Harry Reid: Do Not Build Ground Zero Mosque

There is a great quote from one of the cinematic masterpieces of our time that I believe encapsulates Harry Reid's asking the Cordoba House to not build at Park51. In Super Troopers Police Chief Grady tells Captain O'Hagan that "Desperation is a stinky cologne." In that case, Harry Reid simply reeks. He put out a statement today, after being pressured by Sharron Angle, his opponent for his Senate seat, on the Ground Zero Mosque. Reid's statement explained, "The First Amendment protects freedom of religion. Sen. Reid respects that but thinks that the mosque should be built some place else."

It is no secret that Reid's battle in Nevada is not going as well as he would hope. It's also no secret that Nevada is a relatively conservative state and its constituents would probably not like to see a Muslim community center in Lower Manhattan (even if it is over 2,000 miles away from the site.) It seems that Reid is going the way of John McCain in the hopes of clinging to his Senate seat, integrity be damned. What's most baffling is that it seems Reid is taking the advice of Sharron Angle's press release that had urged him to take a side in the matter. Her statement said, "As the Majority Leader, Harry Reid is usually President Obama's mouthpiece in the U.S. Senate, and yet he remains silent on this issue. Reid has a responsibility to stand up and say no to the mosque at Ground Zero or once again side with President Obama." Obviously, he chose the former.

Republicans Not Open to Compromise on Already-Compromised Oil Bill; Bill Dies

In what can hardly be viewed as a surprise, on Tuesday the Senate gave up on its oil spill bill (at least until after the August recess). As a refresher, the Clean Energy Jobs and Oil Accountability Act of 2010 was the substitute that Harry Reid pushed through for the climate—nay, renewable energy—nay, energy bill that was supposed to have emerged from the Senate many months ago. Reid's reason for not even bothering to try? It didn't have 60 votes. The reason the oil spill went nowhere this week? It didn't have 60 votes. If I didn't know any better, I'd say Republicans are just banking on a strategy where they're trying to keep Democrats from scoring any victories for the rest of the year, and they're not going to cooperate on any more legislation.

U.S. Senate Exhibits Pivotal Failure of Democracy

I've been writing about climate change issues for a while now. I've talked about the climate science, the leadership role of the House of Representatives, the childish politics and conservative propaganda. I've talked about the strong obstructionism against action by lobbyists, Republicans, and conservative Democrats. I've talked about the climatic, humanitarian, and security implications of inaction, and the concerted move (and failure) to block any government action at all. I've talked about the awareness among Americans, the problems with the media, and the implications of the oil spill.

But now it kind of feels like it's all over. Not because the Senate followed the House's leadership and passed a piece of climate change legislation of their own. But because the Senate fundamentally failed to do anything at all.

Climate Update: Murkowski Amendment Fails; Graham Officially Screws Climate Legislation

To update our loyal readers on the fate of our planet's climate, there's some good news and some bad news. The good news is that Senator Murkowski's attempt to strip the EPA of its authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act's Endangerment Finding has failed by a vote of 53 to 47. All 41 Republicans voted for the amendment and were joined by six Democrats: Lincoln (AR), Nelson (NE), Bayh (IN), Landrieu (LA), Rockefeller (WV), and Pryor (AR).

Attempts to debilitate the EPA aren't over, however. Several moderate Democrats have expressed interest in a bill introduced by Senator Rockefeller to postpone EPA action by two years, and Republicans and conservative Democrats in the House have their own plans for trying to put off climate change mitigation efforts.

A Bill Without a Cap on Carbon is Almost Worthless

Yet another week has passed with Senator Graham, the supposed Republican hero on climate legislation, equivocating about his support for the bill that he co-wrote. His reasons for the need for a "pause" on introducing the legislation? First, the immigration legislation issue (which, by the way, Reid has backed off from and Obama has announced will take a second priority to energy and climate). Second, the Deepwater oil spill. This boggles my mind. Shouldn't this catastrophe propel our elected officials toward supporting a clean energy bill, not away from it? Is Graham so unconditionally beholden to oil interests that this disaster really makes him need to back away from support for legislation that he has been working on for the past seven months?

