Dozens of military veterans and an environmental group that explores the national security dimensions of global warming are running an ad in several South Carolina newspapers that defends Sen. Lindsey Graham’s (R-S.C.) work on climate change.
The ad is below:
Kate Sheppard asks if the passage of health care legislation will hurt or hinder progress on climate legislation. But the underlying question is whether or not Senator Graham is looking for an excuse to bail on climate negotiations. The answer to that question might just be yes. His rhetoric hints at the possibility, and he’s willing to distort the truth about reconciliation without hesitation while huffing and puffing that it leaves him no choice but to bail on unrelated legislation. If Senator Graham does end up using the passage of health care reform as an excuse to give up on climate talks, his lack of integrity will be readily apparent for all to witness.
First, some back story.
Last week this National Journal article ($) made me worry:
South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham, the lone Republican working with Democrats on both immigration and climate change legislation, might walk away from talks on those issues if Senate Democrats use budget reconciliation to pass changes to their healthcare bill in a deal with the House, according to Graham and a leadership aide….
A Senate GOP aide said it was too early to begin worrying that a deal will be struck on a climate bill that would put a price on industrial carbon emissions. But at the same time, aides said stakeholders should consider the impact reconciliation will have on climate legislation and the possibility that the midterm elections could yield more business-friendly Republicans in Congress.
“They should definitely realize there’s not a lot of good reasons to cut a rash deal at this point,” a Republican aide said. “I think they’re going to have a very hard time convincing any Republicans, particularly with reconciliation hanging over their head. It seems like, to me, from a business perspective, they should consider that.”
But since it was National Journal quoting an anonymous Republican aide, I didn’t place much weight in it. Was that a mistake? Could Senator Graham really take such offense to reconciliation that he would scuttle climate talks over it?
Senator Graham emerged last fall as a leading Republican in negotiations on clean energy and climate legislation. While he wasn’t ready to support the Boxer-Kerry bill on the table, he expressed confidence in “a pathway forward … that makes us more energy independent, creates sound environmental policy, promotes job creation and frees our nation from dependency on foreign oil.” In the months that followed, as he was attacked by South Carolina Republicans over and over again, he continued making the case for clean energy. In early January, responding to being censured by a local county Republican party, he shot back: “I do believe in finding common ground to solve hard problems.” As recently as the end of January he was still “committed to finding a new path forward.”
But in late February, the rhetoric took a turn for the worse:
In a private meeting with several environmental leaders on Wednesday, according to participants, Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.), declared, “Cap-and-trade is dead.”
Then on the March 7th edition of Face the Nation, Graham said (PDF):
We’ve had reconciliation votes but all of them had received bipartisan support, the least was twelve when we did reconciliation with tax cuts. So it is taking a partisan product and making it law.
It isn’t clear whether he was being disingenuous or was just mistaken, but his statement was factually incorrect. Graham was apparently referring to the 2001 tax cuts. But as the Sunlight Foundation has documented, Bush’s 2003 tax cuts were passed through reconciliation on a hyperpartisan 50-50 vote. Whether he was being disingenuous or not, those were harsh words, and they are not encouraging for those of us who have worried all along about the Senator’s ability to negotiate in good-faith.
Graham’s most disturbing comments about reconciliation came on Sunday on ABC’s This Week:
“If they do this, it’s going to poison the well for anything else they would like to achieve this year or thereafter.”
He continued:
“I’ve been working with Lieberman and Kerry, we’ve come a long way on the climate and energy issue,” Graham said. “This is one issue where the president has been great. He’s saying all the right things to give us a chance to become energy independent, clean up the air and create jobs. But when it comes to health care, he’s been tone deaf, he’s been arrogant, and they’re pushing a legislative proposal and a way to do that legislative proposal that’s going to destroy the ability of this country to work together for a very long time. And that’s not necessary.”
Jeromy Symons gets this exactly right:
“Senators shouldn’t squander this opportunity for real energy reform because they are angry on other topics,” he said. “Think where our nation would be if Congress called it quits every time parties fight over one issue. Nothing would ever get done.”
Senator Kerry remains confident in Senator Graham’s interest in proceeding, citing earlier statements the Republican Senator has made. But Senator Graham says a lot of things.
