Immigration reform has been fast tracked ahead of climate legislation.

[beachmom]

Part of this is because the Hispanic vote is extremely important for some Democratic races involving a sizeable amount of the vote being Hispanic (Reid, Boxer, Bennet). It also is very popular (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/4/21/859151/-There-is-STRONG-public-support-for-immigration-reform) and has the potential to embarrassing the more cosmopolitan Republicans who actually do still want Hispanic votes.

Interestingly, though, Chuck Schumer's ambition to be majority leader may have hit a snag due to his stance on Israel, and openly blasting the Obama Administration:

http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/2010/04/has_chuck_schum/

Still, everything I have read is that K/G/L will introduce climate legislation Monday, April 26th.

All information gleamed from Twitter. I won't bother to link.

[Mass]

1. Well, if it is the case, we can say good bye to any meaningful reform on

the topic, for a bill that is not even written at this point. All I have to say to Dems is: F*ck you (and this is with all my reservations on the KGL bill).

This said, I still have not seen any source who says it has been fastracked. It is actually seen as a move to divide the GOP without really offering a bill, which would divide Democrats as well.

And Schumer criticizing Obama will not hurt his chances.

[beachmom]

2. Here is the source:

http://twitter.com/westwingreport

JMHO, but this is a good source, not Politico.

Also, Steve Benen has a post on it:

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_04/023458.php

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2010/04/immigration_vs_climate_reid_pe.html

[Mass]

3. We'll see. Twitter sources have been known to be wrong.

[beachmom]

4. Per my edit, it's not "Twitter". I know you hate the service, but it is no

better or worse than a website or news article. Who is behind the computer (and if their sources are good) is what is most important not the form it takes.

[Mass]

5. You seem to be right, but This will be the last blow for me.

There is a moral imperative solving the climate change issue, and a bill ready to be dealt with. Bye,bye, democratic party. I will choose my candidates to support in favor of their positions, not their party.

[beachmom]

6. I think it's a test leak. To see what the reaction is.

Really, it's the last blow for you? Weren't we there months ago when the original Kerry/Boxer bill was killed in exchange for the wimpy bill which still doesn't have 60 votes?

I guess, I have been skeptical that much would happen once the bill was voted out of Boxer's committee on a party line vote. Looks like the EPA will have its blunt instrument. That is where we're going. Only fear of that will get Republicans to move (and nervous nelly Democrats).

[Mass]

7. delete.

[karynnj]

8. There is also Boxer's comment in Wisteria's link, that we can do both

I think you might be correct that it is a test leak.

I think that actually passing immigration legislation or even putting out full details of a bill actually is not completely a win. There is enormous emotion on both sides on this issue. You can easily think of the type of amendments that the Republicans will attempt to add. While unemployment is still really high, there will be anger on the parts of lower class and lower middle class whites and blacks, who see immigrants as their competitors to the scarce jobs out there. If it really were a "win" bill, they would have passed it when we had 60 votes.

[karynnj]

9. I hope it doesn't come to that

However, it would be the regional and state controls and the EPA - which is a bit better than the EPA alone.

In addition to the fact that the EPA can not help the regions most hurt by any brute force regulations - making some areas bear the brunt of what has to be an enormous societal change, the problem is that that regulation could come to a screeching halt in January 2013 or 2017. It also suggests that significant regulation - enough to hurt - will not be done by the EPA. President Obama can not win re-election if he loses most of the midwest coal states.

Reading the letter from the coal states Senators is what convinces me that only likely effective way to reduce emissions - even the 17% in Kerry's bill - is a national law. Even if the areas currently reducing their emissions, like CA and the Northeast, do an amazing job, the total US output will not be limited anywhere near enough because there would be few controls in the places that need it the most.

I am not ready to write off K/L/G as "whimpy" before I even see it. What is clear is that they are working very hard to find ways to identify the real problems other Senators have and find a way to deal with them. The huge deficit and the high unemployment levels make it harder. Had Gore been elected, it is interesting to wonder if he working with Kerry and others could have used the surplus to smooth the transition costs for those who will be hit the hardest.

