In an poorly sourced but widely quoted post-election analysis, Mark Ambinder wrote:
According to Newsweek (no link), the White House plans to aggressively enforce environmental regulations as they anticipate efforts from Republicans to strip authority from the EPA. Compromise on renewable energy standards is possible, but the posturing between Rep. Joe Barton, the chairman of the energy committee, and the administration, may make this terribly difficult. The GOP plans to hold high profile hearings examining the alleged “scientific fraud” behind global warming, a sleeper issue in this election that motivated the base quite a bit.
Actually, Joe “we’re being too mean to BP” Barton is not the chairman of the House Energy & Commerce Committee. Not yet, anyway.
Texas Rep. Joe Barton has taken a scorched earth approach to getting a waiver to become chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee in the next Congress.
Barton, term-limited by GOP rules to six years as the top Republican on a committee, Thursday sent out letters to the incoming 60-and-counting Republican freshmen asking them for support. The House Energy and Commerce Committee minority press staff took the unusual step of publicizing the move by distributing a sample copy of the letter.“Over the past four years, as Ranking Member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, I have led the charge against radical cap-and-trade legislation, fought the new entitlements and mandates that are the rotten core of President Obama’s health care law, and consistently applied free market principles to legislative decisions,” wrote Barton. “It’s been an uphill battle, and I’m grateful that, thanks to your votes, the cavalry is riding to the rescue.”
Ambinder is probably on to something with his prediction that the Republicans are thinking about holding hearings in an effort to debunk the theory of climate change. And, while that might depend on whether or not Rep. Barton succeeds in his bid for the Energy chair, it’s worth noting that Karl Rove spent election day “celebrating with Pennsylvania’s growing drilling industry.”
Like other corporate sectors, the fossil industry is hoping that Republicans will be able to roll back regulations that limit their profit-seeking at the expense of people’s health and safety. Rove told the attendees of a shale-gas conference in Philadelphia that the incoming Republican House of Representatives “sure as heck” won’t pass legislation to limit greenhouse pollution from fossil fuels:
“Climate is gone,” said Rove, the keynote speaker on the opening day of a two-day shale-gas conference sponsored by Hart Energy Publishing L.L.P. And Rove told the trade show, “I don’t think you need to worry” the new Congress will consider proposed legislation to put the controversial practice of hydraulic fracturing under federal rather than state regulation. The procedure, known as “fracking,” is responsible for the dramatic growth of shale-gas drilling in formations such as Pennsylvania’s vast Marcellus Shale.
“Climate is gone,” is one of those unintentionally accurate statements that tend to stick around in our national discourse. If House Republicans are bringing fake scientists to bear false witness before their committees, there’s not much hope for compromise on climate legislation, is there?
I think this gives us all a little hint as to what can be expected starting in January and for the remainder of Obama’s term. If the Democrats are not feverishly huddling right now trying to figure out a way to grab the narrative on this and all the other issues that will be treated in exactly the same way, then we can just go ahead and say, “Obama’s agenda is gone”, too. I think we knew all along that was the goal. And right now the GOP has the attitude that they can just drive the ball right down the field while the Dems just stand around trying to figure out what hit them.
If there was ever a time for strong leadership, it is right now. They can’t stand around moaning and feeling sorry for themselves. They have to recognize that the GOP goal is nothing less than total annihilation of Obama. The GOP’s mouth is watering once again at the idea of a permanent Republican government. Time to wake up and smell the coffee people. There has to be a strategy developed and tactics devised to fight this battle. The clock is ticking.
you forgot to mention Rahm Emanuel or Larry Summers. Shame on you.
Oops, my bad. Trying to juggle some work stuff with blog stuff and it just escaped my attention.
If it helps, I will do penance at my DLC shrine and say few Hail Rahms after lunch. That will have to suffice.
While both are thankfully gone, they sure didn’t help Obama any, did they? The question becomes where does Obama and his team go from here? I’m wondering something, and people can tell me I am crazy, I am just throwing it out there. Can Obama expect to move to the right and really get people excited about his re-election? After all, he didn’t get Democrats fired up for the mid-terms, so moving farther right will even depress things more, right?
As Jed Lewison points out, Democrats won with self-described moderates. If we had had a presidential level turnout we would have run even, instead we ran 7 points down. Obama won in 2008 by about 7 points. So, if nothing much changes we can expect Obama to win reelection narrowly and for us to win back about half the House seats we lost.
If we improve our position we will be in very good shape.
Of course, things won’t stay the same. We are all going to the circus.
