Okay, Graham just lost me now.

[beachmom]

I really think Reid fumbled last week, and it's not so easy to fix it. But, now I am putting more blame on Graham who is being ridiculous with his demands.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/04/graham-ill-filibuster-my-own-climate-bill-unless-reid-drops-immigration-altogether.php

Graham: I'll Filibuster My Own Climate Bill Unless Reid Drops Immigration Altogether

When Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid decided that he would bump climate-and-energy legislation behind immigration reform as his next priority, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) was apoplectic. Graham, along with Sens. John Kerry (D-MA), and Joe Lieberman (I-CT), had spent months drafting a climate/energy bill, and was prepared to introduce it Monday, when, enraged by Reid's plan, he backed out.

Earlier today, Reid appeared to reverse course, saying climate/energy would be the next logical issue to address, followed only afterward by immigration reform. So everything's groovy, right?

Far from it. Tonight, Graham told me that he will filibuster his own climate change bill, unless Reid drops all plans to turn to immigration this Congress.

Now it is Graham who is playing games. Can Kerry the Diplomat solve this impasse? I just don't know.

[YvonneCa]

1. He always plays games. That's why I can't...

...trust him.

[JI7]

5. i feel the same way about him

i think his personal feelings on issues are probably on the right side. but he is from south carolina, he is mccain's friend and wants him re-election. it's easy for the right wing to threaten him to go along with him.

remember during some speech obama gave to congress. it might have been state of the union and graham was about to clap but saw the republicans around him werne't going to so he stopped.

[karynnj]

2. I wonder whether Kerry will find Graham harder to walk back to

good judgment than Karzai. The question might be if the immigration thing was just an excuse.

[wisteria]

3. I really don't know whether to believe some of these quotes associated with Graham or not.

Is he too involved in his own hype? Is this getting out of hand? Or, is the media making more of every word than they should. I remember Kerry saying that things were going on behind the scenes that the media don't know about. Are we getting just bits and pieces? It would seen Graham is gone a bit to far in his demands, but then I really do not know that. I read today the Reid has decided to take up Climate Change first, but then there is still the immigration issue. Maybe Graham wants some assurances that he won't be dragged into any discussion. I will say I do not think the Left's portrayal of him as a baby is helping.

[beachmom]

4. Sigh, not a good article:

http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2010/04/27/27climatewire-senate-clilmate-bill-trio-headed-in-differen-16469.html?pagewanted=all

Amazingly, it's interesting to see how quickly other Democrats speak up about what a bad idea pricing carbon is. The Republicans almost have better quotes. Sigh, sigh, sigh.

[beachmom]

6. It's Politico, but one can gleam from it that the Obama Admin.

isn't all that into groveling to Graham to get him back on board.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0410/36513_Page2.html

Almost all anonymous sources, so take with as many grains of salt as you wish.

[beachmom]

7. Okay, it looks like it's all over and done. Immigration reform moving forward:

http://senatus.wordpress.com/2010/04/29/democrats-pushing-forward-with-immigration-reform/

Senate Democrats appear “dead set on moving comprehensive immigration reform this year even if it comes without GOP support, and they began laying the groundwork Wednesday for a Democrats-only alternative to a bipartisan deal,” Roll Call reports.

Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), Conference Vice Chairman Charles Schumer (N.Y.) and Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee Chairman Bob Menendez (N.J.) released a detailed summary of a comprehensive immigration reform bill. The outline — which is based on negotiations between Schumer and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) that collapsed earlier this month — would require a series of border security benchmarks to be met before broader reforms could be implemented.

The legislation includes tougher controls on the hiring of illegal immigrants, new work visa provisions and a pathway for citizenship.

Publicly, Democrats insisted Reid, Schumer and Menendez still are hoping to bring Republicans to the negotiating table this summer.

I admire Kerry's tenacity, but it is clear that BOTH SIDES (Reid & Graham) are playing games. It's all politics and it's all about neither climate nor immigration reform having even a remote chance of passing this year (or ever).

I declare both bills DOA. This just stinks.

Read this post by David Roberts at Grist. Read the whole thing. It is brilliant, and unfortunately rings 100% true:

http://www.grist.org/article/2010-04-28-on-the-graham-reid-flustercluck/

[wisteria]

8. I still remain optomistic on Climate Change. And, it seems as for immigration reform,

they are only addressing securing the boarders. Anything other than boarder security will be a no go, but this could gain a lot of support. Graham has said, that before immigration reform can even be undertaken, the boarders must be secured.

