» This Story:Read +| Comments
» This Story:Read +| Comments
Archive   |   Biography   |   E.J.'s Precinct   |   RSS Feed   |   Opinions Home

The New Energy Politics

Discussion Policy
Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.
Thursday, July 2, 2009

Hours before the House passed its cap-and-trade bill last week, freshman Democrats Tom Perriello and Frank Kratovil were pondering the political fallout of the votes they were about to cast in favor of a plan Republicans were denouncing as "cap-and-tax."

This Story
This Story

"Maybe we should be called the conscience caucus," said the 34-year-old Perriello, who won his Southside Virginia district last year by 727 votes even as Barack Obama was losing it by 7,512.

He recalls Kratovil, 41, replying that perhaps they would be known as the caucus of soon-to-be unemployed congressmen.

Kratovil, who narrowly won a Maryland district that Obama lost to John McCain by 18 points, does not remember his precise reply to Perriello. But he acknowledges that "it would have been easier politically not to take that vote."

That some highly vulnerable Democrats in the House were willing to face tens of thousands of dollars worth of Republican attack ads as the price of supporting a bill to curb global warming is the untold story of what, so far, is the year's most dramatic legislative showdown.

Accounts of the battle typically focus on how many industry giveaways were added to the bill to get it passed, how much it had to be weakened to round up the necessary votes and how much pressure House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and President Obama brought to win a 219-to-212 majority.

All of that is true, but it misses another dimension of the fight: A number of relatively young, politically vulnerable House members who had campaigned on promises to cleanse the environment decided that this vote was a risk worth taking. "A bill created by the old politics," says Perriello, "was passed by the new politics."

Well, yes, but as Perriello is the first to acknowledge, old politics operated right to the end.

Take the cases of Kratovil and Colorado's Betsy Markey, another freshman Democrat from a district Obama lost. Both represent significant numbers of farmers. Their votes weren't secured until the chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, Rep. Collin Peterson (D-Minn.) won last-minute changes protecting farm interests.

For Kratovil, one key was making sure that Maryland farmers, who work under stringent, state-imposed environmental standards, would receive the same benefits under the bill as farmers in states with less-demanding rules would.

For Markey, major issues included helping rural electric cooperatives and protecting dairy farmers who feared the bill might impose a "cow tax" on cattle for producing methane by way of, shall we say, a thoroughly natural process.

Kratovil said he could not have supported a bill that hurt agriculture, "which is huge as an economic engine vital to my district." With the amendments, he was free to vote in line with his core campaign promises: to promote "renewable fuel, to reduce our dependency on foreign oil and to protect the environment," including the Chesapeake Bay.


CONTINUED     1        >


» This Story:Read +| Comments
» This Story:Read +| Comments

More Washington Post Opinions

PostPartisan

Post Partisan

Quick takes from The Post's opinion writers.

Washington Sketch

Washington Sketch

Dana Milbank writes about political theater in the capital.

Tom Toles

Tom Toles

See his latest editorial cartoon.

© 2009 The Washington Post Company