Obama vs. McCain on Climate

It continues to be a bit baffling that John McCain decided last week that specific mastery of policy was the grounds on which he wants to pick a fight with Barack Obama. Check this out from Dave Roberts:

Speaking of Obama, he went after McCain on climate change, and he did so specifically on the basis of supporting 100% permit auctions. That's a somewhat subtle marker to those who don't know much about the issue, and it's going to take time to massage it into the body media. It is fantastic that Obama's getting started.

Speaking of McCain, he said he hadn't seen Obama's climate plan (clearly an issue he cares deeply about) and continued to deny that his cap-and-trade program included a mandatory cap. He could be lying or he could be confused about the policy; it's hard to think of what the third option might be.

That's right. John McCain doesn't know whether or not his own global warming plan puts a cap on carbon emissions. It's almost as if he signed on to a climate bill just because he's a camera hog and it seemed like a sexy topic, and he in fact has no understanding of or commitment to the issue.

Comments

Nice! I'm glad to see that Obama is willing to use the general election campaign as a way to inform the electorate about this issue. Way to build a mandate. And we're going to need it, because there are a lot of entrenched interests to overcome on the carbon issue.

Posted by Ted | February 18, 2008 11:23 AM

It's a toss up who hates McCain more, Matt or Mark Levin. I guess it's a form of centrism to irritate people in both parties that much.

Posted by Led | February 18, 2008 11:29 AM

Why is it baffling? The metanarratvie has already been forming that Obama is light on policy and that McCain is a straight shooter who tels it like it is. As such McCain knows he won't get called out on his not understanding his plan while his attacks fit right into the building press narrative of Obama.

Posted by Rob | February 18, 2008 11:34 AM

I agree with Rob. It doesn't seem to matter if it's counter-factual, it matters whether it fits the narrative or not. There's only so many times you can say "B. Hussein Obama" before it loses its impact, clearly they needed a back-up plan.

Posted by Jen | February 18, 2008 11:51 AM

Re "He [McCain] could be lying or he could be confused about the policy; it's hard to think of what the third option might be."
---------
How about that McCain's a CONFUSED liar? Or even PRETENDING to be a confused liar {option 4}?

The latter would play in with the "Heir of Ronald Reagan" meme --especially for those of us who remember Reagan testifying about Iran Contra, in which Reagan gave one of his best performances as an actor: The Parkinson's victim who somehow became President

Posted by Don Williams | February 18, 2008 11:57 AM

What a strange debate, between two bad alternatives. When will Obama tell us how much the auction will raise? He can't. McCain's proposal, which is almost as bad, at least allows discretionary responses if the mandated caps lead to adverse consequences.

Posted by Thomas | February 18, 2008 12:07 PM

OBAMA THE CHANGE AGENT -CNN — Striking similarities between Barack Obama's words and those of Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick during his 2006 election campaign have raised eyebrows and attracted traffic on YouTube. The stump speech Barack Obama has been giving aimed at convincing voters that his campaign is not just about lofty rhetoric — is from Patrick, Obama's campaign acknowledged over the weekend.
Obama said he goofed on votes angered fellow Democrats in the Senate when he voted to strip millions of dollars from a child welfare office on Chicago's West Side. But Obama had a ready explanation: He goofed!
Also announced he had fumbled an election-reform vote the day before, on a measure that passed 51 to 6. The next day, he acknowledged voting "present" on a key telecommunications vote. He stood on March 11, 1999, to take back his vote against legislation to end good-behavior credits for certain felons in county jails. "I pressed the wrong button on that," he said. Obama was the lone dissenter on Feb. 24, 2000, against 57 yeas for a ban on human cloning. "I pressed the wrong button by accident," he said.

But two of Obama's bumbles came on more-sensitive topics, he backed legislation to permit riverboat casinos to operate even when the boats were dockside.

The measure, pushed by the gambling industry and fought by church groups whose support Obama was seeking, passed with two "yeas" to spare -- including Obama's. Moments after its passage he rose to say, explaining that he had mistakenly voted for it.