[MH1]

9. the problem with 'border security' is that usually people mean 'build a fence'

which is problematic for a number of reasons, but especially for the environment.

[beachmom]

10. Bad for local businesses, too.

My parents were on a tour of the West that included seeing the fence and such. They said it was just terrible and pointless. My parents are not flaming liberals or anything. So it must have been bad.

[wisteria]

11. I always thought the "fence" idea was dumb. But, we have the smartest minds in Washington working on

this matter, so maybe they can come up with something better. Ultimately though, there will need to be compromise on securing the boarders.

[beachmom]

12. Ezra Klein just interviewed Lindsay Graham. This is interesting:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/04/sen_lindsey_graham_i_care_equa.html

So what allows climate to move forward now? What do you need to hear from Reid?

LG: Here's the problem with climate. Do you have any chance of bringing it up and getting 60 votes in this environment? There's a controversial provision in the transportation section. We have done as good a job as we can to get oil and gas companies to pay for their pollution. Some of that cost will be passed onto consumers. But it's not a gas tax. I need Harry Reid to say I agree with you. I support that. I won't introduce a bill and have the majority leader, who I have less than a strong bond with, say, "I can't support that gas tax." There was also a Fox News article where the White House said they couldn't support Graham's gas-tax gambit. I will not let this get blamed on me. It would be the worst thing in the world to take the one Republican working with you and make him own the one thing you don't like.

[wisteria]

13. Who at the White House would contact Fox in to sabotage the bill and point fingers at Graham

for being the one to propose the "non-gas, gas tax"?
I could see one of Schumer's goons doing something like this, but someone directly associated with the White House? Is Graham perhaps a little paranoid?

[karynnj]

14. Possibly no one associated with either the White House of Schumer

contacted Fox News. It is very possible that that was an inside the beltway rumor that could have been sourced by any stakeholder or person who was included in any of the discussions. This likely includes probably every Democratic and many Republican Senators, environmentalists, and industry people.

Also, stop and think what this is saying. The goal of people like Kerry is that there should be a price to producing carbon. Many environmentalists, I think including Gore, proposed a carbon tax on carbon from every source. Kerry and others rejected this, not because it could not get the votes. This furor over the gas tax shows why - and how weak overall support really is for dealing with climate change.

I don't know if anyone has ever tried to research how much people are willing to pay. The polls I've seen have never asked the question "Do you support limiting the carbon in the air if it is likely to cost your household $n a year?" (for various "n") The CBO and the EPA both had average costs per household for the earlier plans. If you looked at the DU threads, most people were against any gas tax.

This is not surprising. These are very hard economic times for many (most? all?) people and no one ever wants more taxes. In addition what you get is too obscure (or too big - a chance to save the planet) for people to easily see that it is worth giving up the money.

The surprising thing is that he heard it as "Graham's", this surprises me because if there is one person most concerned with putting a price on carbon, which all of them agree to, it is Kerry. I suspect that the underlying problem is that the simple way they aimed to tax carbon in the transportation sector was tested by a trial balloon - that was shot down- and rather than defending it, the WH and then the three Senators all ruled it out.

As to goons, I think we need to be careful with language there. We all know that some Senators and their teams have a greater propensity to get the knifes out than others. But, you need to remember that to succeed Schumer needs Graham - as much as Kerry and Lieberman do.

I think the Grist post the Beachmom posted is the best thing guessing the politics I have seen - though it is depressing. It may just be that doing something on climate change in this political environment in bad economic times is just to hard a lift - no matter how hard or intelligently Kerry and others work.

[wisteria]

15. I don't agree with Grist, but I will pull back my comments about goons.

I find it difficult to believe that a small monetary change-which would be minimal, and most people wouldn't even notice- could be such a huge factor in not proceeding with Climate Change. Energy companies find one way or another to pass any additional costs on to the public any way. So, I remain optimistic about the prospects of the Climate Change bill-no matter what some blogging doom sayers predict. I take my cues from Senator Kerry and even Graham who has said it is not dead.

[karynnj]

16. I hope you are right - but I was stunned at the DU reaction

At the time the number thrown around was 15 cents per gallon. This was definitely not intended to be an amount to limit usage. I started to play a bit with the math. Using google, various sources report average number of miles driven a year as anywhere from 10,500 to 15,000. Now assuming 20 miles a gallon, at 15 cents a gallon this is $78.75 to $112.50 a year! Less than $10.00 a month.

There are some who really are so badly off that this will hurt, but the reaction was startling.