The legislation, which is still being cobbled together from a number of pending proposals, will, according to the source:

- “help expedite cleanup of and recovery from the oil in the Gulf of Mexico, ensure that the polluters are held liable for damages caused, and put better systems in place to regulate deepwater drilling.

- “create jobs and save consumers money through residential and commercial renovation incentives and by setting higher energy efficiency standards for new homes, products and appliances.

- “set a national renewable electricity standard and provide new financing options for clean energy investments, including low-carbon power generation.

- “improve the nation’s electricity grid and make it more likely that remotely generated renewable power will get to market.

-  “decrease oil consumption by several million barrels per day and help electrify the transportation sector, as well as convert heavy duty fleets to cleaner fuels like natural gas

- “eliminate major oil and gas subsidies and expand and extend incentives for consumers and businesses that want to invest in energy efficient buildings, clean power, alternative fuel vehicles, and domestically produced biofuels”

The source says “a large portion” of the bill will be pulled from the legislation authored by Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.), which was approved by the Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee last summer.

One noticeable absence from the list: a cap on carbon emissions. While an economy-wide emissions cap has been all but written off by many in the Senate, there remains an ongoing effort among some lawmakers to include a utility-sector cap. Bingaman has said he is developing such a proposal, though he has reserved the right not to introduce the bill if there is not enough support for it. And Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.) have said they are open to compromising on their bill, which includes a broad cap on carbon.

Given this list, it appears that the bill will have two main big-ticket items: an oil spill response package and a renewable electricity standard, which would require that a certain percentage of the country’s electricity come from renewable sources like wind or solar.

The answer, I think, is something approaching “yes,” although probably for broader reasons than Kate implies in her piece. The real issue at hand is the fundamental weakness of the House vis-à-vis the Senate. Last spring, when we were all obsessing over every detail of the climate debate in the House Energy and Commerce Committee, I think we didn’t quite appreciate just how subordinate the House had become to the Senate, for the simple reason that we hadn’t yet seen the health care sausage-making play out.

Now it seems clear that if health care is to pass at all, House liberals will be forced to swallow their pride and pass a much less progressive Senate bill verbatim, even if there’s room for some smallish changes via reconciliation down the line. Likewise with climate legislation: For all the weeks and months of work that went into producing — and whipping the votes for — the Waxman-Markey bill, the liberals in the lower chamber will almost certainly have to bite the bullet and pass something resembling whatever eventually comes out of the Senate (if anything).

One has to wonder when the House will lose its desire for vigorous debate over its bills — given that they’re likely to be supplanted by their Senate counterparts — and when we in the media will stop devoting so much ink (or so many pixels) to House debates that are likely to be rendered close to meaningless. I know I, for one, feel a bit silly for having spent so much time scrutinizing every compromise that threatened to undermine the efficacy of the Waxman-Markey bill, now that they all seem just about moot.

Sens. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and even John McCain (R-Ariz.) — the nation’s most famous torture victim — on Wednesday released a joint statement saying that prosecuting Bush administration officials for their legal opinions would have a “deeply chilling effect” on future administrations receiving legal advice. And an investigatory commission, they said, would “focus on the mistakes of the past” instead of “looking forward to solutions.”

Meanwhile, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) reiterated his call for a bipartisan “Commission of Inquiry”, and Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) wrote to President Obama urging him to consider prosecuting both the lawyers who provided legal justification and some of those who carried out the techniques they sanctioned.

At the grassroots level, the American Civil Liberties Union, Moveon.org, Democrats.com, Firedoglake.com, the Center for Constitutional Rights and a broad coalition of other advocacy groups will present Holder with petitions this afternoon, containing over 250,000 signatures, demanding that an independent prosecutor be appointed to conduct a criminal investigation of the use of torture.

As I noted in my story this morning, Obama has not ruled out prosecutions of the lawyers and architects of abusive interrogation policies, saying it will be up to Holder to decide how to proceed. Still, it seems clear from his recent statements that he’d prefer to avoid a full-blown investigation, be it criminal or congressional.

When I think of George Voinovich, I think of his inane blubbering about the shamnesty debacle. Blubber, blubber.

