Majorities in the House and the Senate approve KeystoneXL

[monovillage]

But it didn't pass. Just keeping this nasty business by Obama in the news is a good thing. He's made a straight up election year political decision that is bad for the country, but approved by extremist environmental organizations.

Thursday’s squeaker of a Senate vote on the Keystone XL pipeline serves both as a warning to President Barack Obama that a majority of both houses of Congress supports the pipeline and as encouragement to Republicans to keep pushing the issue.

Obama had personally lobbied Senate Democrats with phone calls urging them to oppose an amendment to the highway bill that would fast-track the Canada-to-Texas oil pipeline. And as it turned out, he needed every bit of their help.In all, 11 Democrats joined 45 Republicans to support the pipeline. Only the fact that 60 votes were needed for passage saved the White House from an embarrassing defeat.Sen. Dick Lugar (R-Ind.) wryly congratulated Obama on his lobbying efforts.

“That was very strong work by President Obama himself, making personal calls to Democrats,” Lugar said. “He understood that a majority of the American public and a majority at least of the Senate are strongly in favor of this project.

“So I suppose you give credit to the president for once again blocking something, but I don't think the president really wants to do that indefinitely,” he added.

“We got a majority in the Senate,” said amendment sponsor Sen. John Hoeven (R-N.D.), who noted that two senators — Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) and John Thune (R-S.D.) — were absent. “So we would have had 58 votes had all Republicans been able to be here.”

Republicans promised that the issue, which has been a staple of the campaign trail since Obama first attempted in November to punt the decision until 2013, will not go away.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/73795.html#ixzz1odlhANB6

 

[etrigan420]

Proof once again that Republicans can't get shit done...


ZING!!!

 

[thraashman]

Even Fox News admits that increased drilling won't really lower prices, that no politician can affect gas prices, that the best ways to improve prices are to lower consumption and develop alternative options, and that we need to increase spending on mass transit options. Here's a link of the talking mouth of the GOP admitting that all of the current GOP positions are wrong

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=UzEnKdBAb_o

Of course, this was all in 2008 when George W Bush was still President. I guess the facts about how oil work (things like physics and economics) made a complete 180 change in the last 4 years.

 

[PokerGuy]

But it didn't pass. Just keeping this nasty business by Obama in the news is a good thing. He's made a straight up election year political decision that is bad for the country, but approved by extremist environmental organizations.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/73795.html#ixzz1odlhANB6

This might be a good thing in the long run. Americans are going to feel a lot of pain at the pump, in large part because the president and his energy secretary Chu WANT higher gas prices. They've openly said so. The public needs to be aware of that desire for higher gas prices, and this issue (the pipeline) helps that cause.

 

[werepossum]

Even Fox News admits that increased drilling won't really lower prices, that no politician can affect gas prices, that the best ways to improve prices are to lower consumption and develop alternative options, and that we need to increase spending on mass transit options. Here's a link of the talking mouth of the GOP admitting that all of the current GOP positions are wrong

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=UzEnKdBAb_o

Of course, this was all in 2008 when George W Bush was still President. I guess the facts about how oil work (things like physics and economics) made a complete 180 change in the last 4 years.

Keystone isn't really about lowering gas prices. It's about adding oil security and adding to our economy via jobs in construction and operational fractional added value.

The oil will be exploited in either case. The difference is whether America sees any value from the process. Obama and the Democrat leadership (and most though not all Democrats in Congress) are determined that America does not benefit in any way.

 

[woolfe9999]

This might be a good thing in the long run. Americans are going to feel a lot of pain at the pump, in large part because the president and his energy secretary Chu WANT higher gas prices. They've openly said so. The public needs to be aware of that desire for higher gas prices, and this issue (the pipeline) helps that cause.

That isn't what Chu said.

 

[soundforbjt]

Isn't alot of the oil from Keystone going to be exported after being refined?

 

[thraashman]

Keystone isn't really about lowering gas prices. It's about adding oil security and adding to our economy via jobs in construction and operational fractional added value.

The oil will be exploited in either case. The difference is whether America sees any value from the process. Obama and the Democrat leadership (and most though not all Democrats in Congress) are determined that America does not benefit in any way.

No, they're determined that we don't rush into something for the benefits while ignoring the detriments. It's what responsible adults do. Right now the Republicans are acting like a spoiled child with a bag full of Halloween candy. They insist we have to eat it all now or it'll go rotten and they want the immediate gratification. Ignoring that if they eat it now, they'll get sick and if they wait and eat it responsibly there's less chance of negative effects.

 

[piasabird]

Democrat Obstructionists. They would rather invest in failing Green companies and waist billions of dollars earened by taxpayers. Welcome to boondoggle city.

 

[First]

That isn't what Chu said.

Or Obama. But be nice to PokerGuy, he ain't the sharpest tool in the shed.

 

[werepossum]

No, they're determined that we don't rush into something for the benefits while ignoring the detriments. It's what responsible adults do. Right now the Republicans are acting like a spoiled child with a bag full of Halloween candy. They insist we have to eat it all now or it'll go rotten and they want the immediate gratification. Ignoring that if they eat it now, they'll get sick and if they wait and eat it responsibly there's less chance of negative effects.

If studying something for two years constitutes rushing in, we deserve to fail as a country. Just as a child who waits two years before opening his/her Halloween candy deserves to get sick from it

 

[PokerGuy]

Isn't alot of the oil from Keystone going to be exported after being refined?

Oil is a global commodity. Anything that adds to the supply will reduce the price, no matter who/where/how.

 

[PokerGuy]

That isn't what Chu said.

