Lindsey Graham to vote no on climate bill.

[beachmom]

According to the National Journal which is subscription only, but here is David Robert's tweet:

Graham says lawmakers should "start over and scale down your ambitions." This from an already weak, grossly compromised bill. Barf.

Profile in Courage: Lindsey Graham now says he'll vote against #climatebill. Not enough offshore drilling left. http://bit.ly/bHraHO

[karynnj]

1. Not enough offshore oil drilling??

That has to be the lamest excuse yet. He actually seemed like he was strong enough to stand up for things he believed in. This really is a blow to the bill.

[beachmom]

2. I was chatting with RL Miller on Twitter and she thinks this is a GOOD thing.

She wants yet a NEW bill without Big Oil stuff in it. Um, I would have loved a bill without the fossil fuel friendly stuff in it but that was the Kerry/Boxer bill really. The Great Compromise crafted by Kerry, Graham and Lieberman was our best shot of passing cap & trade in the Senate. Now that is dead. Without Graham how do we get to 60? A lot of Democrats were relying on Graham to cover their butts. Are we going to get Jim Webb now? I doubt it.

This is a mess. Maybe Schumer while speaking out of turn was simply revealing the reality that cap & trade is really dead in the Senate.

[beachmom]

3. He also no longer believes man has caused global warming:

http://www.tnr.com/blog/the-vine/75398/so-much-lindsey-graham

Update: Again, once upon a time, Graham was saying stuff like this: "All the cars and trucks and plants that have been in existence since the Industrial Revolution, spewing out carbon day-in and day-out, will never convince me that's a good thing for your children and the future of the planet." But never say never. Here's Graham today: "We can have a debate about global warming, and I'm not in the camp that believes man-made emissions are contributing overwhelmingly to global climate change, but I do believe the planet is heating up." That was fast.

This is nuts. Somebody explain this.

Okay, I guess this is the explanation:

http://www.grist.org/article/2010-06-08-graham-says-he-wont-vote-for-the-climate-bill/

Basically, the base won. Graham was under the impression, shared by some his older mentors, that Republicans are still the party of business. He thought if he rode in, watered down the bill to make it friendlier to industry, and garnered support from oil companies and manufacturers, he would be hailed as a hero. He hasn't internalized the fact that the crazies have completely taken over the Republican Party. But they made their will known in no uncertain terms.

[karynnj]

4. I wonder how deep the belief in man made global warming and global warming

really for most legislators. Actions likely tell more than words. Many who would quickly answer "yes" to the existence of both and could site the ramifications, do not act as if this is internalized. I suspect that with all the complicated issues, from the economy to war and peace swirling around, most are completely dependent on their advisers on this - and their advisers are more likely to understand the politics in their state of passing it than the science. In addition, the huge effort to discredit the scientists might have had at least a marginal effect on many - making them think it is not as probable as the scientists Kerry quotes say. I don't think any Senator was a scientist (though Russ Holt is, but Corzine appointed Menendez over him) and I would bet that very few physics majors apply to be Senate staff. In addition, there is concern just for the near term effects, because that is what will move their constituents in the coming elections.

The sad thing with Graham's collapse is that he still would have fared better if he stuck with the deal. He is up in 2014. If the crazies are still a huge force in SC, he is still doomed to a primary challenge. (Look at McCain - abandoning every principle he ever had did not avoid a primary) It will likely be incredibly nasty with his JR Senator likely endorsing his rival and I would bet on a whisper campaign about his sexuality. If the crazies are in charge - he would likely need to think hard about running. If he were to run, fighting to keep the Republicans sane, he needs to run on his integrity and willingness to do the right thing even if it has a cost. If the crazies are not in charge, then the old coalition of pro-business people would be back and he would gain.

I think he is delusional if he thinks backing down now will lead to the crazies not continuing to hate him. They are after all pretty intolerant.

[beachmom]

5. Say what????

http://motherjones.com/blue-marble/2010/06/graham-takes-climate-denial-plunge

[beachmom]

6. Speaking of Republicans

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2010/06/brown_backs_pla.html

Senator Scott Brown this morning joined a push to limit federal regulation of greenhouse gas emissions, saying the effort to curb the carbon-emitting gases brings unwarranted regulations that would hurt businesses.

Brown said he would support a resolution being pushed by Senator Lisa Murkowski, an Alaska Republican, that would limit powers given to the Environmental Protection Agency under the Clean Air Act. The Senate is expected to vote this afternoon on the measure, which is adamantly opposed by environmental groups and the Obama administration.

“This action would give an unelected and unaccountable government agency the power to impose restrictive and damaging carbon dioxide regulations that will drive up energy prices and hurt job-creating small businesses in our country,” Brown wrote in an op-ed published this morning in the Cape Cod Times. “The bottom line is that we cannot have every restaurant owner or small farmer worried about the costs of complying with new carbon dioxide emissions restrictions.”

This is an EXTREME vote. I hope MA Democrats make hay out of this. This guy really is not a good fit for MA. Kick him to the curb in '12. PLEASE.