Kerry on Huff Po: Who Lost the Earth?

Nice to see this theme from his National Press Club appearing on the blogs:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-kerry/who-lost-the-earth_b_248145.html



Very good article.

Oh, and I am still in shock reading on the other thread that Inhofe will join the SFRC. Now the committee will no longer be civilized. I mean, that says it all about the GOP leadership. I never heard of Reid, as a minority leader, ever pulling a stunt like this.

Outside of Lugar, that committee had been drained of reasonable Republicans anyway. The left-overs were ideological hard-liners who were put on that committee to fill up their committee assignments and to generate talking points for the RW by verbally opposing Sen Kerry in ways that might generate points for later campaign and TV ads.

Republicans do not hold the SFRC in especially high regard. The committee deals, or is supposed to deal, with negotiation and diplomacy on the international stage. Movement Repubs do not hold these things in high regard. The State Department is about the least trusted agency of the govt by the RWers. (No mistake that McCarthy, in the 50's, attacked the State Dept.) The Repubs are stashed at SFRC while they wait to get on Armed Services or Appropriations. Repubs take money and money for war much more seriously than they take or value diplomacy or negotiations. We are surprised by this? It was ever so.

Sen. Kerry will have a very difficult time with these folks. Inhofe is on that committee to act as a block to any efforts to negotiate global treaties on climate change. That is why he is there, pure and simple. The Repubs full well know Inhofe is crazy, but if they can use him to block some of what Kerry is doing and prevent Kerry from being a more effective advocate, then they have accomplished their goal.

Sometimes you play to block. That is what the Repubs are doing, pure and simple. Block Kerry, make him spend time responding to Inhofe and prevent him from making progress on his issues. It's not a complicated plan.

At least the hearings I watched, there was a "core SFRC" comprised of Kerry, Lugar, Feingold, and Corker. Corker was the most conservative, but he usually had interesting critiques, and at least when I watched him, was very respectful of the process. Once in a while, one of the other Repubs or Dems would show up, but I didn't see much in the way of fireworks. With Inhofe, I have never seen him EVER be respectful. He is like a grenade being thrown at the committee.

The country is not yet focused on the treaty that needs to come out before we go to Copenhagen. The rhetoric about this situation is just starting to get going. Stay tuned.

You wonder what Lugar - or even Corker - thinks about these obstructionists. Recently, I saw that Fox had Barasso on as a foreign policy expert - his credential is that he is on the committee.

I hope that the Inhofe assignment backfires. I think fiery debates between Kerry and Inhofe could be what is needed to interest our ADD media. But, debate and persuasive speaking is Kerry's strongest suit other than his brilliance and character. It is not just that Kerry is right on these issues, but that he always makes the case in simple compelling down to earth logic. In addition, he doesn't show anger - he just destroys argument after argument using facts. The fact is that Inhofe was always a factor and he would have been speaking to those on his side in private discussions, using those same bizarre arguments. Here, if he surfaces them in committee or on TV, people will also hear Kerry demolishing them. Kerry is clearly already speaking to all his fellow Senators.

If he behaves too badly, I guess the chair has some power to call him to order.

Nobody has been paying attention while Kerry has gotten himself acclimated to being Chairman of the SFRC. If Inhofe Drama gets the committee more publicity, then Kerry will end up getting more publicity, no doubt showing him as Mr. Sane and still The Best Debater Ever.

But Sen Inhofe will also stir his group of supporters.

Each side will see, in a way, what they want to see and get out of the debate exactly what they want.

Sometimes in politics, truth is not the goal. It is, in fact, a side distraction. The goal is to keep the debate going. This well might be the goal here in adding Inhofe to the SFRC. It will be irrelevant that Inhofe can't hold a candle to Kerry when it comes to free and open debate with the facts. We do not have a conversation with the deniers of global warming going on in the first place. It is not possible to have a "discussion" with someone who refuses to acknowledge any common reference points, facts or touchstones.

Sen. Kerry will be quite good here. Sen. Inhofe will, no doubt, continue to function as he has for his side and for the deniers. That is what the GOP would consider a rousing success. The actual truth of the debate is not a goal for the GOP. It never has been. Being right to them is not relevant or necessary. Sidetracking the conversation and tying up assets on the other side is the goal. They are very upfront about this. If they block us, they win.

Inhofe is beloved and praised by the far right. I'm sure Limbaugh et all will take his words with glee as to how he beat Kerry.

I was speaking more of the Senators themselves. It would seem that some may not be rigidly mired in their position - they could be swayed by logical arguments stated well. I am assuming that Kerry might be responding to Inhofe, but Inhofe is not the real target audience - even though the last time Kerry on the Senate floor Kerry did reach out to him. He is likely the most unpersuadable of the unpersuadables. I was assuming the audience might be the Senate and, if it catches fire, the American people.

I think that passing this will be much tougher than passing health care seems to be. One hope is that a visible debate could help with the blue dogs, who are likely to be a problem again. This could give them the arguments they need to not be hurt voting for it. Given the black/white nature of our media coverage, positioning the sides as Kerry vs Inhofe is to our advantage. We need a platform to debunk echo chamber idiocy on climate change - this might be one. (I am not naive here. The right is very good at making simple lies appear easier to believe than complicated truth.)

There are even people, normally on our side, who we need to convince. Most people looking out their windows do not see drastic change - it is too slow and the weather is too variable to see it. Even here, on the leftish DU, there were comments on the Markey/Waxman bill that we can't afford to do anything now or pointing to the Taibbi Goldman Sacks article and saying this would just be another market they will speculate on. Those are the people we can lose that are on our side. As to those we can gain, there are the Republicans that voted for Obama this time (and in some cases, Kerry in 2004), who are persuadable.

Horrible at times (not in the SFRC AFAIK), very conservative, and talks like Sessions, but he is smarter than I gave him credit early on. As republicans go, not too bad (but I miss Hagel :-)!).

When, what where, and especially WHY??? :puke:

So the GOP leadership threw their nutty base and benefactors (the polluters) a bone by installing Inhofe.