Author: Aaron Wiener

The White House responds to the Joe Sestak non-scandal, confirming that it worked to dissuade the Pennsylvania congressman from challenging Sen. Arlen Specter (D-Pa.) in the Democratic Senate primary but dismissing all charges of impropriety.

“We have concluded that allegations of improper conduct rest on factual errors and lack a basis in the law,” the memo reads.

First, it addresses the rumor that the administration offered Sestak the position of Secretary of the Navy. “The President announced his intent to nominate Ray Mabus to be Secretary of the Navy on March 26, 2009, over a month before Senator Specter announced that he was becoming a member of the Democratic Party in late April. Mabus was confirmed in May. At no time was Congressman Sestak offered, nor did he seek, the position of Secretary of the Navy.”

Then, it confirms that, as reported this morning by Greg Sargent, the White House enlisted Bill Clinton to see if Sestak would be interested in an uncompensated advisory role in the executive branch, on top of his congressional duties.

“It has been suggested that discussions of alternatives to the Senate campaign were improperly raised with the Congressman,” the memo continues. “There was no such impropriety. The Democratic Party leadership had a legitimate interest in averting a divisive primary fight and a similarly legitimate concern about the Congressman vacating his seat in the House. … There have been numerous, reported instances in the past when prior Administrations — both Democratic and Republican, and motivated by the same goals — discussed alternative paths to service for qualified individuals also considering campaigns for public office. Such discussions are fully consistent with the relevant law and ethical requirements.”

Full memo here. (h/t Marc Ambinder)

That “Top Kill” maneuver that appeared so successful at blocking the flow of oil into the Gulf of Mexico earlier today? Not so successful anymore:

BP had to halt its ambitious effort to plug its stricken oil well in the Gulf of Mexico on Thursday afternoon when engineers saw that too much of the drilling fluid they were injecting into the well was escaping along with the leaking crude oil.

A technician at the BP command center said that pumping of the fluid had to be stopped temporarily while engineers were revising their plans, and that the company hoped to resume pumping by midnight, if federal officials approved.

Back to golf balls?

Facing criticism that the administration has given BP too much control over the response to the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, President Obama asserted that the government is in charge and is taking all necessary action to end the crisis.

“The American people should know that from the moment this disaster began, the federal government has been in charge of the response effort,” he told reporters at a press conference at the White House just now. “Make no mistake: BP is operating at our direction.”

But he criticized “the oil industry’s cozy and sometimes corrupt relationship with government regulators,” referring to close ties with the Mineral Management Service, the Interior Department office responsible for overseeing oil and gas development. “This oil spill has made clear that more reforms are needed,” he continued. He highlighted the decision to split MMS, but he initially made no mention of today’s announcement that the head of the service is stepping down. In response to a reporter’s question about whether she resigned or was fired, he said, “I found out about her resignation today. … I don’t know the circumstances in which this occurred.”

Obama noted that the government gave BP approval to use a procedure called Top Kill to plug the spewing oil hole, but he chose not to discuss the move’s apparent success in halting the flow of oil. Instead, he treated the situation as a continuing crisis that requires the collaboration of the country’s top experts, including, he pointed out, the Nobel Prize-winning secretary of energy, Steven Chu.

He also took a tough line against BP, promising that the oil company will be fully responsible for compensating the affected populations along the Gulf Coast. “We will demand they pay every dime for the damage they’ve done,” he said. “We’re not going to abandon our fellow citizens.”

As a result of the spill, Obama said, the government will take several measures to clamp down on offshore drilling, including the suspension of two proposed oil exploration locations off the Alaskan coast.

Environmental advocates have long hoped that Obama wouldn’t let this crisis — in the words of Rahm Emanuel — “go to waste.” Today, he used the disaster to urge the Senate to pass energy and climate legislation. “If nothing else, this disaster should serve as a wakeup call that it’s time to move forward on this legislation,” he said.

The president will be traveling to Louisiana tomorrow for the second time since the spill began.

Not long after oil began pouring into the Gulf of Mexico from the Deepwater Horizon oil rig — a disaster that may be approaching its conclusion — people around the country started assigning blame. BP, which was doing the drilling, was an obvious target. Some environmental activists called for the resignation of Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, while others hammered President Obama for not taking a harder line against BP.

Now, the first casualty of the crisis — aside from the Gulf’s marine life and the livelihood of fishermen and others along the coast — has emerged. The Obama administration has fired Elizabeth Birnbaum, the head of the Mineral Management Service, the office of the Interior Department responsible for overseeing oil and gas development. Birnbaum has led MMS since July 2009.

TWI’s Annie Lowrey makes another appearance on Bloggingheads.tv today, discussing all things financial with Rortybomb’s Mike Konczal: regulatory reform, Blanche Lincoln’s derivatives proposal, Fannie and Freddie and the economic impact of the oil spill. Check out the video after the jump:

Thought the massive quantities of oil pouring into the Gulf of Mexico were the only major threat to the country’s southeast coastal waters right now? Think again:

The Environmental Protection Agency informed BP officials late Wednesday that the company has 24 hours to choose a less toxic form of chemical dispersants to break up its oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, according to government sources familiar with the decision, and must apply the new form of dispersants within 72 hours of submitting the list of alternatives.

