Imagining Obama's Next State Of The Union
Last night, President Obama gave his annual address to Congress and the American people. Reactions, as usual, were all over the map. Listening to some of them, though, I found myself wondering what will happen if the conventional Washington wisdom proves wrong in the 2014 midterm election. Because while I didn't actually hear anyone toss out the "lame duck" term to describe Obama, most commentators were assuming that it's going to be a good Republican year at the polls, and that the only real question is whether Republicans will win control of the Senate or not. But what if this proves not to be true? Call me a cock-eyed optimist if you will, but I couldn't help wondering how different next year's State Of The Union speech will be if Democrats have a much better year than expected, and not only hold the Senate but win control of the House.
Please understand, I'm not giving the odds of it happening here. Calling House races is incredibly tough to do in any midterm year, since there are over 400 of them to watch. So I truly have no concrete idea what the possibility is that Democrats will have such a good election season. But it is not outside the realm of probability, either -- even though, to hear the pundits talk, we might as well just all stay home and not bother voting because the Republicans have the whole thing sewn up already. But pundits are often wrong in their predictions. This is what led me to ponder what Obama's final two years in office would be like if he had a Democratic-led Congress.
Many have already pointed out the rather limited nature of Obama's speech last night. Obama gave a speech listing things he thought he might be able to get done this year. It was a limited list, because nobody expects a whole lot of significant legislation to get through a Republican House before the elections happen. That's a pretty safe bet, with the only possible exception being immigration reform. Obama obviously realizes this, and kept the goals he laid out in his speech limited to what he might actually accomplish. He didn't try to shoot for the moon, to put it another way, because there's no realistic possibility a Republican House is going to approve any moon shots any time soon.
But what would Obama say next year, if Nancy Pelosi had just been sworn in again as Speaker of the House? Just for the sake of argument, say Democrats hold roughly even in the Senate (enough seats for a majority, but not enough for a 60-vote supermajority) and win a thin edge in the House (say, a five-to-ten seat majority). This would bookend Obama's presidency in an odd way, since he started his first term with a Democratic House and Senate but lost the House in his first midterms. He did get a lot accomplished in his first two years, and he could easily be expected to get a lot accomplished in his last two as well, with a friendlier Congress to work with.
On the House side of things, Nancy Pelosi has already proven what an impressive leader she can be. Agree with her agenda or not, you've got to at least admit she holds her caucus together well -- much better than John Boehner manages, in fact. During her speakership, she corralled her Democrats into a solid bloc, and only rarely did they not vote with Pelosi's agenda. She had a lot of Blue Dogs to deal with, but she marshalled her forces well even with that handicap. This time around, there would be fewer Blue Dogs to cope with, so it's an easy assumption that she'd start passing a lot of Democratic bills that have been halted by Boehner.
Over in the Senate, the dynamic would change as well, although not as radically. Since the Democrats lost their 60-vote majority (which they really only enjoyed for two months), they have had to peel off a number of Republican votes to get anything past the now-routine filibusters. Moderate Republicans have indeed joined with Democrats to get some things done during this period (such as the immigration bill the Senate passed last year, for instance). But they always voted with the clear knowledge that John Boehner was really setting the Republican agenda over in the House -- that nothing a significant number of House Republicans disapproved of would ever reach the president's desk. This would no longer be the case, with a Democratic House.
Senate Republicans would come under an extraordinary amount of pressure from the Republican base, in this scenario. Republican senators would be the only bulwark of power the party retained -- the only check on the Democratic agenda left open to them. Every time a few Republican Senators get on board with any bill at all, the Republican base will howl. But senators aren't quite like their House counterparts, for one big reason: you can't gerrymander a Senate seat. Senators have to run state-wide elections. Now, in the reddest of red states, this doesn't matter that much, because the entire state is the equivalent of a "safe" Republican House district. Senators from states like this could toss out as much extremist red meat as they liked, all the while knowing it would never hurt them at the polls. But not every state with a Republican senator is quite so deep red. In these more-purplish states, Republican senators actually benefit from occasionally telling the Tea Party faction to take a hike. It shows they are moderate and don't stand in the way of progress simply because Democrats proposed the idea. Senators have always been more independent than House members, for this reason. They have to retain a wider electoral appeal than just pandering to one tiny district of base voters. So there would be pressure from both sides, really. And if the Republicans had just experienced another disappointing election, then Republican senators might be a lot more open to considerations that their party has gotten too extreme.
