Obama Rejects American Jobs
Gee, thanks Mr. President.
President Barack Obama on Wednesday rejected a Canadian company’s plan to build a U.S.-spanning, 1,700-mile pipeline to carry oil across six U.S. states to Texas refineries, raising the stakes on a bitter election year fight with Republicans.
They just need to move the pipeline from over the aquifer.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 18, 2012 at 2119 hrs
It’ll be approved by summer. TransCanada intends to have another plan filed in a couple weeks that addresses the concerns that were raised. This is easy politics for Obama.
Posted by Recess Supervisor on January 18, 2012 at 2122 hrs
It was the company that dropped the ball, but you still find it necessary to blame Obama?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 18, 2012 at 2140 hrs
Obama is NEVER going approve this. If he was really concerned about environmental issues only, he would have conditionally approved it.
You trot the under secretary of state when you want to avoid something. If he was for it he would have had a huge announcement, and he would have done it himself.
You forget hoe much of an ideologue O is…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 18, 2012 at 2221 hrs
Basel is the least cherished city of Switzerland but a wonderful city, which is quieter than Zürich, farther from the Alps then Bern is and less international than Geneva city. On a city, tour tourists can discover the city’s many attractions and places of interest.
Posted by Schloss Binningen on January 18, 2012 at 2349 hrs
Why does Obama hate Canada?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 19, 2012 at 0611 hrs
Why does Obama hate creating private sector jobs?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 19, 2012 at 0652 hrs
There are hundreds of pipelines already running over that aquifer.
This decision has nothing to do with the actual merits or risks of the project.
Posted by Jed on January 19, 2012 at 0712 hrs
Thr real question to ask is why Obama hates oil. Then you understand how impractical his position is…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 19, 2012 at 0713 hrs
No Bill, the real question is why Obama hates America!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 19, 2012 at 0753 hrs
This reinforces the idea that Obama and the democrats have thrown the construction trades aside and taken a stance with the environmentalists. No doubt there is a more reliable easy to count on number of voters with the environmentalsists.
You can certainly see this same thing happening here in Wisconsin with the mining issue.
It’s a shame that the union trades haven’t figured out that they would be better off without the dems.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 19, 2012 at 0756 hrs
It was the company that dropped the ball, but you still find it necessary to blame Obama?
For those of us who came in late, can you explain?Posted by Brian Dunbar on January 19, 2012 at 0835 hrs
Of course it was the company’s fault, silly. After all, companies, by definition, are evil. Everybody knows that.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 19, 2012 at 1011 hrs
I don’t anyone runs for President who hates it. What he hates is “dirty” oil and capitalism.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 19, 2012 at 1011 hrs
I don’t anyone runs for President who hates it.
I subscribe to the belief that anyone who wants that much power and responsibility, is willing to throw away what most of us consider ‘a life’ is a nut. Would probably be on medication if they worked down at the plant.
If this is true, then normal emotions like ‘love’ and ‘hate’ and ‘patriotism’ don’t really apply.
Posted by Brian Dunbar on January 19, 2012 at 1101 hrs
There goes millions of dollars in profit Boehner and his cronies stood to gain through their investments in TransCanada had the pipeline been approved. One more thing for him to cry over…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 19, 2012 at 1115 hrs
Maybe Pelosi’s husband too, huh Joe?
Oh, I forgot - profit is only evil if it’s made by Republicans, right?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 19, 2012 at 1129 hrs
Obama doesn’t hate oil, he hates under-inflated tires! Where’s our TirePressure Czar!!!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 19, 2012 at 1135 hrs
So much sturm und drang over a non-issue. But that’s what politics is for, I suppose. To make issues out of non-issues.
And the State Department said the decision was made “without prejudice,” meaning TransCanada can submit a new application once a route through environmentally sensitive areas of Nebraska is established.
Russ Girling, TransCanada’s president and chief executive officer, said the company plans to do exactly that. If approved, the pipeline could begin operation as soon as 2014, Girling said.
Posted by Phil Scarr on January 19, 2012 at 1204 hrs
@phil,
Isn’t it convenient that this would put decisions off till after the election.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 19, 2012 at 1210 hrs
Who defines “environmentally sensitive”. A common tactic to push an agenda is to change that definition. Is some cases, it people will lie on that subject.
Some years ago, my father was going to sell some woodland to a developer. A local activist had an issue with that and acutally told him that all she needed to do is say that she saw a certain flower on the property to stop the sale.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 19, 2012 at 1214 hrs
Chuck: Isn’t that kind of “heads I win, tails you lose?” If he signs, he upsets his base. If he delays, he upsets the wingnuts. Frankly, the wingnuts will never vote for him, so he might as well play to his base. Sounds like sensible politics to me…
Posted by Phil Scarr on January 19, 2012 at 1217 hrs
Rick: And what was the conclusion of the story? Did he stop the sale? Frankly, he couldn’t “stop the sale” in the sense that the presence of the “flower” would render the land non-transferable. Rather, he would force the developer to conduct an environmental impact study before commencing whatever the development was. I’m not sure I see a problem with that. Or event that the presence or non-presence of a “flower” would change anything about the rules regarding environmental impact studies.
That smells like a straw man argument to me…
Posted by Phil Scarr on January 19, 2012 at 1220 hrs
The conservative bête noire has weighed in on Keystone… Take it away, Mr. Krugman!
In correspondence, Mark Thoma notes a double standard in the conservative outcry over the Keystone XL decision. As he notes, when it comes to the question of whether government spending can create jobs, the usual suspects claim that it’s logically impossible: income has to be spent somewhere, so all the government can do is divert funds from other uses. But when it’s a private investment, somehow that logic no longer applies.
