Analysis: Obama scores major victory on climate
Photo 
The Jan. 10, 2009 file photo shows a flock of geese flying past a smokestack at the Jeffery Energy Center coal power plant near Emmitt, Kan.. Sweeping legislation to curb the pollution linked to global warming and create a new energy-efficient economy is headed to an uncertain future in the Senate after squeaking through the House. The vote was a big win for President Barack Obama, who hailed House passage as a "historic action." "It's a bold and necessary step that holds the promise of creating new industries and millions of new jobs, decreasing our dangerous dependence on foreign oil and strictly limiting the release of pollutants that threaten the health of families and communities and the planet itself," Obama said in a statement on Friday, June 26, 2009.
WASHINGTON — Facing a rare defeat, President Barack Obama put a big dose of political capital on the line and scored a major victory just when he needed one.
In private telephone conversations and last-minute public appeals, Obama leaned heavily on House Democratic holdouts to support the first energy legislation ever designed to curb global warming. The measure ended up passing in dramatic fashion.
In the end, the president's furious lobbying — coupled with a final push by allies including former Vice President Al Gore — carried much weight. To a certain extent, the victory validated Obama's governing style — and that could bode well for his other top domestic priority, health care. He faces an even more difficult test in shepherding the energy and climate legislation through the Senate.
Obama recognizes as much.
"Now my call to every senator, as well as to every American, is this: We cannot be afraid of the future. And we must not be prisoners of the past," Obama said in his weekend Internet and radio address. He scrapped his talk on his original topic, health care, and recorded the climate bill speech shortly after the Democratic-controlled House backed the measure on a 219-212 vote late Friday.
It was a win Obama certainly needed. Congress was getting ready for a weeklong holiday break and already health care was hanging in the balance. While his popularity remains strong, Obama's overall ratings have slipped a bit. This restive nation also is wary of some of his proposals, including deficit spending as Obama pumps an enormous amount of money into the economy and elsewhere.
The narrow House vote suggests potential trouble ahead with the Democratic rank-and-file as the White House seeks to tackle more big-ticket issues in Obama's first year in office; health care tops the list.
As Congress tackles that contentious issue, Obama's left flank is beating up him and his allies over the effort to overhaul the costly and complex U.S. medical system. Moderate Democrats are looking to forge compromises to pass a measure; liberal critics are dug in over elements they want to see in any legislation. Liberal groups are running ads against senators who won't publicly support a government program to compete against private insurers.
Democrats have a comfortable House majority. But the climate legislation pitted Democrats who represent East Coast states that have been cleaning up their act against Democrats in the Mideast and other places that rely heavily on coal and industry. They have a longer, more expensive path to meet requirements in the measure.
Senate passage is far from certain, given that Democrats lack the 60 votes needed to cut off a likely filibuster.
Obama's personal touch — and another dose of his political capital — will be required again.
White House senior adviser David Axelrod said Sunday on ABC's "This Week" that he didn't expect Senate action until the fall. "We're trying to solve a problem that has languished for a decade," he said.
"I hope it won't pass the Senate," Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell said on "Fox News Sunday," claiming the measure would lead to "significant increases in electricity across America."
In the House, Obama was vindicated — at least for now — with his hands-off approach to accomplishing his legislative goals. He prefers to provide broad policy principles on his priorities, leaving the details to Congress.
Obama acknowledged Sunday that he had reservations about a provision that would penalize trade partners that don't work to curb pollution. "At a time when the economy worldwide is still deep in recession and we've seen a significant drop in global trade, I think we have to be very careful about sending any protectionist signals out there," he told a group of reporters.
Still, he called the bill "an extraordinary first step."
He temporarily may have put to rest concerns — expressed publicly by Republicans and privately by Democrats — that he's trying to do too much: so many policy changes in the midst of a recession and wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Obama has had a string of early successes, the $787 billion economic stimulus among them.
The climate bill victory was different. It was grander. It had international consequences. It perhaps meant more to Obama than the others.
After ignoring global warming for decades, most leading nations now agree it's an urgent danger. The U.S. public, too, has come to same conclusion in recent years.
The House measure would, for the first time, limit the pollution blamed for global warming while signaling a new commitment to combating global warming. President George W. Bush gave the matter the short shrift.
Remaking the energy industry and curbing global warming have been hallmarks of Obama's platform since he began his presidential campaign in 2007, if not before that.
Sensing the legislation was in trouble early last week, the White House stepped up its involvement.
First, Obama pressed the House to act during a news conference.