The move is significant, because it suggests federal officials are now concerned that the unprecedented use of chemical dispersants could pose a significant threat to the Gulf of Mexico’s marine life. BP has been using two forms of dispersants, Corexit 9500A and Corexit 9527A, and so far has applied 600,000 gallons on the surface and 55,000 underwater.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) has given Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) an ultimatum: Stop trying to pass comprehensive immigration reform this year, or you’ll lose my support for climate legislation.

Now, Reid has called Graham’s bluff.

“I don’t know how my friend Lindsey Graham can say this kills energy [legislation],” Reid said last night, according to Talking Points Memo. “It’s up to him.”

But without Graham, it’s unlikely that a climate bill could get enough Republican support to clear the 60-vote threshold. And Reid didn’t appear too optimistic that Graham would come around.

“There’s 40 other Republicans,” Reid said. “Why Lindsey Graham?”

In a short speech to supporters, Gov. Charlie Crist (R-Fla.) just announced his run for the U.S. Senate as an independent candidate.

Crist, once the overwhelming favorite to win the GOP nomination, has fallen far behind Marco Rubio in recent polls. While his path to the Senate may be easier as an independent, he acknowledged the difficulties ahead.

“I know this is uncharted territory,” he said. “I’m aware that after this speech ends, I don’t have either party helping me.”

He provided little in the way of explanation of his decision, instead referring repeatedly to “the people” of Florida and his desire to put them first.

When Arizona passed its highly controversial immigration bill — which among other provisions requires police to ask people about their legal status if they have reason to believe they might be illegal immigrants — into law last week, national Democrats hoped to turn the issue into a wedge for Republicans. And things seemed to be going their way at first, as high-profile conservatives like Florida Senate candidate Marco Rubio came out against the Arizona law.

But this morning, polls showed a healthy approval rating bounce for Gov. Jan Brewer (R-Ariz.) after she signed the immigration bill. And now at least one Republican gubernatorial candidate is hoping to follow Brewer’s lead.

The Colorado Independent reports:

On the Peter Boyles talk radio show Wednesday morning, Republican gubernatorial candidate Scott McInnis said that if he were governor, he would seek to pass the same kind of harsh anti-illegal immigration laws recently passed in Arizona.

“I am going to wave the magic wand. You’re governor. What would you do?” Boyles asked McInnis.

“I would do something very similar [to what Gov. Jan Brewer did in Arizona],” said McInnis, lauding Brewer for signing the legislation. “Finally some governor stood up and said ‘We are stopping the retreat. No more retreat. Federal government if you are not going to do it, we are going to do it.’”

Despite Sen. Lindsey Graham’s (R-S.C.) recent withdrawal from the climate legislation process, Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) is telling reporters that the Environmental Protection Agency will soon begin analyzing the economic impact of the climate bill he and Graham helped craft.

“We are sending the bill to be modeled now with Lindsey Graham’s consent,” the Democratic senator told reporters. […]

The EPA analysis of their bill could take more than a month to complete and legislation could not be queued up for a full Senate debate until the results are disseminated.

That would put the climate bill on the Senate floor in June at the earliest, but more likely in July. But that assumes that political divisions, of which there are many in addition to Graham’s concerns, get resolved.

Appearing on MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell Reports just now, Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) sounded an optimistic note about the prospects for comprehensive climate legislation this year and expressed dismay at Majority Leader Harry Reid’s (D-Nev.) indication that immigration reform would be a higher priority — a move that led Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) to call off his work on the climate bill in protest this weekend.

“A not-so-funny thing happened on the way to the announcement,” said Lieberman, who along with Graham and Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) was expected to unveil the climate bill today before Graham’s change of heart.

But he emphasized that Graham is still fully on board, that “this is his priority.”

The ball is in Reid’s court now. Lieberman says he talked with Reid yesterday, and the majority leader “explicitly” reassured him that he was still committed to putting the climate bill to a vote once it’s ready. “He assumes that will be before the immigration reform bill is ready,” Lieberman said. “He knows our bill is ready and the immigration reform bill is not.”

Once Graham is convinced of that, the climate legislation process will be back on track. “Lindsey Graham will come back to where he is and never left,” Lieberman said.

And just like that, the bill that Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) were planning to unveil on Monday gets put on indefinite hold.

The New York Times has the story.

Earlier this afternoon, I speculated on what the concessions to industry in the Senate climate bill would mean for environmental groups’ support. “Is this enough for some liberal groups to withhold their support?” I asked. “Probably — although the mainstream of the environmental movement is likely to bite the bullet and throw its weight behind the country’s best chance to curb greenhouse gas emissions.”

Well, that question’s already starting to be answered. Greenpeace delivers a resounding “yes”:

Offering the first evidence of the complex Senate debate that lies ahead on an energy reform bill, the environmental group Greenpeace said Friday it intends to oppose the legislation that a bipartisan group of Senators intend to introduce next week.