I think of his crusading for the massive auto bailout.

And I think of his mortifying meltdown in opposition to John Bolton’ UN ambassador nomination in 2005, which prompted embarrassed conservatives to start a “Console George” campaign to send him tissues.

The ironic thing is that Malkin had a lot of fun with liberal Democrats (“nutroots”) who wanted to purge their party of Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) in 2006 and 2008. But of course, all Lieberman did was side with President George W. Bush against the Democrats’ Iraq policy, then endorse GOP presidential nominee Sen. John McCain, rather than President-elect Barack Obama. Voinovich wanted to give work visas to Mexicans.

Sen. Joe Lieberman (BiggerPictureImages flickr)

When Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.) switched from Democrat to independent in 2006, Democrats needed him to remain in their caucus to control the Senate with 51 votes.

Yet many Democrats openly disdained Lieberman for championing the war in Iraq. The disdain escalated this year, when Lieberman campaigned tirelessly for Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), the Republican nominee for president.

It was something of a surprise, then, when a newly configured Democratic Senate caucus — no longer clinging to a one-vote majority — decided Tuesday, by a vote of 42-13, to keep Lieberman as one of their own. He will even retain his chairmanship of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, which is responsible for oversight of the executive branch.

Illustration by: Matt Mahurin

The vote appears to be less about Lieberman and more about Democrats and President-elect Barack Obama building a consensus. While highly critical of Lieberman’s straying allegiance, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) was careful never to cut him loose. And Obama signaled that that he wanted Lieberman to remain in the caucus.

“The Democrats wanted to string up Lieberman by his toes and hit him with a broom,” said Kenneth Dautrich, a public policy professor at the University of Connecticut. “But by extending this olive branch, they’ve learned to overcome their emotional response and not be vindictive.”

“The result of the vote is not because the Democrats want to forgive him,” said Dautrich. “It’s because he’ll be an important vote.”

The 55-member Democratic Senate caucus — including at least five newly elected members — also allowed Lieberman to hold onto his chairmanship of an Armed Services subcommittee. But it stripped him of his chairmanship of a subcommittee of the Environmental and Public Works Committee.

After the caucus meeting, Lieberman said the vote “was done in a spirit of reconciliation.”

The vote came after 11 months of Lieberman stumping for McCain. The Arizona Republican even wanted Lieberman as his running mate before GOP strategists persuaded McCain to choose Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin.

That didn’t stop Lieberman from delivering a speech at Republican National Convention exalting McCain and blasting Obama.

“Sen. Obama is a gifted and eloquent young man,” Lieberman said in his Sept. 3 address. “But eloquence is no substitute for a record — not in these tough times. In the Senate, he has not reached across party lines to get anything significant done, nor has he been willing to take on powerful interest groups in the Democratic Party.”

Two days after Obama won the presidency and Democrats widened their margin in the Senate, an aide to Reid told the Associated Press that Lieberman would likely lose his chairmanship of the homeland security committee. Reid himself told a CNN reporter that, “Joe Lieberman has done something that I think was improper, wrong — and if we weren’t on television, I’d use a stronger word of describing what he did.”

The statement made headlines but Reid also hinted at reconciliation. “Joe Lieberman votes with me a lot more than a lot of my senators. He didn’t support us on military stuff, and he didn’t support us on Iraq stuff. But you look at his record — it’s pretty good.”

Then last week Obama informed Reid that he held no grudges toward Lieberman and wanted him to remain in the Democratic caucus.

“Once Obama intervened on this, it made it more likely that Democrats would treat Lieberman gently,” said Thomas Mann, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution.

Julian E. Zelizer, a history professor at Princeton University, praised Obama’s support for the Connecticut independent as consistent with the president-elect’s calls for post-partisanship. “The Obama strategy of wanting to keep broadening his coalition is genuine,” Zelizer said. “Obama’s aware of the political flack he’ll take. But it’s a pragmatic move. He’s a non-ideologue.”

With Lieberman in the fold, the Democrats still have an outside shot of a 60-member caucus that could end Republican filibusters. That possibility hinges on yet-to-be decided races in Georgia and Minnesota.

