To say I am madder than hell is an understatement.
Climate consensus collapses in Senate
In one of the proudest moments of his long legislative career, Senator John F. Kerry was poised to unveil a long-awaited climate change bill tomorrow that would put a price on carbon emissions and provide billions of dollars in incentives to industry to drastically cut greenhouse gases.
Kerry had brought business on board, and even forged something rare in Washington, a bipartisan compromise with a key Republican leader.
...
Senator Lindsey Graham, the South Carolina Republican who had allied himself with Kerry on the issue, abruptly abandoned the effort last night, saying he was irate that the Senate’s Democratic leadership might proceed with a controversial immigration bill first.
Yeah, the usual knee jerk reaction here on DailyKos would be to blame the Republican. Not this time. Before I read about Graham seething over this sudden switch of "Immigration reform first", I read the news myself and couldn't believe it. I'm not saying that immigration reform isn't important; it is. Especially in light of what has happened in Arizona. But there actually is a way the Senate moves legislation (ever so slowly ...) through its chamber. Climate has been way ahead of immigration whereas immigration hasn't even gotten off the ground (or through a committee). So let's set up why suddenly climate is dead. It all comes down to a certain Senator who wants to be Majority Leader in case Reid falls in November. This article is from January:
Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) is heading for a collision with Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) over whose pet issue will get top billing in the Senate later this year.
Schumer is taking a lead role in immigration — and is pushing Democrats to prioritize a potentially toxic issue leading up to the November elections. Kerry is a lead negotiator on climate change and is demanding that a climate bill get pushed to the front of the line.
Kerry and Schumer — who have a history of competitive tensions — are maneuvering behind the scenes to get White House and Senate leadership to promise to give their respective issues time this spring.
So let's be clear this has nothing to do with the Arizona law. This has long been in the making. Had Schumer fought fairly, I would have no problem with this friendly competition. What do I mean by playing fairly? How about do the work, get the votes, start pushing it through committees? Where has Schumer done that? Oh wait, he was too busy dissing the President about Israel:
Senator Chuck Schumer is receiving a lot of attention from an interview he gave yesterday to a Jewish radio show for some very sharp criticisms of how the Obama administration has handled its recent dustup with Israel. Schumer called the tough talk delivered to Israel by Hillary Clinton and a State Department spokesman "counterproductive," and revealed that he told the White House, "If you don’t retract that statement, you are going to hear me publicly blast you on this." Politico's Ben Smith calls Schumer "the highest-ranking Democrat to object to Obama's policies in such blunt terms," while the Washington Note's Steve Clemons suggests that "Schumer's screed gets to the edge of sounding as if he is more a Senator working in the Knesset than working in the United States Senate."
I don't have a problem with Schumer disagreeing with the President on a foreign policy issue privately, or publicly in delicate terms. But the above represents absolute treachery to me. It shows this is man who cannot be trusted, and should never be majority leader. Also, I question the wisdom of immigration reform being good for Democrats in November, most notably Reid. Yes, Markos can point to polls that immigration reform is popular, but when the sausage making begins, you can count on the right galvanizing up like never before and turning their zenophobic people out in record numbers (that will eclipse Latino voters). The truth is little work has been done on immigration reform, and it is clear that Schumer whispered into Reid's ear that pushing this may lead him out of the current pit he is in in Nevada. Now why would somebody who clearly wants to be majority leader want to help the current majority leader? Just wondering . . .
Meanwhile, the climate bill is dead, and along with it, our last chance of doing something about climate change. Was it a flawed bill? Based on leaks, yes it was. But unlike health care reform (with or without Scott Brown in the mix), climate always needed bipartisan support due to regional differences that meant certain Democrats were going to be definite nays. I understand if many concerned about climate change were extremely disappointed in what was going to be in the bill; I was among them. Kate Sheppard of Mother Jones had the lowdown of the unholy alliances Kerry had to make so that the legislation had a prayer of passing the Senate with 60 votes. Still, a Harvard environmental economist put into perspective how important it was to pass this bill, flaws and all.
But here is my question to those who doubt this legislation: when will there be a better time to pass climate legislation? Now, when Democrats have a sizeable majority in the Senate or after November? To those who care about climate change, I think the answer is clear. However, because of a scheming majority leader wannabe and a nervous nelly current majority leader, we are not even allowed to debate the merits of this bill. Their egos and fears have killed this bill. And frankly, I am as angry about their betrayal as Lindsay Graham is.
Update
Steve Benen has a critical piece on Lindsay Graham along with more details on what has happened on immigration reform. So here is how he concludes:
In terms of the calendar, I'm generally inclined to agree with Graham's larger point -- given that the climate bill has already passed the House, and so much of the legwork has already been done it for the next round, it makes sense to me for the Senate to finish Wall Street reform, then tackle energy, then immigration. I'm even inclined to agree with Graham that Dems are using political considerations, not policy goals, to prioritize between the competing policies.
But by threatening to kill both of the efforts he's already invested so much time in, Graham is overreacting on an almost comical scale. Graham can't call on the president to step up on immigration, and then throw a fit when the president does as he asks.
It's enough to make me wonder if, perhaps, Lindsey Graham wasn't really serious about either initiative, and last night's tantrum is the result of a senator who's negotiated in bad faith.
I still think the Senate leadership blew it and gave Graham an opening here.
Update 2
More damning than my diary is Think Progress's timeline.
What Climate Progress says.
H/T RLMiller