IBD has a piece noting that plenty of Senators support bills to check EPA’s ‘global warming’ Power Grab, a vote on doing which is expected next week.
Not enough agree on one bill, however, to defeat a Democrat filibuster, even if the magic number of 60 in support of blocking EPA has been reached. Which remains a matter of some dispute, in part because certain Republican Senators are saying they support Sen. Inhofe’s bill…but not enough to publicly say so. In other words, these are the first guys to break when the inevitable ads start running about children not being able to breathe because of…carbon…dioxide. Or something.
I’m sure these Members had their reasons for seeking elective office.
But it gets worse over on the other side of the aisle. The above situation, translated, also reflects that the Dems have split up their votes to avoid actually checking EPA’s Power Grab while still saying “hey, I voted to stop them.” Knowingly in a way that averted actually stopping them.
The principal vehicle offering the opportunity for this cynical recklessness is a phony two-year delay…offered in the name of ending uncertainty of the looming EPA regulatory train wreck of ‘global warming’ rules (which would have the same impact on the climate it would have on children breathing, incidentally). Ah, yes, which brief timeout until past the 2012 elections does what, again, to reduce uncertainty caused by the rules? How much capital will be committed, or steel will go in the ground were this to pass? Passage presumably being the object of introducing it, Sen. Rockefeller? None.
It’s just about providing political cover. Shame. You’re willing to do this to the economy and your fellow citizens but for something you don’t have the principle to stand up and defend? Pretty gutless.
Here’s the real cherry. See if you can spot what’s missing in the calculus of our ever-responsible Majority Leader (Thanks, Nevada!):
“Reid has to balance the need for coal-state Democrats to distance themselves from the EPA with the need to not embarrass the administration.”
Of course, there are a few other things he could consider. But this account seems pretty accurate, from my observation of the proceedings in recent months.
There’s yer “change”. Not for the better.
Notice to Readers: The American Spectator and Spectator World are marks used by independent publishing companies that are not affiliated in any way. If you are looking for The Spectator World please click on the following link: https://spectatorworld.com/.
The offer renews after one year at the regular price of $79.99.