[beachmom]

11. You are correct about us not seeing the bill yet. Some leaks will be right,

and others will be wrong (or dated). But clearly, it won't be as strong as Kerry/Boxer; otherwise, Kerry wouldn't have had to go back to the drawing board with G & L.

[karynnj]

10. New articles on the bill including some (reported) details and statements on the support of companie

The details are from a private phone call to supporters that Kerry had last night per the article. I guess that kind of equates to "unnamed source", but there are now several articles that support the details in each other.

http://views.washingtonpost.com/climate-change/post-carbon/2010/04/by_juliet_eilperin_the_nations.html

More detail from Mother Jones:

"When Sens. John Kerry, Lindsey Graham and Joe Lieberman release their climate bill on Monday, they expect to have the backing of three of the five major oil companies, Mother Jones has learned. In a conference call with a coalition of progressive business leaders on Thursday evening, Kerry said he believes those companies will "actively participate in supporting this bill." He hopes the other big oil companies will at least hold their fire on the bill, and added that he believes the American Petroleum Institute (API), the oil industry's major trade group, will call off its ad campaign attacking the legislation.

Kerry also said that the Edison Electric Institute—the main trade group representing utilities—will support their measure. "We are bringing to the table a significant group of players who were never there for the Waxman-Markey bill," Kerry said. (While Edison supported Waxman-Markey, it was opposed by several big oil companies and API).

In the teleconference, organized by the We Can Lead coalition, Kerry outlined specific details from the bill that have not previously been publicly available. Here's a rundown:"

http://motherjones.com/blue-marble/2010/04/kerry-says-climate-bill-has-industry-backing

(Both sources have detailed list - quoting the entire thing would completely violate the rules)

Here is the Reuthers article, focusing on the transportation fee.

S. senators writing a massive climate-change bill struggled on Thursday over how to reduce carbon dioxide pollution in the transportation sector, with signs of progress emerging after daylong negotiations.

"Yes sir," said Senator John Kerry when asked by a reporter whether the compromise bill to fight global warming would be ready for unveiling on Monday.

The Democrat spoke briefly to reporters after protracted meetings with Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, independent Senator Joseph Lieberman and other colleagues.
<snip>
Carol Browner, President Barack Obama's top energy and climate adviser, said in a discussion on the White House website that Kerry, Graham and Lieberman would "present" their bill on Monday. "We are working with them and are very encouraged by this bipartisan group and the progress they are making," she said.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN2213406220100422

All agree that the bill will be unveiled on Monday.

[beachmom]

12. Again, IF this is true, this is very, very, very bad.

http://washingtonindependent.com/83065/loaded-with-concessions-climate-bill-wins-backing-of-oil-companies

Markos on Twitter just said it could have been written by Inhofe. I don't agree with that, but my point is that will be the reaction by liberals in a nutshell.

Here is the provision, IF IN THE LANGUAGE ON MONDAY, that is extremely troubling:

The bill would remove the Environmental Protection Agency’s authority to regulate carbon dioxide under the Clean Air Act, and the states’ authority to set tougher emissions standards than the federal government.

There are several states that are way ahead of the federal government. California comes to mind. So this will in effect set us BACKWARDS.

I am disappointed.

[beachmom]

13. I broke my no Tweeting rule and responded to some of

the stupidity out there. Markos citing Greenpeace opposition to bill as some big deal. Hello, they opposed the House bill.

It's so funny, because I am not thrilled with this bill but then the liberal left immediately say things that are so over the top I end up defending against it. They will never learn, and I will never be able to refrain from speaking up about that.

Attack the bill with REAL STUFF, not BS crap about Inhofe or Greenpeace which hasn't been part of the negotiations like the other enviro groups.

[karynnj]

14. Here is an op-ed that counters that

From other articles, what it affects at the state or regional level are any cap and trade like provisions. The logic for that is spelled out in this op-ed.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=273x164771

From what is said, the only way to pass a bill is to agree that the bill sets out the regulations, not the EPA, which would enforce it. With the EPA consider they can't help areas where costs raise the most or help with incentives - their only tool is regulation. In addition, it ends as soon as we get the wrong President in office. (Now, if a very conservative Congress and a Republican President came in, I assume they could gut the limits - essentially turning the bill off or they could repeal it. But, either of those would be less easy than a Republican President changing the EPA rule.)