Of course, this is all admittedly nothing more than a fantasy, at this point. But a Republican loss at the polls this year -- including a loss of control of the House -- would certainly shake up the power structure in Washington to Obama's advantage. If this comes to pass, next January President Obama will stand in front of Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi to give another speech to the nation. He will be addressing many newly-sworn House members who are downright eager to advance the Democratic agenda.
In which case, Obama would have nothing to stop him from shooting for the moon -- on any number of issues. He would be almost assured of getting bills out of the House, and having a vigorous debate on them in the Senate. The laundry list of things he wanted to accomplish in his final two years in office would be a lot more sweeping and lot more ambitious than last night's speech, in other words.
It flies in the face of history for a second-term president to win a midterm election. But Obama's already chalked up a lot of "firsts" that everyone assumed could never happen (getting re-elected with unemployment so high, for instance). This year, as I said, I didn't hear the term "lame duck" used by anyone after the speech, but next year if Obama still faces a Republican House (or, even worse, a Republican Senate), I'd bet that the conventional wisdom inside the Beltway will be that nothing much of anything will get done in Obama's final two years in office. It's rare that any president gets much done in his seventh and eighth years in office, after all. But if Obama defies the odds and does have Nancy Pelosi sitting behind him next year, then Obama's final two years could be the most productive of his presidency. Which he would lay out, in great detail and with soaring ambition, in next year's annual speech.
-- Chris Weigant
Cross-posted at The Huffington Post
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
Hi Chris:
I'm curious what kinds of things you would consider to be "shooting for the moon" by Obama?
I agree with you that the possibility exists for Dems to take back the House, keep the Senate and give him 2 final years to do what he'd like.
But what do you think he'd like to do?
But what do you think he'd like to do?
It's sometimes hard to tell what this particular president actually wants, and what is just part of his game of political 3-D chess. Since the second year of his first term, I've come read him as someone who cared about trying to do what's right, but also an incrementalist. He does not seem to be the kind of politician who ever shoots for the moon, much less goes against his corporate donors, though I think he likes others to think that he would. Republicans and Democrats alike have fallen into the trap of thinking he will make fundamental changes in the system, that he's a great leader or an evil dictator. In my view none of that is true.
Obama is Rutherford B. Hayes, he's William H. Taft, the averagest of the average so far, and he probably knows it. I think his election and subsequent re-election is very important for our country culturally, in terms of our history of racial discrimination. For the soul of our country, I think having an african-american president goes a long way. However, as an actual chief executive, I think he sees all the hyperbole leveled toward him and laughs.
However, as an actual chief executive, I think he sees all the hyperbole leveled toward him and laughs.
I disagree. If Obama has proven anything, he has proven that he is completely and utterly narcissistic..
He likely laughs at the negative hyperbole leveled towards him, but his actions clearly shows that he actually BELIEVES the positive hyperbole about him.
How else do you explain all the complete lies he has told and the complete BONEHEAD moves he has made..
I mean, seriously?? Devise a plan that MUST have 40% of a certain demographic and then, within that SAME plan, eliminate 60% **OF** that demographic..
If that ain't BONEHEAD than I am the queen of England!
He did it, he did all of it, because he actually believes his own press. That he can jump into a pile of crap and come out smelling like a rose..
One of the best things to come about in the upcoming Mid-Terms is it will (hopefully) bring Obama down to earth with the mother of all shellackings.
Although the Great Democrat Shellacking Of 2010 did not do it, so no telling WHAT it will take to prove to Obama that he is not a King or a God or an Emperor..
Michale
I'll tell ya'all one thing..
If Republicans actually go thru with this bonehead amnesty for illegals stunt, Right voters will likely stay home in droves and it very likely could be that Dems retain the Senate and take the House..
What ARE Republicans thinking?? Do they HONESTLY believe that illegals will NOT vote Democrat regardless??
The Democratic Party is the Party of free stuff and free money without have to work at all.
Of COURSE the illegals are going to vote DEM, regardless of what the GOP does..
The only thing that amnesty will do is mint a fresh new batch of Democrat voters...
If the GOP push amnesty thru, they will be signing their own death warrants, as far as the Mid-Terms are concerned..