Then, the White House held a hastily arranged Rose Garden event Thursday that raised the stakes. Obama pleaded for votes, acknowledged the changed world view on the subject and stressed the opportunity at hand for the United States.
"The nation that leads in the creation of a clean energy economy will be the nation that leads the 21st century global economy. Now is the time for the United States of America to realize this as well. And now is the time for us to lead," he said.
A day later, after a flurry of phone calls from Obama to recalcitrant Democrats, the House spoke — and said it agreed.
Will the Senate?
Jul 1, 2009 at 10:34 a.m.
Suggest removal
explain, mr. scientist, why temps have been going down in the last few years?? And what about the scientist with the EPA who proved it wrong and the Obama administration covered it up?? There are alot of questions going unanswered in this controversy and everyone seems to invalidate one another so much that we don't know what to believe. I believe that it goes in cycles and we can't predict what it will do. It is scare tactics to tax the American people to death and also for Obama's Socialist agenda.
Jul 1, 2009 at 10:15 a.m.
Suggest removal
Liz Sidoti is a writer for AP and she is anything but objective.
Jun 30, 2009 at 1:28 p.m.
Suggest removal
RAF, I agree with you to some extent. Committees and their oversight powers are a corruption of Congress and should be eliminated.
Global Warming is real and we will have to pay one way or another. Those who think it is a hoax never provide specific details as to why they think it isn't real. They provide no evidence, facts or countervailing theories as to why CO2 levels and temperatures have been rising. Their answer is to accuse the vast majority of scientists of some absurd conspiracy and then make delusional claims as to costs in a future that hasn't happened. It is an imperfect science that changes as new data have accumulated, however, that is what science does. It changes based on facts and not ridiculous claims made by the ignorant.
This bill is a failure because cap and trade works only when the permits have actual value and not when they are just handed out like so much candy at a parade. A carbon tax is the best route. Why? Because if you walk or ride your bike or heat your house with solar or wind you would never have to pay the tax.
Jun 30, 2009 at 9:55 a.m.
Suggest removal
Obama might have scored on this but the american tax payer sure didn't!! We just scored the biggest tax hike in history because of this!! How stupid can we be???? Global warming is a HOAX!!! Be a real scientist and test it.
Jun 30, 2009 at 4:22 a.m.
Suggest removal
hopefully he will be a one term president and then we can go about fixing his messes. this man is very dangerous and leading us down many slippery slopes. the chickens HAVE come home to roost!!!!
Jun 30, 2009 at 12:40 a.m.
Suggest removal
All our homes have to meet California standards on energy and we can not buy or sell without Gov approval. Gasoline prices will dramatically increase, the government will be controling Industry? oh yes its true and every year 2.5 million workers will lose their jobs. As they are replaced by green workers (500,000) per year maybe, possibly, or not? These are just a few wonderful things oh yes your cars will also have to match Pelosi land err I mean California standards. "Oh yes they did" And they did it without reading the damn bill! This is so insane it is no longer funny
Jun 29, 2009 at 7:02 p.m.
Suggest removal
"generally the President getting his legislation passed is considered a victory."
-
You are correct, however this was never questioned by me. What was questioned was the reporters "spin" on the victory. Winning a vote in the congress by 7 votes can hardly be described as winning in dramatic fashion or by carrying much weight.
Jun 29, 2009 at 6:55 p.m.
Suggest removal
"I find it somewhat juvenile to complain about Congress or a representative from a district you don't vote in and never will."
-
This is terribly naive. With the current rules in place in congress and the senate senior members from both parties have more influence over the district you live in than do the members representing you.
Jun 29, 2009 at 5:10 p.m.
Suggest removal
A big victory for Democrats and a big blow to the average Joe. Tripling my electric bill. That's really going to help me and my family. So much for not taxing people making less than $250,000 a year. Oh wait it's not a tax it's a "fee".
Jun 29, 2009 at 5:07 p.m.
Suggest removal
This cap and trade is where the free market goes to die. Let's pray this doesn't pass the Senate.
Jun 29, 2009 at 4:56 p.m.
Suggest removal
Don't blame Alliant Energy when your electric bills skyrocket because of this legislation. What happened to Obama saying that he wouldn't tax the guy making less the $250,000? This is a hidden tax cooked up by this administration looking to pay for all this government spending.
Jun 29, 2009 at 4:55 p.m.
Suggest removal
RetiredAirForce, I'm sure you are "warmed" by your own view of things, but generally the President getting his legislation passed is considered a victory. You can be assured that 20 or 50 years from now, when the effects of this legislation are evaluated, that nobody will care how many votes it got.
