For once the adminstration and House Dem leadership went all out for their position. Result: passage of a "climate" bill that's pretty crappy

“This energy bill’s fine print betrays its laudable purpose. The real 'cap' is on the public interest and the 'trade' is the billions from the public to polluters. . . . This bill is 85% different from what President Obama proposed months ago. No wonder his Budget Director called this type of bill ‘the largest corporate welfare program in history of the United States.’ Until greatly improved, until families share in the billions this bill grants powerful lobbies, I cannot support it.”

-- Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-TX), yesterday on the House floor
(and yet he wound up voting for the bill -- see below)

by Ken

I've been focusing in recent days on my dread about the alarmingly evolving health care reform situation, and so haven't had a chance to express my parallel dread about the even more dreadful Waxman-Markey American Clean Energy and Security (ACES) bill that squeaked through the House last night, with a bunch of unsurprising Democratic defections and, finally, some pleasantly surprising Republican ones.

Howie wrote last night about the politics of it. I'm afraid, though, that I don't derive much satisfaction from this "victory."

As best I can tell -- and here naturally I have to depend on the people I trust most when it comes to energy and environmental issues, since I don't begin to understand the intricacies of them -- the bill is on balance crap. For all that its proponents keep insisting that, despite the president's lofty approval ratings and the overwhelming Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress, this is "the best bill we can get now," and that somehow it's going to be magically "improved" before final passage, or maybe after passage, this strikes me as delusion, perhaps induced by an excess of hope and a shortage of real-world facts to pin that hope on. Now that the polluters have gotten more than they could have hoped for from an energy bill, why on earth would they give up what they've won?

The only question, really, is whether the bill is so bad that we would be better off, from an environmental standpoint, with no bill at all. At this point, I encourage you to click through to a Get Energy Smart Now blogpost yesterday by my go-to guy on these issues, A Siegel, in which he recorded the announced opposition on the House floor of two stalwartly pro-environmental congressmen, Peter DeFazio (D-OR) and Lloyd Doggett (D-TX).

To be sure, Siegel notes: "This was, it is quite likely, a difficult call as there are quite strong (and even compelling) arguments to vote for the bill despite its flaws. Honestly, in their shoes, I don’t know what statement I would have made today."

In fact, in a Thursday post Siegel expressed his admiration for the president's eloquent speech on behalf of ACESl:

In his comments, the President emphasized that this is a “jobs bill”, tying this quite directly to prospects to dig ourselves not just out of the climate hole, but our unemployment hole. The President’s statement is a strong one, a powerful discussion of the value of meaningful, strong climate legislation. And, it will (should) be hard for any Democratic member of the House to ignore his call for a yes vote.

But that doesn't mean that the ACES bill lives up to the president's rhetoric. Let's go to what Congressman Doggett had to say yesterday. Here's a full transcript of the above clip:

This energy bill’s fine print betrays its laudable purpose. The real "cap" is on the public interest and the "trade" is the billions from the public to polluters. It is too weak to greatly spur new technologies and green jobs.

An Administration analysis shows that doing nothing actually results in more new renewable electricity generation capacity than approving this bill. Vital authority for the EPA is stripped, but 2 billion additional tons of pollution are authorized every year, forever. Residential consumer protection incredibly is entrusted to the mercy of utility companies. Exempting a hundred new coal plants and paying billions to Old King Coal leaves him, indeed, a very merry old soul.

This bill is 85% different from what President Obama proposed months ago. No wonder his Budget Director called this type of bill "the largest corporate welfare program in history of the United States." Until greatly improved, until families share in the billions this bill grants powerful lobbies, I cannot support it.

I know there's a lot to take in here, but this whole business is so complicated, and so far beyond the realm of most of our experience, and the stakes are so high, that I really urge you to read the congressman's remarks carefully. There is, at the very least, a strong case to be made that the net effect of the bill is to codify present pollution levels and reward polluters for continuing to pollute.

As a matter of fact, though, Congressman Doggett, under heavy pressure from the House Dem leadership, wound up voting for the bill, as Siegel noted in an update. Here's Mike Willis's Washington Independent report late yesterday afternoon:

Earlier this afternoon, Friends of the Earth, an environmental group that opposes the Democrats’ soon-to-be-voted-on climate change bill, shot out an email commending Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas) for his shared opposition.