Ezra calls it an empty threat, quipping that “if Graham doesn’t think the well is already poisoned, then I dare him to take a sip from it.” But it isn’t clear to me that Senator Graham is above using this as an excuse to back out of climate negotiations. While talking a relatively good talk most of the time, he’s been working behind the scenes to weaken the legislation as much as possible. And by the looks of things he’s had significant success on that front.
I can’t help but note that Senator Graham initially became interested in climate legislation because of his mentor John McCain. McCain, of course, has long since bailed on climate discussions for plainly political reasons.
Bailing now offers Senator Graham an easy opportunity to accommodate his increasingly anti-science base by pulling the football on the gullible democrats once again.
On Monday Graham warned reporters that the draft legislation he is developing with Senators Kerry and Lieberman may not be public until mid-April. If all goes according to plan, health care reform will be the law of the land by then.
When Democrats pass health care legislation in the next few days, Senator Graham will have a potentially career-defining decision to make. He can take the easy route, the predictable path, by joining Republicans in an orchestrated tantrum and an attempt to completely shut down the government. Or he can do what he knows is right and continue working for clean energy legislation that will create jobs, reduce pollution and improve our national security. We’re going to find out what Senator Graham is made of very soon.
Update — Digby points out that Graham is negotiating in bad faith on immigration reform as well.
Update 2 — More on GOP hypocrisy on reconciliation from Matt Yglesias and Steve Benen.
We have overcome existential threats before. Winston Churchill is widely quoted as having said, “Sometimes doing your best is not good enough. Sometimes, you must do what is required.” Now is that time. Public officials must rise to this challenge by doing what is required; and the public must demand that they do so — or must replace them.
In a separate piece, entitled How the G.O.P. Goes Green , Thomas Friedman was able to get some choice quotes from Senator Graham:
“I have been to enough college campuses to know if you are 30 or younger this climate issue is not a debate. It’s a value. These young people grew up with recycling and a sensitivity to the environment — and the world will be better off for it. They are not brainwashed. … From a Republican point of view, we should buy into it and embrace it and not belittle them. You can have a genuine debate about the science of climate change, but when you say that those who believe it are buying a hoax and are wacky people you are putting at risk your party’s future with younger people. You can have a legitimate dispute about how to solve immigration, but when you start focusing on the last names of people the demographics will pass you by.”
Both pieces are must-read.
You’ve heard of greenwashing, but maybe you should also be on the lookout for “cleanwashing.” Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), one of the lead proponents of a climate bill, wants the Senate to include coal and nuclear power in a so-called “clean energy” mandate.
Graham is circulating draft legislation that would replace a provision in the current Senate climate bill requiring utilities to produce a certain amount of electricity from renewable sources—known as a renewable electricity standard, or RES. Graham’s proposed mandate instead involves ramping up the amount of electricity from “clean” sources over time—13 percent by 2012, 25 percent by 2025 and 50 percent by 2050. But the big question is what “clean” means. According to Graham’s draft language, new nuclear power and coal with carbon-capture technology would qualify, in addition to renewable sources like wind, solar, biomass and hydropower. This would be a boon to the nuclear industry, which has pushed hard to be included as part of any clean energy mandate.
“The energy and climate bill that passed the House last summer was one of the biggest pieces of corporate welfare ever to be considered by Congress, with $170 billion in giveaways to polluting industries. Big oil, dirty coal, corporate agribusiness — they all got a piece of the pie. The notion that the bill was onerous on business is laughable. Some of the worst polluters helped write the blueprint the bill was based on.
“Now these greedy corporations are angling for more, and Senator Graham is out to help them. This is special interest politics at its worst, and it is truly appalling. No wonder so many people are turned off by the ways of Washington.
“What’s needed is a bill that is less friendly to corporate polluters, not more. Congress should pass a bill that eliminates offsets and other loopholes, goes further to create clean energy jobs, and is more aggressive about reducing the carbon pollution that threatens our economy.”
U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) today made this statement on energy independence and climate change efforts.
“The energy legislation that was passed by the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee is not strong enough to lead us to energy independence. The climate change legislation passed by the House of Representatives and Senate Environment and Public Works Committee is too onerous on business and does not enjoy bipartisan support.
“My goal is to continue working with Senators Kerry, Lieberman and my Senate colleagues to create a new pathway forward that focuses on a more robust energy security package and a more business-friendly climate legislation.
