I’ve been on the offensive against Senator Graham for the past two days, expressing frustration with his mind-boggling hypocrisy and wholly apparent lack of integrity. I believe his participation in the crafting of climate change legislation was completely disingenuous, and I don’t think he ever actually intended to see it through to completion. His rhetoric throughout the process has been anything but helpful, and it was becoming apparent by mid-March that he was looking for an excuse to bail on the effort, blaming superficial process concerns for his lack of resolve. And as it turned out, that is exactly what happened yesterday. If Democrats have an ounce of sense they’ll never again take anything Senator Graham says at face value.
Now, that doesn’t at all mean that Harry Reid doesn’t share the blame for the Senate’s failure to address the issue this year. Those who blame Senator Reid for his decision to prioritize immigration reform over the climate bill make a number of good points. Senator Reid’s decision does in fact appear to be, as Senator Graham put it, a cynical political ploy designed to shore up his chances to maintain his seat this November. So yes, I think Senator Reid’s decision, which may have been implicitly backed by the Obama administration, was a plainly political move that played no small part in how all of this unfolded.
But that does not at all mean that Senator Graham has no agency in this. David Roberts writes:
It looks like an ass-covering decision by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) is about to scuttle efforts to bring a climate/energy bill to the floor this year.
How exactly is Senator Reid responsible for Senator Graham’s decision to reverse course? That decision was Senator Graham’s alone, regardless of how he frames it or who he tries to pin the blame on. Even after rumors began circulating that immigration was being prioritized over climate, Senator Kerry indicated that he still intended to move forward with his bill. And indeed, if Senators Kerry, Graham and Lieberman had introduced their bill on Monday and managed to cobble together 60 votes, Harry Reid would have brought it to the floor for a vote. I’m quite certain of that. Yes, Senator Reid hurt the cause by making a foolish and politically selfish decision. But Senator Graham was the one who put the nail in the coffin, and he probably would have come up with some other excuse to do so if this hadn’t come along.
Moving on, I’m baffled by Jon Chait’s truly strange argument that Graham is actually in the right here. He writes:
As for bad faith, Graham is a Republican Senator from South Carolina. His highest risk of losing his seat, by far, comes from the prospect of a conservative primary challenger. Indeed, I’d say that prospect is far from remote, and Graham is displaying an unusual willingness to risk his political future. He has little incentive to negotiate on these issues except that he believes it’s the right thing to do. So when Democrats put climate change on the backburner to take up immigration, and do so for obviously political reasons, Graham has every right to be angry. He’s risking his political life to address a vital issue, and Harry Reid is looking to save his seat.
Both of the bolded sections above seem to ignore who Senator Graham is and what he is about. On the claim that Graham’s motivation for working on this bill was entirely pure, I’d love to see some substantiation. Graham may have been working on the bill in order to weaken it at every step in the process, in a role similar to the one Chuck Grassley played as the health care bill moved through the Senate Finance Committee. And indeed, that is what he has been doing throughout the process, all the while taking every opportunity to stick his thumb in the eye of environmentalists, as insult to injury. Republicans frequently pretend to be interested in working on an issue in a bipartisan manner when they are actually just trying to weaken or derail it. This is not a new tactic, and Democrats are going to have to stop falling for it eventually. Or perhaps Senator Graham was trying to bolster his image as somewhat of a maverick who would love to pass bipartisan bills if it weren’t for those hyper-partisan Democrats. As David Dayen notes, this is classic Lindsey Graham:
I think Graham was dying for a reason to kill these bills where he was the “sensible Republican moderate” on them. This has been his pose for some time, to show to Washington that he’s willing to work across the aisle, but to never actually do it.
Based on how this has played out, either of those two scenarios seems far more likely to have been Graham’s motivation than that he simply ‘believes its the right thing to do.’
On Chait’s other point, that Graham ‘has every right to be angry,’ I agree, but with a caveat. Graham would have found an excuse to throw a fit and bail on the effort regardless. Whether it was the use of reconciliation on unrelated legislation, the Constitutionality of healthcare reform, or some other perceived slight, it was becoming pretty clear that Graham was searching for an excuse to take his ball and go home. Graham was going to throw a tantrum no matter what. Harry Reid just made it easier for him by making a selfish blunder at the worst possible moment.



9 Comments

I agree with Chait in the sense that Graham’s move was political. But that only goes to show you he wasn’t serious about climate legislation – process arguments aren’t about principles, they’re about politics.
Global warming is by far and away the most important problem that we face today and yet our feckless President and his band of incompetent and disingenuous hand-picked senators deliberately killed climate reform this year to provide him with political cover for shirking his responsibility.
God, how I detest these people!
Yes, I detest these crumbs, too, but I also think Graham would’ve found some way to pull out the (political) football anyway. If not this, then that. It’s all a Kabuki show.
We are cooked. Seriously: cooked by these crooks.
Yep!
Well, I’m glad to see…
Everyone played their roles to a tee…
To get what their corporate backers willed…
Climate-legislation was killed.
I’ve heard the proposed ‘climnate change legislation’ called ‘a Christmas stocking full of goodies for utiliy companies’. Forget by whom. But if it is so, was it really a loss?
We are so fucked.
Josh -
The Republicans are a minority in both chambers of Congress currently, and the filibuster could be eliminated (the famous “nuclear” option) if conditions warrant. If the total obstruction of all meaningful legislation and appointments does not amount to “conditions warrant” it is not clear what would.
In other words, why are you talking about Senator Lindsey? He’s a Republican, hence, irrelevant if the Democrats act in unison to make him so. Along with all other Republicans.
While I speculate that you are probably correct about Reid’s intentions – normally you can’t miss a bet placed on the cynicism of a politician – I think the real issue with respect to the climate change legislation is “If it is important, it can be done. Why aren’t the Democrats doing it?”
To be fair, there has been some motion on climate change legislation primarily surrounding how to handle expanded offshore oil drilling. Again, it is the Democrats driving this insanity, not the nihilist banana Republicans in the minority.
Exactly. The Republicans are only relevant because the Democrats want them to be used as an excuse. It’s not like I’d trust a bill from Senators Kerry, Graham and Lieberman anyway because if they’re the champions of it, I’m sure it’s a hunk of junk. The Congressional Democrats whole MO is coming up with excuses for passing bills that are corporatist crap – like how we saw with HCR how one roadblock after another was put up to be sure that only a corporatist bill got passed. Going nuclear would actually result in nuking the DNC because even low information voters would eventually catch on that these guys are a bunch of liars who only work to serve the corporate lobbyists while lying to the voters.
I would be happy to take the blame for killing the 2010 Fossil Fuel Cartel Protection Act. More corrupt taxpayer subsidies for Oil companies and their genocidal wars. This is the same policy that has given us permanent energy dependence on Saudi Arabia. The Saudi Oil Shiekhs paid us back by attacking us on 9-11.