Energy Bill Brings New Meaning to “Treason”

So isn’t the definition of a good compromise that nobody is happy about it?  So is the definition of a good energy bill that both sides howl “Treason!”?

Paul Krugman:

But 212 representatives voted no. A handful of these no votes came from representatives who considered the bill too weak, but most rejected the bill because they rejected the whole notion that we have to do something about greenhouse gases.

And as I watched the deniers make their arguments, I couldn’t help thinking that I was watching a form of treason — treason against the planet.


The headline of the linked article is “House Passes Milestone Energy, Climate Change Bill.” Obviously not happy with the AP headline, the Fox Nation writers, in order to put it in right wing terms the pitchfork gang can understand and appreciate, tweaked it thusly: “Treason? House Passes Direct Assault On Industrial Base.” It is accompanied by a photo of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

Now don’t get me wrong, I’m pretty squarely in Krugman territory here as far as believing this legislation is badly needed.  But I’m not sure why we need to call elected representatives traitors because of their vote.  Idiots would work just fine.  Throwing out “treason” puts you in, well, FauxNews territory.  Otherwise, great piece, Paul!

Also, for the record, this was just the House vote and it was scary close (219 - 212).  Getting it through the Senate will be a fight.  Obama may be confident about it but I’m plenty nervous.  Don’t let your senators blow this!  The future of the planet literally hinges on starting to put controls on greenhouse gas emissions into place now.

Oh, and just to end on a light note, one of our favorite fruitcakes thinks the government doesn’t NEED to worry about the environment.  Why?  Why, because the Lord Jebus already saved our little asses 2,000 years ago, of course!

Posted by marindenver on 06/29/09 at 05:54 PM • Permalink

Categories: PoliticsBarack ObamaBedwettersElection '08NuttersOur Stupid Media

Share this post:  Share via Twitter   Share via BlinkList   Share via   Share via Digg   Share via Email   Share via Facebook   Share via Fark   Share via NewsVine   Share via Propeller   Share via Reddit   Share via StumbleUpon   Share via Technorati  

I suppose it goes without saying that we’ve reached a point in political discourse where words like “radical,” “betrayal,” “abandonment,” “dangerous,” “crazy” and even “unAmerican” just don’t pack the same base-spazzing juice they used to. Beck, Rush and Hannity have already discarded “Socialism” and “Communism” in favor of “intentionally destroying everything that made America great and enslaving us all to Global Government.” And, of course, we are all familiar with vastly less influential observers to whom every ungood thing is cast as a “rape,” a “violation” or a “lynching.” And let’s not forget “Nazi”—the Swiss Army Knife of really asinine pejoratives.

I wish Krugman had resisted the temptation.

There’s every possibility that this will die in the Senate, but hopefully not because anyone thinks that’s going to keep their utility bills down. State environmental laws and tax incentives have already killed “cheap coal” power plants in favor of more expensive “clean-coal” and natural-gas-fired combined cycle generating systems. We’ll be paying for that transition whether Cap and Trade is enacted or not.

As for Jesus already saving the planet, I guess Bachmann should also tell Israel to stand down and chill out since He’s got them covered, too—well, 144,000 of them, anyway.

There’s every possibility that this will die in the Senate, but hopefully not because anyone thinks that’s going to keep their utility bills down.

Nah, if it dies, it’s because a few old men from coal and/or corn states want to keep their jobs and their desperate, comely interns.  The rhetoric is silly—what’s next, “holocaust” and “nuclear armageddon?”—but this a shining example of “screw you, I’ve got mine” as a theory of governance.

1. the offense of acting to overthrow one’s government or to harm or kill its sovereign.
2. a violation of allegiance to one’s sovereign or to one’s state.
3. the betrayal of a trust or confidence; breach of faith; treachery.

3 allows Krugman to just b a r e l y get away with it, although most people think of definitions 1 & 2 so he gets a D+. Faux, the Teabagging channel can’t even use 3 because that would imply the Majikal Free Market relies on the stupid doody head gubbermint. F for fail. And fap.

Once we get control of the water, pushing the rest of the agenda through is going to be a snap.

Stay frosty, and don’t be distracted.

What’s curious about the “narrow” vote is that I got the impression that most of the nay voters were from traditional industrial/energy regions, while the “aye” voters were not.  I hope Nate Silver does a comprehensive breakdown of who cast what votes; in spite of what is being said on Capitol Hill and in the media, I’m getting the impression that, behind closed doors, this was truly a bipartisan bill.

Professional pearl-clutchers like Casper Milquetoast, er I mean David Gergen, are whimpering that this single bill fails to completely save the entire planet forever and thus proves that Obama is making a horrible mistake by allowing the legislature to perform its actual function by crafting and passing legislation instead of writing it all for them and telling them to pass what he wrote or feel the wrath of his atom bombs like the previous guys who weren’t constitutional law professors did.

Remind me to breathe deeper before beginning sentences because I’m going to lose consciousness now…

Page 1 of 1 pages

Sorry, commenting is closed for this post.

<< Back to main