The bill I would pass if it were up to me would be costly, no holds barred, and probably piss off nearly everybody running a company in the country. I don't think we're taking climate change any where near seriously enough, I'm on record multiple times as predicting that we pretty much are on the verge of kissing off 2-3 billion people in the next 30-40 years, and if you think the wars now are strange, try to envision what they'd be like when they weren't for gas for the car, weren't for power politics or against small time terror, and were all about a struggle for survival, water, food, and habitable living places.

I'd like at least a trillion put aside for real research, and another trillion put aside for civilian foreign aid, education, and global population control. I'm in favor of destroying the economy so we can save it. So far, there aren't many people on my side of the debate, but that's life. I can back incremental stuff until I get more traction.

As much as I disagree with the Democrats it would be quite admirable and worthy of respect and praise if Obama were to lose the primary in 2012.

Unfortunately I don't see it happening. These are the Democrats we're talking about here. If names like Palin, Romney, and Petraeus start popping up as contenders, the fear would become overwhelming.

I'm a big fan of Feingold, but I have to think that he chose not to run because he believed he would/could not win. I don't think he stands a chance either. Especially against a relatively popular incumbent. As much as he's popular among progressives, I don't think he's that popular among his colleagues. Things like that don't matter to us, but they do when it comes to gathering power in DC. Lone wolves don't make it very far inside the beltway.

Or perhaps I should ask: Do Americans prefer a parliamentary system (ruled by Party), and if so, are they - like NCSteve - sanguine that Washington has transitioned into one, in practice, at the federal level without benefit of a Constitutional amendment formally melding the powers of the Executive and the Legislative branches of government into one bloc of power?

homeruk, as a British resident/citizen presumably familiar with its parliamentary system, cavalierly dismisses our American form of Republican government, with its three separate and independent branches wielding powers that must, for the sake of liberty and self-government, remain separately exercised. [As one crucial example of the lack of checks on power in our parliament-in-practice (as opposed to actual Parliaments), Congress has no 'vote of no confidence' power available if the abuse of Party control exercised by Obama through Pelosi and Reid contravenes the majority will of Congress.]

As to this:

I couldn't see, in the excerpt provided of the speech, that that was indeed what he was arguing. As in, he may well have objected to legislation but I didn't see anywhere where he said it would be worse than nothing.
-- homeruk

First, apparently Lloyd Doggett wasn't given the courtesy of time to speak by the managers (Reps. Matsui & Sessions) of the Rule debate that preceded the debate on the bill itself. Doggett did not speak during that hour of time, but instead availed himself of one minute under normal House rules to speak in opposition (this one minute commentary was the sum total of his remarks that apparently "infuriated" Emanuel/Obama midday on Friday):

Mr. DOGGETT. Madam Speaker, this energy bill's fine print betrays its laudable purpose. The real cap is on the public interest, and the trade is from the public to polluters. It is too weak to spur new technologies and green jobs.

An Administration analysis shows that doing nothing actually results in more new renewable energy electricity generation capacity than approving this bill.

Vital authority for the EPA is stripped, but two billion additional tons of pollution are authorized every year forever. Residential consumer protection is incredibly entrusted to the mercy of utility companies. Exempting 100 new coal plants and paying billions to Old King Coal does indeed leave him "a merry old soul."

This bill is 85 percent different from what President Obama proposed just a few months ago. No wonder that his Budget Director called this type of legislation "the largest corporate welfare program ..... in the history of the United States."

Until greatly improved, until families share in the billions this bill grants powerful lobbies, I cannot support it.

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2009_record&page=H7450&position=all

That's it. Jane's excerpt included almost every word. And the sentence I bolded certainly logically translates - if necessarily truncated to fit within one minute - to "[Doggett] said [the bill] would be worse than nothing."

A few hours later, Henry Waxman, manager of "debate" on the bill itself, granted Doggett a minute of time:

Mr. DOGGETT. I thank the gentleman.

Earlier today, I voiced my strong objections to this bill. I voted against the rule to permit this bill because of its rejection of some amendments that I thought were important to improve the legislation.

For three reasons, I'm voting for final passage. First, I've been listening to the debate, not so much those who support the bill that I'm not all that enthusiastic about, but listening to the "flat earth society," the climate denials, some of the most inane arguments that I have heard against refusing to act on this vital national security challenge.

Second, I believe there is still some hope to make improvements to this bill once it gets out of the House. Better to have a seat at the table to try to influence the change that is needed in this legislation.

And, third, I'm convinced that unless we act today, the Senate will not act. And unless we act in this Congress, we will not get the international agreements we need to address this serious challenge.

I am voting "yes" in the hopes that we will have a better bill and we will have the international accord that we so desperately need to deal with this critical matter.

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2009_record&page=H7652&position=all

Again, those are Doggett's floor remarks in their entirety.

Note that post-House passage, any "seat at the table" to improve this bill is necessarily one in conference - which is where the real dealmaking is now increasingly done in Congress undemocratically, in secret, by a handful of powerful members directed by the White House. I think on process alone, Doggett had every reason not to capitulate, and thereby pass the responsibility buck, as so many of his colleagues did before the first shot was even fired.

I salute Politico reporters Glenn Thrush and Patrick O'Connor for digging up these hidden facts. If some want to turn up their noses at the anonymous sourcing of these details, then perhaps they'd do well to insist that the public's business be conducted in public so that such insider gossip and sourcing isn't the only way to understand what led to passage of a consequence-laden piece of legislation.

As for this being mere Presidential "lobbying" (as though the Party leadership of Pelosi and Hoyer wasn't united with the President in said lobbying in the name of Party), this detail from Politico exposes the unity of cross-branch Party effort that - following a pattern that started under Obama with the stimulus bill - forced this latest flawed bill through the House:

During the luau, [Rep.] Clyburn set up shop in the Oval Office with Obama to meet with wavering Democrats, like freshmen Reps. Frank Kratovil Jr. of Maryland and Eric Massa of New York. Members of Clyburn’s whip team patrolled the White House lawn, cornering colleagues and making the case for the bill.