RSS Feed MenuSenators Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and John Kerry (D-MA) recently penned a New York Times op-ed entitled “Yes We Can (Pass Climate Legislation).” In the article, the two Senators make a strong case for bipartisan legislation that tackles both climate change and energy security. They tout a new framework for bridging the partisan gap that has stymied climate legislation in the past.
This rare display of constructive bipartisanship has breathed new life into efforts to pass climate change legislation this year and dramatically changed the tone of the debate.
Suddenly, Democrats are uncharacteristically open to nuclear energy and additional offshore oil drilling.
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) called the Graham/Kerry effort “encouraging” and added, “As a supporter of increased nuclear and domestic energy production, I think there is receptivity in the House to additional discussion on these issues.”
Environment and Public Works Committee chair Barbara Boxer (D-CA), who previously voted against a climate bill because it promoted nuclear energy, now appears willing to have a robust nuclear provision in her own climate bill.
On the Republican side, Senator Judd Gregg (R-NH)—a leader in the effort earlier this year to brand the House climate bill a “cap-and-tax” proposal—said the Graham/Kerry effort “could be a major step forward,” and Senators Murkowski, Corker, Collins, Isakson and McCain also offered positive comments.
This collaboration has also won Senator Graham praise in his home state from both the environmental and the business communities. Environmental groups called it a “game changer.” Otis Rawl , executive director of the South Carolina Chamber of Commerce, agreed that Graham’s effort to find legislative compromise “is in the best interest of business.”
These results show the impact that a bit of political courage can have in our increasingly polarized political environment.
Senator Graham has chosen to step forward and help solve real problems facing our nation at a time when too many Republicans are content to busy themselves with political gamesmanship, or pander to the tea-party crowd.
Graham’s bipartisan approach on climate change and energy security should also be a winner with voters. Polling has consistently shown that a majority of voters want action to reduce carbon emissions, less dependence on foreign sources of energy, and more bipartisan effort to solve the nation’s problems.
A poll conducted in Illinois earlier this year by Republican pollster Whit Ayres found that three-fourths of voters believe Republicans should work with Democrats to craft a bill to cut carbon emissions. That number included 54 percent of Republicans and 73 percent of Independents.
A nationwide Zogby poll in August found that 71 percent of voters indicated support for the climate bill passed by the House in June, including 45 percent of Republicans. Since it is safe to assume the respondents did not actually read the bill, the poll is simply another indicator that addressing climate change enjoys broad public support.
With public sentiment favoring more comity in Congress and action to address climate change, opposing climate legislation is not the best way for Republicans to distinguish themselves from the Democrats. A better approach is to work constructively to produce a bipartisan climate bill that is better than one crafted solely by Democrats—then point out how the GOP improved the outcome.
This constructive approach will pay more dividends on Election Day than one rooted primarily in denial and demagoguery.
Senator Graham understands this. He recognizes the value of problem-solving over gridlock and of statesmanship over partisanship. In short, he is adhering to the old McCain campaign slogan: “Country First.”
Of course none of this will matter to the loudest voices on the right who are blinded by partisanship and a radicalized world view. Senator Graham will now become the target du jour of Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh, as does any Republican with the audacity to seek bipartisan solutions to our current problems.
For the sake of our nation, our party and our planet, other Republican Senators need to ignore the voices of polarization and roll up their sleeves like Senator Graham.
When asked about the prospect of addressing climate change and giving Obama a victory Graham said:
I think CO2 emissions are damaging the environment and this dependence on foreign oil is a natural disaster in the making. Let’s do something about it. I’d like to solve a problem, and if it’s on President Obama’s watch, it doesn’t bother me one bit if it makes the country better off.
I’ll vote for that.
Conservative Intellectual // Oct 21, 2009 at 11:24 am
A lot of the Blue Dog Democrats just ran as conservatives to get elected in conservative districts.
If I’m not mistaken, Webb was against the Iraq War. Webb’s no conservative, but he knows he has to pretend to be on at least some of the issues to win elections. Democrats always lie about their liberal beliefs in elections. This is the epitome of dishonesty, and if people will lie to get elected, they will lie once they are in power.
Arch // Oct 21, 2009 at 11:57 am
CI, if you were correct and the Blue Dogs were just as liberal as the other democrats they would have already forced through health care reform with a public option. It hasn’t been the Republicans stopping them, it’s been the Blue Dogs.
sinz54 // Oct 21, 2009 at 12:16 pm
conservative-intellectual: If I’m not mistaken, Webb was against the Iraq War. Webb’s no conservative, but he knows he has to pretend to be on at least some of the issues to win elections.
You do agree that Webb is NOT a Pelosi-type liberal, right?
You do agree that Ben Nelson (Nebraska) is NOT a Pelosi-type liberal, right?
If the Dems can win in Red State areas with candidates who are not liberals, why can’t the GOP win in Blue State areas with candidates who are not conservatives?
Just today, Michelle Malkin demanded that Newt Gingrich leave the GOP as a “RINO” and a sellout. When you guys start turning on Gingrich, architect of the biggest GOP sweep of Congress in generations, you’re in more trouble than you know.