Obama would later develop a reputation as a critic of the gambling industry, and he voted against a similar measure two years later. But he was clearly confused about how to handle the issue at the time of his first vote, telling a church group that he was "undecided" about whether he backed an expansion of riverboat gambling. And, months earlier, he had voted in favor of a version of the bill.

Obama's vote sparked a confrontation after he joined Republicans to block Democrats trying to override a veto by GOP Gov. George Ryan of a $2-million allotment for the west Chicago child welfare office. being responsible," said Sen. Rickey Hendon, accusing Obama of voting to close the child welfare office.Obama replied "I understand Sen. Hendon's anger, I was not aware that I had voted no on that piece of legislation.

He voted against requiring medical care for aborted fetuses who survive. Abortion opponents see Obama's vote on medical care for aborted fetuses as a refusal to protect the helpless. Some have even accused him of supporting infanticide.

Posted by OBAMA THE CHANGE AGENT | February 18, 2008 12:15 PM

THERE IS NO CHANGES WITH OBAMA EXCEPT THE MEDIAS HELP AT HIDING HIS RECORD OF SUPPORTING THE WAR AND BUSH. WHAT OBAMA SUPPORTERS ARE AFRAID TO REALIZE. Obamas record shows he supports the war, voted twice in 2006 against bringing America's troops back home. He voted for war appropriations giving our money to Halliburton and Blackwater. His latest bit of posturing S 433 allows the Bush Administration to suspend any troop withdrawal!!!!if not suspended, still keeps the troops in Iraq for a long time to come? Obama when faced with tough choices always gave in to pressure from the Bush administration or corporate lobbyists. Such as Obama voted for Bush's energy bill, sending more than $13 billion in subsidies and tax breaks to oil, coal, and nuclear companies. Obama voted with Republicans to allow credit card companies to raise interest rates over 30 percent, INCREASING STUDENT LOANS RATES AND FEES increasing hardship for families. Obama voted for one of Bush's top priorities - expanding Nafta to South America - even as President Bush obstructed all the top Democratic priorities. Obama voted with Bush to make it harder for ordinary people to hold big corporations accountable when they do things like sell toxic toys, poisonous pet food, or just plain rip you off. Obama was the Senate's biggest Democratic advocate of subsidies for liquid coal, even though liquid coal produces twice the global warming pollution of the crude oil it's meant to replace and voted for increased subsidies, albeit with conditions.Obama, a Hamiltonian believer in free trade and supporters of globalization has lent his support to the "Hamilton Project formed by corporate-neoliberal Citigroup chair Robert Rubin and other 'Wall Street Democrats' to counter populist rebellion against corporate tendencies within the Democratic Party. Obama provided assistance to pro-war candidates (such as Joe Lieberman). Obama voted for "business-friendly 'tort reform' bill that rolls back working peoples' ability to obtain reasonable redress and compensation...from corporations!!! Obama considers single payer universal health care too socialist and has stated that he prefers voluntary solutions. **He voted against requiring medical care for aborted fetuses who survive. Abortion opponents see Obama's vote on medical care for aborted fetuses as a refusal to protect the helpless. Some have even accused him of supporting infanticide. He supported allowing retired police officers to carry concealed weapons, but opposed allowing people to use banned handguns to defend against intruders in their homes. And the list of sensitive topics goes on. With only a slim, two-year record in the U.S. Senate, Obama doesn't have many controversial congressional votes which political opponents can frame into attack ads. But his eight years as an Illinois state senator are sprinkled with potentially explosive land mines, such as his abortion and gun control votes. recent land purchase from a political supporter who is facing charges in an unrelated kickback scheme involving investment firms seeking state business. Obama has no substance. He has provided no solutions.

Posted by NO CHANGES WITH OBAMA | February 18, 2008 12:25 PM

Infanticide, nice! You really should try to work madrassas in there, though, for that one-two punch.

Posted by Jen | February 18, 2008 12:25 PM

Is Dave Roberts a moron? It appears so. If you don't know the difference between "mandatory caps" and a "cap and trade" system, you must be a moron.

