Senate Democrats Abandon Carbon Rationing—For Now

|

Hmm. Hmm. Good

Unable to muster 60 votes in the Senate, Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has pulled proposed legislation that would have imposed a cap on greenhouse gas emissions from utilities and mandated a federal renewable energy standard, requiring local distribution companies to buy high-priced wind and solar power. Instead, according to Politico, the Democratic leadership will attempt to pass a more limited energy bill in the fall that will have:

…low-hanging-fruit provisions dealing with the oil spill, Home Star energy efficiency upgrades, incentives for the conversion of trucking fleet to natural gas and the Land and Water Conservation Fund.

The death of the expensive and pork-laden carbon rationing scheme is good news for now. However, it is widely expected that the Democrats will lose control of the House of Representatives and reduce their membership in the Senate in the upcoming mid-term elections. Some commentators fear that defeated Democrats who are no longer beholden to their constituents will use the lame duck session in December to ram through carbon rationing (and much else).

Advertisement

NEXT: California Roundup: Will Golden State Fall Behind On License Plate Advertising? Cortines: No More!

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. We just have to keep our boot on their necks.

    1. Lock and load, boys!*
      .
      .
      .
      *Don’t worry, Rachel. It’s just an old saying.

  2. Some commentators fear that defeated Democrats who are no longer beholden to their constituents will use the lame duck session in December to ram through carbon rationing (and much else).

    I’m buying tar futures.

    1. Feather futures also look promising.

    2. They are calling it the year of the mad duck. I don’t see how they can do it. There are 41 Republicans in the Senate. None of them, not even the moron twins from Maine, would sign on for allowing a mad duck Congress. And even if they did, some of the Democrats up for re-election in 2012 would put a stop to it.

      Unless there is some way to ram stuff through by majority vote in the Senate, I don’t see how it happens.

      1. the moron twins from Maine

        What the hell is wrong with that state?

        1. Form of — giant douche!
          Shape of — balloon knot!

        2. Its the transition zone to Canada.

          1. Don’t you guys know your history? Maine used to be part of Massachusetts.

            1. See here – 1820, Missouri Compromise.

      2. Unless there is some way to ram stuff through by majority vote in the Senate, I don’t see how it happens.

        That’s what those nice people in Massachusetts said in January.

        1. 1) “reconciliation”
          2) A promising new Republican Senator who drinks the DC Kool Aid within 45 days of arriving there.

    3. It’ll be interesting to see how many new fans of Right to Carry emerge.

  3. Yes, it’s going to be a very productive last two months of the year on Capitol Hill.

  4. Nothing says Geek like real crappy alt-text.

  5. “I found this looking for pictures of a dude blowing a fireman.”

  6. As everyone knows, lame duck sessions are reserved for impeaching the president.

    1. Not a bad idea.

  7. I got a WSJ news alert a couple of minutes ago and did a little happy dance.

    If they ram something this unpopular through after having done the same thing with Obamacare, it may be a very long time before the Democrats see majorities in Congress again. They may get the presidency back in another few election cycles, but Obama’s going to be an old man before they control the legislative branch.

    1. If we can just keep the Republicans from spending, too, maybe there’s a chance of getting the deficit under control without huge tax increses. Methinks you did your little happy dance a little early.

  8. I can see them rolling some kind of Bush tax cut extension in with the rest of their wish list and ramming another 2,000 page omnibus monstrosity through. They could probably pick up one (1) idiot Republican Senator for that.

    1. Obama is saying he won’t do it. Those tax increases are going to really hurt the economy and the housing markets.

      1. “Obama is saying he won’t do it.”

        This could possibly be the only promise he’ll keep.

  9. it is widely expected that the Democrats will lose control of the House of Representatives

    And since when did reason start doing Dem propaganda? The Repubs used to be so much better at this game. Now if the Dems hold the House by one seat it will be called a victory.

    1. But that is true. If the Democrats manage to hold the House after their performance over the last year and a half it will be a victory.

      1. You mean the most successful legislative session in decades?

        Do the math. It’s not gonna be as easy for the GOP as many GOP cocksuckers like yourself fantasize about.

