Wampum

This is one instance where, if you don't know what you're talking about, a better choice would be to just not say anything.

Lieberman may suck on a whole host of issues (and he truly does), but denigrating the 2003 McCain-Lieberman bill on capping and trading global warming emissions as useless, failed tripe, well, just indicates how little one actually knows about the proposed legislation, and its goal of getting Senators "on the record" as to where they stand on global warming. From the Pew Center on Global Climate Change:

Summary of The Lieberman-McCain Climate Stewardship Act (As debated in the U.S. Senate on October 30, 2003)

On October 30, 2003, Senators Joseph I. Lieberman (D-CT) and John McCain (R-AZ) brought a revised version of their Climate Stewardship Act of 2003 (S.139) to a vote in the United States Senate. While the measured failed by a vote of 43 to 55, the vote demonstrated growing bipartisan support for a genuine climate change policy.

The revised version of the bill would require the Administrator of the EPA to promulgate regulations to limit the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the electricity generation, transportation, industrial, and commercial economic sectors (as defined by EPA's Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks). The affected sectors accounted for approximately 85% of the overall U.S. emissions in the year 2000. The bill also would provide for the trading of emissions allowances and reductions through a National Greenhouse Gas Database which would contain an inventory of emissions and registry of reductions.

Now, a few weeks back, I decided to start taking a look at various Senate candidates positions on addressing global warming. A couple actually surprised me: Bob Casey, Jr., for instance, has a remarkably well developed pro-active position on renewable energy. However, when I surfed through Ned Lamont's website, while he made all the appropriate noises on the dangers of global warming, his proposed policy was all carrot and no, at least overt, stick:

I support an overarching plan for clean energy and energy independence: basic research, higher mileage per gallon standards, HOMER appliance and insulation standards, disincentives for high polluting and gas guzzling users and incentives for high mileage, and clean energy alternatives. Energy independence and the environment must be an integral part of every public policy decision. That means no drilling in ANWR (a very short term solution to a very long-term problem), but incentives to produce clean energy and improve efficiency.

"Disincentives"? Sorry, but the global warming crisis requires hard and fast penalties, not "disincentives". Kind of like what the Climate Stewardship Act (S.139) proposed. Again from Pew:

Any covered entity not meeting its emissions limits would be fined for each ton of GHGs over the limit at the rate of three times the market value of a ton of GHG.

National polls at the time showed a majority of Americans strongly supported the McCain-Lieberman bill:

Eighty-one percent of Americans polled said that they support the targets of the legislation, commonly known as the McCain-Lieberman legislation or the Climate Stewardship Act, which calls for large companies to reduce their emissions to year 2000 levels by 2010 and to 1990 levels by 2020. When told it has been estimated that this would increase costs to the average American household by about $15 a month, 67 percent still said they would support it. If a candidate would support the legislation, 52 percent said this would increase their likelihood of voting for him or her, while just 14 percent said that it would decrease the likelihood (no effect: 32 percent). These are some of the findings of a new PIPA-Knowledge Networks poll of 753 Americans nationwide conducted June 8-14 (margin of error plus or minus 3.6 percent).

McCain-Lieberman was far from perfect, and in fact was watered down considerably during debate in committee. However, as William Pizer and Raymond Kopp, fellows at the non-partisan environmental think-tank, Resources for the Future, include in their analyis of the bill:

Compared to the Kyoto Protocol, which would have required reductions of 2 billion metric tons in 2010, McCain-Lieberman is relatively modest. Compared to calls by the Bush administration for an 18% improvement in greenhouse gas intensity - or about a 350 million metric ton reduction in 2012 - McCain-Lieberman is relatively aggressive.

The Bush Administration and its associated industry-supported hit men, such as Amy Ridenour's National Center for Public Policy Research (see here, here, and here), the Competitive Enterprise Institute (see here and here) and Norton/Norquist's Council of Republicans for Environmental Advocacy (see here) actively opposed McCain-Lieberman, both in 2003 and when reintroduced in 2005. This, more than any reason I can think of, is why it is completely foolish to attempt to use the effort against Lieberman in the Connecticut Senate race; the basis for the Lamont challenge of Lieberman is that Joe is just a tool of the Bush Administration. So why in hell would Lamont supporters emphasize an issue on which Lieberman not only broke ranks with the Administration not once, but twice? An issue near and dear to the heart of Blue, rabidly environmental Connecticut? (I lived in Connecticut for twenty years, so am somewhat familiar with the state.) And on top of everything, it only spotlights McCain's "independence" at a time when so many Democrats have spent extensive time and energy pointing out St. John's recent metamorphosis to Bush lapdog.

Lieberman's staff (and I unfortunately know some of them professionally) are beginning to recognize the power of the image of "the maverick Senator", particularly in a state where Independent voters outnumber both Ds and Rs. Lamont's campaign (real or adjunct) should not add fuel to the global warming fire, if only because it provides Lieberman with that which he desperately needs - counterweights to his support of Bush's failed NeoCon policies. Highlight your enemy's faults, not his strengths. I was always taught that was the first commandment of successful political campaigning.