If you look at the national impact, it might not be a step backwards. Right now, you have slightly less than half the country in states that are trying on a state or regional level to reduce carbon emissions. For simplicity, assume that they have half the emissions (I think they have less than half the emissions). Without the legislation, assume the other half is unlikely to follow their example. So, unless the good states were cutting emissions by twice the amount as the federal government, this ends lower nationally.

Another thought - When you think of power plant emissions, I would bet that the amounts of many gasses in emission are highly correlated. The EPA still monitors other gasses. As plants become cleaner to reduce carbon, changing limits on other gasses might still be allowed for the EPA and states - resulting in lowering them as well.

[beachmom]

15. Thank you. That is the best thing I have read about the bill.

Who knows: maybe if the thing passes, it will be more effective than we think. Maybe like acid rain, once some kind of system is put in place, behavior changes more rapidly than one would possibly expect.

[karynnj]

17. I think I am in the same palce as you here

The off shore drilling, especially after the mess this week, and the new nuclear plants, when I still think Kerry was right a few years ago that there were problems with nuclear waste and proliferation problems in addition to the costs being too high, have really made me not very excited about this.

But, the acid rain example and that op-ed really get me back to thinking that the key is pricing carbon. Once that is started it would change things. Every micro-economics model used by a company to assess costs of alternatives would have the cost of carbon as a factor. That makes me see why things should happen faster than the legislation insists. If the cost pushes a company is going to build a plant or upgrade up, the multiyear costs would tend to push them to go with the technology that prevents them from having to do it again.

(Sort of like why if a higher grade paint means you likely will not have to repaint as soon, you might spend more now and avoid having to repaint as often.)

I'm actually more concerned politically with having to do things through the EPA. If the bill fails, it would be irresponsible to not try regulation. In the region's already working doing reduction, they could ensure that they are not disturbing that. But, what do you do in the coal states, where you have the dirtiest plants. The question is how much finesse can regulation have. If their only tool are fines and ordering plants closed, heavy enforcement would be politically costly.

I really hope that Kerry or someone does a really good job explaining all the alternatives we realistically have. I really wish that something more like Kerry/Boxer were the bill. But, I can see that it does not have the votes. The Clear Act, which has been sold well to some environmental groups strikes me as having a few good ideas - but it is not a comprehensive bill and there are too many regions that lose big, while others actually end up gaining money. I do trust that the Kerry staff and Kerry are carefully weighting each tradeoff.

Like you, I do think that there could come a point where the bill overall is a net negative versus not having it. (I think on some things, like drilling and nuclear plants they might have to be considered in the status quo, if they are near certain to pass in a just energy bill if this failed.

It is sad that the euphoria of being able to do this and to then succeed at Copenhagen is now down to something like this. I seriously do not understand how Kerry manages to keep his optimism.

[beachmom]

16. Another unnamed sources article saying immigration reform is first.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/04/23/climate-change-legislation-unlikely-this-year-say-sources/?fbid=l7s_MqhyfSw

Despite a new bipartisan push on climate change, legislation on the issue is unlikely to make it to the Senate floor this year, two Senate Democratic sources tell CNN.

...

A Kerry spokeswoman downplayed any talk of not moving on the issue before November. "There are always people who think it's impossible to tackle big challenges in an election year, but Senators Kerry, Graham, and Lieberman have been working overtime to produce an approach that can succeed," said Kerry spokeswoman Whitney Smith.

"The majority leader reiterated yesterday to them that he is committed to make this the year bi-partisan, comprehensive climate and energy reform passes the Senate and Senator Kerry knows the leader is tough and determined enough to make it happen."

What is going on?

Heh. Apparently, Graham is pissed off about this:

http://motherjones.com/blue-marble/2010/04/will-climate-bill-take-backseat-again

I also realize that Markos is poo pooing the climate bill because he wants immigration reform first. He also thinks Chuck Schumer should be majority leader. Hmm.

