"iconoclast" <iconoclast@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote
> What I mean .. there are a number of clues that indicate you are a
> troll with MPD
Generational test for Republicans
By: Jim VandeHei and John F. Harris
November 8, 2007 11:31 AM EST
Rep. Bob Inglis (R-S.C.), once a skeptic of global warming, got a hint
that
the political winds might be ****fting when a longtime sup****ter warned
that
he might vote against Inglis if he "didn't clean up his act on the
environment."
The warning came from Inglis' eldest son, Robert Jr., now 22.
His daughter was no less blunt about the congressman's refusal to embrace
the view that global warming was being caused by human actions and that a
serious response is needed. "I have three more kids coming up - and they
seem to share the same view," Inglis said.
Family pressure worked. Inglis traveled to Antarctica and, most recently,
to
Greenland to witness the effects of rising CO2 levels and temperatures. He
now believes the science behind global warming. And he believes the
politics
are equally conclusive: Republicans will "get hammered" if they do not
reckon with the issue soon.
You wouldn't know it from listening to President Bush or most GOP
congressional leaders, but a lot of smart Republican thinkers are coming
to
the same conclusion as Inglis.
The changing politics of global warming will be a useful gauge to measure
change in Wa****ngton. Two questions loom.
The first is how Republicans will reposition themselves for a post-Bush
era
in which it appears that many ascendant issues - the environment and
health
care especially - are historically favorable terrain for Democrats.
The second is whether even powerful ****fts in public opinion, as have
clearly taken place on global warming, can force action in a Congress
where
partisan stalemate has been the operating mode on most difficult issues
for
over a decade.
At first blush, there are striking signs of motion.
Republican Sen. John Warner of Virginia has said his top goal for his
remaining days in office is passing legislation to combat global warming.
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich is warning that Republicans will get
whacked in swing suburban areas if they keep acting like global warming
does
not exist.
And Ken Mehlman, the former top Bush strategist and one of the more
innovative minds in GOP politics today, has been telling anyone who will
listen that Republicans risk losing young voters if they do not seriously
deal with the issue.
Now these Republicans will come armed with some pretty persuasive polling
data. Environmental Defense, a special interest group pu****ng for limits
on
greenhouse gases and other global warming solutions, commissioned
Republican
pollster Whit Ayres to survey voters in the 49 most competitive House
races.
The goal was to come up with polling data that even Republicans skeptics
would consider trustworthy, especially when the data are attached to an
environmental special interest group.
Eager to get the message out to Congress, Ayres provided Politico an
exclusive look at their findings.
In a presentation similar to ones provided to congressional leaders on
both
sides of the aisle in recent days, Ayres illustrates how independents -
who
were responsible for ousting the GOP majority in 2006 - are unmistakably
sup****tive of swift action to cut carbon emissions and require cuts in
carbon dioxide emissions by cars, factories and power plants.
Ayres seemed most surprised that independents and, to a lesser extent,
Republicans wanted the U.S. to act even if China and India, two big
polluters with rapidly growing economies, did not.
The swing district independent voters said they were much more likely to
sup****t a candidate who votes to cut carbon emissions.
Republican voters were surprisingly sup****tive of efforts to combat global
warming but also made it clear they were much less likely to hold members
of
Congress accountable if they failed to act anytime soon.
That helps explain why the leading presidential candidates seem in basic
agreement that global warming exists but are very cautious in talking
about
the issue or solutions. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), an early sup****ter of
global warming legislation, is the big exception.
Republicans are split in three camps: a small but vocal group who think
global warming is basically a hoax (26 percent of GOP voters in the Ayres
poll said it does not exist); a big group that includes GOP presidential
candidates Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani who agree the Earth is warming
but
are reluctant to embrace plans opposed by business or viewed as burdensome
government regulation; and a growing number who are pu****ng for specific,
market-based solutions now.
The latter group is on the rise. It includes cor****ations such as Duke
Energy, lawmakers such as Warner and strategists such as Mehlman (who is
also paid by a client to push for a market-based solution) who thinks it
is
in their best collective interest to move now on legislation.
The companies want to avoid tougher government regulations later, and the
politicians want to avoid ceding the issue to Democrats and suffering a
backlash from younger voters at the polls.
That said, it is unlikely Congress will make big changes in this election
cycle.
Yes, the public agrees with Al Gore that rising temperatures are
troublesome. Yes, both parties see this as an increasingly powerful
political issue, especially among younger voters. Yes, the Democratic
presidential candidates are putting forward ambitious plans to curb
emissions.
But the base in both parties is skeptical of the most talked-about bill,
one
drafted by Warner and Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman, an independent from
Connecticut, that would create a large-scale cap-and-trade system for
emissions.
The legislation is designed to cap greenhouse emissions at 2005 levels by
2012. Some liberals and environmental groups say it does too little, too
slowly. Some conservatives and cor****ate interests say it is too onerous
or
unnecessary.
Politics aside, it is not clear whether the public is ready to stomach the
pocketbook costs of curtailing greenhouse gas emissions.
People want cleaner air, but are they willing to pay 30 percent more for
natural gas to heat their home, or higher energy bills overall? Will they
drive smaller cars or pay more to gas up their Durango? Probably not.
That is why even the most ambitious plans presented by the Democratic
presidential candidates are setting goals so distant that they won't be
met
until most of these contenders might be dead.
Inglis says he is studying the proper congressional response - three years
after he was threatened with losing the family vote.
TM & © THE POLITICO & POLITICO.COM, a division of Allbritton
Communications
Company
..
|