Lets see. http://news.yahoo.com/energy-secretary-chu-admits-administration-ok-high-gas-193900713.html

President Barack Obama's Secretary of Energy Stephen Chu uttered the kind of Washington gaffe that consists of telling the truth when inconvenient. According to politico, Chu admitted to a House committee that the administration is not interested in lowering gas prices.

That's about as blunt and honest as can be, it's part of his philosophy of forcing people to "go green".

That quote should be placed on the air about 20 million times between now and November as gas prices climb, make sure the consumers know who wants them to pay more at the pump.

 

[PokerGuy]

Or Obama. But be nice to PokerGuy, he ain't the sharpest tool in the shed.

Lets see. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...claims-obama-said-energy-costs-will-skyrocke/

"Under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket," Obama told the Chronicle

You were saying?

 

[Ausm]

Keystone isn't really about lowering gas prices. It's about adding oil security and adding to our economy via jobs in construction and operational fractional added value.

The oil will be exploited in either case. The difference is whether America sees any value from the process. Obama and the Democrat leadership (and most though not all Democrats in Congress) are determined that America does not benefit in any way.

How would it lead to "oil security" when the oil would be sold on the world market?

 

[MovingTarget]

Did they ever re-route the pipeline from going over that aquifer?

I support the building of a pipeline wholeheartedly, but it seems that both the executive and legislative branches are butting heads unnecessarily. There are some environmental concerns about the pipeline, but I feel that these could be easily addressed given some additional planning time. Both branches (and parties) should approve this, but they shouldn't be trying to force it with some big legislative battle.

 

[werepossum]

How would it lead to "oil security" when the oil would be sold on the world market?

In time of great need we'd have physical control of the oil and could nationalize it if needed. (Note that high gas prices do NOT constitute great need; World War 3 would.)

 

[Anarchist420]

It really pisses me off that there is such limited respect for private property rights. Even Dr. Rand Paul voted for this.

 

[werepossum]

Did they ever re-route the pipeline from going over that aquifer?

I support the building of a pipeline wholeheartedly, but it seems that both the executive and legislative branches are butting heads unnecessarily. There are some environmental concerns about the pipeline, but I feel that these could be easily addressed given some additional planning time. Both branches (and parties) should approve this, but they shouldn't be trying to force it with some big legislative battle.

This is true. The Obama administration has been dragging its feet because it doesn't want more oil, period. And the Republicans are pushing it because it's a good political issue. So the best solution, building the pipeline but avoiding the environmentally sensitive areas, probably won't happen. While the company is willing to reroute around those areas, it won't do so if the Republicans succeed in pushing through the approval because it's more expensive both in construction and in operation to not take the most efficient route.

 

[monovillage]

Did they ever re-route the pipeline from going over that aquifer?

I support the building of a pipeline wholeheartedly, but it seems that both the executive and legislative branches are butting heads unnecessarily. There are some environmental concerns about the pipeline, but I feel that these could be easily addressed given some additional planning time. Both branches (and parties) should approve this, but they shouldn't be trying to force it with some big legislative battle.

If you've looked at maps you's see the Ogallala Aquifer is a huge red herring for the eco-extremist opponents of any pipeline.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ogallala_Aquifer

 

[woolfe9999]

Lets see. http://news.yahoo.com/energy-secretary-chu-admits-administration-ok-high-gas-193900713.html

That's about as blunt and honest as can be, it's part of his philosophy of forcing people to "go green".

That quote should be placed on the air about 20 million times between now and November as gas prices climb, make sure the consumers know who wants them to pay more at the pump.

He said their priority is not in lowering gas prices. He didn't say they actively desire higher gas prices. And he gave pretty good reasons why the better long term strategy is to develop alternative energy sources.

 

[Ausm]

In time of great need we'd have physical control of the oil and could nationalize it if needed. (Note that high gas prices do NOT constitute great need; World War 3 would.)

That's why we have our own oil reserve of 21 Billion barrels and also right now our oil consumption is the lowest it has been in 30 years. Oh WW3 seriously? I haven't heard that argument yet but I don't roll with Neocons either.

 

[PokerGuy]

He said their priority is not in lowering gas prices. He didn't say they actively desire higher gas prices. And he gave pretty good reasons why the better long term strategy is to develop alternative energy sources.

"Not our top priority" is not the same as "not interested in lowering gas prices". The better strategy may very well be to develop good alternative energy sources, but there is no doubt Chu wants prices higher. Not only did he specifically say the administration is not interested in lowering prices (that's enough right there to let the public know where obummer and his minions stand), he's made countless statements showing that he wants energy costs to go up as part of the process of pushing people to "go green".

The GOP should plaster those two statements (obummer and chu) all over the air in the next few months.

 

[monovillage]

"Not our top priority" is not the same as "not interested in lowering gas prices". The better strategy may very well be to develop good alternative energy sources, but there is no doubt Chu wants prices higher. Not only did he specifically say the administration is not interested in lowering prices (that's enough right there to let the public know where obummer and his minions stand), he's made countless statements showing that he wants energy costs to go up as part of the process of pushing people to "go green".

The GOP should plaster those two statements (obummer and chu) all over the air in the next few months.

Hopefully they will. Along with some of the statistics about the costs of solar and wind power and the anticipated costs and problems with some of the new bio-fuels we're hearing about.

 

[PokerGuy]

Hopefully they will. Along with some of the statistics about the costs of solar and wind power and the anticipated costs and problems with some of the new bio-fuels we're hearing about.

I heard the first ad locally here in PA today They didn't use these specific quotes, but they were saying obummer and "his EPA" were driving gas prices higher. Hopefully this is the beginning of a barrage.