mocking hit piece where Kerry was painted as if he were driving everyone nuts pushing something that had no choice - but unable to stop it. (
http://dyn.politico.com/members/forums/thread.cfm?catid=1&subcatid=1&threadid=4180327&start=1¤tPage=1) They and other articles spoke of Kerry being given the chance to make his case to the caucus almost as if it were a bone that Reid was throwing to a senior Democrat out of some residual respect for him, not because it had any chance of succeeding. Then days later, there was the euphoric caucus.
As to a utility only cap, because Kerry et al, designed their bill with different controls for different sectors, the cap and trade type piece for the utilities already exists in Kerry's bill - and Kerry has worked with the utilities on this issue since at least 2005. He and Markey doing parallel (and I bet co-ordinated) work in the House, are the ones that really brought many of them to the table. The efforts they made to convince the industries that a cap could work and not harm them - just as they were not harmed by the sulfur dioxide caps - is key to why they are on board.
Their argument that Kerry is a "partisan magnet" is more true in perception outside the Senate, than within. Kerry was demonized as the Democratic nominee. However, I have NEVER seen the NYT argue that Schumer is partisan - when he, in fact, is more partisan and political in his actions within the Senate. But at least in 2005/2006, there was some truth to the Republicans not wanting Kerry to get credit. I do remember Kerry quickly engaging his Small business staff to write an excellent bill to help within days of Katrina - then seeing it become first Kerry/Landrieu, then Kerry/Snowe, then to see it go to the floor of the Senate as Snowe/Kerry - only to change
while it was being voted to Snow/Vitter - with Kerry not even listed as a co-sponsor. After it passed with over 80 votes, the explanation of the change was that Republicans wanted his name off - and he complied to get the bill passed. What that shows was that Kerry was NOT acting in a partisan way and his bill as written was acceptable to a super majority of the Senate. The Republicans had a reason to deny Kerry credit then, that does not exist now. Kerry nearly beat Bush in 2004 and he was a threat for 2008, especially if he could point to major work with his name on it.
In a fair world, this bill would come out with Kerry's name on it, but this is not a fair world. Even when Kerry/Boxer were introduced, Boxer when some tried to get her to complain that the bill did not have her name first - said it was going to end up as Reid's bill when he combined all the pieces. More recently, defending herself from Fiorina, Boxer said:
"I knew the best thing to do after I got the gold-standard (climate) bill out of my committee was to hand it off, and now John Kerry's handing it off to Harry Reid, because he's not selfish about this. In her land-of-the CEO, it's-about-me world, where she hung her picture in the lobby and all that, that's maybe her world. It's not my world."
The leader introducing the final bill has happened before on major bills. That is what happened on Health Care too, but people still know that it was written by Baucus, Dodd, and Kennedy. (This is not unusual - everybody refers to the immigration bill that passed the Senate in 2007 as Kennedy/McCain, but if you look in Thomas, it is S 1927 and the lead sponsor is Mitch McConnell.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:SN1927: ) If a bill that prices carbon succeeds in the Senate, there is no way that John Kerry will not be seen as the man who fought with incredible persistence for it.
Bingaman really seems to have done a nice job on the oil spill bill, but he has been the leading proponent, with Dorgan, for doing an energy only bill. The real news here might be that he is willing to sign on - or even lead - on doing a bill that has climate change in it. What is very good is that the prospects of taking this first step have increased from near zero to something much higher.
If this happens, I would guess that Kerry would be very involved (with Obama administration people) in working towards the international treaty. When written, Kerry as Chair of SFRC, would sponsor the ratification. In addition, he does have his name on some very key SFRC bills - including the Pakistan aid bill that reflects deeply held ideas of his and the bill to redefine how America does foreign aid.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