You heard it here first...
Michale
Call me a cock-eyed optimist
Ok. You're a cock-eyed optimist.
It's all about who votes, and who doesn't. There aren't enough of us on the left who vote in non-presidential-year elections, and even fewer in the center. It's not that we might as well just all stay home and not bother voting because the Republicans have the whole thing sewn up already. It's that the Republicans have the whole thing sewn up already because we're mostly going to stay home and not bother voting. Present company excepted, but present company isn't particularly numerous.
Paula [1] -
Let me answer the other comments before I get to a list.
nypoet22 [2] -
Ah, but all presidents are susceptible to a disease when in the final two years of their term. It is called the "Legacy" disease, when they begin worrying how "history" will judge them. Faced with never having to get elected again, they begin to dust off all sorts of things they've had on the shelf for a while.
Will Obama do this (if he had a Dem House)? I don't know. Maybe not. Maybe moon shots aren't in his makeup. But I bet he'd consider them a lot more, in that situation.
Michale [3] -
Actually (and shockingly) I think Obama does not pay much attention to the media hyperbole. He makes no secret that it is the thing about being president that he hates.
dsws [5] -
I just knew, when I wrote that, that someone was going to take me up on it.
:-)
Good point about voting patterns. But we'll see. If Dems ride minimum wage hard, that could get a few younger people to the polls. I'm just sayin'....
OK, back to Paula's list. Wanted to get the other stuff out of the way, first.
If the scenario described above comes to pass (again, no odds on that happening, for now), what would Obama call for?
* Immigration reform with path to citizenship (assuming it hasn't already passed)
* Closing Gitmo
* Passing ENDA
* Minimum wage hike to $10.10 an hour (if it hasn't already passed)
* Radically change student loan program to "Pay It Forward"
* Passing Equal Pay Act
* Fix Social Security's problem by scrapping the cap
* Call for 20% renewable power in US in 10 years
* Reform tax code so that everyone pays equally on all income (capital gains included)
* Introduce huge infrastructure upgrade program, to clean up the backlog
* Change the name of the new FBI headquarters to remove the stain of J. Edgar Hoover's name on the building.
OK, I kept the list to "what he'd call on Congress to do" which doesn't count things like "work for Israel/Palestine peace" or "pardon people sentenced by mandatory minimum drug laws" both of which wouldn't involve Congress. Although I did throw that last one in there, just because.
Looking at the list, I don't know how much of it would qualify as a "moon shot." Probably not much. A lot of it are things left over from previous years, admittedly. And some of it, I don't even know if he'd ever do. The most realistic "moon shot" on the list would be the 20% renewables item -- California passed this years ago, the target is 2020 and we're well on our way to doing it. Massive solar plants are being built out in the Mojave even as I write this. So expanding it nationwide would be bold, indeed.
But you've got a good point. But I bet the White House would have a lot of fun coming up with new items on that list that I haven't even considered yet. They may have at least one moon shot left, given the chance. But I will admit, coming up with the list was harder than I thought it'd be. Partially because he has already accomplished a lot, to be fair.
Anyone else have better suggestions? What would be Obama's "moon shot" if he got control of the House?
-CW
Actually (and shockingly) I think Obama does not pay much attention to the media hyperbole. He makes no secret that it is the thing about being president that he hates.
Yea and Justin Beiber and Lindsey Lohan ALSO say they don't pay much attention to the media hyperbole..
Yet, they are media/attention whores...
It's not what they say, it's how they act...
Obama fits right in...
Michale
Hey Chris: Not a bad list!
* Call for 20% renewable power in US in 10 years
People who claim to take climate change seriously always perplex me, with the approach I describe as make it worse, but more slowly. If it's really as dire and imminent a catastrophe as activists claim to believe, continuing to make it worse for decades would not be an option. We would need to actively take control of the weather: Make the winters wetter in Canada and Siberia, to leave snow on the ground late into spring and reflect sunlight so it doesn't heat the earth. Steer hurricanes. Make tropical storms more numerous, to transport more heat from the surface to the upper troposphere where it can radiate away. Re-route ocean currents. Come up with a material that's a superconductor of heat, and that's light enough to hang from a balloon 60,000 feet in the air and dump heat into space without needing to have a storm do it (shadow square wire from Ringworld by Larry Niven). Separate billions of tons of rocky asteroids into calcium, magnesium, sodium, and potassium, and everything else; use the everything-else as rocket fuel to bring the column-one and column-two elements to Earth as little pieces of metal that burn up in the atmosphere and make billions of tons of CO2 land in the ocean as baking soda and lime. And so on, and on, until a few of them work well enough on paper to try on a small scale, and one of them actually works.