Conservative Intellectual // Oct 21, 2009 at 12:55 pm
Some of the liberals that ran as fiscal conservative ARE supporting government run healthcare, which means they lied. I think Webb is a Pelosi type liberal…..does he oppose nationalized healthcare and cap and trade? Didn’t think so.
Newt Gingrich is backing a liberal Republican against a conservative one in that race. He’s been a sellout for a long time now. He did a commerical with Pelosi, WHO YOU JUST ADMITTED IS A LEFTWINGER TO MAKE ANOTHER POINT, on global warming. He’s going around with the insane leftwing riot inciting race hustler Al Sharpton to promote educational reforms that Sharpton supports.
People change. Newt has. That’s fine, but he’s not going to get credit for being a conservative back in 1994.
I note that you could not refute my slapdown of your mindless belief that the GOP can win without the conservative base.
Conservative Intellectual // Oct 21, 2009 at 12:57 pm
From some blog called Blue Virgnia:
Sen. Jim Webb also likes the idea of a competitive public plan because it may be the only way to cover the more than 47 million Americans without health insurance.
“There is no reason to believe that private insurers alone will meet the public purpose of ensuring coverage for all American at an affordable price for taxpayers,” Webb and 15 other senators wrote in an April letter urging that a public option be approved.
Conservative Intellectual // Oct 21, 2009 at 1:07 pm
From Allahpundit over at Hotair.com
“In other words, he’s treating this race as a litmus test to prove how big-tent the GOP can be. But … why? There’s no good reason to make this district, which should be a safe Republican seat, into a bellwether. Get a conservative elected and then find some socially liberal libertarians in purple districts to champion next year. Like Ace says, Scozzafava is so questionable that it’s not clear whether she’d be better than the Democrat, and since this is a special election, she’s probably looking at another challenge from Doug Hoffman a year from now anyway. I don’t get why Gingrich is digging in here: If he runs for president, this’ll be used against him by Romney et al., and if he doesn’t run for president, it’ll hurt his standing among conservatives as a senior statesman/spokesman for the party. Mystifying.”
sinz54 // Oct 21, 2009 at 5:31 pm
conservative-intellectual:
The only way you’re going to learn that your way isn’t working, is to try it EXACTLY your way, with no hedging or qualifications–and see what happens.
Nominate Sarah Palin for President in 2012. She can choose Tom Tancredo as her running mate.
If that ticket wins, then more power to you. I will admit right here on this blog that I was wrong.
But if that ticket loses big (as I suspect it will), maybe then you will be willing to give my way a try.
MI-GOPer // Oct 21, 2009 at 8:13 pm
Frankly, as a longtime GOP activist I shudder at the thought of a Palin-Tancredo ticket anywhere outside the Libertarian Party –and I wouldn’t wish that plague even on them.
The GOP has already tried the hard conservative road of the TommieDelay automatons… we pushed their issues on English Only, Saving the Flag, protecting Teri Schiavo, defending marriage and lots of other issues… it didn’t work, the GOP brand got ruined and when the little snots couldn’t have the dream ticket they demanded –I think that was Freddie Thompson at the top– they stayed home on Election Day in a spiteful snit and gave America our Magic Barack, a 60 Dem majority in the Senate, NancyBoTox for another 2 yrs or more and Ms Sotomayor on SCOTUS… permanently dumbing down the last great institution of our republic.
I’d think by now every conservative wannabe could see that doing the same “Stuck on Stupid” tricks ain’t going to work for the GOP… we don’t need a test team to prove that conservatives aren’t very good at governing. Moderates are. We need informed managers, not people who lob positions on issues like they’re grenades at a simulated war battle.
Conservative Intellectual // Oct 21, 2009 at 8:19 pm
“A political party cannot be all things to all people. It must represent certain fundamental beliefs which must not be compromised to political expediency, or simply to swell its numbers.
I do not believe I have proposed anything that is contrary to what has been considered Republican principle. It is at the same time the very basis of conservatism. It is time to reassert that principle and raise it to full view. And if there are those who cannot subscribe to these principles, then let them go their way.” Ronald Reagan
What the GOP needs is more people like Reagan and to purge sinz and mi-goper, who I believe voted Obama anyway.
sinz54 // Oct 22, 2009 at 10:37 am
conservative-independent: What the GOP needs is more people like Reagan and to purge sinz and mi-goper, who I believe voted Obama anyway.
You have nothing to worry about.
You guys “purged” me out of the GOP years ago. I’m a registered Independent now.
Guys like you “purged” me out of RedState.com too. Heaven forbid any outside ideas should penetrate their right-wing echo chamber.
Satisfied?
This is America. Whom I voted for is none of your business. But I told you I did not vote for Obama. I told you this as a courtesy. But you ideologues don’t respect courtesy, mutual respect, or the ability to disagree without being disagreeable. You want Civil War II.
sinz54 // Oct 22, 2009 at 10:38 am
mi-goper: I’d think by now every conservative wannabe could see that doing the same “Stuck on Stupid” tricks ain’t going to work for the GOP
You would be wrong.
