Lieberman-Warner

Check out Brian Beutler on the state-of-play on the Lieberman-Warner climate change bill. The question I'm pondering about this bill is the role of the president. As best I can tell, Bush is remorselessly opposed to anything that would even be in the neighborhood of an adequate response to climate change. He opposes any mandatory reductions in carbon emissions, and preventing catastrophic climate change requires large mandatory reductions in carbon emissions.

This makes the Lieberman-Warner enterprise of trying to craft a more moderate, more business-friendly climate change plan that can attract broader support look possibly quixotic. We're not really talking about half a loaf today versus holding out for the full loaf tomorrow -- Bush isn't signing any kind of loaf. In essence, it's all kabuki, which is often the case in congress. But I don't understand what kind of kabuki it is and what the different groups are trying to accomplish.

Comments

They, Lieberman-Warner, are hamming up the elder statemen act and trying to look Serious, and perhaps you're wrong about Bush not wanting to sign a climate-change bill.

Posted by fnook | October 25, 2007 9:42 AM

I don't understand why "kabuki" has become such a Western political reference. Wouldn't "Broadway" work just as well...or is that too gay?

Is it because "kabuki" sounds funny?

Speaking of...how many kabuki plays have you seen? Is it like CSPAN?

I always thought it would be more like seeing a Julie Taymor film, myself...

Posted by Herb | October 25, 2007 9:42 AM

Herb,

The reference is to what is perceived as a highly conventionalized art form in which the action proceeds according to a rigid, set format. Kabuki is seen (rightly or wrongly) as being more rigidly stylized than Broadway productions, pointing to the aspect of some political actions in which they are an empty going-through of the motions with no sincere content. Western theater is supposedly more variable in plot and format than traditional kabuki.

Someone who knows more about actual kabuki than me (which would be anyone who knows anything about it) can comment on how valid any of this is.

Posted by jimBOB | October 25, 2007 10:03 AM

Er. If Bush isn't going to sign a bill, you need 60+ votes for it to make him THINK about signing it, because there's the possibility of a veto override which looks bad for him. Lieberman and Warner being on board gets you to 52; Warner bringing some other moderate Republicans like Specter, Smith, Snowe, and Collins gets you right in the game.

If Bush is RELUCTANT to sign a bill, and isn't going to sign a bill that looks too aggressive, a moderate bill has its plusses.

If Bush actually WANTS to sign a bill, which I think may be the most likely alternative, but doesn't want to anger the very very small amount of his base he hasn't angered yet when he does so, a moderate bill has the benefit that it's more likely to be signed even if it doesn't approach the magic number.

Last, a moderate climate-change bill makes taking action on climate change the moderate position. That is not clearly true in most of the country, so it's an important step.

Posted by You Can Call Me Al | October 25, 2007 10:12 AM

They are positioning themselves for 2009, the idea being that the framework of whatever bill gets furthest in 2007-2008 will be used in 2009.

Posted by Matt Stoller | October 25, 2007 10:20 AM

a moderate climate-change bill makes taking action on climate change the moderate position

That could be true, or it could prevent future, more consequential action on the issue. A blatantly insufficient measure would both fail to make any serious progress, and provide a sense that we're done with it and can move on to whatever is next.

It fulfills the Broder-world centrist fantasy of wise rich old white men putting together a Bipartisan Compromise to solve the Problem. We all know that Lieberman has a fetish for that kind of thing. I don't doubt that he is sincere in his belief that this is how you solve problems, and that global warming is such a problem.

But this position is very useful to industries who know that soon everyone in Washington is going to be too wrapped up in their own elections to bother with serious legislative fights, and that after the election there is very likely to be a congress and presidency more amenable to taking serious action on global warming (even if it's The Huckster, and Guiliani ran a city full of public transportation!)

Posted by rufustfyrfly | October 25, 2007 10:39 AM

I don't doubt that he is sincere in his belief that this is how you solve problems, and that global warming is such a problem.

Nonsense. There's no hint of sincerity in the bill. Or in Lieberman.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | October 25, 2007 11:50 AM

Anything crafted by LIEberman is immediately suspect. He's one of the biggest whores in Congress. We can thank CT voters once again for inflicting this a$$wipe on all of us.

Posted by kafka | October 25, 2007 12:15 PM

Say what you will about Lieberman's positions on the war and Iran, I won't disagree with you.

However, Lieberman has always been committed to environmental issues. His legislative assistant on energy and the environment is David McIntosh who spent several years at NRDC.

Posted by Michael | October 25, 2007 4:06 PM