ABOUT FIRST READ

First Read is an analysis of the day's political news, from the NBC News political unit. First Read is updated throughout the day, so check back often.

Chuck Todd, NBC Political Director

Mark Murray, NBC Deputy Political Director

Domenico Montanaro, NBC News Political Reporter



Obama agenda: Talking energy

Posted: Monday, June 29, 2009 9:18 AM by Mark Murray
Filed Under: , ,

The New York Times front-pages, “President Obama on Sunday praised the energy bill passed by the House late last week as an ‘extraordinary first step,’ but he spoke out against a provision that would impose trade penalties on countries that do not accept limits on global warming pollution. ‘At a time when the economy worldwide is still deep in recession and we’ve seen a significant drop in global trade,’ Mr. Obama said, ‘I think we have to be very careful about sending any protectionist signals out there.’ He added, ‘I think there may be other ways of doing it than with a tariff approach.’”

The Washington Post: “In an interview with a small group of energy reporters in the Oval Office, Obama had few other criticisms as he savored last week's narrow victory in the House on one of his top domestic priorities: a climate bill designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to promote renewable energy and energy efficiency."

Video: While critics say the new system will lead to higher energy costs, President Barack Obama used his weekly Web address to implore the Senate to follow the House's lead.

The Boston Globe called the House’s passage of the energy bill late Friday, “a big political victory” for President Obama.

The AP on the energy legislation: “Facing a rare defeat, President Barack Obama put a big dose of political capital on the line and scored a major victory just when he needed one.”

“Obama used his weekly address to urge senators to back the measure. ‘I want to congratulate the House for passing this bill, and I want to urge the Senate to take this opportunity to come together and meet our obligations - to our constituents, to our children, to God's creation and to future generations,’ Obama said.”

The president also appeared to give a pass to the Democrats who voted against the bill in the House. “The president, joined by Energy Secretary Steven Chu and White House coordinator of energy and climate policy Carol Browner, said ‘those 44 Democrats are sensitive to the immediate political climate of uncertainty around this issue,’” per The Hill. “They've got to run every two years, and I completely understand that.”

Did David Axelrod hint that the president could end up breaking a pledge on not raising taxes on folks making less than $250,000? On ABC, "David Axelrod declined to repeat Obama's ‘firm pledge’ during the campaign that families making under $250,000 would not see ‘any form of tax increase, not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes.’ Instead, Axelrod said the president has no interest in ‘drawing lines in the sand’ on the issue of how to pay for the costly health reform plan making its way through Congress. ‘One of the problems we've had in this town is that people draw lines in the sand and they stop talking to each other. And you don't get anything done,’ Axelrod said. ‘That's not the way the president approaches this.’”

Sasha Issenberg, writing for the Boston Globe: “The push for a major healthcare overhaul presents a significant test of the president’s ability to harness grass-roots energy and convert it into governing power. Obama is counting on having his activists promote healthcare as a two-sided choice - either take urgent action now or lose the opportunity for a long time - even as congressional negotiators, and other interest groups, haggle over the policy specifics that drive the lawmaking process.”



Video: Senior White House adviser David Axelrod discusses President Barack Obama’s plan to reform the U.S. health care industry with NBC’s David Gregory on “Meet the Press.”

The administration continues not to draw a “line in the sand” on the public option. We've not gotten as far as we've gotten by drawing bright lines in the sand,” David Axelrod said on Meet the Press.

The biggest story no one is focused on: tomorrow's deadline for U.S. troops to pullout of Iraq's major cities. "Whether Iraqis are really ready to defend their own population centers is among the most crucial questions this country faces as the United States pulls back in accordance with last year's Status of Forces Agreement en route to a total withdrawal of U.S. combat troops by the end of 2011. ‘I do believe they're ready,’ Gen. Ray Odierno, commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, said Sunday on CNNs ‘State of the Union.’ ‘They've been working towards this for a long time,’ Gen. Odierno said. ‘And security remains good. We've seen constant improvement in the security force; we've seen constant improvement in governance. And I believe this is the time for us to move out of the cities and for them to take ultimate responsibility.’”

Previewing Colombia President Uribe’s meeting at the White House today, the Washington Post notes that the Obama administration -- unlike the previous one -- has concerns about Colombia’s human-rights record. “Analysts say a new, more guarded approach toward Colombia is part of a wider policy designed to repair the tarnished relationships the Bush administration had in Latin America. The strategy hinges on showing that the United States is not solely preoccupied with Colombia, Washington's closest ally in Latin America this decade. Uribe is a conservative, openly pro-American leader in a region marked by leftist presidents. ‘The way the Bush administration left it was that Colombia and maybe El Salvador were the only significant friends we had left -- the only two who would work with us on everything, unconditionally,’ said Adam Isacson, a Colombia analyst at the Center for International Policy in Washington.”

MAIN PAGE

Email this EMAIL THIS

Comments

So now we have a bill that guarantees more expensive energy, which will further erode the manufactuing base of America (to you liberals out there, that means less high paying jobs for the US and more jobs going to China and India). And now we have a protectionism element in the bill to also deal with.

Liberals must really hate this country.
"Still, Gen. Ray Odierno told CNN yesterday that Iraq is ready for the transition."