Jun 29, 2009 at 4:10 p.m.
Suggest removal
GlobalWarmingHoax.com is run by Canadians who would be happy to have a warmer Earth.
Jun 29, 2009 at 3:28 p.m.
Suggest removal
GlobalWarmingHoax
Refuting the Myth of Man-made Global Warming
Arguments based on science, news, and common sense. This site is non-partisan and non-religious based. In fact we fight the new faith based religion of global warming. Don't keep arguing the subject, just tell them to go to GlobalWarmingHoax.com!
Jun 29, 2009 at 2:43 p.m.
Suggest removal
futurerichguy agree that it will create more skilled jobs but HOW MANY? How many low skill jobs will it create? And yes, in the long run, cleaner air, will be a benefit. Oil dependency cut will be a great benefit also but why the rush? This has been a problem for decades and now we rush a bill through, a bill which I'm sure was not studied or read by a large majority of the people who voted for it as well as those who voted against it. We have only been given scrapes on how wonderful all this will be, etc., etc., but have we been given things like COST, HOW LONG IT WILL ACTUALLY TAKE? The party in power said it would take too long to drill for our own oil but HOW LONG WILL IT TAKE TO DO WHAT THEY WANT TO DO WITH THIS BILL--1YR, 5YRS, 10YRS OR 20YRS? And I repeat, what else is in this bill that we are not aware of?
Energy independence and a healthy climate are great and I don't know of anyone who doesn't want that but does this plan really help or is it just a feel good bill?
Jun 29, 2009 at 12:59 p.m.
Suggest removal
I find it somewhat juvenile to complain about Congress or a representative from a district you don't vote in and never will. People hate Nancy Pelosi but isn't this a waste of time since most people who don't like her don't live in her district and will never vote for or against her. Its like being angry at a shadow.
Jun 29, 2009 at 12:28 p.m.
Suggest removal
usaret, typically pursuing new technologies creates high value jobs in engineering and science. We saw something similar with the automation of manufacturing, loss of low skilled jobs, and gain of high skilled jobs. With energy, we'll see a net increase in high skilled jobs and a net decrease in the trade deficit as we won't be importing as much fossil fuels. Per 15yearsthere's comment about reanimated corpses, I felt the same way about John McCain. I do agree with 15yearsthere on the conflict of interest between Pelosi and this technology. I just have a hard time seeing Pelosi and T. Boone Pickens as allies.
Jun 29, 2009 at 11:43 a.m.
Suggest removal
Hmm...i wonder if Nancy Pelosi has any personal financial interest in green energy.She may not, but since her husband owns stock in a company that promotes wind-powered electricity and the wider use of natural gas as a fuel, i guess he does.How typical for our government to make moves that benefits the already rich and hurts the middle class.
Jun 29, 2009 at 11:36 a.m.
Suggest removal
Be prepared to pay through the nose.
Solar and Wind are nice but currently expensive.
Where will the jobs be created?
Will jobs gained exceed jobs lost?
Why does this program have to be rushed? The stimulus bill was rushed and they've hardly spent any.
What is in this bill that we DON'T KNOW ABOUT?
How many earmarks added?
Jun 29, 2009 at 10:05 a.m.
Suggest removal
Nice personal attack 15. So typical.
Jun 29, 2009 at 9:08 a.m.
Suggest removal
Hopefully the comments about this article don't turn it into a "comments disabled by staff" situation.
-
As i watch Minority Leader John Boehner pick apart this bill, specifically the 300+ page addition that was added at 3:09 in the a.m. (this is on youtube). I realized a easy way to decide if this bill is good or bad for the american people.When the re-animated spastic corpse looking horror that is Nancy Pelosi, gets up and says this bill is about "jobs,jobs,jobs,jobs", you can rest assured that it probably isn't....imo on this one.
Jun 29, 2009 at 8:34 a.m.
Suggest removal
"the measure ended up passing in dramatic fashion....In the end, the president's furious lobbying — coupled with a final push by allies including former Vice President Al Gore — carried much weight."
-
What kind of reporting is this. The bill barely passed 219-212; how can this be described as anything other than a political disaster. If Gore and the President's lobbying skills are to be judged fairly, by the results, it proves they could not even convince their whole party to vote for it.
Before you post a comment, consider this:
Note: GazetteXtra.com does not condone or review every comment. Read more in our User Policy AgreementPost Comment
Commenting requires registration.