Politico picks up on the theme:
Dems feeling burned on climate"It's defensible." He says now. Because he finds himself having desperately to do just that. But less than a year ago he wasn't defending it at all. He was attacking it and running from it at the same time. The Kingsport Times News, August 29, 2009:
By Darren Samuelsohn
Rep. Rick Boucher played a pivotal role last year in getting climate change legislation through the House.
Working with liberal Democrats from both coasts, Boucher demanded several key concessions for coal — the lifeblood of his Southwestern Virginia district — that helped lay the groundwork for the bill’s passage in committee and later on the floor.
Fast-forward more than a year, and Boucher is once again focused on climate change, though this time, it’s in defending his work as he goes before a skeptical and anti-incumbent electorate.
“Given the choice we had, it was better to do it the way I attempted to get it done,” Boucher said. “It’s right. It’s defensible. And I think, in the end, that’s going to be politically acceptable.” [link]
"U.S. Rep. Rick Boucher voted for cap-and-trade legislation but said he doesn’t endorse the House-passed version of the bill."
That's right. Boucher opposes that which he voted in favor of.
The Times News:
“I voted for it because I had to do that to be part of the process and to make the changes that have been made.In other words, he voted for a bill that he opposed because the legislation was going to pass anyway and he would have been taken out of the debate had he simply voted no. So he voted YES. Ending debate.
Boucher added the easy thing for him to do with the cap-and-trade bill would have been to just vote no. “And I could have done that,” he said. “But that would have been a cowardly thing to do, and it would not have served well the interests of the district I represent with its large coal industry and the fact that so much of the electricity we consume is coal-generated. ... I would have been out of the debate.”
In reality, though, the debate wouldn't die. But his legislation did. Because the debate that he gave up on turned decidedly against the economy-killing cap-and-trade bill. That debate - with our side standing firm and shouting A RESOUNDING HELL NO! - as administered by those of us with no power and far less influence maintained throughout, was, in the end won. Cap-and-trade was killed and buried. Without any help from the man we send to Washington to engage in that debate and protect our interests.
Boucher said it would have been "cowardly" to vote no on the Democrats' "climate" bill. But his constituents knew better and fought, fought hard, relinquishing no ground to his buddies in Congress. We prevailed. With Boucher nowhere to be seen.
Who's the coward?
So now we're entertained with the notion that Rick Boucher's actions are "defensible."
Have at it, dude. Defend the indefensible.