        1. So successful the Congress currently has an 11% approval rating. I guess people are just jealous of their success.

          1. Well, they were successful at getting things passed. Of course, what they managed to get passed are steaming piles of shit, but nonetheless, they were successful.

            1. Well, I happen to like steaming piles of shit.

              1. Evidently so did your mother.

              2. Your unorthodox porn collection attests to that.

        2. Why are you here?

          1. To convince libertarians that fascist torturing war-mongering industry puppet anti-intellectual theocrats aren’t the pragmatic choice for the sake of liberty in this country.

            1. Funny, that you would call others socialists. You’re the one who wants government control of industry, massive wealth redistribution, etc.

              I have no love for theocrats, war-mongers, torturing, or anti-intellectualism, so I don’t know where you’re pulling this from, either.

              And I have a feeling you don’t understand the word ‘liberty’ to mean the same thing I do.

              1. Didn’t call anyone a socialist, but by your definition the GOP fits the bill exactly as much as the Dems, so it’s a pretty meaningless smear to throw around.

                1. Tony Fascists were socialists. They hated capitalism. They didn’t call it the National SOCIALIST Party for nothing.

                  1. It’s pretty simplistic a la Professor Glenn Beck to say “fascists hated capitalism.” If you read any Mussolini you see that he thought the socialist idea of class war to be a dangerous idea, instead he wanted to “harmonize” the capitalists and the laborers under nationalism.

                    1. We are socialists, we are enemies of today’s capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions.

                      Now if you will excuse me, I am having dinner with Saddam later this evening. And he hates it when I am late.

                    2. Like Il Duce Hitler was all over the place on many issues depending who he was trying to sway at the time.

                    3. Of course Il Duce was also in the habit of saying anything that seemed to go over popular at the time…

                    4. Il Duce started as a communist. He turned socialist and fascist later when he realized that it was an easier path to power. And he never a fanatic like the German fascists. He refused to turn over the Italian Jews clear through his time in power.

                  2. “They didn’t call it the National SOCIALIST Party for nothing.”

                    By that logic the German Democratic Republic was a democratic republic…

                    1. If that were the only thing about the regime that was socialist, you would be right. But sadly as usual you are not. Let’s go to the source. From Mein Kempf

                      The folkish philosophy is fundamentally distinguished from the Marxist by reason of the fact that the former recognizes the significance of race and therefore also personal worth and has made these the pillars of its structure. These are the most important factors of its view of life. ?

                      “If the National Socialist Movement should fail to understand the fundamental importance of this essential principle, if it should merely varnish the external appearance of the present State and adopt the majority principle, it would really do nothing more than compete with Marxism on its own ground. For that reason it would not have the right to call itself a philosophy of life. If the social programme of the movement consisted in eliminating personality and putting the multitude in its place, then National Socialism would be corrupted with the poison of Marxism, just as our national-bourgeois parties are.”

                      “The National Socialist Movement, which aims at establishing the National Socialist People’s State, must always bear steadfastly in mind the principle that every future institution under that State must be rooted in the movement itself.”

                      Or how about fascist theologian Gregor Strasser

                      Gregor Strasser, National Socialist theologian, said:
                      “We National Socialists are enemies, deadly enemies, of the present capitalist system with its exploitation of the economically weak ? and we are resolved under all circumstances to destroy this system.”

                      Or if that is not good enough for you, lets go to an outside party. Hayak in the Road to Surfdom

                      “The connection between socialism and nationalism in Germany was close from the beginning. It is significant that the most important ancestors of National Socialism?Fichte, Rodbertus, and Lassalle?are at the same time acknowledged fathers of socialism. ?. From 1914 onward there arose from the ranks of Marxist socialism one teacher after another who led, not the conservatives and reactionaries, but the hard-working laborer and idealist youth into the National Socialist fold. It was only thereafter that the tide of nationalist socialism attained major importance and rapidly grew into the Hitlerian doctrine.”

                      They were socialists MNG, give it up.

                    2. I know MNG, Andrew Breitbart didn’t show all of a video. So that means Hitler wasn’t a socialist.

                      There I saved you the time of posting your response. Don’t ever say I didn’t do anything for you.