Senators Kerry and Lieberman have announced that they will go through with the unveiling of their once-"tri-partisan" bill tomorrow, now without Graham. This is certainly going to be an uphill climb. Graham was the bill's biggest chance of passing, and he has wavered and waffled his way to opposing it. There are still a few GOPers who have supported climate legislation in the past (and some who have co-sponsored their own legislation this year), but without the momentum that Graham had given the American Power Act, Republicans will certainly not be flocking to support the bill.

Climate Bill on Hold Yet Again

As Kane has pointed out, Arizona's new immigration bill has created a huge stir throughout the country, and with good reason. The Latino community is rightfully outraged, and their frustration will no doubt manifest in the November elections, either in a surge in votes for Democrats, or a deliberate abstention from voting as a punishment for the Democrats they've elected who have not come through on federal immigration reform. Harry Reid, whose home state of Nevada is almost a quarter Hispanic, has acknowledged this reality, and has made it a priority to pass immigration reform before November, when many polls project he is likely to be ousted from his Senate seat.

On a slightly unrelated note (but a now extremely related note), the climate bill created by Senators Kerry, Graham, and Lieberman that was supposed to be unveiled on Monday has been delayed once again, after six months of delay. Why? Because Lindsey Graham, the only GOP Senator who seems willing to work with Democrats on either climate legislation or immigration reform, has asserted that he is unwilling to do both, and will kill climate legislation if Democrats attempt to tackle immigration first.

What was that Lincoln Quote?

When Barack Obama was elected president we heard about his seeming obsession with our 16th president. He read books on Honest Abe, used his bible at his inauguration and even themed the January festivities after the top hat enthusiast's famous Gettysburg Address. Given all of this Obama must have come across one of Lincoln's most famous quotes, uttered in his famous speech named for the quote, that "A house divided against itself cannot stand." Now Lincoln was alluding to the dispicable practice of slavery in the States, but if we twist the quote a little bit and make it "A party divided against itself cannot stand," we see trouble looming for Democrats.

Yes, I'm going back into the realm of the public option. That elusive Ross and Rachel portion of the health care bill (on-again, off-again: lame Friends reference, forgive me). President Obama said back in August it wasn't essential to the bill. In September House Speaker Pelosi said it was essential while at the same time House Majority Leader Hoyer said it wasn't. In other words, there was no Democratic leadership on the issue, and that lack of leadership continues today over the public option.

It was bad enough that Schumer said a few weeks ago that an embarrassing loss in the Senate Finance Committee was really a win for the public option, but now he is saying that he and other key Democratic senators convinced the White House that the public option was the way to go.

But if Schumer and company have convinced the Obama administration to really get behind a decent public option, why are reports coming out that Obama essentially told Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid that he is on his own for getting votes. If the Obama administration were really behind the public option, if they were "convinced" of its validity, why would they make it clear that they would turn their back on Reid in a crucial vote-getting campaign to prevent a filibuster?

Here is why, if we get a public option, it will be watered down: the Democrats are running around like chickens with their heads cut off. Are they really unable to sit down, say this is our plan, and just stick to it? It's funny that Obama will take a risk on the 2016 Olympics for Chicago (read: going to Copenhagen without knowing for sure that Chicago would win the bid) but when it comes to insuring millions of Americans he doesn't want in unless he is guaranteed a victory. Schumer is saying one thing, and reports come out indicating the opposite. Reid could emerge as a leader on this, and Obama undermines that.

I would love to be proven wrong. I would love to get a robust public option that really shakes up the insurance industry and gives a decent level of care to millions of uninsured Americans. The problem is that no clear leader is emerging in this fight and the very backroom politics that is supposed to be used to get votes and get things done is creating miscommunications within the party and leaves the public scratching their heads and opponents on the offensive. Like Lincoln (kind of) said: "A [party] divided against itself cannot stand [for anything]." The problem is they're falling on us.

Photo - Obama and Reid (Politico)