Now that would be a moon shot.
Then there's getting serious about a world without nuclear weapons. That would be a lot harder.
dsws,
People who claim to take climate change seriously always perplex me, with the approach I describe as make it worse, but more slowly. If it's really as dire and imminent a catastrophe as activists claim to believe, continuing to make it worse for decades would not be an option.
I feel like Lucy who is trying to get Schroeder to play the version of Jingle Bells she remembers.
"THAT'S IT!!!!!!!"
Your comment has been EXACTLY my point (Well, one of them) since the discussion on climate change began.
If morons like Al Gore, Richard Branson and all the other Climate Change whores actually and truly believe that climate change is an imminent human catastrophe, WHY THE FRAK are they jetsetting around the world???
The ONLY logical and rational conclusion is that they DON'T actually believe it. They just view the fear mongering as a way to make money...
More generally, if the scientists and all the people who believe that climate change is an imminent human catastrophe are not taking steps to either STOP the imminent human catastrophe or are not taking steps to SURVIVE the imminent human catastrophe then, again, the only logical conclusion is that there ISN'T an imminent human catastrophe..
"Simple logic."
-Admiral James T Kirk.
Michale
More generally, if the scientists and all the people who believe that climate change is an imminent human catastrophe are not taking steps to either STOP the imminent human catastrophe or are not taking steps to SURVIVE the imminent human catastrophe then, again, the only logical conclusion is that there ISN'T an imminent human catastrophe...
We all live our lives day-to-day, trying to manage the minutiae. A mortal danger that's over fifty years off is sort-of like lung cancer to a smoker - we may know it's likely to come, but the peril is usually too remote and amorphous to stop us from picking up that next cig.
"A physiological symptom of latent primal superstition. The fear of primitive people confronting something unknown to them."
~Spock
We all live our lives day-to-day, trying to manage the minutiae. A mortal danger that's over fifty years off is sort-of like lung cancer to a smoker - we may know it's likely to come, but the peril is usually too remote and amorphous to stop us from picking up that next cig.
I'll accept that..
But then the Left shouldn't be all indignant when Americans don't take their fear mongering seriously, if the Left themselves can't even take it seriously...
"There is something inherently WRONG about carrying cigarettes in a jogging suit."
-DEBT OF HONOR, Nelson DeMille :D
The problem is that the so-called "leaders" of the Human Caused Global Warming Yet No Prediction/Model Has Ever Come To Pass religion wants to impose restrictions on everyone but themselves...
It's DO AS I SAY, NOT AS I DO on a global scale..
Hypocrisy at it's finest...
And, what chaps my ass is that these morons are actually making BILLIONS at it!!!
Conflict of interest, anyone??
"A physiological symptom of latent primal superstition. The fear of primitive people confronting something unknown to them."
~Spock
Aww right, ya stumped me. Which movie/episode was that from?? I would GUESS TOS "The Apple" but it's only a guess...
Michale
beyond the farthest star
Ahhhh The Animated Series...
Although TGBOTG himself said that TAS was canon, I have trouble with that concept...
Michale
Cutting out a plane trip, or even cutting one's own consumption of all fossil-fuel-based goods (i.e. basically everything) down to a subsistence level, would still be in the category of making it worse more slowly. You're still putting CO2 into the air.
Sure, if you've got a few million years, mountains will wear down, their calcium and magnesium will combine with the CO2 to make limestone, and the amount we put into the air won't matter any more. But we don't have a few million years. On a human time scale, we put it into the air and it stays there.
(Technically, it exchanges with the ocean surface. Any particular CO2 molecule only stays in the air for a couple years, dissolves in some water somewhere, then goes back into the air. But it's still one more molecule of CO2 in the air / ocean-surface compartment. It takes centuries for the ocean surface to exchange with the depths.)
dsws,
So, basically what you are saying is that it is not within the technological power of the human race to affect the planet's climate...