“I am committed to finding a new way forward as I believe energy security is a short and long-term job creator for our country. Clean air is a shared value by both parties and all Americans. I remain hopeful after discussing this matter with conservation groups, businesses, and Senate colleagues we can be successful this year.”
“Realistically, the cap-and-trade bills in the House and the Senate are going nowhere,” said Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, who is trying to fashion a bipartisan package of climate and energy measures. “They’re not business-friendly enough, and they don’t lead to meaningful energy independence.”Mr. Graham said the public was demanding that any energy legislation from Washington focus on creating jobs, whether by drilling for offshore oil or building wind turbines.
“What is dead is some massive cap-and-trade system that regulates carbon in a fashion that drives up energy costs,” he said.
Mr. Graham’s opinion matters because he has been the only Republican willing to work with Democratic senators on some form of climate change legislation. He said that the price of attracting Republican and business support was to use the legislation to provide incentives for building nuclear power plants, stepped-up domestic oil and gas exploration and subsidies for reducing carbon dioxide emissions from coal.
In his comments Tuesday, Graham took aim at both the fiscal conservative and Libertarian segments of the Republican Party by dismissing the “misplaced priorities” of the Lexington County GOP.
“The 13 people who support this resolution are Ron Paul supporters,” said Graham. “They didn’t vote for me before and they’re not going to vote for me next time, and I understand that. I think it’s misplaced priorities.”
Graham also said he’s proud of working with Democrats, and that he has an overall conservative voting record.
“I do believe in finding common ground to solve hard problems…but there are some elements of my party and others that want complete agreement all the time,” said Graham.
Good for him.
Update — The State has more:
“I have come to conclude that greenhouse gases and carbon pollution is not a good thing,” Graham said. “All the cars and trucks and plants that have been in existence since the Industrial Revolution, spewing out carbon day-in and day-out, will never convince me that’s a good thing for your children and the future of the planet.”…
“Whatever political push back I get I’m willing to accept because I know what I’m trying to do makes sense to me,” Graham said. “I am convinced that reason, logic and good business sense, and good environmental policy, will trump the status quo.”
Last night, the Lexington County South Carolina Republican Party joined the fun. The Los Angeles Times Reports:
Republican leaders in a South Carolina county known as a GOP stronghold have voted to censure U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham for working with Democrats on immigration and climate change.
It’s the second time since November that Republicans in a South Carolina county have voted to censure the GOP senator.
Lexington County Republican Party Chairman Rich Bolen said Tuesday the county’s executive committee voted 13-7 to rebuke Graham following more than an hour of debate late Monday.
Here is the Lexington County GOP’s full censure resolution:
Sen__Graham_Resolution.source.prod_affiliate.74 –
In November, I noted the consequences of these types of developments:
The Republican party is quickly becoming a caricature of itself, purging anyone who isn’t a hateful, ignorant science-hater. While it is good for Democrats politically, it is a largely negative development for the discourse and the country as a whole. It is hard to have a reasonable and intelligent debate when one of the two major political parties is completely unreasonable.
This assessment — which is backed up by the increasing likelihood that the Republican party will nominate a climate change denier in 2012 — remains valid. Further indications that the GOP will continue shifting to the right on climate policy include the evolution of Senator McCain’s position due to a primary challenge and several recent polls showing a sharp uptick in climate change denial among Republican voters.
So what makes Senator Graham different? A few factors come to mind:
1. He is not up for reelection until 2014.
2. He is a strong supporter of nuclear energy, and will likely be able to demand massive subsidies in exchange for his support.
3. He rightly considers climate change a national security issue, and in addition to serving on the Armed Services Committee in both the House and the Senate, he served in the United States Air Force prior to entering politics.
4. Graham has always been a bit of a maverick, frequently showing willingness to reject the party line:
In recent years Graham has developed a reputation as an independent dealmaker. In 2005 he joined with 13 moderates to block then Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist from destroying the filibuster in a fight over judicial nominees. In 2006 and 2007 he braved another censure – this one from Greenville County – to work with Ted Kennedy on immigration reform, telling incensed South Carolinians that they’re “bigots.”
What else am I missing? Why is Senator Graham an outlier in the Republican party on climate change legislation?
“I don’t think the Senate has an appetite for another such epic, polarized legislative war this session,” said Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.), who met with Sens. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) and Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) on Wednesday to strategize on how to enlist support for a compromise climate bill they are writing.
