I seem to remember terms like traitor being thrown around last time.

Inhofe is an embarrassment.

And now we have someone in the Obama speech thread denying that "Michelle Wookiebama" is a racist slur.

How is this different? it's not different. I rode the Dems when they did it, and now it's time to (verbally) beat Injofe like a rented mule.

re: #4 Aceofwhat?

I see a difference between a foreign policy issue and a climate summit. There are no "enemies" to appease here. I think the term "traitor" might be a bit strong.

..warning that the president is poised to make commitments he can’t keep

That much may very well be true. And on that line, Congress subverts policy when they don't provide funding for the programs they initiate.

re: #3 Charles

And now we have someone in the Obama speech thread denying that "Michelle Wookiebama" is a racist slur.

It's not even clever. It's two evils - a slur, and a non sequitur.

I've got a crazy idea for the GOP, something they havent tried for a while. How about instead of just trying to undermine and digging in your heels, you come up with an actual constructive counter proposal and argue for it on its own merits?

I won't be holding my breath waiting for that.

re: #1 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

I seem to remember terms like traitor being thrown around last time.

Yes, I also remember a lot of discussion about criminal charges for this type of thing.

re: #5 RogueOne

I see a difference between a foreign policy issue and a climate summit. There are no "enemies" to appease here. I think the term "traitor" might be a bit strong.

I think that's a cogent point. However, congress is also better positioned to handle this issue domestically. If the republicans could manage to get themselves elected (nirthing and birthing, btw, not helpful towards this goal), they could alter the law that grants CO2 regulation to the EPA, unless i greatly misunderstand the current state of things...

re: #8 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

I've got a crazy idea for the GOP, something they havent tried for a while. How about instead of just trying to undermine and digging in your heels, you come up with an actual constructive counter proposal and argue for it on its own merits?

I won't be holding my breath waiting for that.

RINO!

re: #8 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

I've got a crazy idea for the GOP, something they havent tried for a while. How about instead of just trying to undermine and digging in your heels, you come up with an actual constructive counter proposal and argue for it on its own merits?

I won't be holding my breath waiting for that.

That would be a generous contribution toward reducing your carbon footprint, however.

re: #8 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

I've got a crazy idea for the GOP, something they havent tried for a while. How about instead of just trying to undermine and digging in your heels, you come up with an actual constructive counter proposal and argue for it on its own merits?

I won't be holding my breath waiting for that.

I think they're out of ideas at the moment. I'm not looking forward to the ideas they will propose in the future with the direction they're headed.

re: #9 Killgore Trout

Yes, I also remember a lot of discussion about criminal charges for this type of thing.

I don't think this equates to what Pelosi did when she donned the hijab and met with the Chinless One in Syria.

This is something that could be addressed on the floor of Congress - where the Senate would have to ratify anything coming out of Copenhagen.

Just like what happened with Kyoto - which the Clinton Administration never even brought to the floor.

And for the record, all those people who pushed for Kyoto ought to bear in mind that they all fell short of their targets - and global emissions rose because China doubled its emissions over the same period. Europe didn't meet its targets despite being some of the strongest proponents.

Copenhagen is just as likely to fall short of targets, and national economic growth takes precedence over emissions targets because politicians need to show jobs growth and economic vitality - which conflicts with emissions cuts, which benefit from shutting down emissions producers - like factories...

re: #11 Charles

RINO!

No worries, I gave up on that whole conservative view point thingy. I now just think of myself as an asshole-moderate.

Sorry, for going OT so soon and double sorry for quoting something I saw on the front page of Daily Kos, but check out this Jim DeMint quote:

The problem here in the Republican Party is not that our base has gone to the right, the problem in the Republican Party is that the leadership has gone to the left. And the Tea Parties and Republicans out across the country are right there where American principles have always been. And I'm trying to pull the party back to the mainstream of where America really is.

[Link: www.dailykos.com...]

re: #15 lawhawk

Copenhagen is just as likely to fall short of targets, and national economic growth takes precedence over emissions targets because politicians need to show jobs growth and economic vitality - which conflicts with emissions cuts, which benefit from shutting down emissions producers - like factories...

But it does not conflict with moving to new forms of energy production. Except in the very short term.

re: #14 Mich-again

I don't think this equates to what Pelosi did when she donned the hijab and met with the Chinless One in Syria.

She was undermining US policy but at least she went on her own and not part of a Bush delegation. This is worse in some ways because the Republicans are there as part of Obama's delegation and they're using their invitation to disrupt US policy.

re: #15 lawhawk

I think all the plans coming from Copenhagen will get kicked to the curb before Nations will sit back and watch their economies melt away trying to comply.

The best way forward imo is a strong economy that provides investment needed to update the energy infrastructure and the vehicle fleet. We can't shrink our economy and modernize at the same time.

re: #17 Conservative Moonbat

The there's this from the Hukster:

[Link: www.politico.com...]

re: #15 lawhawk

Europe didn't meet its targets despite being some of the strongest proponents.