                    3. Only John could be dumb enough to start a long post arguing the nazis=socialists with Hitler’s words about the fundamental difference between his movement and Marxism!

                    4. Leave the cut and pasting to experts like Breitbart John…

                    5. And of course you had to yell Beitbart and Glenn beck in the thread to. That is just classic. I am really starting to prefer Tony over you as the resident liberal. Tony is a hack but he admits it. And sometimes he will make a salient point. You can’t even do that lately. You should at least try to hold up the liberal end of the argument. Otherwise people think that you are just a sockpuppet set up to make liberals look stupid.

                    6. Marxism and socialism in their 20th century forms are not the same. They were not communists they were socialists.

                      And calling someone dumb while making a completely irrelevent point doesn’t do yourself very much credit.

                    7. Seriously MNG, can you even make an argument anymore? Can you do anything but insult people and avoid the issue? You used to not be like this. The quality of your thinking and ability to engage arguments has gone down drastically in the last year. You can’t even respond anymore. You just read “Marxism” in one quote completely misunderstand the quote and ignore the other four and then call me stupid.

                      That is just a sorry effort. Has Obama being in office reduced your IQ? Honestly what has happened to you?

                    8. Only MNG would would be dumb enough to object to a post by focusing on the “start”.

                2. I meant fascists, but John’s comments below is what I was implying…fascism=socialism.

                  A lot of people seem to think that fascist = racist or Jew-hater, but really, that’s only a small part of their loathsomeness. I really detest the government either outrightly owning, or through excessive regulation, controlling, many factors of production and the economy.

                  1. Damnit, I hate these nested comments…this was in response to Tony’s reponse to my earlier post.

                  2. “A lot of people seem to think that fascist = racist or Jew-hater, but really, that’s only a small part of their loathsomeness.I really detest the government either outrightly owning, or through excessive regulation, controlling, many factors of production and the economy.”

                    Yeah, I mean, what’s genocide compared to that?

                    1. I’m not talking about the actual genocide, or even the Nazis, I’m talking about what people seem to think a modern ‘fascist’ is. Apparently, for people like Tony (and, admittedly, a number of other ‘progressives’ that I’ve talked to), a fascist is a theocrat, war-monger, industry puppet, etc, not a fucking hyper-patriotic, market-socialising enemy to freedom that a real fascist actually is. You don’t even need to be a race-hater to be fascist.

                    2. It all turns on what you think was “essential” to “fascism” (the latter in quotes because there was a bit of variation between Italian, Spanish and German fascism afaik). There was regulation of the economy, censorship, militarism, nationalism etc.

                      I don’t think “fascist” entered the lexicon as “regulator of the economy” but as someone who advocates violent oppression of dissent/minorities.

                    3. “but as someone who advocates violent oppression of dissent/minorities.”

                      By that definition, Stalin and Lennin by virtue of their treatment of the Soviet ethnic minorities were fascists.

                    4. And Wilson and FDR as well.

                    5. Well, yeah, that is “popular” use of the word “fascist” a la Jeffrey Lebowski would apply to all of those.

                    6. “I keep telling you, man, you’re Mr Lebowski. I’m the Dude.”

                    7. John I think the point is that these terms are not that intellectually useful, they are mostly just used as epithets and conversation stoppers. The right-wing blowholes you worship aren’t really referring to Obama’s economic policies when they calling him a socialist, they’re just substituting that word for the one that they really want people to conjure but which isn’t used in polite company anymore.

                    8. Useless terms, you mean like every liberal calling anything they don’t like racist or fascist?

                      Obma is some degree a socialist. He is not a doctrinaire socialist. But he certainly supports some policies that can be fairly described as socialsts.

                      And fascists were most certainly by their own admission socialists. But not all socialists are fascists. That fact doesn’t mean liberals are fascists or that Obama is like Hitler. It just means the socialist ideology is very easy to wed to some very nasty things.

                      Why liberals can’t admit this is beyond me. It doesn’t mean they are fascist. It just means that some of their ideas when taken to the extreme can cause some very bad things.