They’ll want to take that back. Doggett just took to the House floor to announce that he’s now supporting the bill. The reason? He was tired, he said, of listening to the members of “the flat earth society” across the aisle making “inane” arguments.

So there we are, caught between a rock and a hard place. Don't be fooled by the predictable all-obstructionist all-the-time right-wing opposition. This bill is so bad that the polluters must have been popping the champagne last night. The "Just Say No" Republicans said no mostly because that's all they do. As we know by now, they don't even listen to anything the president says. They know it's all vetted by their cadres of oppo researchers to develop tomorrow's "Just Say No" talking points.

Maybe the only thing to do is close our eyes and make believe, as a number of environmental groups appear to have done. As A Siegel pointed out in his post yesterday, in announcing their opposition to ACES, Congressmen DeFazio and Doggett were writing off future support from the League of Conservation Voters (LCV), which on Tuesday -- describing ACES as "the most important piece of environmental legislation to ever come before the House of Representatives," with "the potential to transform America by creating clean energy jobs, improving our national security, and protecting our planet from global warming pollution" -- announced "the unprecedented decision that the organization will not endorse any member of the House of Representatives in the 2010 election cycle who votes against final passage of this bill."

(Side note on typical Inside the Beltway weasel-wording: Note that the language specifices voting "against final passage of this bill." In other words, in typical congressional fashion, members are apparently free to oppose the bill all they like without incurring the wrath of the LCV, as long as they vote for "final passage.")

To end on the most optimistic note possible, let's give the last word to LCV president Gene Karpinski, who wrote in his Tuesday letter to all House members, “The stakes could not be higher; a safer, healthier planet and a new energy economy hang in the balance, and it’s imperative that members of Congress be on the right side of history.”

If that's not enough, I expect it's just a matter of time before we hear that Santa Claus and the tooth fairy are endorsing ACES.

#

DRAFT PETER DEFAZIO-- FOR A BETTER OREGON AND A BETTER AMERICA

My friend Carla is the co-founder of my favorite Oregon blog, Loaded Orygun, the place I always turn to when I want to know what's going on beyond Doolittle country. She's also an effective progressive activist who is working with other progressive activists to draft Congressman Pete DeFazio to run against ribber stamp Senator Gordon Smith. I asked her to write something up about the Draft DeFazio movement that is sweeping Oregon and I asked her if there is any way DWT readers could help.

Last week, a group of local activists in Oregon founded DeFazio For Senate, the movement to put a top-tier candidate into the race against one of the Democrats' top-three Senate targets for 2008.

It's been a bit of a whirlwind since then. The blog response in our great state has been tremendous; it's a real delight to see everyone pitching in a common cause. Apologies if I've missed somebody, but here's who's caught the buzz since Loaded Orygun blog broke the news:

• Blue Oregon of course led the way, with Launched! Draft DeFazio Blog & Fundraising Drive

• There's Middle Earth Journal--Draft DeFazio
• Persuasion, Perseverance and Patience chimed in with DeFazio. Senate. 2008.
• Journalist Randy Stapilus at Ridenbaugh Press gave us Feeling a Draft
• Metroblogging Portland set the imperative: Run, DeFazio, Run
• There have also been blog updates in the state press. The Oregonian's Politics Blog ran a piece yesterday called Bloggers hot for Defazio to take on Smith
• Not to be outdone, Pulitzer-winning alt-weekly Willamette Week's managing editor Hank Stern ran a blurb called A "Loaded" Question: Does Peter DeFazio Feel a Draft?
• And in national blog news (besides Kos), SenateGuru2008 marked the occasion with Draft DeFazio Effort Underway, and the news has broken blue at MyDD as well..
• So the news is spreading. But we need RESULTS. Happily, we're off to a great start there, too. As of Sunday night, the tote board reads 57 donors and $1173.