Sounds familiar... :D
Michale
We haven't done the R&D to intentionally alter the climate effectively. There are tons of ways we could do it. We don't know which will work well enough to be worth doing, but it's clear that lots of them are doable.
But advocacy has focused entirely on doing less of the unintentional alteration.
Apparently what I've written in this thread has not been entirely clear. Just to be spell it out, for anyone who might be confused by Michale's incorrect paraphrase of my positions, here is my understanding of some key points about climate change --
• Not only are humans capable of altering the global climate, but we are doing so already.
• There is a significant chance that the effects of human-caused climate change will be sufficiently costly as to justify various interventions.
• A plane trip can cause several tons of carbon emissions; a systemic change could eliminate or mitigate billions of tons of carbon emissions. As long as the chance that someone will make a difference by attending a conference has is at least on the order of one in a billion, flying there in necessary is entirely consistent with climate advocates' core positions.
• Not only are humans capable of altering the global climate, but we are doing so already.
But to what extent? THAT is one of the questions that is open for debate. THAT is a question that is NOT settled in the least..
• There is a significant chance that the effects of human-caused climate change will be sufficiently costly as to justify various interventions.
There is absolutely NO EVIDENCE to support this claim. In actuality, every model or prediction that PREDICTED such an outcome ALWAYS fell flat on it's face.. Do I really need to list all the times that the religious fanatics got things wrong??
• A plane trip can cause several tons of carbon emissions; a systemic change could eliminate or mitigate billions of tons of carbon emissions. As long as the chance that someone will make a difference by attending a conference has is at least on the order of one in a billion, flying there in necessary is entirely consistent with climate advocates' core positions.
In other words, the ends justifies the means. :D
I'll make a ME out of you yet!!! :D
Michale
Tackling climate change first requires a recognition of all the underlying, unstated and unacknowledged assumptions and beliefs that stand in the way of real solutions. So much of America runs on really bad habits, short-term thinking and wishful thinking and climate change is a total smack in the head.
Tackling climate change would require many changes, large and small, which are counter to our "sell, sell, sell!" and "buy, buy, buy!" culture.
Tackling climate change would mean we have to be prepared to sacrifice profits in several areas and that is anathema. Basically the pattern is that once any kind of institution finds a way to make a profit, however harmful or damaging or useless the way is, then our system works to continue those profits indefinitely. We have no mechanisms in place to say "this industry is harmful. These jobs hurt people, the environment. Etc." People's jobs may be sacrificed but the larger entity continues to make money. So that hurdle is there. The fact that some companies would lose profits but new companies could make profits doesn't matter to the companies that would lose and they fight tooth and nail to ensure their survival, cost what it may to the environment.
Then we have this notion that somehow new technology will arrive to save the day without any real lifestyle changes required. We are basically betting on that. Solar, wind, etc. EXCEPT, due to the problem above, our leaders won't invest enough to make these technologies true realities. They do the occasional gesture but they aren't REALLY on board yet.
Then there's the whole allergy by so many Americans to the notion that the "government" can or should do anything large scale to fix anything.
I don't think people don't take climate change seriously -- I just think they feel pretty hopeless about addressing it. And, while climate change is scary it's still a bit abstract while people's day to day problems feel much more immediate -- and we can't solve those! So we're frozen in place, wanting our leaders (who have thus far failed us in this area) to get things moving.
Tackling climate change would mean we have to be prepared to sacrifice profits in several areas and that is anathema.
Companies lost some profits when we went from having the Cuyahoga river catch on fire to having it look like this http://www.oldtrail.org/image/school-news-photos/Cuyahoga-River-Trip-for-website-9.30.13.jpg
Put scrubbers on smokestacks, install wastewater treatment systems at factories, switch from DDT to malathion, reformulate laundry detergent without phosphate -- put it all together and it's a solution to the pollution problems of the 1960s. Some firms lost some profits, but we had a real solution with a political consensus behind it.
That doesn't work for climate change. Carbon dioxide isn't a trace contaminant that can be scrubbed out of the smoke; it and water are the major constituents of the smoke. If you emit of conventional pollutants, they're diluted to a low enough concentration that they break down without causing much harm. What's already there breaks down too, or gets buried in sediment where it breaks down eventually. Carbon dioxide doesn't break down. Ever. It's the endpoint. It's what other stuff breaks down into. So if you emit less carbon dioxide, it still accumulates. And what's already there, doesn't go away. (Unless you allow millions of years for mountains to wear down, and new deposits of limestone to form.)
