Green New Deal

Green New Deal Senate Vote

Political stunt or destructive socialist daydream?


Marilyn Humphries/Newscom

The Green New Deal (GND) vote yesterday cooked up Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R–Ky.) aimed to embarrass the Democrats who had co-sponsored the GND resolution calling on U.S. energy consumption to be carbon-free by 2030. Besides outlining ambitious plans for the transformation of the U.S. energy production sector, the resolution introduced in February by Sen. Ed Markey (D–Mass.) and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez basically laid out a comprehensive government-run central plan for the entire economy including guaranteed jobs, free health care, and affordable housing for all.

When the vote on the resolution was called, it failed to pass by a vote of 0 to 57 with all Republican and four Democratic senators voting no. The remaining Democratic senators merely voted "present," thus avoiding having to take a public stand on the vast progressive plan to remake the American economy.

"The American people will see, they will see which of their senators can do the common-sense thing and vote no on this destructive socialist daydream. And they will see which senators are so fully committed to radical left-wing ideology that they can't even vote no on self-inflicted economic ruin," McConnell declared.

Democratic Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D–N.Y.) countered, "Republicans want to force this political stunt to distract from the fact that they neither have a plan nor a sense of urgency to deal with the threat of climate change. … It's a political act. It's a political stunt."

Both senators are right.

NEXT: N.J. Senate Won't Vote on Legalization Bill That Would Expunge Convictions for Possessing 5 Pounds of Weed

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 or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Yes, calling the vote was a political stunt. But it demonstrated that the Democrats were not serious about it, they just wanted a talking point not a policy. The Democrats were not willing to put their money where they mouth was.

    The Democrats bluffed, the Republicans called them on it, that is all.

    1. It was a poltical stunt to reveal how unserious the Democrats are with this proposal. The Democrats propose something that is clearly insane. The Republicans say okay let's vote on it and see if you really mean that. Somehow Suderman then writes a "pox on both houses" collumn about it as if supporting an insane proposal is the same as calling someone out for doing that.

      Suderman really is the worst.

      1. Bailey is the author of the present false equivalence pleading.

        Why is Mitch the Squish's scheduling a vote on the isanity being characterized as a political stunt?

        1. Because his job is to acknowledge whatever problems both sides agree on, and find a way to grow government to make it worse in the name of fixing it.

        2. How is it not a political stunt? The stated purpose was to show the public something about their senators.

          Political stunts can be good and useful things sometimes.

      2. The Democrats propose something that is clearly insane.

        A freshman Democrat's website does not constitute "the Democrats," you bigoted, slackjawed malcontent.

        1. Preach the hate, rev!

        2. But Edward Markey, a Senator since 2013 specifically SPONSORED this bill. It wasn't just on someone's website you fucking twit. It was a bill sponsored by Democrats in both the House and Senate. And in which the vast majority of the Senate leadership has been telling us how quickly we need to act. As well as almost all of the Democratic presidential contenders.
          So fuck off you dimwit.

        3. Every Democratic Presidential candidate has endorsed it. Try not lying for once in your life. It is bad enough that you are ignorant and hateful but you could at least try and be honest.

        4. It does if the rest of them endorse the idea.

        5. Kicking yourself in the nutsack with that one, Rev.

    2. "We have to take action on climate change soon or we're all dead in 12 years!"
      "Okay, let's vote your resolution"
      "Not now, we need a year to study it, take testimony, and flesh out the details"
      "But you say we had to act soon..."
      "Republicans are playing politics"

      1. It is unfair if Republicans get a rhetorical victory.

  2. The world will end in 12 years if we don't sell our cars and walk everywhere.

    1. Jog in place and eat organic kale.

    2. and live in caves and grass huts

    3. I think you have to carbon-neutrally scrap them, not just sell them.

  3. Its an idiotic daydream.

    Describing it as dumb as shit is an insult to shit.

  4. You have to call this crap out. I mean otherwise the "cash for clunkers" party will do really stupid stuff.

  5. Hey if you don't like our crazy plan, you DON"T CARE about when PEOPLE WILL DIE!

    Hey why are you making us vote on this?

    1. Exactly.

  6. Could you imagine if a Republican put out a plan to cut income taxes to zero percent and reduce the federal government by 90%, and give no details whatsoever. Yeah I'm sure what would go over well

    1. No, I can't imagine them putting out such a plan...they have grown too addicted to the swamp.

    2. This is a pretty good analogy. No one would begin to take them seriously.

      1. And no one is taking this seriously. The not-insignificant difference is that some people have science on their side while the others are relying on utter horseshit.

