TPMDC Morning Roundup
Climate-Change Bill In The Balance
Democratic leaders in the House are working hard to pass the climate-change bill today, containing a cap-and-trade system for limiting carbon emissions, with Dems from industrial states holding the balance of power on the issue. Speaker Nancy Pelosi sought yesterday to rebut Republican charges that the bill would cost jobs, insisting instead, "It will create millions of new jobs."
Obama's Day Ahead
President Obama will meet one-on-one with German Chancellor Angela Merkel at 10:30 a.m., with an expanded meeting at 11 a.m. ET, a joint press availability at 11:30 a.m. ET, and a working lunch at 12 p.m. ET. Obama will meet with Vice President Biden at 1:30 p.m. ET. At 6:15 p.m. ET, President Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama will host a picnic for White House staff.
Biden's Day Ahead
Vice President will join with White House Senior Adviser Valerie Jarrett at 11:45 a.m. ET, to announce the appointment of the new White House Advisor on Violence Against Women. At 1:30 p.m. ET, Biden will meet with President Obama. At 3 p.m. ET, he will meet with the Crown Prince of Bahrain, His Highness Shaikh Salman bin Hamad Al-Khalifa. In the evening, he will attend the White House picnic.
NYT: Bork And Thomas Battles Fueling Conservatives Now
The New York Times says that much of the current conservative activist mobilization against Sonia Sotomayor really goes back in many ways to when Democrats successfully defeated the nomination of Robert Bork in 1987, and to the near-defeat of Clarence Thomas. "There's no question that those hurts remain powerful today," said Prof. Richard Epstein of the University of Chicago. "And there's no question that Breyer and Ginsburg were never subjected to anything remotely like that."
CBO Paints Scary Picture Of Long-Term Revenue, Spending
A new analysis from the Congressional Budget Office has a dire prediction for the United States' fiscal situation if serious changes aren't made. If the Bush tax cuts are extended, combined with projected increases in spending, it would "create an explosive fiscal situation," with the national debt exceeding 100% of GDP by 2023.
Obey And Waters Get Into Shoving Match
House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey (D-WI) and Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) got into a shoving match on the House floor, over an earmark that Waters wanted for an employment center bearing her name in her district. "He touched me first, he pushed me first!" said Waters. Obey's spokesman said that Waters "accosted" Obey first over the earmark: "He refused, and unfortunately she chose to make a scene."
Robert Gibbs Lets Reporters Take Shots At Him -- In A Dunk Tank
White House press secretary Robert Gibbs entertained reporters at the White House luau yesterday, sitting in a dunk tank and letting them take shots in exchange for a suggested voluntary donation to charity. "He sat inside a dunk tank on the South Lawn and let reporters try to knock him in the water by nailing a target with a softball," wrote Ben Feller of the Associated Press. "And we took him up on it. For the fun of it. For charity. For the challenge. For the joy of taking Robert Gibbs down. Which we did."
Josh
Matt
Eric
Brian
Clarence Thomas Dissents in 'School Strip-Search' Case, But Still 'Reverses Himself'
http://satiricalpolitical.com/?p=7593
June 26, 2009 9:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good one! lmao
June 26, 2009 10:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
So all the carping about Sotomayor is sour grapes?
Typical.
June 26, 2009 9:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Climate Bill will be fine, less for any good it can do than because the energy company lobbies helped write it.
June 26, 2009 9:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, the Energy Bill has already become the opposite of "fine". Cutting 2005 carbon output by 80% by the end of the century!?!?!?!? we may as well buy stock in Duke Energy and enjoy the aroma of burning, excuse me, CLEAN coal. That, plus 85% giveaway with little hope of ever reaching 100% of actual, you know, CAPS in carbon "credits" will absolutely ensure we reach the first tipping point in climate catastrophe before the ludicrous 17% by 2020 goal is (not) reached. Another charming part of the bill is the expectation that, by mid century, we'll have massive development of nifty new nucular energy plants. Hey! Bring it on!