“Lieberman will be a senator until 2012,” said Dautrich. “In the next four years, there will probably be votes on health-care reform legislation and Supreme Court nominees. … The Republicans will try to filibuster and the Democrats will need 60 votes.”

Lieberman, a senator since 1988, has had a rocky relationship with Democrats since he lost to Ned Lamont in the 2006 Democratic primary in Connecticut. After declaring himself an independent, Lieberman went on to defeat Lamont in the general election. He vowed to continue to caucus with Senate Democrats.

His chairmanship of the homeland security committee was largely viewed as both a reward and an incentive to prevent his defection to the GOP.

But the same issues that cost Lieberman in the Democratic primary also made him an oft-criticized chairman, especially his unflagging support of the Bush administration’s strategy in Iraq and overall “war on terror.”

It is unlikely that Lieberman will provide tougher oversight of an Obama administration that has welcomed him back into the Democratic Party.

“Lieberman is a very calculating politician,” said Zelizer. “I don’t think he wants to spend his political capital on investigations.”

Lieberman is thus expected to tread carefully. Thanks to the new configuration of the Senate, he needs the Democrats at least as much as the Democrats need him.

Lieberman will relinquish his seat on the environment committee.

Lieberman, now an Independent, angered many members of his former party by campaigning for Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) throughout the presidential election, particularly for what some saw as an attack on President-elect Barack Obama during his speech at the Republican convention in St. Paul.

Reid said this is not a time for “retribution,” but “it was a time of moving forward” on this country’s problems.

Lieberman used the same language, noting it was time of “looking forward.”

When asked about his comments on the trail, Lieberman said some of the criticism is based on comments he never made and simply are “not true.” “There are other statements that I wish I had made more clearly,” Liebmeran said, “and there are some [comments] that I’ve made that I wish I had not made at all.

Lieberman thanked four of his Senate pals for hashing out the deal, Sens. Chris Dodd (Conn), Ken Salazar (Colo.), Bill Nelson (Fla.), Tom Carper (Del.).

No, that would be the pseudo-Democrat-Independent Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.), who once served in that same role for Al Gore on the 2000 Democratic ticket. In a way, McCain being pulled back by his advisers and the more conservative base of the party is a shame. There’s something that happens to McCain when he’s around Lieberman. There’s a mutual admiration that beams through when McCain speaks with Lieberman at his side.

Perhaps it’s the shared experience of being shunned by the base of your party. Perhaps its just that they like each other. Whatever the reason, the result is always the same: the shedding of the meaner McCain, who many (including myself) have written about during this campaign; and the re-emergence of the friendlier, even boyish maverick, whom we got to know during his 2000 GOP primary bid.

McCain, of course, can put on his best face for Palin — whom he hardly knows, and whom the evangelical base simply loooooves. But one has to wonder about the residual effects this non-choice of Lieberman will have for McCain going forward. The two played off each other like brothers, bringing out the best in one another. Of course, Lieberman will continue to be a surrogate. But it seems unlikely that he will fight in the same way had McCain chosen to have him on his ticket. No. Now the old soldier must go forward alone.

Meanwhile, rumors are swirling feverishly as to who McCain will bring onstage with him. The most frequently mentioned names include former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty and, most controversial, Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.)

However, Pawlenty seems to have taken his name out of the running by telling a Minneapolis radio station that he will remain in Minnesota today to attend the state fair. From Politico:

“I will not be in Dayton, Ohio, so I think that’s a fair assumption,” [Pawlenty] added in an interview with the Twin Cities radio station, when asked
if this was an indication that he would not be chosen.

Fox News reports this morning that Romney is out of the running — and NBC’s Chuck Todd says Romney is not even going to be in Dayton today.

So where does this leave us? Politico’s Jonathan Martin reported yesterday that Lieberman is vacationing in Long Island, N.Y. Of course, this doesn’t necessarily take him out of the running.

On MSNBC, Mark Halperin just said that former Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Ridge was never fully vetted — indicating he is not the pick either.