                    9. John liberals think Obama is dangerously on the edge of being a corporatist centrist. Socialists laugh at the comparison. It’s not only dishonest, it’s dishonest in a very stale McCarthyist way. Bush was every bit as much for big government, so is he a socialist too? If Obama and Bush are both socialists then I think the term has become meaningless.

                    10. @ Tony, MNG, et al.

                      Fascism started out as a progressive, not a reactionary, movement, and competed on the same plane for the same votes and bases of support against socialist parties (in the nations lucky enough to be democratized). There was a fair degree of idea swapping that is somewhat akin to the love-hate relationship between American conservatives and libertarians in the US. The German army was famously opposed to Hitler, especially its navy and army (the Luftwaffe, not so much), as were other traditional groups associated with conservatives in the US. Virtually no one would have accused Nazism of being wholly un-intellectual (that label was reserved for monarchists, classical liberals, and supporters of the Catholic church and the various state churches), though many believed that it lacked the intellectual consistency and rigour of Marxist-inspired forms of socialism.

                      Fascism in Germany (what most reference when they use the pejorative) ranged from syndicalist on its right wing, to nearly communist on its left wing. Most of the Nazi paramilitary, particularly in the early years of Nazi ascendancy, was firmly on the left side of this divide, and it wasn’t until the “Night of the Long Knives” (a non-ideological coup), and the untimely demise of Ernst Rohm, that this influence was curbed. Even so, the movement retained a strong progressive core (Goebbels being at least one strong Nazi personality who subscribed to the “socialist” tag of National “Socialist”), and was not seen as reactionary by outsiders or within Germany until after it attacked the USSR. Hitler himself was theoretically on the centre-right in Nazi economic policy (broadly syndicalist, with rich socialist undertones), but in practice tended towards corporatism, rent-seeking regulation, supplemented by a generous welfare state.

                      Nowadays, fascists assert that they are a “third way” between the right and the left, and broadly believe themselves to be economically liberal, but culturally conservative, for lack of a better simple description. That is the general structure of the “far right” nationalist parties in the UK and continental Europe, who mostly support the welfare and dependency state, but advocate for less immigration and against multiculturalism and pluralism.

                    11. Tony|7.22.10 @ 7:44PM|#
                      “John liberals think…”

                      No, they don’t.

                    12. Tony|7.22.10 @ 5:53PM|#
                      “The right-wing blowholes you worship aren’t really referring to Obama’s economic policies when they calling him a socialist,…”

                      As opposed to asshole apologist who try to convince folks that gov’t ownership of GM is, well, not *really* socialism, it’s, uh, well, gee…
                      It’s socialism, Tony.

                    13. Yeah, yeah, Tony, we know, we know. Virtually everyone who even mildly dislikes Obama, wants to call him a “nigger”. And that’s roughly half of Americans.

                      What a stale argument.

                    14. MNG|7.22.10 @ 4:56PM|#
                      “…Yeah, I mean, what’s genocide compared to that?”

                      Genocide as in Stalin and the Ukrainians? Or genocide as in Hitler and the Jews?

              2. I think it’s hilarious that he calls anyone else a “cocksucker.”

                1. I think it’s hilarious that there are no females here.

                2. According to an Ed Schultz forum moron I sparred with briefly, after I used that term to describe GW Bush… I was informed that I was using a homophobic slur.

                  Go figure.

                  1. And today in school, the teacher’s unions tell our kids that Hitler was a free marketer, which is how get MNGs and Tonys.

        3. 11%. That is lower than the Watergate 1973 Congress. Lower than the 1994 Congress. Lower than has ever been recorded.

          1. at least pessimism is at an all-time high!

          2. And it’s also a relatively meaningless measure when each race will be decided individually. How are the GOP’s favorability numbers these days?

            1. 11% Tony. Whatever the GOP’s numbers are they are better than 11%. And a plurality of the country now wishes it had voted for McCain.

              Democrats will be gulping this morning at the Quinnipiac Poll’s latest results. For the first time in the survey’s history, Americans believe by a 48% to 40% margin that President Obama doesn’t deserve re-election. Almost as stinging, a plurality believe the country would have been better off if John McCain had beaten Mr. Obama in 2008.