The 1970s approach won't work. The 1970s approach, as applied to climate change, just turns into "keep making it worse, but more slowly".
dsws (20) -- I'm not sure if you're agreeing with me or just using the quote as a springboard, because I certainly agree with you.
My understanding is that to truly start dealing with Climate Change we have to make significant changes on multiple fronts and some of those changes are going to affect corporate interests who profit from the status quo -- in some cases putting them completely out of business -- and they are going to say and do anything to try to keep that from happening.
I don't think people don't take climate change seriously -- I just think they feel pretty hopeless about addressing it.
Or maybe people don't take climate change seriously because there isn't ANY evidence of imminent catastrophe...
It's hard to be seriously concerned about something that MIGHT happen in a few hundred/thousand years..
Especially since not ONE SINGLE PREDICTION of the fear mongering crowd has EVER come to pass...
Michale
I'm saying it's not anathema to cut into profits: we did it in the 1970s, and we could do it again. It requires a political consensus (not a complete consensus, just close enough to make the politics work) that we don't have on climate change. But part of the reason we don't have that consensus (I think) is that we don't have a real solution on the table.
If you emit of conventional pollutants, they're diluted to a low enough concentration that they break down without causing much harm.
If you emit a small enough amount of conventional pollutants, etc.
I know what I wrote. The pixels on the screen just don't agree with me.
Or maybe it's because that the so-called "science" had to be renamed from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change" for marketing/PR purposes..
That should be a clue..
If you have to "market" the science for PR purposes.....
It ain't science....
Michale
<I.But part of the reason we don't have that consensus (I think) is that we don't have a real solution on the table.
Now THAT, I agree whole-heartedly with...
The technology doesn't exist to change the planet's climate at will..
We might as well try to alter the planetary rotation..
Guess what? AIN'T gonna happen..
Michale
dsws (23):
I'm saying it's not anathema to cut into profits: we did it in the 1970s, and we could do it again.
The differences is the 30+ years of propaganda that have elevated corporate profits to the highest importance. The notion of "common good" has almost evaporated. I don't think the problem is only a lack of solutions right now, I think there's no will to finding solutions because none of the possibilities are easy and in one form or another they threaten the status quo.
And to me, Climate Change is entwined with environmental and energy issues in general and look how hard it is to accomplish positive change there? The big changes to environmental policies came in the 1970's and many of the protections have been systematically weakened since. We fixed the Cuyahoga River, then poisoned the river in West Virginia. Companies have closed up shop domestically and moved to other parts of the world where they can get away with polluting the environments. It's like America's "leaders" have a 5-year attention-span and then forget everything they've learned.
There's certainly been advances and improvements but there's so much 2 steps forward one step back that goes on. How can we possibly even consider the the Keystone Pipeline, for instance?
We don't have "better" solutions to energy because there isn't enough money and influence dealing with the issues compared to the encrusted money and influence behind oil, coal, etc.
So we have very powerful status quo interests ranged against any kind of change; we have a very successful rightwing-led 30-year program of demonizing government and ensuring it doesn't work as much as possible; we have a captured media; and we have some very, very serious problems building steam and heading straight at us. Not good conditions for "problem-solving" even IF everyone agreed on the parameters of the problem, or even it's existence.
I think even beginning to grapple with the big challenges facing us requires new memes operating from a much more holistic perspective.
Let me ask ya'all something.
Will you still support Obama when he signals the go ahead on the Keystone Pipeline??
Stoopid question, I know.. :D
Michale
Michale (28):
If Obama ok's Keystone I will be very, very unhappy. And I very much fear he will do it.
After that I will never see him the same way. The problem for me, of course, is that there won't be anyone else til 2016. Him voting for Keystone certainly won't make me suddenly fall in love with republicans, most of whom support Keystone.
It won't make me stop supporting ACA. It won't make want a war with Iran.
It will make me worry about our environment yet more and make me even more convinced that environmental disaster is inevitable. But then, I see very little reason now to expect leadership from anyone in power on the environment and Climate Change until something catastrophic forces the issue.
