Schumer Walks Back Pessimistic Climate Change Prediction

[ProSense]

Schumer Walks Back Pessimistic Climate Change Prediction

Brian Beutler

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) is now walking back his statements from earlier this morning, which cast serious doubt on the prospects of the Senate addressing climate change.

"To the senator's knowledge, no decisions have been made yet on the floor strategy for legislation addressing the nation's urgent energy challenges, nor is it his decision to make," says Schumer's spokesman Brian Fallon. "Senator Schumer speculated on one procedural option, but make no mistake: he believes climate change legislation is vital to our nation's energy security and looks forward to voting for it. He is working with his colleagues to get the strongest, most comprehensive bill possible and looks forward to discussions with the rest of the leadership later this week on how to best move forward."


Schumer made a splash this morning when he predicted that forthcoming energy legislation would not include a component to cap and price global warming pollution. His statement wasn't the first indication that Senate Democrats might eschew climate legislation this Congress, but it was one of the most stark.

Climate legislation supporters have long believed that the best hope for passing legislation in the Senate is to pepper it with goodies--incentives for coal and oil state senators, and for nuclear energy production--to entice swing votes to support a comprehensive bill. If Harry Reid moves an energy-only bill, he'll remove any incentive those members might otherwise have to vote for capping and pricing carbon.

Arrrrgh!

[Teaser]

1. Schumer is a dick.

.

[IndianaGreen]

2. The only reason why I want Harry Reid to win reelection

is to keep that POS Schumer out of becoming Majority Leader.

[blm]

3. Schumer got CAUGHT trying to undermine the climate bill....I hope he gets POUNDED by activists.

He's the most duplicitous (D) operator in the legislative bodies right now.

[karynnj]

4. If life were fair - or even reasonable, this would end any chance of him being the leader

His comments were unnecessary and caused additional pessimism. Leading is helping others on your team build up momentum for things that are important - not backstabbing colleagues by whisper campaigns as he has in the past, not wimping out on hard stands led by others then having the chutzpah later to say you should have led it, or like here, being the number two guy speaking about how something will be done - before a decision is made. None of these things are acts of a person capable of leading.

Not to mention, the part of being a leader that Reid does the worst at - being the public face of the Democratic Senate, I predict Schumer would be worse at. He never manages to hide that he thinks he is smarter than others, he is smug and obnoxious. I hope the caucus vote is secret. Durbin is a really nice guy and if Reid loses, I hope that they see that Schumer would be a dysfunctional leader.

All this in addition to his unwillingness to even try to have any perspective in the middle east that is not the same as the Likud party. This is NOT true of all Jews, but it appears to be for Schumer.

[blm]

5. Schumer has a role he plays consistently...to undermine any real left progress in the Senate.

And, he has plenty of left bloggers fooled into thinking he will fight for our issues.

[Jennicut]

6. Yup. He is a total smarmy arrogant idiot. I have felt that way about him for years.

Durbin might not get the votes for majority leader if Reid loses but he would make a much better one.
Of course, Reid's poll #'s look better lately so maybe we won't have to worry about it.

[ProSense]

7. Why the hell is NPR writing an editorial against Kerry's bill?

Worse, they're fearmongering against both bills:

National Review: The Cap-And-Trade Subterfuge

by The Editors

In the wake of the BP spill, Democrats face what might appear to be an intractable political dilemma. They are under enormous pressure to pass some kind of energy bill, yet the energy bill they want to pass — one that places onerous restrictions on the use of fossil fuels — lacks the requisite support in the Senate. Fortunately for them, and unfortunately for the nation, the Democrats don't need to pass a cap-and-trade bill in order to implement cap-and-trade. Obama's EPA can do the unpopular work of rationing energy consumption while Congress can do the popular work of handing out big bags of money to the green lobby and spanking the oil companies with a handful of tax hikes.

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.) tipped the Democrats' hand yesterday. Speaking on MSNBC, Schumer noted that Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D., N.M.) passed a bill through the Energy and Natural Resources Committee last year that included massive expansions in subsidies for renewable-energy companies but did not include a cap-and-trade component. Bingaman's bill would serve as the "base" for the Senate's energy bill, Schumer said, while the cap-and-trade bill drawn up by Sens. John Kerry (D., Mass.) and Joe Lieberman (I., Conn.) would be offered "in the form of an amendment." If the Kerry-Lieberman cap-and-trade amendment is voted down, the Democrats will still be able to take credit for passing a subsidy-rich energy bill without requiring their more vulnerable members to vote for higher energy costs in the midst of a recession.

The Democrats probably don't have any choice but to handle it this way. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R., S.C.) — the only Republican who had been willing to work with Democrats on a cap-and-trade bill — has pulled his support. Nor is it clear that the Maine ladies, Republicans Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe, could bail the Democrats out this time: Sen. Ben Nelson (D., Neb.) has predicted that no cap-and-trade bill can get 60 votes in the Senate right now, signaling that he and other moderate Democrats would oppose any bill that made energy more expensive, particularly if forced to vote on such a bill right before an election.

Make no mistake: Even without cap-and-trade, the Bingaman bill would cost taxpayers and ratepayers plenty. We could ill afford the increase in green-energy subsidies even if our deficits weren't setting new records each month. And the bill includes a requirement that utility companies sharply increase the percentage of their electricity that they generate from renewable sources, which will result in higher energy bills.

more

Assholes.

[karynnj]

8. I misread the article as being from National Review (due to the title)

and thought they were their usual right wing selfs. It is amazing in the last bolded part that they say on the Bingaman bill that M We could ill afford the increase in green-energy subsidies even if our deficits weren't setting new records each month. And the bill includes a requirement that utility companies sharply increase the percentage of their electricity that they generate from renewable sources, which will result in higher energy bills."

Note - apparently all the subsidies for fossil fuel are ok.