        1. Yes, the ones who voted no have science on their side. The ones who voted present belong to a death cult.

        2. Tont, your statement is correct.
          However, I'm guessing that you have the sides reversed

          1. You guess wrong. Science does not support the idea that giving billionaires and corporations everything they ask for is the best possible mode of an economy.

            1. What does this even mean?

            2. And yet, here we are, enjoying the best living standards on the planet.

              1. Not true, and even if it were, we are not a laissez-faire economy.

                1. this is true. and it's a shame.

            3. Tony doesn't know what science is.

              He probably thinks the science is settled. Science is never settled.

              He probably thinks that the lack of a accurate model for predicting behavior has not to do with science. Failure to understand what the scientific method is.

              He probably thinks the failure of current models is not a big deal. But it means you don't have it right yet. See number 1.

        3. Wat? Science doesn't take sides. I think you mean god.

        4. The GND has zero science on it side. What part of it would actually work?

    3. "Could you imagine if a Republican put out a plan to cut income taxes to zero percent and reduce the federal government by 90%, and give no details whatsoever. Yeah I'm sure what would go over well"

      One can dream..

      1. The only reason any of the political class are interested in global warming is as a justification for another massive power grab. Couple that with the left's hatred of western civilization and contempt for our standard of living, and the GND is just the thing.

        Imagine if the solution to a problem were to cut regulations and suggest that people at eat more meat (for example), the left would have no interest at all, regardless of how dire the problem supposedly was. (Not that the right would be much better, particularly if it meant more personal freedom)

        1. +10 carbon credits

  7. It's not either/or. It IS a destructive socialist daydream. And it might have been a stunt in that it forced everyone to put their money where their mouths are.

    If we know the Republicans hate the planet and want to see the world die in environmental catastrophe, then what does this vote tell us about the Democrats, stunt or no?

  8. Schumer was talking? Stunt.

  9. I see this like the 2-1 Democrat favored New Jersey legislature pulling the marijuana legalization bill for lack of support the other day. California, Oregon, and Washington state are about as progressive as you can get, but, even there, you couldn't get the legislatures to actually vote for something as potentially embarrassing as marijuana legalization. in all three of those states, unless I'm mistaken, the voters had to pass marijuana legalization by way of a referendum--to get around their progressive politicians who simply wouldn't vote for something controversial like that.

    The Green New Deal makes marijuana legalization look tame by comparison.

    The weird dynamic that made the news media believe in the delusion that Trump would be removed from office for having colluded with Russia is the same dynamic that makes people in the media believe that the Green New Deal is seen by anyone outside of the media and AOC weirdos as anything but bat-shit insane.

  10. What a strange kind of sociopath Mitch McConnell seems to be. What even is his purpose in life?

    1. To become a turtle.

    2. That's the best you can do, Tony? I know you're a troll but usually you're more entertaining that this. That was just weak.

      1. And who the fuck might you be?

        1. That's what I always ask myself when I see your posts

        2. Then I remember I don't care

    3. I'd like to just tell you to fuck off but that only serves to feed trolls like you

    4. I hear he has half a library named for him.

  11. I'm wondering why it would be bad for Democrat Senators to vote for a Democrat proposal, especially one that is a key element of some candidates' 2020 presidential campaign. No, seriously. Why not put their names behind this, if they believe in it?

    1. None of this matters much. There aren't enough bigots left in America -- they are being replaced by better Americans every day -- to give Trump a second term. The next two years will be an inconsequential sideshow.

      1. In other words you can't answer the question.

      2. "When better Americans are built Buick will build China."
        Page 36 of your little red book, you witless decomposing eunuch.

    2. Why not put their names behind this, if they believe in it?

      Exactly. What is their argument for not voting for it? Seems that the argument is "we know it won't win, so there's no reason to go on record supporting it". Which tells everyone how unserious the proposal was.

      If it was so fucking important, vote yes and lose.

  12. The Overton window was supposed to be about what was acceptable to discuss in public, but that model is broken. The media is now hyping narratives as if they were normal that have no currency in public discourse.

    Anyone who thinks the Green New Deal has anywhere near the level of political support necessary to become a serious policy proposition is even more delusional than the people who thought Trump was colluding with the Russians.

    Watching the news media and the AOC wackos talk about the Green New Deal . . . it's as if the news media had been taken over by John Birchers and they were talking about fluoridation as a communist plot. It's disturbing to think that these people imagine the American people are taking them seriously.

    I've got good news and bad news for the Democrats' 2020 campaign.

    The good news is that Democrat politicians aren't anywhere near as crazy as the media makes them out to be.