After that I will never see him the same way. The problem for me, of course, is that there won't be anyone else til 2016. Him voting for Keystone certainly won't make me suddenly fall in love with republicans, most of whom support Keystone.
But will it lessen your enthusiasm for Democrats??
Michale
I don't have "enthusiasm" for Democrats. I have an active antipathy for republicans. The Dems are the only other viable option at this time. I do believe most Dems have intentions that are worthy (yes, you can argue that so do pubs, however misguided, but right now I'm talking about my support -such as it is-for Dems) and the Progressive Dems in particular are genuinely trying to do the right thing from my point of view. The problem is that less progressive Dems are too easily swayed by corporate/moneyed interests so they continually water down whatever good they manage to do.
The difference is that Dems, while weak reeds, are reachable, whereas repubs are either too completely cynical and beholden to the wealthy -- a la Boehner, McConnell, etc. or too hardened idealogically a la the tea partiers -- to be reached.
If Obama ok's Keystone I will still support all efforts to reclaim the house and retain the Senate because I believe the repubs are dangerous as well as morally repugnant. I prefer ineffective to actively malignent if thats the only choice on the table. And, at least with Dems, there's hope -- with pubs, none.
Replacing absolutely all fossil fuel use isn't likely any time soon. Even if we did, that would just be "stop making the problem worse".
With conventional pollutants, if you stop making the problem worse, it gets better on its own. The sulfur dioxide falls in acid rain, and it's out of the atmosphere. Bacteria eat some compounds in the oil, others break down in sunlight, and others are relatively inert when buried in the sediment. DDT lasts for decades, but its concentration in the ocean is low enough to probably be harmless.
That doesn't work with CO2, on a human time scale. It basically doesn't go away. In fact, some of its effects are delayed: warming climate thaws more permafrost, which releases methane and CO2, which thaws more permafrost. So even if we could completely stop making it worse, it would keep getting worse. If its effects are as problematic as many estimates suggest, we need to do something other than just making it worse more slowly.
dsws (32)
I really only know the "basics" about Climate Change and the impression I have is that most of what's recommended does, as you suggest, slow down but not "reverse" the damage. Better agricultural practices, a lot more trees, etc. can help, maybe even quite a bit, but trees and plants only sequester C02 temporarily. We literally have to capture C02 and store it somewhere, right?
Certainly the most straightforward option is to capture CO2 and store it somewhere. Taken literally, that would mean having scrubbers like those used on spacecraft to capture CO2 from the air, and then putting it somewhere, underground or whatever.
But there are other versions, such as biochar/pyrolysis: grow plants and burn them under controlled oxygen-deficient conditions. High-tech charcoal-making. By varying the amount of moisture, the amount of oxygen, and the temperature, you can get a range of products including hydrocarbons.
We can speed up natural processes that remove CO2 from the atmosphere: for example, the weathering of igneous rock and the formation of limestone is what makes the big difference on a multi-million-year time scale, and we could speed it up by making puffed rock (like perlite, although I think perlite typically has rather low calcium/magnesium content). Or we can fertilize the oceans, and increase the amount of carbon settling toward the bottom. (Most of the carbon fixed by algae goes back to CO2 when the energy is metabolized, but some sinks).
Or we could do some really pie-in-the-sky options, like I mentioned above. Never know what will work until you actually do the engineering.
Or we could leave the CO2 in the air, and deal with the effects. Modify the weather with good simulations combined with carefully chosen "butterfly effects" where we provide the right "butterfly".
Ya'all DO realize that CO2 is an element that is VITAL for life on this planet, right??
Ya'all sound like you believe that getting rid of Co2 and all will be right with the planet..
Which, when you think about it, yer right.
You get rid of C02 and all life on the planet ends..
But, guess what??
There STILL will be Climate Change. :D
Michale
CO2 is not an element.
Water is also vital for life. If you think that means that too much of it in the wrong place is just fine, feel free to try breathing some.
CO2 is not an element.
True. I meant it in the "item" or "thing" sense, not in the scientific sense..
Water is also vital for life. If you think that means that too much of it in the wrong place is just fine, feel free to try breathing some.
And talk of eliminating water is as ridiculous as talk of eliminating C02 is...
And, when confronted with a Human Caused Global Warming Yet Not One Single Model/Prediction Has Come True fanatic, they are all about "getting rid" C02...