Second Edit:

BUT, one can't deny that the politics have suddenly made immigration reform a better prospect given the overreach in Arizona:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/24/us/politics/24immig.html?hp

Obama Assails Arizona Bill in Call to Act on Immigration

The immigration issue reclaimed some of the national political spotlight on Friday, as President Obama strongly criticized a pending bill in Arizona and called for a federal overhaul of the nation’s laws instead — an overhaul that Congressional leaders signaled they were preparing to take up soon.

Speaking at a naturalization ceremony for 24 active duty service members in the Rose Garden, Mr. Obama said that failure to act nationally on immigration would open the door to “irresponsibility by others,” an apparent reference to lawmakers in Arizona, a major gateway for immigrants entering the country.

...

Mr. Obama said the Arizona bill threatens “to undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans, as well as the trust between police and our communities that is so crucial to keeping us safe.”

He also said that he is monitoring the Arizona bill for civil rights and other implications.

“If we continue to fail to act at a federal level, we will continue to see misguided efforts opening up around the country,” Mr. Obama said.

The article also talks about "will they or won't they" push immigration reform next.

Final edit: The governor of Arizona has announced she will sign the bill.

[wisteria]

18. Immigration reform needs to be done when there is enough time to do it right.

It should not be rushed through to help a few Senator's upcoming elections. I just think about how meticulous Obama was about Afghanistan, I think IR needs to be just a carefully thought out. This will not be an easy battle and what comes out of it will having lasting effects. The KGL Climate Change bill is ready to go, and it is already well thought out and bipartisan. IMO, this is ready to be debated and should still be brought up on Monday.
But, we shall see. I will be very disappointed if it is not introduced on Monday.

[blm]

19. Schumer's rushing it because he KNOWS immigration reform WON'T HELP Dem senators running

in certain states - like NEVADA. Good way to cover that is by pushing the idea that the issue WILL HELP other Dems.

Come on....financial reform is the best issue to hang hats on for Dem party, PERIOD. Highlight financial reform and you've got THE BEST ISSUE to defeat GOPs that exists today.

[wisteria]

20. I always thought that Schumer had something to do with this. But, that is only my opinion.

It is just a hunch, I couldn't prove it.

[Luftmensch067]

21. This comes at the end of a CNN piece about possibilities for the Democratic agenda

A Kerry spokeswoman downplayed any talk of not moving on the issue before November.

"There are always people who think it's impossible to tackle big challenges in an election year, but Sens. Kerry, Graham and Lieberman have been working overtime to produce an approach that can succeed," Kerry spokeswoman Whitney Smith said.

"The majority leader reiterated yesterday to them that he is committed to make this the year bipartisan, comprehensive climate and energy reform passes the Senate, and Sen. Kerry knows the leader is tough and determined enough to make it happen."

The rest here: http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/04/23/immigration.reform.congress/?hpt=T1

[beachmom]

22. Okay. Graham is now threatening to drop the climate bill if Reid pursues immigration reform.

http://www.grist.org/article/2010-04-24-graham-says-hes-going-to-bail-on-the-climate-bill/

I have to say that on reflection it seems to me little to no work has gone on for immigration reform. Whereas Kerry with Boxer and then with Graham and Lieberman has been working for MONTHS on this bill. It's really about doing the work, and I just am annoyed with Reid and possibly Schumer on this situation. It is also possible that Lindsay Graham has had a change of heart and is using this immigration reform first moment to bail on the climate bill.

But damn, this is all ridiculous. Financial reform is on the agenda right now, to be clear. But once that is over the question is on what is next. I hope it will be climate, even if I am disappointed in the bill.

Reid's statement in response:

http://senatus.wordpress.com/2010/04/24/reid-says-hes-committed-to-passing-climate-change-and-immigration-reform-this-year/

“Immigration and energy reform are equally vital to our economic and national security and have been ignored for far too long. As I have said, I am committed to trying to enact comprehensive clean energy legislation this session of Congress. Doing so will require strong bipartisan support and energy could be next if it’s ready. I have also said we will try to pass comprehensive immigration reform. This too will require bipartisan support and significant committee work that has not yet begun.