The cable news networks are currently transfixed with a mysterious Gulfstream jet that arrived at a private airport in nearby Middletown, Ohio late yesterday from Anchorage, Alaska — the home of Gov. Sarah Palin, who was also mentioned as a potential running mate. From Marc Ambinder:

Thanks to the readers who pointed me to the journey of a sturdy
Gulfstream 5 with the [tail] number of N22GY. Anchorage, Alaska to Hook Municipal Field in Ohio. Nearby Dayton. 30 miles away. And the plane was in Flagstaff, AZ recently. [McCain reportedly met with potential veeps at his residence near Sedona yesterday.]

And where was the plane registered? To an entity called Gypsy Two LLC. It shares an address with a tax exempt organization called the Dean Weidner foundation. Dean Weidner is a Republican donor.. and a guy named William Weidner, the CEO of Las Vegas Sands corp, is a McCain bundler.

Palin, a young, pro-life governor with a reputation as a reformer — she came to prominence as a whistle-blower in a state famous for corruption and patronage — would be the dark horse of dark horses. If she is selected, it could indicate the McCain campaign is looking to pull some moderate women — namely former supporters of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton — to his column. She may prove a solid middle ground choice in McCain’s efforts to court moderates and pro-life conservatives. However, she could also undercut McCain’s message of experience versus youth — a first-term governor who is younger than Obama would be one step away from the presidency.

Of course, this is all hearsay and conjecture. We’ll be eagerly monitoring this situation and will let you know as soon as we learn anything new.

“I think that the pro-life position is one of the important aspects or fundamentals of the Republican Party,” McCain said. “And I also feel that–and I’m not trying to equivocate here–that Americans want us to work together.”

Less than a week later, with Sen. Barack Obama expected to name his running mate any day, The National Review reported that McCain had been quietly seeking advice from Republican leaders around the country to gauge the fallout from such a choice. It then seemed to be a head-fake targeting the Obama campaign, trying to push the presumed Democratic nominee to select a more unconventional running mate if he was considering a relatively safe pick.

Now that Obama has made a safe choice with Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.), the rumors continue that McCain may very well be considering Lieberman. In his column in The New York Times Monday, Bill Kristol promoted the idea of a McCain-Lieberman ticket as a much better option for pro-life conservatives than an Obama-Biden administration.

But today, Robert Novak came out of his brain tumor-induced retirement to announce that Lieberman is personally lobbying McCain against choosing him. Novak also suggested that the thinking among pro-Lieberman elements within the McCain campaign reflects a notion that the coalition that twice elected President George W. Bush is dead:

McCain’s top strategists argue that the Bush coalition that won the last two presidential elections is dead and must be replaced by a new one that extends to the left, as Lieberman would. Bush strategists disagree, asserting that McCain is getting around 90 percent of the old Bush vote and can win the election with a few moderates added in.

Politico’s Jonathan Martin reports that Lieberman’s people adamantly deny that their man has said any such thing to McCain — perhaps Novak has once again been taken in by a source with a juicy tidbit and an agenda.

This is where we now stand. It appears — as Martin writes — that Lieberman is still very much on the table. Personal relationships are important to McCain — and none of his Senate colleagues have proven themselves more loyal than Lieberman. However, now that Obama has made a safe pick, it seems likely that McCain would follow suit and make a conventional choice as well — so as to not upset the Republican base. But the reverse could also be true: with the Democratic ticket sitting squarely on the left, as both men rank among the nation’s most liberal senators, there could be room for McCain to pick up more votes in the moderate middle — but again, this would run the risk of severely alienating the right.

It is also noteworthy that the McCain campaign announced the Arizona senator will appear with his running mate at several high-profile rallies throughout the weekend. It has also already said that both former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee will share the stages. Romney is widely believed to be the front-runner for the vice presidential nomination, so it is a bit odd that the campaign would specifically name him if he is to be chosen. Of course, this could be just another head-fake.

The bottom line is that nobody really knows what’s going to happen, except the people at the highest echelon of the McCain campaign. Fortunately, the answer will be revealed by week’s end, but the fact that Lieberman’s name is still being aggressively circulated — long after it would produce any clear political benefit as a fake-out — is very curious indeed.