    The bad news is that the news media thinks crazy is normal, and they're planning to project their crazy normality on you if win the Democratic primary--whether you like it or not.

    1. And folks thought Alex Jones was crazy. Everything is relative

      1. By comparison to what we see and hear on MSM now, you are absolutely correct. And Alex is indeed still crazy, just seems more tame by comparison.

  13. I mean everything done by the government is a political stunt. Whether or not it's Donkey show type political stunt or a standard shitshow depends entirely on the budgetary requirements.

  14. Wasn't Schumer standing in front of a sign that said Republicans refuse to believe climate change is man made?

    People that think that are not to bright. Climate change existed before man. In whole, it cannot be man made.
    I often wonder if these people think climate is static if you removed any human contribution.

    1. My brother is real concerned about this he's worried about the oceans being acidic and unable to sustain life within the next half a million years.

      1. A professor is teaching an astrophysics class and is describing the "life cycle" of main sequence stars (like Sol). After discussing the star's "death" a hand nervously goes up in the back of the class.
        Professor: "Yes, do you have a question?"
        Student:" How long did you say we have until the Sun burns out?"
        Professor: "5 billion years"
        Student: "Thank God!!!! I thought you said MILLION years!"

      2. Well, if you don't look out for the next 7000 generations you go to hell.

      3. No need to worry about something projected that far in the future. We won't make it past 2038-01-19 03:14:07 UTC.

  15. Ds dont get things done by voting.
    Bureaucratic and judicial fiat are their preferred methods of rule.

    1. Democrats effect progress by shoving it down the whiny throats of impotent Republicans, bigoted conservatives, and faux libertarians.

      Been doing it for more than a half-century.

      Will still be doing it a half-century from now.

      You'd think the clingers would be used to it by now.

      1. My favorite was cash for clunkers. Stupid as shit. Or the ACA which progressed by my premiums up 50% and my deductibles up 300%.

      2. Ok, Rev - I'll play along today.

        Define progress.

        1. Adding medication coverage to Medicare?

  16. I remember under Bush II, a Democratic House member proposed a military draft, proposing to start a conversation about the Iraq War (no better way to discourage war than to have a draft - by the way, the sponsor was a Korean War veteran).

    Then the Republican House held a vote on the bill and the sponsor (like pretty much all Dems and Reps) voted nay, protesting how the Republicans were playing political games with his national conversation.

  17. AOC points out that government new about climate change in 1989. Ha, we knew about it before then. I'm curious if she knew that people knew about the ice age before then?

    The climate change brewhaha in 1989 led the UN to declare doomsday by the year 2000
    The climate change brewhaha in late 1990s led Al Gore to declare doomsday by the year 2012.
    The climate change brewhaha of today has led AOC to declare doomsday by the year 2030.

    1. Aren't you people off this crap yet? You should be well into pretending like you never were outright fanatical science deniers and into wherever the goalpost is now (it will ruin the economy to do anything about climate change! or what the fuck ever).

      1. What are you even talking about?

      2. You don't even know what the hell science is.

      3. Tony you never cease to amaze me how dumb as shit you are. So what part of the GND has anything based on science in it? Is it the cow fart part? How about the complete abolsihing of fossil fuels? No more airplane travel?

        And of course it vows to shut down the source of 66% of our CO2 power, nuclear. Brilliant. Yea so scientific.

      4. Again with the "you people"

    2. Al Gore was just referencing his Mayan calendar. He doesn't have a clue what day, month, or year it is since it ran out.

  18. This was a stunt. Nothing more. I have noted that Senator McConnell is slow to put things to a vote, but worked quick here. The GND is a goal and worth working towards. Yes we will not get all the way, but we tried. I wonder how these GND opponents talk to their kids. Do they say its not worth having goals, better to just accept the bad things in life. Just wondering?

    1. What should GND opponents tell their kids? Just accept that narcissistic, sociopathic tyrants want to send us back to the stone age?

      1. The Stone Age? You mean criminalized abortion, school prayer, old-timey gay-bashing, creationism in science classes, state-sanctioned superstition, and the rest of the Republican platform?

        1. You are dumber than Tony. Which means you are seriously retarded or maybe have suffered a serious head injury. Go see a doctor , a shrink, I recommend both.

          1. Can we send those who think climate change is only man made back to the ice age?

    2. If it is a goal worth working towards, then why didn't a single Dem in the Senate (including the man who sponsored it) vote YES on it????
      They had their chance to get on the record as voting for this thing. And if it is so important, why not do that? And then you could go out and blame the evil Republicans for voting NO. But now, what the fuck are you going to blame this on exactly?