Some of the countries did well, some did poorly.

re: #19 Killgore Trout

This is worse in some ways because the Republicans are there as part of Obama's delegation and they're using their invitation to disrupt US policy.

So they were invited as part of Obama's delegation with the understanding they wouldn't bring along their own opinions nor would they "rock the boat"? I doubt that.

re: #20 Mich-again

There are billions of people in this world for whom "modernize" means for the first time having electricity 24/7... and the fastest and cheapest way to accomplish that is the burning of solid carbon fuels ("coal").

re: #22 freetoken

And a portion of those nations that did well did so because their economic growth was anemic or nonexistent. The strongest growing economies saw their emissions rise.

The proposals set forth by the administration as announced by Todd Stern are modest compared to the G77/China positions. It is best to leave the leadership role at COP15 where it belongs and specifically that means Todd Stern. If anything, Inhofe and others meddling in this conference will backfire in the long run.

The Republicans are wasting their time. What's to undermine?

re: #27 Cato the Elder

The Republicans are wasting their time. What's to undermine?

Don't worry, as soon as Obama says anything, they'll be against it.

I just finished watching Charlie's war about Afghanistan...The last line of the movie was we fucked up the end game.. American short sighted policy has brought us much grief over the years. We could have been the greatest of allies..And now we need to send in 30,000 more troops in what is called the good war..There should have never been a war..We pushed them away and IMO allowed the breeding ground to 911.. Fucking Congressmen..

re: #19 Killgore Trout

She was undermining US policy but at least she went on her own and not part of a Bush delegation. This is worse in some ways because the Republicans are there as part of Obama's delegation and they're using their invitation to disrupt US policy.

Wait...they hitch a ride on Air Force 1 because they want to be a part of the delegation, then they form a counter-delegation? I think this should be the last time any of these people are allowed to go on an international trip with the president. They can send other members of their party next time, provided they behave. Who would have thought elected representatives would need chaperones?

If I was President Obama, I'd give my speech, and when Inhofe and the rest went to give their counter-speech, hop on AF1 and go home, leaving them to find their own damn way back.

re: #25 lawhawk

There is the economic/ecological crux-Until you capture existing emissions, you can not grow, in fact you must shrink to make goals. A deliberate recession is what would be required until capture/scrubber/nuclear tech is installed and on the grid.

re: #29 HoosierHoops

Well sure the left would argue we had no business influencing them. Like always, we have no right to "interfere".

re: #24 freetoken

China's economic boom has been tied to their huge trade imbalance with the USA. They burn the coal to make things cheap and then we buy it all up in the name of free trade. All the while we make our own businesses abide by all sorts of environmental regulations and pollution controls that drive up costs for the same products.

Thats where we are hypocrites. We say we are for a clean environment and we make domestic industries abide by our ideals, but then we open the floodgates for imports made in Nations where there are none of those environmental protections in place.

If we meant it, we would ban imports that were made in factories that wouldn't be legal to operate here.

David Frum on Republican intransigence:

"I hear a lot of talk about the importance of "principle." But what's the principle that obliges us to be stupid?"

Was arguing about HC but aptly applies to this too.

re: #31 Rightwingconspirator

A deliberate recession is what would be required until capture/scrubber/nuclear tech is installed and on the grid.

Therein lies the problem. If we shrink the economy to save the environment, how will we pay for all that new investment?

re: #33 Mich-again

China's economic boom has been tied to their huge trade imbalance with the USA. They burn the coal to make things cheap and then we buy it all up in the name of free trade. All the while we make our own businesses abide by all sorts of environmental regulations and pollution controls that drive up costs for the same products.

Thats where we are hypocrites. We say we are for a clean environment and we make domestic industries abide by our ideals, but then we open the floodgates for imports made in Nations where there are none of those environmental protections in place.

If we meant it, we would ban imports that were made in factories that wouldn't be legal to operate here.

American & International Corporations In China

re: #36 Gus 802

Of course the American companies set up shop there. Its their goal in life to make a profit.

re: #35 Mich-again

Therein lies the problem. If we shrink the economy to save the environment, how will we pay for all that new investment?

"Green Jobs", as in print more money.

re: #37 Mich-again

Of course the American companies set up shop there. Its their goal in life to make a profit.

THE BASTARDS!
/

It is completely wrong for members of Congress to conduct themselves in this fashion. By trying to co-opt the Administration, they are overstepping their legislative role. It has constitutional overtones.

You stay classy, G.O.P!