“I appreciate the work of Senator Graham on both of these issues and understand the tremendous pressure he is under from members of his own party not to work with us on either measure. But I will not allow him to play one issue off of another, and neither will the American people. They expect us to do both, and they will not accept the notion that trying to act on one is an excuse for not acting on the other."

[karynnj]

23. I agree with both of the David Roberts' conclusions in the Grist article

I think there is an unnecessary risk in having a red state majority leader. Additionally, if they don't let climate change go now, Kerry likely will be more than unhappy - he has every right to be furious. (Reid admitted that he screwed up letting healthcare go as long as it did - which hurt Kerry doing this in the fall, with Copenhagen as a lever. At this point, Kerry has what no Democratic bill to this point has - a strong bipartisan partner, business support (healthcare had some), and military support. They have clearly done extensive negotiating - to the point where Kerry spoke of all entering zones "of discomfort".

Now, if immigration were a 100% win for the Democrats, Reid might be doing the right thing. But, it is not. If, as I think it is, is doomed to fail, it hands the rabid right a victory on a core issue - bigotry. Consider the Republicans have not had a legislative victory since Obama took office. They are likely not getting one on financial reform and they are unlikely to get one on the Supreme Court nominee. On climate change, there is a backup in the disappointing case it fails, Reid immediately can pass an all energy bill and the states will continue their regulations and EPA will have to do the best it can to fill in the rest. That at least ends in a bill passed.

Reid's decision here does not make sense. There is no immigration bill ready. Starting unprepared has never been considered the best way to succeed and a carefully drafted bill failed a few years year ago under a Republican president, who supported it and supported by Kennedy and McCain, 2 powers in their parties. We have more Democrats now, but how many Republicans that were for it then will, like McCain, reject it now? The right was incredibly energized against it then. As to voters, while it might be true we would gain more Hispanic vote, is there that much left to gain? Obama had 68% of it, 75% of the American born. Given the Republican leaning of Cuban Americans, where Obama got a record for a Democrat, 35%, we are hitting a ceiling where we are likely not to gain more. (There are no gains among Cuban Americans as they get special treatment already and aren't illegal - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Refugee_Adjustment_Act )

I wonder though, whether Obama's comment that the lack of a federal bill causes irresponsible state actions, is behind this. That might have put pressure on Reid, who has likely been pressured by Schumer.

[karynnj]

24. Rereading Graham's statement, I'm really confused on how to parse it

I don't take it as bailing on climate change at all, but rather saying that he does not want want it rolled out in an environment that will give it now chance to succeed. It sounds rather like he is pushing back on going ahead with Immigration - as his more detailed comments said. Remember it is from him that there is now no bill on that.

Meanwhile the Christian Science Monitor has a nice balanced article.

It’s crunch time for climate change legislation on Capitol Hill, and the bill to be introduced Monday could be the last chance for passage before lawmakers face voters this fall.

<snip>
It has easier requirements on emissions caps for power plants and other major contributors of greenhouse gases – easier than previous legislative proposals. It also has incentives to build new nuclear power plants. There are also provisions for offshore oil drilling.

The measure pleases no one entirely. But many environmentalists see it as the most realistic option given the current political climate. And it’s been endorsed by the Edison Electric Institute (which represents the nation’s largest power producers) as well as three major oil companies – Shell Oil Co., BP and ConocoPhillips.

<snip>
they end, with Kerry saying:
“In an election year, it is tempting to settle for the “energy-only” bill – then go home and declare victory,” he writes. “But the stakes are too high to do less than we know we can. Workers are counting on the new jobs – now. Our troops are counting on us to break dependence on foreign oil – now. Our children and grandchildren are counting on us to address the climate threat and its effects on the planet they’ll inherit – now. “

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2010/0424/Last-chance-for-climate-change-legislation

[Mass]

25. He is actually saying what I am thinking.

Both Kerry and Graham have taken political risks to get this measure out (less when it comes to Lieberman because working with the other party is his leitmotiv. And now, apparently uncontrolled rumors say that a bill that does not exist is going to be fasttracked for purely political reasons? (The AZ law is probably going to be thrown out by the Supreme Court). Why should they continue to work on something if Reid does not want it to go to the floor, and it will not go to the floor with a chance of being passed if the immigration reform goes before it. Between the SC justice confirmation and the election, there is no time.

