Wrong Address

Five points Obama should -- and won't -- make in his State of the Union address.

BY ANNIE LOWREY, JOSHUA E. KEATING | JANUARY 26, 2010

Climate Change

The situation: The prospects for getting a cap-and-trade bill aimed at cutting U.S. emissions of greenhouse gases passed through the Senate this year dropped to almost zero with the election of Scott Brown to fill Ted Kennedy's Massachusetts seat. Sen. John Kerry is trying to pull together a bipartisan compromise bill combining cap and trade with expanded domestic oil drilling. But the Senate is more likely to tack clean-energy measures onto a job-creation package. Regardless, it appears unlikely that President Obama will be able to deliver on the emissions pledges he made at December's Copenhagen summit. Plus, a showdown is brewing with the Environmental Protection Agency, which has threatened to impose its own tight emissions regulations if Congress fails to act.

What he won't say: That stopping climate change is a major concern. In a Pew Research Center poll released this week, the U.S. public ranked global warming last out of 28 priorities for the administration. So while you're likely to hear some talk of "green jobs" and "investments in renewable energy" in the State of the Union address, don't expect to hear the phrase "cap and trade." Obama might have the rhetorical gifts to frame the issue as an appeal to national greatness -- keeping the planet's temperature from rising another 2 degrees Celsius by 2050 is a more practical goal than putting a man on the moon in 10 years -- but with larger administration priorities such as health-care reform also in jeopardy, it's doubtful he'll spend much political capital on it.

David McNew/Getty Images

 SUBJECTS:
 

Annie Lowrey is assistant editor at Foreign Policy. Joshua E. Keating is associate editor at Foreign Policy.

Facebook|Twitter|Reddit

DAVID E. CONNOLLY JR.

11:52 PM ET

January 26, 2010

Ignoring the law, and retroactive pardon as policy

"...a majority of Americans support creating a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants..." Where did the author come up with this statistic? Over the past several years, I have seen thousands of comments, associated with articles, in sources like the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, and the Houston Chronicle, and I could go on, and on, and most of these people are vehemently apposed both to ignoring the law, that is, not enforcing the immigration laws already on the books, and giving retroactive pardons for breaking those laws. In addition, the vast majority of these Americans are apposed to giving fast track citizenship to illegal immigrants. Furthermore, the term "immigration reform" makes me think of something more closely resembling order, as in law and order, rather than appeasement, and voluntarily victimizing America's citizens, not to mention all of the legal applicants that are patiently waiting to receive legal citizenship. What you propose isn't a viable policy, nor is it "reform." What you propose is in the worst tradition of encouraging people not to believe a word you say, (undermines the credibility of our nations laws) because what you say, and what you do don't match up (due to lack of enforcement.) This is not a policy for any nation, this is a prescription for anarchy.

 

MCMLXVII

1:19 PM ET

January 27, 2010

Immigration Poll

"Where did the author come up with this statistic?" The author may be referring to last April's ABC News/Washington Post poll. The question was "Would you support or oppose a program giving illegal immigrants now living in the United States the right to live here legally if they pay a fine and meet other requirements?" 61% said yes. However, the same poll asked "Do you think the United States is or is not doing enough to keep illegal immigrants from coming into this country?" 74% said "Not doing enough".