But, let's see if we can find some common ground..
Do you think that Human Caused Global Warming Yet The C02 Emissions Are Thru The Roof And No Statistically Significant Warming Has Taken Place is an imminent all-life-ending catastrophe??
A simple yes or no is sufficient. :D
If your answer IS yes, could you provide some facts to back it up??
For the sake of the discussion, we'll define "imminent" as within the next 50 years.
Michale
Do you think that Human Caused Global Warming Yet The C02 Emissions Are Thru The Roof And No Statistically Significant Warming Has Taken Place is an imminent all-life-ending catastrophe??
Put another way..
It's possible that an eruption of the Supervolcano that is Yellowstone Park is "imminent" and when it's caldera explodes, it will wipe out nearly the entirety of the United States..
Using the reasoning of the Human Caused Global Warming Yet There Isn't Much Warming At All fanatics, we should evacuate the entirety of the United States immediately...
Don't EVEN get me started on the "imminent" threat of a huge asteroid strike in Lebanon, Kansas...
Do you see the point??
"There's always an Arquillian Battle Cruiser, or a Corillian Death Ray, or an intergalactic plague that is about to wipe out all life on this miserable little planet, and the only way these people can get on with their happy lives is that they DO NOT KNOW ABOUT IT!"
-Agent K, MEN IN BLACK
:D
Michale
dsws (36): good one!
If its effects are as problematic as many estimates suggest,
Well, apparently, it ISN'T as problematic as the estimates suggest because EACH and EVERY estimate has been way way WAY off the target...
Once again, there has NEVER been an accurate prediction and/or model and yet people STILL believe there is cause for alarm...
Fascinating...
Michale
Since the scientific process is obviously a mystery to everyone, let me lay it out simply..
Let's say I propose a theory that water is actually dry and ice is actually warm..
I do test upon test, I do experiment upon experiment, I create model upon model upon model and I make prediction upon prediction upon prediction.
And EVERY prediction is wrong, EVERY model is wrong and EVERY test and experiment SHOWS beyond ANY DOUBT that water is actually WET and ice is actually COLD...
Now, given all the facts and all the evidence of this SCIENCE, what would be the ONLY rational and logical conclusion..
The ONLY conclusion possible is that my theory is wrong...
So it is with the Human Caused Climate Change Yet No Model/Prediction Has Ever Panned Out theory..
The planet or Mother Nature or what have you is simply NOT co-operating with the fanatics..
Water is NOT dry, it's wet. This is what the SCIENCE shows...
Ice is NOT warm, it's cold. This is what the SCIENCE shows...
And human beings are simply NOT having the effect on planetary climate that the religious fanatics claim..
This is the SCIENCE people...
What ya'all are arguing for is a political agenda.
Pure and simple...
Michale
Paula -
I thought of one more:
* Champion a Right To Vote Amendment.
This would be a moon shot (all amendments are, almost by definition), and it could change some things in a big and bold way...
What do you think?
-CW
Hi Chris:
A Right to Vote amendment kind of goes to the heart of my views about Obama and the rest of the party and the overall lack of boldness they display. We just got the results (last week? week before last?) of the group he'd formed to take a look at voting and they made a bunch of perfectly valid, doable, common sense recommendations. The opportunity exists to really promote the report, and, presumably enforce existing laws, etc. They've never made a sustained push to really deal with voting shenanigans around the country -- they go hot and cold and let things fade.
An amendment would be a wonderful kind of ultimate gesture, but in addition to and meanwhile I think they ought to be doing everything within their power now.
I don't have a problem with a Right To Vote amendment.
As long as part of it includes *verification* to insure that only those LEGALLY allowed to vote do so..
Michale
Paula -
You're right -- I had forgotten about the recent report. It does play right into your division between bold and big and small and incremental. But an amendment did pop into my mind as being something not just Obama but Dems in general could get behind in a big (and symbolic) way.
-CW
What would a right-to-vote amendment say, exactly?
What would a right-to-vote amendment say, exactly?
If you have a legal right to vote than you should be allowed to vote.
Short, sweet, simple.. :D
Michale
If you have a legal right to vote than you should be allowed to vote.
Short, sweet, simple.. :D
AND it must also require that those who DO have a legal right to vote PROVE that they have a legal right to vote...
Michale