Maybe he was just trying to help, but I didn't find Allan Hubbard's letter to Nancy Pelosi to be anything but cynical.

Hubbard, the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy and Director, National Economic Council, wrote to the Speaker of the House last week, outlining the "basic framework for an energy bill that would not compel the President's senior advisors to recommend a veto."

His criteria included:

• no mandatory Renewable Portfolio Standard
• separate, attribute-based fuel efficiency standards for cars and light trucks

Given those two conditions (there were many more), how could Hubbard honestly make the following claim:

I write you to reiterate the Administration's commitment to work with Congress to produce balanced energy legislation that improves the Nation's energy and economic security and protects the environment.

Think about this for a second: the House proposed the Renewable Portfolio Standard and the Senate proposed the minimum fuel economy standards for cars and light trucks. So, telling each body that one of their cornerstone measures is unacceptable to the President's senior advisors is tantamount to telling Congress that they wasted the summer drafting energy policy.

If that's the case, what then is the motivation for anyone in Congress to spend the waning hours of this session trying to reconcile the current versions of the House and Senate energy bills?

While I don't think Hubbard (or Bush) is bluffing, I do think the administration is hoping that this year's energy bill stalls in Congress, rather than on the President's desk. And that is one of the most cynical examples of political poker that I can recall.

We need leadership. And all we get is politics.

Carbon Neutral Journal's rants are brought to you by Vertical Media.

Popularity: 6%