[karynnj]

28. I agree

Kerry's comment in the Politico article that you posted of both entering zones of discomfort really means something. On Graham's side the cost is high and obvious. For Kerry, a life long environmentalist, who has worked incredibly hard on all environmental issues, risks the anger of groups like Greenpeace, which blasted both Waxman/Markey and Kerry/Boxer. It really his his huge credibility that has kept some of those groups tepidly supportive.

Lieberman actually stands to gain - but only because he has nothing to lose. The Republicans would want him for the gain of a seat, but their are many issues they dislike him on - and he has little popularity among Democrats.

I am completely impressed with both Kerry and Graham.

[wisteria]

26. I don't think Graham is doing this to pull away from Climate Change.

I think he stuck his neck out for his right now, and Immigration Reform still needs a lot of work. When I first heard his statement, I did not take it to mean that he was pitting one against the other, just that the Climate Bill was to go next and this is what he had expended a lot of time and energy on.

Personally, I do not think now is the time to just bring up immigration reform. This issue has got to be well thought out. And, I do not think any legislation has a chance in passing right now. Republicans are not going to go along with anything knowing to do so would help Democrats in the upcoming elections.

[Mass]

27. It has been postponed. I will channel John Stewart to say to the Dems: F*ck you.

http://www.forexyard.com/en/news/SENATOR-JOHN-KERRY-SAYS-UNVEILING-OF-CLIMATE-BILL-MONDAY-HAS-2010-04-24T221057Z-US

[beachmom]

29. Actually, I think the phrase is "Go F**k Yourself", preferably accompanied by a gospel choir.

Sigh.

[wisteria]

31. LOL, yeah, that is even better. This is the end for Democrats.

Right or wrong, Immigration Reform is more volitile than Health Care, and in this job climate, it looks like Democrats are choosing the illegals over other Americans. This is a gift to Republicans who will vote no on everything and will frame this perfectly to their benefit. I certainly agree with the principles of reform, but the timing is bad right now.
I will not support the Democrats on this move right now. Any bill is DOA and this is nothing but politics at it worse.

[karynnj]

32. I will support it if by some miracle, they are able to write a

good, thoughtful bill that does the right things. I will then eat my words if they have a second miracle and a significant number of Republicans opt to do what they didn't do when asked to by their President Bush.

This is an issue that needs to be dealt with for the reasons Kennedy worked on it. The current situation is untenable. There are over 12 million people who are in this country illegally, limiting what they can do and leaving them open to victimization. Some have been here for decades and have raised families, where the kids, born here are Americans. Many of these kids have no real ties to the country they "came from". They need a path to citizenship. We also do need to have control of people entering the country. This is an important issue.

Now, miracles can happen, but I seriously do not see the "say no" Republicans buying into a bill that creates a path to citizenship. I can see them pushing for a punitive bill like the one in Arizona.

[wisteria]

33. Oh, I agree with all you say, I am just not at all optomistic that any good will come from Reid's

move. All those things you mentioned need to be addressed correctly and this is going to take time. Forget about Republican support and even some Democratic support. I have already heard from people who support what was done in Arizona, and add to that the fear many have that with jobs scarce, the illegals are being given jobs that American's should have.

[wisteria]

30. I agree! n/t

[karynnj]

34. I googled to find more on what Schumer said on Israel

He really is over the top.

Even NY Magazine was stunned by part of his interview on a Jewish radio show.

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." Meanwhile, Jennifer Rubin at the blog Contentions points out one other intriguing remark from the interview, one which, she suggests, would drive the media bonkers if uttered by Sarah Palin instead of a liberal like Schumer.