              The Quinnipiac Poll is pored over by political observers because it has a good predictive record and because its large sample size of nearly 2200 people implies a much smaller margin of error than most surveys — around 2 percentage points.

              Peter Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute, says the warning signs for Mr. Obama include the fact that voters now turn thumbs-down on him on all major aspects of his presidency. Only 39% rate him positively for his handling of the economy, only 43% on foreign policy, a mere 30% on his illegal immigration stance and only 41% like his Gulf oil spill policy. Even his pick of Elena Kagan for the Supreme Court is approved by voters by only 46% to 34%.

              http://online.wsj.com/article/…..TopOpinion

              It is brutal. And living in denial is not going to make it any better.

              1. All the numbers are pretty much where they should be given the state of the economy. Obama’s trajectory pretty much mirrors Reagan’s up to now (along with jobless numbers). How’s that for a scary thought?

                And I agree that the GOP should gain big this fall. But they’ve done everything they possibly can to halt that. I mean you guys had Harry Reid’s seat IN THE BAG. What is wrong with you?

                1. The problem is Reagan’s policies worked and Obama’s don’t. Reagan recovered because the economy recovered. Obama will get no such benefit.

                  1. No thanks to the hapless and cynical GOP. True Obama has a worse recession to deal with. But in all fairness, it was the direct result of Reaganesque economic policies.

                    1. No it wasn’t. But if you chose to believe that, then I guess it just sucks to be Obama because he is the one who is going to take the blame for it.

                      The other problem Obama has is that he can’t convince anyone of anything and he can’t connect emotionally with the American people. Americans like a President whom they feel like cares about them. Obama keeps playing golf and having date night and doing any number of unseemly things in the middle of the worst recession in 70 years. Most people who are not just hard core supporters don’t think he cares. That is a problem.

                    2. John,

                      Give me a freakin break. I suppose it’s better that Bush spent about 5x more time on vacation while he was causing this mess?

                    3. But Bush isn’t president any longer, fool.

                    4. But in all fairness, it was the direct result of Reaganesque economic policies.

                      No, it was the result of Bushesque economic policies as maintained by a Democrat majority in both houses.

                      Milton Friedman once said that Reagain had a keen understanding of monetary policy.

                      If you think Bush OR Obama have a keen understanding of same, you’ve got another thing coming.

                    5. And Obama’s doing what he can to make it worse, Tony. But you’re fine with that.

                    6. Obama’s approval rating in Arizona is 28%.

                      It isn’t just the economy, stupid.

          3. But we go up to 11.

          4. John
            Why don’t you just call for Shirley Sherrod to be fired over Congress’ low approval rating? You can always get the facts later!

            1. Hey look over there. Run it again MNG. Run it again.

              1. What are you falling for today? I’m late to the game.

        4. Hey, Tony, take care of THIS.

          1. Damn you!

            1. Sorry, Chris.

              1. You don’t know what THIS means! To you, it’s just another four-letter word.

                1. THIS is endless repeats of movies from the 70s and 80s.

          2. What is “THIS”? I’m not in on this one… If it’s what I think it is, I do have a minimum size requirement.

            1. Google Massouse, Al Gore, THIS

              You’re gonna be mighty disappointed, Tony.

            2. Tony, stop playing ignorant. The cat is out of the bag unfortunately. Probably some vast right wing conspiracy. It’s OK to tell people about our relationship now.

              1. “The cat is out of the bag”

                Funny!

        5. What about the Democrat cocksuckers, Tony? Why do you give them a pass?

  10. So currently the main monstrosities we have to deal with are the financial bill and Obamacase, but not carbon rationing. I think I might become giddy with happiness.

    1. Then may you burn in hell alongside everyone else who thinks scoring political points against Obama is more important than reforming energy.

      1. Don’t bore me today with substandard efforts, sockpuppet. I’m too busy.

      2. Tony, come take care of THIS!

      3. Then may you burn in hell…

        I am so sick of these people coming here forcing their religion on everyone. Save it for Sunday, Churchy LaFemme.