Obama has to move to the right in one sense. He can’t pass a budget or the appropriations bills unless the House approves it. That means he’s going to have to get behind some domestic spending cuts. Fortunately, he built up some padding there, but unfortunately, if it is done wrong it will worsen the employment situation. We don’t want anti-stimulative legislation. It’s up to the Senate to work out a smart plan to shift priorities around so that we can make cuts that are offset by smarter spending.
Don’t many people, though, change their self described political category as often as we change our socks? Particularly when it comes to the elusive “moderate”. Isn’t that something that is so fluid that it can’t be depended on as a reliable variable?
Just wondering what you think.
No two electorates are the same, so you have to really work hard to understand what polls are telling you and what they are not. Because liberal Republican elected officials no longer exist, there are vastly fewer liberals voting for Republicans. Because the GOP is so immoderate there are fewer moderates voting for them. And because of FOX News and talk radio, more and more people self-identify as conservatives. The models are shifting all the time. What we know is that more people who voted for McCain showed up than people who voted for Obama. We know that older voters showed up in much greater numbers than young voters. We know that these handicaps are unlikely to exist in two years.
Thanks. Appreciate your insight.
Spending bills must originate in the house, but they can be changed by the senate right?
But why would McConnell even allow it to get to a point where something would come up with a vote? He has 47 senators and his is feeling very angry that he failed to gain majority leader status. Moreover, even if the Senate does change things, why would the House vote to agree to those changes when they can say ‘Senate Dems are shutting down the government because they don’t want to cut’? You say, smart plan but there is no smart plan.
An interesting thought. The GOP convinced the voters that Obama’s moderately center-left agenda this first two years was a combination of Marx, Lenin, Mao and Hitler all wrapped up in a communist flag. I think that is the overarching narrative that he will need to overcome. In the minds of many people I know he is truly a radical man. Now their minds will never be changed, but there are many out there who voted for Obama but voted for Republicans in the midterms who I think are not quite ready to go all-in GOP. People still hate Republicans more than Democrats and certainly more than they dislike Obama. Those are the people Obama needs to be concerned with in 2012.
Like Boo has pointed out, the legislation that has passed during Obama’s first two years is the best kept secret in flyover America. There was virtually no concerted effort to push back against the Fox News narrative. It became the reality to most Americans through the grapevine of talk radio, water cooler discussions and e-mail forwards. It went basically unchallenged. Who wouldn’t have rushed out to vote for someone who wanted to get rid of this radical agenda?
Like Boo has pointed out, the legislation that has passed during Obama’s first two years is the best kept secret in flyover America. There was virtually no concerted effort to push back against the Fox News narrative.
Which was one reason I always Tweet Fluffyhead and his producer about why not have Elizabeth Warren on .. but it is hard to have pushback that matters when Benedict Arnolds like Ben Nelson, Evan Bayh and the Blue Dogs are in your caucus .. stepping on your message
An unbalanced media is just a given in the structure of American politics. I’m afraid that will probably never change. Changing the “Liberal Media” meme is almost impossible. It is practically gospel and is impervious to factual or rational analysis. It is now akin to a religiously held view in a lot of this country. The actual facts surrounding the issue don’t matter.
I am watching to see what happens with the Keystone XL
pipline from Canada to Houston TX.
This is oil from sand and the pipeline would cross the aquifer in Nebraska.
Hillary Clinton, On 10/15/10 said that she was leaning toward approving it. Thr problem is that the State Department hasn’t finished looking in to the environmental issus yet.
Senators, the Nebraska Govenor and environmental groups are none too happy with Mrs. Clinton.
The regulations are in place for offshore oil drilling.
The Republicans hate the EPA and will try to make it powerless.
The Democrats still have the White House and the Senate. Imagine the Republicans being in that same position– they would be kicking ass.
They’ll prolly bring Lord Monckton, John Christy, Patrick Michaels, and Richard Lindzen. At least if they bring in John Christy and Richard Lindzen they’ll be bringing in actual scientists who oppose it.
Some famous Swedish scientist who opposed it has now swapped and gotten behind the program. I should note that while he opposed it, that’s a bad way to phrase it. He believed it to be real, but not that detrimental. Now he believes it’s very detrimental and we must do everything we can.
Rove’s remarks re: hydrofracking make me doubly glad that he wasn’t able to unseat our rep, Maurice Hinchey (NY-22) with his $600,000 contribution to the challenger.
They also make me want to personally put my boot up his fat, pasty ass.