“Although we appreciate the Senate’s efforts to reduce global warming pollution, it’s clear that polluter lobbyists have succeeded in hijacking this climate policy initiative and undermined the ambitious action necessary,” Phil Radford, the group’s executive director, said in a statement.

We’ll have more answers after the bill drops on Monday.

Kate Sheppard has some big news on the Senate climate bill, expected to drop Monday, following a conference call with Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), one of three senators working on the bill.

The good news for environmentalists: Three of the country’s big five oil companies have agreed to support the bill, as has the Edison Electric Institute, the leading utility industry group. While EEI did eventually support the House climate bill that passed last June, the oil industry was largely in opposition, so this news could help bring oil-state senators like Mary Landrieu (D-La.) on board, particularly since Kerry thinks the American Petroleum Institute will stop running ads bashing the legislation.

The bad news for green advocates: This new support comes at a steep price, with heavy concessions to oil, agriculture, industry and dirty energy. Kate has the rundown:

• The bill would remove the Environmental Protection Agency’s authority to regulate carbon dioxide under the Clean Air Act, and the states’ authority to set tougher emissions standards than the federal government.
• There will be no fee—or “gas tax”—on transportation fuels. Instead, oil companies would also be required to obtain pollution permits but will not trade them on the market like other polluters. How this would work is not yet clear.
• Agriculture would be entirely exempt from the cap on carbon emissions.
• Manufacturers would not be included under a cap on greenhouse gases until 2016.
• The bill would provide government-backed loan guarantees for the construction of 12 new nuclear power plants.
• It will contain at least $10 billion to develop technologies to capture and store emissions from coal-fired power plants.
• There will be new financial incentives for natural gas.
• The bill would place an upper and lower limit on the price of pollution permits, known as a hard price collar. Businesses like this idea because it ensures a stable price on carbon. Environmental advocates don’t like the idea because if the ceiling is set too low, industry will have no financial incentive to move to cleaner forms of energy.
• The energy bill passed by the Energy and Natural Resources Committee last year will be adopted in full. This measure has sparked concerns among environmentalists for its handouts to nuclear and fossil fuel interests.

Most of this isn’t terribly surprising, although environmentalists had been hoping — without much optimism — that the preemption of EPA and state regulatory authority wouldn’t be included in the final bill. As Kate notes, enviros also hate the Bingaman-Murkowski energy bill that will now be incorporated in full.

Is this enough for some liberal groups to withhold their support? Probably — although the mainstream of the environmental movement is likely to bite the bullet and throw its weight behind the country’s best chance to curb greenhouse gas emissions.

Since an explosion at the Upper Big Branch coal mine in West Virginia killed 29 workers on April 5, Mike Lillis has been covering every angle of the story: the dozens of other mines owned by Massey Energy that pose safety risks, the failed 2008 bill that could have prevented the disaster, the president’s strategy for mining regulatory reform — the list goes on.

But there’s only so much one can cover from Washington. So Mike’s on his way down to West Virginia, where he’ll be speaking with miners and mine regulators, environmental activists, government officials and the locals who have felt the effects of mining on their communities. He’ll be there for the next three days, filing frequent reports; be sure to follow his coverage here.

The Hill reports on the battle brewing between liberal and conservative Democrats over whether to move forward with a clean energy bill that does not address carbon emissions or to roll some of that bill’s provisions into a larger energy and climate bill. Ultimately, that question could be answered by a very different debate: the one over financial regulatory reform.

Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) said that if Republicans take a unified partisan stance against Wall Street reform, which Democrats had thought would be a slam dunk, it may not make sense to spend weeks trying to muster 60 votes for a controversial climate change proposal.

“If Republicans continue to play pure politics with financial reform, they would probably come close to shutting it down,” McCaskill said of the impact of Republican opposition on bipartisan talks on climate change.

“That’s a bad sign of how productive we’ll be,” she said.

Regardless of the outcome of financial reform, a climate bill could be a tough political proposition in advance of November’s midterm elections. If financial reform succeeds and wins popular support, Democrats would likely prefer to ride that wave into the midterms than to tackle divisive climate legislation. And if a Wall Street bill falls prey to nasty partisan bickering, then as McCaskill says, it’ll be tougher to get the necessary Republican support to beat back a climate bill filibuster.

But if all that’s the climate bill’s Scylla, its Charybdis is the inevitability that the Democratic majorities in Congress will be much smaller come January than they are currently, so for comprehensive climate legislation, it’s likely now or never.

Last month, The Iowa Independent reported on an anti-gay marriage Christian group that called homosexual activity “more dangerous for individuals who engage in it than is smoking.”

Today, they report that this same group, the Iowa Family Policy Center, has received over $3 million in federal funding.

Between 2004 and 2009 the politically influential Christian organization Iowa Family Policy Center (IFPC) received more than $3 million in federal grants through two subsidiaries of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. […]

The money IFPC receives apparently goes to a marriage-counseling program called Marriage Matters, which offers couples weekends along with marriage and pre-marital mentoring.