      4. reforming energy = I AM THE LAW

        1. You’re lucky I care/for fools like you
          You’re lucky I’m there/to stop people doing the things/that you know they are dying to do

      5. Who needs to score political points. America gave Obama enough rope and the moron is lynching himself.

        1. That’s . . . aw, fuckit.

      6. First, we assume energy needs reform,

        Step 2: ?

        Step 3: profit!

        1. Oh no, a global cartel buying off governments and forcing the world to be addicted to its product–a limited resource–to the detriment of the atmosphere = freedom!

      7. Tony|7.22.10 @ 4:31PM|#
        “….reforming energy.”

        Personally, I’d prefer reforming gravity. But then you’d be dumb enough to believe *that’s* possible and lobby for a new gov’t policy.

        1. Because dependence on fossil fuels is a law of nature!

          1. Somehow, I’ll bet you think your comment means something.
            Sorry, lost my brain-dead de-coder ring; please try to render that in understandable English.

      8. So… scoring political points FOR Obama, is okay then?

        Fuck that.

  11. I’m glad to see this prime example of legislative sausage making go down.

    I have friends who make honest arguments about energy reform that highlights the long standing government subsidizing of carbon based energy sources as a justification of a combination of restrictions on that with subsidization of cleaner forms, but it’s hard to imagine our government making this work in any way.

    1. If there was a bill whose sole purpose was to eliminate “government subsidizing of carbon based energy sources”, the commentariat here would support it, the American people would support it, and it would go down in flames in Congress, with majorities of both Democrats and GOPers holding the flame-throwers.

      What does that tell you?

  12. Maybe they will go for the more reasonable carbon tax instead.

    Ron, are you still generally favorable to the revenue neutral carbon tax?

  13. Congress will give us a revenue neutral carbon tax the day after they put a unicorn in every pot.

    1. Is that Unicorn a Union Unicorn?

  14. You scoff at my tax cut extension/Dem wish list omnibus bill. I am confident that Congress can load it up with enough “limited time offer” Dem goodies that Obama will sign it. After all, the tax cuts will expire, but the rest of it will be forever.

    Cap and trade? Card check? Immigration reform? No way will he veto those, even if he has to swallow a tax cut extension to get them. And they only need to roll one (1) idiot Senator, and they are home free.

    1. Sadly you make a lot of sense RC. But, they couldn’t get a single GOP vote for Obama care. I doubt they could get a single vote for that monstrosity.

    2. I don’t think it will happen. But sadly it will be a close run thing.

  15. Epic win on the alt-text.

    1. I would have preferred:

      “I’m your captain, I’m your captain, and I’m feeling mighty sick.”

  16. RANGLE CHARGED

    A House investigative committee on Thursday charged New York Rep. Charles Rangel with multiple ethics violations, a blow to the former Ways and Means chairman and an election-year headache for Democrats.

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38…..itol_hill/

    1. “Rangel”

    2. Nancy said she was going to drain the swamp. This is a good first step.

      Next up: Chris Dodd!

      1. Nancy said she was going to drain the swamp.

        Oh, I thought she was referring to feminine hygiene problem. That’s why I haven’t been following the news much lately.

    3. Holy crap. They must be really worried about losing the House if Charlie’s going under the bus. Or maybe they just don’t want TEAM RED running his ethics hearing.

      1. The GOP’er running against him is black. He just might have a chance.

      2. I am thinking both.

    4. Good. I hope the fucker is guilty, and is FOUND guilty.

      I know, Tony… raaaaacist. Don’t even bother.

  17. History will not remember you folks kindly.

    And yes, I am taking bets on that.

    1. Re: Chad,

      And yes, I am taking bets on that.

      Read my lips, Chad:

      I – DON’T – CARE. SO, – FUCK – YOU.

    2. Re: Chad,

      History will not remember you folks kindly.

      That’s because history better remembers (with chuckles) the folly of millenarists and other crackpots, like the AGW proponents.