Okay, but are we ready? Interesting argument in a NYT article about troop withdrawal: http://www.governmentalityblog.com/my_weblog/2009/06/are-the-iraqi-forces-ready.html
If it takes a trade tariff to get other large polluting countries like China to buckle down and do their own climate change legislation then we should create new tariffs.  It would be good for American workers to get our good paying manufacturing jobs back from China by leveling the playing field.  President Obama needs to get rid of that ignorant outsourcing jobs tax credit.

President Obama needs to start drawing down our troops out of Iraq and bring them back home.  We should not keep 130,000 or more troops in Iraq until January.  We've seen just how grateful the Iraqis are with our occupation of their country.  We've wasted a lot of money trying to rebuild their country and it's been a total waste of lives and money to allow Warmongers Bush and Cheney to have their little oil war.

In Obama We Trust!
>>>The president...said ‘those 44 Democrats are sensitive to the immediate political climate of uncertainty around this issue,’” per The Hill. “They've got to run every two years, and I completely understand that.”
==========
Sorry, prez.  I gotta call you on that one.  It shouldn't be about saving their (or your) job.  It should be about doing what's right.  If the only thing you're worried about is saving a Democratic majority in 2010, or getting re-elected in 2012, then I seriously suggest you re-evaluate that position now.  We didn't elect you so you can spend 4 years smiling in front of a camera and racking up feel-good moments.  We elected you to do the right thing by this country.  It's time you and the democratic congress stopped worrying about your political futures and start working for OUR present.  I give no passes to any politician who votes based on whether or not he/she is up for election next cycle, that includes PRESIDENTS.

http://jawillie.blog.com
Obama Screws America.

When will America screw back?
Absolutely spot on jawillie!  High fives to your post
The conventional model for Congressional voting typically has the Democrats winning large pluralities in the House while struggling to hit 60-votes in the Senate.

Climate-Energy may break this mold for the following reason:

Each house member represents a comparatively small more likely to be homogenius constituency with certain local quirks and economic interests magnified. Representatives representing coal states could support the Climate-Energy bill at their own political peril.

The Senate is different. Each Senator represents an entire state - whose votes would logically reflect much more diverse interests and follow national (and probably more moderate) voting trends.

This suggests that Republican Senators hailing from "greener" states would find it more to their political advantage to cross over and support the Climate-Energy bill.

Perhaps this is wishful thinking on my part, but my gut tells me that this bill may clear the 60-vote threshhold in the Senate with more ease than we'd otherwise expect.
Jesse Martz-I'm sorry, but I disagree with you.  I don't believe that liberals hate this country.  If they did, they'd be easy to fight, because you could reason with them.

Unfortunately, the problem is that liberals believe in fairy tales.  They do not accept that there are consequences for actions, nor do they believe that facts are immutable.  They are also intellectually lazy.

George Orwell wrote of this in his work "1984".  They can hold two disparate thoughts at the same time; memorize 'fact' today, tomorrow, memorize a new 'fact' in contradiction of the first, and then, a week later, forget the second 'fact' in favor of the first.  They play 'follow the leader', and are mezmorized by labels.

If, by some stretch of the imagination, Barack Obama were a Republican, each and every one of them would decry and deride him as they do all republicans.  He would be cast as immature, out of touch with reality, and they would find all manner of ways to make racist comments without resorting to actual namecalling.  For examples of what I am talking about, see any comments made about Michael Steele, including by the moderators on this board.

If Obama told them that the sun was shining, even though they were standing in a downpour, they'd all have sunglasses on, and complain about the glare.

However, I don't think that means that they hate this country.  To hate anything, you have to have articulate reasons, and reason is not one of their strong suits.  They are like children who believe in the good fairy-that would be Obama-and monsters under the bed-that would be you, me, and anyone else who does not think that every word out of the mouth of Obama is a pearl of wisdom.

"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." Paul Krugman

That's pretty funny coming from someone in New York, a city that's continues to lie and steal from the rest of the country.
What we really need is a good arm twisting LBJ type in there to get the agenda passed. Blue dogs would have had a tough road with such a man as LBJ. Republicans would have, as they did decades ago, feared him, and everyone else would not have been particularly fond of him but respectful of his ability to get tough legislation through Congress for his signature.

Moon dawgs or LOCO Perros, maybe loonie pups. Loony comes from luna, a Latin word meaning moon. Read some of the posts here and know why we use loony from luna to describe someone not quite on this planet. (I want to say it gently so as not to insult anyone who worships the moon).

So now we have a bill that guarantees more expensive energy, which will further erode the manufactuing base of America (to you liberals out there, that means less high paying jobs for the US and more jobs going to China and India). And now we have a protectionism element in the bill to also deal with.

So you prefer cheap candles over electric lights? You prefer buggies over automobiles? You prefer that new fangled talking machine over TV? When each new invention or innovation came along it came with a slightly higher initial cost but eventually for what we accomplished in the long run the price was rather cheap. So it will be with clean, sustainable, home grown, renewable energy. The sky isn't falling.
Funny how MSNBC carries no story relating to the suppressed EPA report to accompany this.


SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=1981225

First Read e-mail alerts


Sign up for First Read alerts
The first place for key political news and analysis

Syndicate This Site

Add First Read to your news reader:
live.com xml
myyahoo msn
bloglines newsgator
google