But we're not satisfied. It's going to take more than that--a lot more--to get Peter off the schneid and convince him we can do this. And I emphasize the word WE; it's got to come from us or it will not come from anywhere.
So we're going to keep pushing. By Monday night, April 9th, we'd like to see either 100 donors, $2,000, or both. I know we can do it, especially if we get a little help from the netroots.
The great thing about this is that the amount of money doesn't need to be substantial at all. We're not trying to raise enough to get him through a primary; we're telling him with our actions that we're ready to REALLY work if he'll only join us and take the sceptre of leadership. So even if all you can give is $5, that's OK. It's the effort that really counts.
Here's how we're doing it: as an undeclared candidate, we can't literally contribute to a Senate fund. However, his House fund is open, and any monies in that fund can be transferred to a Senate campaign when necessary. To track donations, we're using our old friends at ActBlue.


There's been some question as to why we've decided to use the House account instead of a separate one set up for the eventual Democratic nominee. Although it's true that his seat is likely safe if he doesn't run, and then that money might be better used elsewhere, there's no general if there's no primary, and Peter likely won't enter the primary unless he sees the committment from us. By contributing to the House account, he can't help but see what's happening.
We hope you'll do your best to join us and create a REAL "surge" from the netroots. Its been done before, for Ned Lamont and Jim Webb and Larry Grant and Gary Trauner, et al...it's time to go to the mattresses again!

To donate: Draft DeFazio at ActBlue
To read about DeFazio and Gordon Smith: DeFazio for Senate from Oregon
To sign the petition: Sign the petition!

WILL PETER DEFAZIO TAKE ON GORDON SMITH IN OREGON?

There's a toss up about which Bush rubber stamp senator in a blue-leaning state will lose by the biggest margin next year. I'm betting on John Sununu in New Hampshire but both Norm Coleman of Minnesota and Gordon Smith of Oregon are still very much in the running. In fact, with last week's news that the radical right Club for Growth is targeting Smith, he could be considerably weakened going into a race against a Democrat in November '08. The Club for Growth, which operates as an internal GOP hate group, has been undermining Smith's already diminished credibility with the right-wing base by pointing out that he's "an ignorant lawmaker," and a "big spend-spending Republican." He's one of only 4 Republicans-- the others being Pete "Sneaky Pete" Domenici (NM), Heather Wilson (NM) and Joe Barton (TX)-- who have made it into the hallowed grounds of the Club For Growth Economic Hall of Shame.

Club For Growth just launched an Oregon affiliate with the express purpose of defeating Smith. Here's what they told Blue Oregon:

For too long, elected officials who claim to be fiscal conservatives have cast aside their beliefs to partake in a bloated government that insists on taking more and more from hard working families trying to achieve the American Dream. ... To instill greater integrity today, we're launching Club for Growth Oregon to put an end to these games. For us, playtime is over!

Just in time for hard right extremist Bill Sizemore to launch his campaign against Smith!

Oregon Democrats-- not to mention Chuck Schumer at the DSCC-- are watching this with extreme interest, especially after a recent poll showed Congressman Peter DeFazio beating Smith 42-38 in a head to head test. In its latest Oregon poll (March 20), Survey USA has Smith with an overall approval rating of 50%, deadly for an incumbent a year before re-election.

Oregon voters find him, confused, wishy-washing, flip-floppy and standing for absolutely nothing. He's a dead man walking. DeFazio, on the other hand, is wary about running. According to today's Register-Guard, he's considering it but loathes the idea of having to spend his time fundraising. The Eugene-based populist says he'll decide in May. It will be daunting to out-raise Smith, who always gets huge funding from wealthy Mormons, and who is already reporting almost $3 million on hand. Aside from hating to chase after buck bucks, DeFazio is lovin' his new role as chairman of the House Subcommittee on Highways and Transit which will be deciding how to spend around $400 billion in transportation infrastructure this year.

A look at the voting records of DeFazio and Smith; they are like night and day. DeFazio supports women's right to choice, fair and equitable taxation, government checks on corporate power, workers' rights, environmentalism, a strategy for ending the war in Iraq. Smith's record is putrid on every single issue. He has been a lockstep, rubber stamp nitwit for his entire Senate career, voting complacently with Bush and Cheney for the last 6 years without ever lifting an eyebrow until someone started pointing out polls to him a few months ago that showed he wouldn't win re-election. Now he's looking, desperately, for issues on which he can disagree with Cheney to make himself look "independent." It's unlikely to work.