I was once "in," but they've lost me, too -- I'm outta the tent. It doesn't feel good, though. I'm very disappointed.

re: #25 lawhawk

I'm not so sure about that... From this document, as of September, these nations are expected to meet their target:

• France
• Germany
• Greece
• Sweden
• United Kingdom
• Bulgaria
• Czech Republic
• Estonia
• Hungary
• Latvia
• Lithuania
• Poland
• Romania
• Slovakia

And these will miss their target:

• Austria
• Belgium
• Denmark
• Finland
• Ireland
• Italy
• Luxembourg
• Netherlands
• Portugal
• Spain
• Slovenia

Quite a mixed lot, and I'm not sure one could map economic health with compliance very well.

re: #42 freetoken

and the countries that have no target?

i said it on the last thread. half the world reducing emissions is like half of the car's occupants smoking. guess what? we're all smoking.

i'm not saying do nothing. i'm saying do nothing that exempts others.

re: #43 Aceofwhat?

It'd be a lot healthier to sit in a car with half the number of smokers, so I'm not quite getting your analogy.

oh.joy.

re: #8 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Those of us with an "I" on our voter registration (or those with it in our minds) wait for this to become a reality.

Still waiting...

I believe treaty negotiations are somewhat different than going to the Middle East to undermine the administration's foreign policy in the middle of a war.

In order for whatever comes out of Copenhagen to have a binding effect on the USA, it must be approved by the Senate. Since Republicans are members of the Senate it seems natural that they should be over there to prevent another Kyoto-esque embarrassment (treaty signed, but never ratified).

US policy hasn't been formulated, so I don't see how this could be "subversion".
In fact, It was democratic Senator Jim Webb who sent Obama a letter ( [Link: thehill.com...] ) reminding him that he does not have the constitutional authority to sign any binding agreement.

re: #48 captdiggs

US policy hasn't been formulated, so I don't see how this could be "subversion".
In fact, It was democratic Senator Jim Webb who sent Obama a letter ( [Link: thehill.com...] ) reminding him that he does not have the constitutional authority to sign any binding agreement.

See:re: #40 Spare O'Lake

It is completely wrong for members of Congress to conduct themselves in this fashion. By trying to co-opt the Administration, they are overstepping their legislative role. It has constitutional overtones.

It was wrong for members of Congress to try to undermine Bush and his efforts with other nations; and it's wrong for members of Congress to undermine Obama and his efforts with other nations. It's just plain wrong for members of Congress to take unto themselves this role, which should be reserved for the President.

don't like the President? Support and vote for an alternate candidate next time. Meanwhile - the one we have deserves the respect of the office.

re: #49 reine.de.tout

Any comparison of Pelosi going to Syria in direct conflict with official US policy and some congressmen going to a conference where they may have some sidebar, is disingenuous.
Pelosi completely subverted a US foreign policy of isolating a terror supporting regime. That act directly contravened the US Constitution and was a likely violation of the Logan Act.

The fact is that there is no US policy to "subvert". Copenhagen is a "conference", not a forum for US policy setting, as (Democrat) Senator Jim Webb reminded the president. Webb did more to undermine or "subvert" any thoughts of setting policy than any of these congressmen who have yet to do anything in Copenhagen.

re: #49 reine.de.tout

don't like the President? Support and vote for an alternate candidate next time. Meanwhile - the one we have deserves the respect of the office.

Disagreeing with a particular administration does not automatically translate into disrespect for the office of the presidency or any particular president.

I realize the tilt here is decidedly left, but instead of argument by downding, why not try to show how this news article that offers conjecture of what may happen, in any way subverts a set US policy, foreign or otherwise. ( That does not apply to you reine.de.tout as you did at least post a response)

The merger of science with politics keeps gathering steam. And with the public having the idea that science is a branch of politics, the public will continue to lose its confidence in science.

Thanks for bringing the nefarious actions of Inhofe to a wider platform, Charles. The man is a slime-ball for his upcoming Copenhagen actions; his chat with the Times shows what a sick person at heart he is. This makes Nancy Pelosi's unauthorized trip to Syria look good by comparison!

Regardless of what you think of man's role in climate change, do you really support the "solutions" that are likely to come out of Copenhagen? The proposed solutions will only further empower foreign oil producers.

re: #52 Surabaya Stew

Tre: #52 Surabaya Stew

This makes Nancy Pelosi's unauthorized trip to Syria look good by comparison!

Well, in times past the politics here were different.

Syrian Reformists: The Damage from Pelosi's Visit Will Be Felt for Years

Wed, Apr 4, 2007 at 1:16:49 pm PDT
A statement from the Reform Party of Syria about House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s disgraceful visit to the Baathist regime, and what it means to women struggling for rights in the Islamic world: Has Pelosi Gone Bonkers?

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

re: #54 captdiggs

No, the politics were not different. I still disapprove of Nancy Pelosi's visit to Syria, just like I disapprove of Inhofe's subversive "counter-delegation," and for the same reasons.

There's hypocrisy here, but you'll have to look in a mirror to see it.

re: #55 Charles

I can't explain it any better than I already did.

Pelosi directly contravened the Constitution and undermined the President, US foreign policy, as well as all our people in harms way at a time of war.
Inhofe will, at best, get some sidebar interview at a climate conference.

There's no comparison.