Near the end of the interview, this is how Schumer reiterated his devotion to the cause of Israel:

"You know, my name .... comes from the word shomer, guardian, watcher. My ancestors were guardians of the ghetto wall in Chortkov. And I believe Hashem actually gave me that name. One of my roles, very important in the United States senate, is to be a shomer — to be a or the shomer Yisrael. And I will continue to be that with every bone in my body ... "

We do think that the media, or the blogosphere at least (the most important part of the media, obviously), would probably flip out if Palin said God had a special plan for her in government. We already saw it with George W. Bush. Remember how he allegedly told Palestinian leaders that God told him to invade Afghanistan and Iraq? How he reportedly told a Texas evangelist that God wanted him to run for president? Or how he was also reported to have told an Amish group, "I trust God speaks through me." Yeah, liberals/secularists/sane people didn't really appreciate that. Is Schumer saying something similar here — that God has given him a mission to protect Israel? Honestly, we can't really tell what "Hashem actually gave me that name" is supposed to mean. We thought it was his name because it was his parents' name. We've reached out to Schumer's office for clarification.

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2010/04/schumer.html

TPM reminded me that he supported John Bolton - http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/04/24/schumer_says_hes_on_mission_from_god_to_help_israe/

[MBS]

35. climate bill collapses. .(Boston Globe front page story)

. .thanks, once again to inept dem leadership :nuke::grr::grr:
Front page of today's Globe, above the fold, impossible to miss. Quote of the day belongs to Sen. Kerry:

The American people deserve better than for the Senate to defer this debate

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2010/04/25/climate_consensus_collapses_in_senate/

Climate consensus collapses in Senate
Kerry’s bill on hold after GOP ally bolts

WASHINGTON — 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. Then his effort ran headlong into the Senate’s partisan snarl, and last night the release of the bill was postponed indefinitely.

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. “Moving forward on immigration — in this hurried, panicked manner — is nothing more than a cynical political ploy,’’ Graham said. “I know from my own personal experience the tremendous amounts of time, energy, and effort that must be devoted to this issue to make even limited progress.’’

. . .

Kerry, in a statement, cast Graham’s withdrawal as deeply regrettable but a temporary setback. He said he was determined to press forward.

“I remain deeply committed to this effort which I have worked on for more than 20 years. We have no choice but to act this year. The American people deserve better than for the Senate to defer this debate or settle for an energy-only bill that won’t get the job done.’’. . .

More (including photo) at the url
(edited to add the actual url!sorry about that)

[beachmom]

36. As usual, it was his own Democratic colleagues, not a Republican, who

stabbed Kerry in the back.

Just like 2004.

[wisteria]

39. Yes, it brings back old memories of the past of Schumer, Clinton and Reid.

All along, I was surprised it kept moving forward, especially when Smuck Schumer pushed to have immigration reform come first. I honestly never thought Reid wanted to push this bill, especially with the addition of new nuclear plants. He would of had to defend the issue of more nuclear waste in NV during and election year. I am bitter about this. It seems Senator Kerry can't get a break to do something positive for America and the American people. My prediction is this new move will bring on board Hispanics, but it will drive other Democrats away. My part of the state is disproportionately Democrat, but the have voted Republican in the last few years in droves. I think this will drive even more of them to vote for Republicans.
I do believe we need to tackle the immigration issue, but it is so complex that you just can not rush something through.

[ProSense]

37. Dems need to get a grip. An immigration reform bill

doesn't even exist. The climate bill is ready.

Think Progress:

In summary: although Lieberman and Hoyer attempted to debunk the rumor, Senate leadership and the White House refused to address the rumor of timing spread by anonymous Democratic staffers and officials. Graham, who has also been the lead Republican working on immigration with Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), announced Saturday he would not participate in a bill rollout with its fate on the Senate calendar placed in competition with unwritten immigration legislation.

[Mass]

38. Well, way too many Dems in the Senate did not want to vote on this bill.

No surprise this rumor spread like fire.

[wisteria]

41. But, it has also been reported that they also don't want to vote on Immigration Reform either.

Actually, I am beginning to think a lot of them are chicken sh*ts that don't want to cast any difficult votes.

[wisteria]

40. I wonder who these anonymous Democrat staff are. I would wager a bet they work with Schumer. n/t