JONATHAN CHAIT APRIL 26, 2010
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
Josh Nelson at Enviroknow says my defense of Lindsey Graham gives him too much credit:
On the claim that Graham’s motivation for working on this bill was entirely pure, I’d love to see some substantiation. Graham may have been working on the bill in order to weaken it at every step in the process, in a role similar to the one Chuck Grassley played as the health care bill moved through the Senate Finance Committee. And indeed, that is what he has been doing throughout the process, all the while taking every opportunity to stick his thumb in the eye of environmentalists, as insult to injury. Republicans frequently pretend to be interested in working on an issue in a bipartisan manner when they are actually just trying to weaken or derail it. This is not a new tactic, and Democrats are going to have to stop falling for it eventually. Or perhaps Senator Graham was trying to bolster his image as somewhat of a maverick who would love to pass bipartisan bills if it weren’t for those hyper-partisan Democrats.
Here's the problem with that line of thinking. Health care reform had been building up steam for years, Democrats had been committed to it for decades, it had extensive interest group buy-in -- in short, there was a lot of reason to think it would happen with or without GOP support. Therefore, the Chuck Grassley slow-walk retreat from bipartisanship was an effective way to kill it.
Climate change is altogether different. Many Democrats from resource-producing states oppose it. The sense all along was that it needs extensive Republican support to pass, and may not happen at all. If Graham really wanted to weaken climate legislation, he'd have just opposed it outright from the beginning.
Moreover, the notion that he was trying to "bolster his image as somewhat of a maverick" is crazy. The guy is from South Carolina. They don't like mavericks. He may well lose his seat because of his maverick image. There are Republican Senators who stand to gain by posturing as moderates, but Graham is emphatically not one of them.
4 comments
Does my memory fail me, or does SC have a healthy nuclear industry? Could Graham's support for a climate bill just be timeless, nonpartisan bringing home the bacon?
- ackyri
April 26, 2010 at 1:27pm
Ackyri, my thoughts exactly. It wasn't altruism, it was home-state pork politics for the Savannah River nuclear industry that brought Graham to the climate change table and kept him there. Immigration reform is another kettle of fish for him, where it seems that he was simply following the lead of his hero McCain without any home state benefit, but the notion that Lindsey Graham was for climate change because he is a righteous maverick statesman is a bit exaggerated.
- wildboy
April 26, 2010 at 1:59pm
- Try this: The '09 tactics didn't work for the GOP. If it's a few Republicans who realize they have to latch onto something that proves they have ideas, seepage is as good as a flood if it means a bill can make it to the floor. Goal one: Open the blockage. I'll skip the mind reading of why someone may cave as long as a few of the 41 votes help us [period]. Yes, it could be tricky if the price for passage is a bill that will haunt. So, a bill without crap is fine, even if it's not perfect. But ugly wins count and by '12 a pile of legislation that is groundbreaking and 90% good won't be examined like we're doing on 4-26-10. Jeeze, half those guys would impeach Obama so don't expect a conversion. If it takes a statue of McCain at Annapolis we should do it for his Immigration vote. Self interest is good and we only need to find out who has a personal price greater than their loyalty to the GOP. Shit, we had sixty votes and HCR took a year? Messy, fast, moving on and doing it again is fine. I'd accept a vote clock in the Senate. Or we can wait for a super majority. So, messy or nothing? Pick one. Just remember, back in February nothing wasn't an option for good reason.
- michael
April 26, 2010 at 5:59pm
"Republicans frequently pretend to be interested in working on an issue in a bipartisan manner when they are actually just trying to weaken or derail it." Too many -- on both sides of the aisle -- define bipartisanship by the other side as "supporting OUR ideas." If you define it instead as a compromise, where both sides get some of what they want in return for accepting some of what the other side wants, well, of course that can be categorized as "trying to weaken it." If you're rejecting ideas simply because you don't like them, you're looking for capitulation (or imposing the majority's will). Depending on the circumstances, that may be appropriate, but it shouldn't be confused with seeking bipartisanship from the other side.
- probasco
April 27, 2010 at 5:35pm