      1. Unlike those almost coldly rational anarchocapitalists who would never believe in crackpot things.

    3. The sound you hear is me not giving a shit.

    4. Chad|7.22.10 @ 6:09PM|#
      “History will not remember you folks kindly.”

      And I’ll bet you thought 1917 was a view of the future, right?

    5. Well, Chad, since we’re all gonna die… fuck it. Who cares?

  18. What good is converting truck fleets to natural gas supposed to do?

  19. wonderful.. force trucks to use natural gas and fuck over every home owner who heats with natural gas. Guess I’ll be converting to oil heat next year. You would think they would learn after the ethanol debacle.

    1. Oh, they know just exactly what they’re doing. They just don’t care.

  20. Some commentators fear that defeated Democrats who are no longer beholden to their constituents will use the lame duck session in December to ram through carbon rationing (and much else).

    Like leaving booby traps under the dead bodies . . . I get it.

    1. They are all class aren’t they?

      1. As I said, lame-duck sessions are reserved for impeaching presidents over blow jobs. That’s class.

        1. If Congress wants to impeach Obama over a blow job, they can. Fair is fair. The Republicans would have no right to complain.

        2. Tony|7.22.10 @ 8:09PM|#
          “As I said, lame-duck sessions are reserved for impeaching presidents…”
          Good idea

          “… over blow jobs. That’s class….”
          Yep, the lying to the investigators was just icing on the cake, right?
          BTW, what does “is” mean?

        3. LYING about blowjobs, Tony. Clinton could have lied about what he had for breakfast on one particular Tuesday, and he’d still be guilty of perjury.

          Fuck him, Bush, and Obama. And whoever takes over after Obama. And so forth. They’re all/they all will be filthy fucking powermongering liars.

          1. He was acquitted, you know. And it was a political disaster for Republicans, something acknowledged outside of vicious rightwing circles to have been an embarrassing mistake. But whatever.

            And do you really think everything is equal? Is that the most rigorous thinking you can do about comparisons between presidents? They all don’t hold your kook beliefs, so they’re all equally bad? That sounds like a great way to let the really bad people get away with more.

            1. Tony|7.23.10 @ 12:07AM|#
              He was acquitted, you know.”
              That’s one way of putting it; a way I’m sure brain-deads choose

              “And it was a political disaster for Republicans, something acknowledged outside of vicious rightwing circles to have been an embarrassing mistake.”
              Right…

              “But whatever.”
              Right…

            2. No, they’re equally bad because of the kook beliefs THEY hold.

              That, and they’re all/all will be crooks.

              And fuck ALL the really bad people. In your party, and in the GOP. Not just presidents.

              Are you really that obtuse, to not get what I was saying initially? I. Don’t. Trust. Politicians. MAYBE one or two, out of hundreds.

              1. Note how Tony slides past the “it was okay for Clinton to perjure himself, because he was aspecial”.

                We ordinary folks wouldn’t have gotten the legal tap on the wrist Clinton got. We ordinary folks like to a grand jury, the shit hammer comes down. Clinton got away with it.

                And Republicans suck, too. Just in case Tony thinks I’m just picking on his oh-so-saintly party.

          2. And besides, we’re not comparing Bush with Obama anymore, though you’d have to be carrying a lot of partisan water to condemn Obama’s half term the equivalent of Bush’s 2 years. How do you want to measure? Body count? Oh how about deficits, which is suddenly the most important measure.

            Who we’re comparing him to is potentially Sarah Palin or some other nutbag, the final devolution of the GOP turd to its nutty core. Good luck to the Mormon one.

            1. How do you want to measure? Body count? Oh how about deficits, which is suddenly the most important measure.

              Sure Tony. In the summer of 2002 Bush was barely in Afghanistan and the US casualties were well under 500. So Obama loses on Body count. And as far as deficits go, well, I will leave you to do that math.

  21. BTW, kudos to the Reason web staff; “pingback” is long gone.

  22. Hotest and the fashionable are Louis Vuitton Bags,

  23. Tony|7.23.10 @ 12:24AM|#

    And besides, we’re not comparing Bush with Obama anymore,

    For the Reason Memory Project.

  24. Funny how a post about energy policy becomes about TEAM RED versus TEAM BLUE.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.