But, for those with IQs under 50, like Dave Roberts, let me spell it out for you. Mandatory caps would cap individual emission sources at certain levels. Cap and trade would NOT cap individual emission sources, since the source could exceed the cap by purchasing credits.

Again, you have to be a complete and utter moron not to understand this. And, so, apparently Dave Roberts is a complete and utter moron.

Posted by Al | February 18, 2008 12:30 PM

RE NO CHANGE WITH OBAMA's comment "Obama has no substance. He has provided no solutions "
----------------
Is that you, Hillary? Don't you ..like..have a campaign to run?

Posted by Don Williams | February 18, 2008 12:31 PM

You just know "NO CHANGE WITH OBAMA" has to be with the Hillary campaign: Looking at her posts, your eyelids grow heavy and you feel an overwhelming urge to take a nap.

Posted by Don Williams | February 18, 2008 12:34 PM

Don, you forgot the "...into the ground" part.

Posted by Jen | February 18, 2008 12:34 PM

Re NO CHANGE's comment "Some have even accused him [Obama] of supporting infanticide."
------------
Shorter Hillary: Well, TECHNICALLY that's true. Mark Penn used it in a Texas push poll last week and 60% of those polled agreed that they did not approve of Obama promoting infanticide.

Posted by Don Williams | February 18, 2008 12:40 PM

That's *made* for a debate scene. Obama prints out the McCain plan, highlights the mandatory cap part, sticks it in his pocket, and when the issue arises, hands McCain the plan and says, "It's in your plan, Senator. You should read it again."

Only if he can say "again" with a straight face, though...

Posted by Chris | February 18, 2008 12:55 PM

Not sure why, but it often seems to me when I see McCain on TV he's somewhat confused and befuddled. Seriously. Does anyone else notice this?

Posted by Mort | February 18, 2008 1:32 PM

"Not sure why, but it often seems to me when I see McCain on TV he's somewhat confused and befuddled. Seriously. Does anyone else notice this?"

Yes, and he seems to be generally very vague and out of touch. I'm beginning to think his candidacy is going to go down in flames and the Dems will win by a landslide. However, I'm not a very good judge of these things: I always thought Reagan seemed feeble and senile through his whole presidency, and I could never figure out how anyone could take George II seriously. Hence, I'm afraid that McCain is coming off to me as empty and creepy as well as confused and befuddled means that he might win.

Posted by Sherry | February 18, 2008 2:12 PM

I also found it bizarre that McCain attacked Obama on "platitudes" vs specifics.

For example, McCain's own health plan reads like a set of platitudes:

* While we reform the system and maintain quality, we can and must provide access to health care for all our citizens - whether temporarily or chronically uninsured, whether living in rural areas with limited services, or whether residing in inner cities where access to physicians is often limited.

* Promote competition throughout the health care system - between providers and among alternative treatments.

* Promote rapid deployment of 21st century information systems.

* Insurance should be innovative, moving from job to home, job to job, and providing multi-year coverage.

* We must do more to take care of ourselves to prevent chronic diseases when possible, and do more to adhere to treatment after we are diagnosed with an illness.

I suppose he just assumes (perhaps correctly) that the media will just ignore his own vagueness.

Posted by lerxst | February 18, 2008 3:15 PM

I agree with Al 12:30pm. I've read the Grist posts and I think the Grist author is misinterpreting McCain. I believe McCain interpreted "mandatory caps" to mean "command-and-control uniform reduction requirements for individual sources". McCain says no, he would have an aggregate cap with tradable permits. Yes, that's still a mandatory cap (although a good question to ask of any pollution control plan is: what is the magnitude of penalties for unpermitted emissions?) but McCain is just saying that a cap-and-trade plan gives more flexibility for compliance.

I'm no McCain fan, but MY and Dave Roberts are overreacting here.

Posted by nbt | February 18, 2008 6:39 PM

This is a non-issue. I guess no one here has kept up with the current science on climate or the fact that the IPCC is being exposed as an agenda-driven istitution that has politicized science for its own political and monetary gain.

Posted by Mike | February 19, 2008 8:25 PM