    3. OK if a 10 story building is on fire one of the escape paths is jump off but its not advisable. The GND is just dumb as shit. What is the worthy goal?

      Maybe if the building is on fire you should have a plan for putting out the flames? Just sayin

    4. If their goal was to introduce legislation that they couldn't garner a single vote in favor of, then the goal was achieved.

    5. The GND is a goal and worth working towards.

      No. It's idiotic.

      Yes we will not get all the way, but we tried.

      Is that what you would tell everybody that suffers the unintended consequences of attempting this idiotic plan?

    6. The GND is a goal and worth working towards.

      No. It's idiotic.

      Yes we will not get all the way, but we tried.

      Is that what you would tell everybody that suffers the unintended consequences of attempting this idiotic plan?

  19. High schoolers around here joined the "strike" in support of this. If they are "on strike", does that mean they will not get paid (i.e. take zeros for any work missed that day?) If they are really so serious about this, then they should be willing to accept the consequences of their actions.

    btw, do you think I can get a refund on my taxes for the time the little dears were not in school? (hint, I'm not counting on it!)

    1. The HSers "strike" is skipping school. They are always for that

  20. Ron,
    Sorry but you are full of shit. Markey sponsored a piece of legislation in the Senate. And when the Senate was allowed to vote on whole, the Dems couldn't even stand behind it.

    How is it a "stunt" for McConnell to bring to the floor a bill sponsored by a Democrat? If the Dems were serious about it, they should have voted on it and put their name on it. If they weren't serious, then they shouldn't have sponsored that POS bill in the first place. Of course, when they didn't have to vote on it, they were all in for it. But as soon as they had the chance to champion it, they voted "present".

  21. The 12YO holding that sign says something about the maturity of the entire enterprise; WAHHHHH, MOMMY!!!!!

  22. "Both senators are right."

    Thank god. The last thing I want to see is some kind of "plan" from these bloviating nincompoops.

  23. Sen. McConnell refuses to permit a vote on releasing the Mueller report, but insisted on a vote on something from a freshman's website.

    The bill to enlarge the Supreme Court should be named the McConnell Justice Act. Watching him sputter about that would be enjoyable.

    1. Ed Markey, Senator from Massachusetts sponsored this bill dumbass. And the Dem Senate leadership has been telling us we need to do this. As well as most of the Dem presidential candidates.

  24. Why do the Republicans need an equally destructive plan to combat climate change? Why does opposing power grabbing and environmentally ineffective plans by the democrats always solicit calls for a plan from the other side.
    Maybe not destroying the economy for minor and dubious environmental effects is a plan.

    1. This. "Republicans want to force this political stunt to distract from the fact that they neither have a plan nor a sense of urgency to deal with the threat of climate change" is begging the question like crazy.

      I don't understand why no Democrat could vote yes on this. If it's so worthwhile, and it was destined to fail anyway, why not support it? What's the harm?

      I honestly think it's hilarious and tip my cap to The Turtle for another brilliant piece of political maneuvering.

  25. We don;t need a plan. IF you think CO2 emissions are an end of the world scenario then you should just be for setting limits on emissions.

    Like we do for other hazardous stuff like mercury, lead etc. The gov't doesn't say how you limit mercury and lead but says that you must. And engineers figure out how to do it.

    The idiots in congress have zero ability to mandate how we solve technical problems.

  26. The weather changing ever so slightly in ways we can't possibly fathom is the exact opposite of threat and requires exactly zero action, urgent or otherwise. That the people claiming otherwise can't be bothered to vote for their own proposal they say addresses the "threat" further demonstrates the point.

  27. So forcing a vote on something claiming to save us from doom in 12 years is a stunt. But making the claim that we will die in 12 years due to climate change is not a stunt.


    1. I think it was an effective stunt if the objective was to call the socialists' bluff. The delusional narrative just had the rug pulled out from under it.

      We need more of that.

  28. Democratic Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D?N.Y.) countered, " ... It's a political act. It's a political stunt."

    This from a guy who should be wearing an Evel Knievel outfit when he speaks on the floor of the Senate.

    1. At least he didn't say he was Spartacus.

  29. McConnell is right.

    Schumer is wrong.

    There is no 'climate change crisis'.

    There is only climate, ever changing, never static.

  30. Start working at home with Google! It's by-far the best job I've had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this - 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go to tech tab for work detail.

  31. Be green from daily life to use wifi digital picture frame instead of the wood frame.
    [url=]10 inch cloud digital frame[/url]

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.