The benefits of delay?

I'm really just brainstorming here, and though I surely don't want to wait any longer, I think it's worth pondering the potential benefits of delaying debate/passage of the climate/energy bill until next spring. Though I don't expect it to happen, based on a stronger push from the administration for passage, there are certainly political risks to going after KGL this summer:

1. Republicans are still bitter about health care and may be inclined to be even more obstructionist that they have been the last 15 months (if that is even possible).
2. Midterms are right around the corner, and it might be dangerous to turn this into a rush job.
3. Climate/energy is one of several items on the agenda for the summer, a crowded list that includes filling a seat on the Supreme Court, financial regulatory reform, immigration (?) and a jobs package.

Allowing congress to tackle climate/energy at the beginning of the 2011 session has potential, though certainly not guaranteed, solutions to these problems. After the new congress is sworn in, there will almost definitely be fewer Democrats in both houses. Let's talk about the Senate, since the House already passed their climate/energy legislation last summer. The good money has Democrats losing 3-7 seats in the Senate, bringing their total to 52-56 including Joe Lieberman, who caucuses with Dems. This will either a) make it virtually impossible to pass any legislation at all without a 60-vote supermajority or b) make it harder for Republicans to claim Democratic tyranny and force the other side of the aisle to come to the table. I've already said Republicans have good ideas to contribute on climate/energy - maybe this will give them an incentive to do so.

That might not matter as much, though, if Harry Reid comes through on his pledge to reform the Senate rules on the filibuster*. Such reform could feasibly occur at the beginning of the 112th Congress, when the Senate has the power to revisit its parliamentary rules without the 67 votes required while the Senate is in session. Again, this could yield at least two possible results. One, Republicans will cry foul and spew more "tyranny of the majority" nonsense. OR, two, they will adopt a more pragmatic attitude and come back to the table, in an ostensible attempt to contribute to legislation instead of pouting about the big bad Democrats.

I believe it's still possible that, with fewer Senate Dems and more time to calm down after health care, Republicans will make the multilateral decision to be legislators again. At the very least we can hope for some combination of Democrats + Scott Brown, Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, Mike Castle and Lindsay Graham. Graham should be in the bag on climate/energy - he's writing the bill, after all - but to fill the deficit created by defectors like Blanche Lincoln and Ben Nelson, some bipartisan support will be required even with 59 seats. That might be easier to achieve in a new Congress, when tempers have settled, distracting elections are still a long ways away, and Republicans can't quite as easily frame the Democrats as political bullies. Additionally, President Obama may be able to make a more engaged contribution if his attention isn't as split as it certainly will be this summer. Time will tell.

_________________________

*That is, if Harry Reid is reelected.