Surf on over to RedState.com where they are still adoring Cheney and Palin.
sinz54 // Oct 22, 2009 at 10:45 am
conservative-intellectual: People change. Newt has. That’s fine, but he’s not going to get credit for being a conservative back in 1994.
Newt hasn’t changed.
His party has.
Newt wasn’t just a “conservative” in 1994. He was also a visionary with independent, creative ideas. He has a technocrat’s attitude of letting the facts speak for themselves. Today, Newt accepts that global warming is a scientific reality. He accepts that such externalities as pollution and global warming are not cost-accounted by traditional free market economics.
The people whom Newt’s ideas appealed to–people like me north of the Mason-Dixon Line–have since fled the GOP and become registered Independents.
What’s left is a rump party dominated by white Southern ideologues. I read their stuff on RedState.com, and I’m stunned at how out of phase they are with the rest of the country. Some of them are still sorry the South lost the Civil War–and they reassert the right of states to secede from the Union today if Obama gets to be what they consider to be “too socialist.”
And without any background in science, without any appreciation for the scientific method, they conclude that global warming is an Al Gore hoax and that Darwin’s theory of evolution is unproven.
People like me don’t want to be part of a group like that. We just don’t fit in.
MI-GOPer // Oct 22, 2009 at 1:32 pm
C-I offers: “What the GOP needs is more people like Reagan and to purge sinz and mi-goper, who I believe voted Obama anyway.”
Now why go an act like an asshat, C-I? I’m a Party activist; I don’t just rely on my vote to describe me -like you might- I work within the Party as a volunteer; I worked for Romney & McCain & Bush and Bush41 & Reagan & Dole & Alexander and hundreds of candidates through the yrs. I’m betting you’re one of those angry white guys sitting on the sofa bitching at the TV news show as “proof” of your conservative bona fides. Hey buddy, do us all a favor and go start in on your second bag of prok rinds, ok?
While you may think a purge is your best, most-twisted recipe for the New Conservative Society of Pure Thinkers Thinkin’ da Pure Thoughts within the GOP, our side of the coin has been tossing your types out of power positions faster than the Club4Greed can write checks… which is pretty fast. Ron Reagan knew he needed a broad base to win election… it’s why he pushed his tax-cut, small govt credentials long, long, long before he pushed the social conservatism you wrongly think best describes him.
Look, my side doesn’t mind you guys being a part of the electorate who help the GOP regain its lost ground with voters driven away by your TommieDelay automaton litmus test issues… and we don’t have to stand in the public square and repudiate each of the Stuck on Stupid policies your side forced on us… but you ain’t getting near the gears or levers of power again. Ever. You had your chance; you ruined the Party’s brand. Conservatives; not RINOs. You already had a chance at purging the Party and it hasn’t worked out very well.
You guys & your short-sighted attitudes gave us NannyBoTox, HairyGreed, Magic Barack and a 60 Dem majority in the Senate. What, you want to keep going down this track until you’ve made the GOP as meaningless as the Libertarian Party? I don’t think so, sister.
Ron Reagan was a man of incredible contradictions but I admired his ability to see the pragmatic side of politics in spite of being driven to the Far far far Righthand side of the road by whacko conservatives seeking some 4th Reich of Conservatism. If he were here, he’d spit in your eye for using him as justification for your political lunacy.
MI-GOPer // Oct 22, 2009 at 1:43 pm
sinz54 offers: “You would be wrong. Surf on over to RedState.com where they are still adoring Cheney and Palin.”
First off, sinz, you’ve got an axe to grind with RedState for getting banned, go to it. Have at it.
You got a beef to tenderizer with conservatives still Stuck on Stupid inside the GOP, go at it. Pound away. Unlike Magic Barack and his thuggery Administration, I respect your 1st amendment rights and you’re free to assail away at all those boogey-men that still habit your pumpkin patch.
I don’t agree with you that former Veep Cheney is anything like a Stuck on Stupid conservative. In fact, he’s a brilliant political tactician and skilled public leader who has already handed the Magic Barack team it’s own head twice now… and, it looks from his comments before the Center for Security Policy, a 3rd time is simply sublime M-A-G-I-C.
http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/p18209.xml
Grind that axe of your’s against RedState all you want for banning you from commentary. Argue away the day on why conservatives are hurting the GOP.
But leave Veep Cheney alone. He’s way, way, way out of your league.
sinz54 // Oct 23, 2009 at 6:22 pm
mi-goper: I don’t agree with you that former Veep Cheney is anything like a Stuck on Stupid conservative.
I never claimed he was.
What I do claim, is that Cheney’s national approval rating is even lower than Sarah Palin’s. What I am claiming is that the GOP base is in love with certain public figures whom the rest of the country frankly wants nothing to do with. The rest of the nation outside the GOP strongholds is glad that Bush and Cheney have retired to private life.
It’s all part of the same syndrome: The views, attitudes, and political figures backed by the GOP base these days are out of phase with those of the rest of the nation. That’s because the GOP base is mostly white Southerners and Mountain State types and Utahns. Culturally they are very different from, say, Northeastern suburbanites.