POLITICS JUNE 25, 2008
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
There are certain streaks that have become etched in American lore: Joe DiMaggio's 56 straight games with a hit, UCLA's 88-game unbeaten run in men's basketball. Slightly less famous, but still impressive, is this feat: Between April 12 and May 24 of last year, John McCain missed 46 consecutive votes in the U.S. Senate. In fact, McCain missed more than half of all Senate votes last year, enough to disqualify him from the infamous National Journal rankings that purported to find Barack Obama the most liberal senator.
Now, we understand that McCain had elsewhere to be. We don't expect senators running for president to be around for every vote to name a post office or confirm a judge. Both Obama and Hillary Clinton missed their fair share of votes, though they managed to make it back to Capitol Hill more frequently than McCain did. But the business of legislating doesn't stop just because it's an election year, or at least it shouldn't. Senators do have an obligation to return from the campaign trail in order to cast votes on the major issues pending before Congress.
Which is why it's distressing that John McCain announced that he'd be skipping a vote on the LiebermanWarner climate-change bill. McCain has long sought to portray himself as a rare breed of green Republican. But, as Bradford Plumer has written, McCain's rhetorical commitment to the environment hasn't been matched by an interest in the quotidian business of conducting negotiations and building coalitions in order to actually move important legislation ("Grand Canyon," March 12). McCain's decision to skip the vote on Lieberman-Warner only strengthens that conclusion.
Not to mention, McCain's position on the merits of the bill is somewhere between muddled and incoherent. A month ago, McCain told reporters he hoped it would pass; three weeks later, he abruptly changed course and announced his opposition, on the grounds that it doesn't offer sufficient aid to the nuclear- power industry.
This would be a bizarre stance for any politician to take. For someone who claims to support cap-and-trade and who has made a career out of taking morally righteous stands against special interests, it's downright absurd. And McCain apparently has no desire to come to Washington and offer an amendment to address his objections to the bill. Nor is this an isolated incident: Last month, McCain also opposed Virginia Senator Jim Webb's new G.I. Bill, a bipartisan measure to expand education benefits for veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan--but he couldn't be bothered to either vote on it or try to amend it.
McCain points to his long Senate career as proof that he's qualified to serve as president. Problem is, McCain seems to view the Senate more as a bully pulpit than a legislative body. His career consists largely of embracing grand causes while devoting little attention to the pesky details of implementing them--of, you know, governing.
For more TNR, become a fan on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.
5 comments
McCain is right to change his position on drilling. The American people need relief. For those who would say we won't see a return for 5-10 years, I say I don't care. I don't want to wait for another 5-10 years to pass to say "if only we would have done something about this 5 years ago." I realize drilling is not the long-term solution but we have to do SOMETHING until we can develop alternative fuel sources, including nuclear power. We have no choice. If we don't, our dependence on foreign oil is going to be our downfall.
- KMH
June 18, 2008 at 12:24pm
Please. Another New Republic article, "Taking a Dive" by Dayo Olopade, documents the greens' ambivalence towards Lieberman-Warner. If they can't even get it up to care about this bill, why should I care that McCain didn't vote on it?
- Ned Baker
June 18, 2008 at 5:42pm
Ummm... or we could change our consumption habits. Drive more fuel efficient cars, use more public transportation etc. Our dependence on foreign oil is, to a great degree the result of the fact that we won't make even simple changes in our life style. Here's an idea, how about bringing back the 55 mph speed limit...no? But we're hostage to foreign oil... it's going to be our downfall... right? It sounds like you're willing to make some sacrifices (to the environment) but not ones you feel or have to make personally.
- CLS
June 18, 2008 at 7:00pm
I think it's a little disingenuous to write an article about McCain's recent failure to live up to his hype and then offhandedly imply in the last paragraph that he's always been this way. Maybe it's true that his "career consists largely of embracing grand causes while devoting little attention to.. implimenting them" but there's no honest way to conclude that based on a handful of his votes in the past year, so it has no place in the conclusion to this article
-
June 18, 2008 at 8:19pm
According to this post on DailyKos: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/6/18/134047/614/81/537906 ..only 17% of current leases (before the current moratorium) are being developed. I think this issue should be understood before we frantically talk about increasing our petroleum supply, as if it were going to make an iota of difference in the next, oh say, 5 years or so. If you believe the price of gas is a supply problem, you've been sold a bill of goods. There may indeed be some short-term speculation going on, but trust me, this is a demand problem, not a supply problem. And that's good news, really. Because you can do something about demand. Like do less of it: -If you live in a city with public transit, use it; -If you don't, use carpooling. You can use the online database at www.ridesearch.com to match up with other interested carpoolers; -If you live 5 miles or less from where you work, ride a bike at least a couple of days a week; -Obey the speed limit and use your cruise control on the highway; -Make sure your tires are properly inflated and your car tuned; Until we begin to change our demand profile, we can't begin to whittle away at this problem and buy ourselves the time to develop the non-petroleum economy that we need to be truly secure.
-
June 18, 2008 at 9:11pm