Those who will parrot, "don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good" need to define their terms. At a point when all of the stars have aligned, a looming sense of emergency makes actual change possible and with historic Congressional majorities and a brand new Dem President, what we're being urged to "support" is worse than inadequate. It will lock in profit-driven, anti-scientific policies for perhaps the next decade. If Obama thinks he'll be able to easily revisit the issue in a year or two to make it better, it's not just cigarettes he's smoking and I want some.
This bill is a tragic travesty of what is barely adequate to stave off total disaster. Far too many otherwise sensible activists are willing to sign on for a cool cruise on the US Titanic Fail. At least this time, there won't be any ice, anywhere, to run into.
June 26, 2009 9:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
KeithL, that "80% by the end of the century" line appears in the AP article linked above but nowhere else that I've seen. Every other source that I'm aware of cites 83% by 2050.
I agree the bill could and should be a lot better, and it's a sad commentary on the state of our politics, especially our regard for science and scientists. However, the fact is that this bill, weak as it is, is a tough sell. The political climate (pardon the expression) is unlikely to be more favorable to any more action in the next 8 years. So, yeah, I say let's get what we can now.
June 26, 2009 10:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree. It's all about acclimation. In my opinion, the most important thing about the bill is that it puts cap and trade in place at all. Once everybody gets used to the idea and they realize that their energy bills haven't gone up by $3,200, we can adjust carbon levels downward as necessary.
June 26, 2009 10:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ummm, Hello? WTF do Breyer and Ginsberg have to do with anything?
The reason Breyer and Ginsberg didn't get the flack that Bork and Thomas did is because Clinton went out of his way to avoid contentious confirmation battles by picking nominees who were moderates rather than dangerous extremists like Bork and who weren't intellectual lightweights with a history of sexually harassing subordinates lik Thomas. Roberts, Scalia, and Alito didn't get the same kind of flack that Bork and Thomas got either, notwithstanding the fact that none of them is anything close to moderate.
But, I do get that that doesn't matter in Republicanland. It's all about payback and never about principle when the other side does it. Democrats persecuted and impeached Nixon for no good reason (never mind that Republicans were onboard at the time), so we'll do the same to Clinton. Democrats resisted Bork and Thomas for no good reason, so we'll do the same to Sotomayor. That'll show 'em.
June 26, 2009 10:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with you CFKNCS. Breyer/Ginsberg versus Bork/Thomas is an apples/oranges argument. The opposition to Sotomayor seems to come from this place of resentment. A friend of mine once said that resentment is like taking poison and hoping someone else will die. And that's just what the Republicans are doing. They are starting one more battle they know they are going to lose. It's just another fight that will make them look out of touch. It gets almost hard to watch their ignorance (almost).
June 26, 2009 10:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree. Sotomayor is more like a Kennedy or Sandra Day O'Connor nomination on the right. I'm sure they would like be believe she's the left version of Bork but she's just not. She's probably to the right of Ginsberg on most issues.
June 26, 2009 12:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
This jumped out at me as well. And it's all exactly as you say: Bork was an exceedingly dangerous right-wing extremist who never should have been nominated. Ted Kennedy led the charge and thank heaven the reactionary wasn't confirmed. We owe something to Specter for that BTW. Thomas was and is a bad joke. What does this have to do with any Democratic nominee?
Precisely nothing is what.
June 26, 2009 10:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not to mention that Breyer and Ginsburg were both appointed after Bork and Thomas. Why wouldn't they be subject to the same "payback"?
I'm not saying that payback isn't part of the equation, but I think a bigger part is just that the Republicans are becoming increasingly shriller.
(I do wish that Obama had taken more of an effort to get the advice of Congress, in so much that it helps restore the precedent of "advice and consent". Getting advice doesn't mean you have to follow it, of course. And yes, it's entirely possible that he got more advice that I'm aware of. If that is the case, please correct me.)
June 26, 2009 10:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm missing something. Why was the CBO making a projection of what would happen if the Bush tax cuts were continued? I thought Obama's budget already made sure they wouldn't be.
June 26, 2009 10:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually only his tax cuts for the rich. His tax cuts for the middle class will continue.
June 26, 2009 11:07 AM | Reply | Permalink