The truth is that the logic is wrong in all cases — spending isn’t fixed. But it’s still interesting to note this double standard; it’s more evidence of lack of good faith.
Snicker…
Posted by Phil Scarr on January 19, 2012 at 1225 hrs
And once again, everyone’s desire to shoehorn this into a pre-existing political narrative misses the point that has been raised a few times. All the State Department did was ask TransCanada to reroute the pipeline, and TransCanada has already agreed to do so. House Republicans decided they wanted to expedite an approval process that could not be expedited in the timeframe they wanted, something both sides will recognize privately. And they wanted an up or down answer.
So TransCanada got an answer: down. With a note that told them to fix a few things and reapply. And TransCanada is already in the process of doing so.
Snore. Go make hay over Solyndra, or Eric Holder, or something. At least that’s marginally interesting. This is about as captivating as a parent that tells their kid they can’t go to the movies until they clean their room.
Posted by Recess Supervisor on January 19, 2012 at 1239 hrs
Phil. The heads or tails thing is interesting in that it works for both parties. Obama doesn’t need to pander to his base. He needs to pander to me, an independent voter. I’m here (and a bunch of other blogs and news sites) trying to decide if I should vote a straight party ticket this year. Something I have never done.
Sorting through the wingnuts, as you say, on both sides is easy. Finding intellegent discussions and debate from both sides has been challenging, to say the least.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 19, 2012 at 1432 hrs
Chuck: In that case, I expect, as an independent voter, you’ll evaluate the decision on it’s merits. President Obama did not “reject American jobs,” rather he rejected what his team regarded as an unsound plan that put the environment at risk. While jobs are an important issue, they’re not the only issue. A shoddily constructed or poorly routed pipeline is not in America’s best interest, jobs or no jobs.
I’m not trying to convince you one way or another. I do not reject the Keystone XL pipeline out of hand, but I do want to make sure that we construct a safe, stable, reliable pipeline that avoids as many high-risk environmental areas as is feasible.
And the fact that the Keystone XL team are working on a revision tells me they do too.
There are plenty of things for the Republicans to ding President Obama on, this really isn’t one of them.
Posted by Phil Scarr on January 19, 2012 at 1522 hrs
Sounds like sensible politics to me…
How about saying ‘screw sensible politics’ and doing what is sensible for the economy and jobs. You know, like providing thousands of jobs, billions in additional private sector spending, and lessening dependence on middle eastern oil. But honestly, if you insist on focusing of the ‘politics of it’, even his base is split on this, considering the position of private sector unions.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 19, 2012 at 1530 hrs
The “resubmittal” is just a delay tactic for Obama. Again if he really wanted it - he would conditionally approve it.
If Obama gets re-elected, Keystone will die a quick death, about a month after the election.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 19, 2012 at 1532 hrs
Phil, What I’m really doing is looking at Obamas pattern of decisions and how the senate is or isn’t following him. They are clearly not following him with this decision.
I think Bill has it right here.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 19, 2012 at 1725 hrs
So how much longer before a decision is made on getting the roughnecks working again in the Gulf? How about NEVER. Such bullshit. Keystone was never going to be approved. The “study” is another tactic to stall off the decision until after the election where it can be safely killed. Truth is there is nothing to study, there is very little if any environmental impact from having the pipeline built. Apparently it’s better to have our oil shipped from overseas, that way another disaster can be exploited and we can all be lectured on how we need to prop up more failed alternative energy initiatives.
TransCanada is not one of the handpicked “winners” like Solyndra, so it gets no play. Substitute this proposed pipeline with a wind or solar farm, and you’d see taxpayer dollars showered upon the developer, eminent domain uprooting families and stealing land, and liberal jackasses falling over themselves trying to claim credit for the jobs created and/or saved.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 19, 2012 at 2020 hrs
Hey Sparky, show us your data re: current vs. pre-spill gulf oil production. Anything. Rigs. Employment. Production. Projections. This should be good.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 19, 2012 at 2216 hrs
This disgraceful Kenyan Marxist has been doing his best to destroy our country for 3 years. Now the evidence is clear and overwhelming that he hates America and all it stands for. He has become a clear and present danger to our way of life and he must be removed from power.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 20, 2012 at 0747 hrs
Hey Sparky, show us your data
I’m not Sparky - but if you’re going to call shenanigans shouldn’t you show your work? I may have the Robert’s Rules of Order backwards.
This might be a good start.
In an interview with PolitiFact, Isakower added that “while the administration is correct” in its statistics, EIA found that “Gulf production peaked in May of 2010, due in large part to permits awarded three or more years earlier, and has been decreasing ever since. This matters because markets don’t look backward, they look forward.”
Posted by Brian Dunbar on January 20, 2012 at 0858 hrs
Oh but 45acp just made my day. Rarely do you see such awesome wingnuttery in the wild! Damn, you rock dude!
This disgraceful Kenyan Marxist has been doing his best to destroy our country for 3 years.
I am in awe…
Posted by Phil Scarr on January 20, 2012 at 1019 hrs
Well, he is a disgrace, and a clear and present danger to the USA.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 20, 2012 at 1311 hrs
TerryN:
Well, he is a disgrace, and a clear and present danger to the USA.
It would probably be better if you didn’t listen to the voices in your head quite so much. Or perhaps have the doctor up the voltage on your ECT. That might help clear out the cobwebs…
Posted by Phil Scarr on January 20, 2012 at 1345 hrs
Fascinating...
At the peak of December’s payroll tax cut showdown on Capitol Hill, two top Republican aides discussed with me the pros and cons of making the Keystone XL pipeline a centerpiece of the debate.
They relished the idea of forcing President Obama to take a public stand on the pipeline early in an election year, instead of after the election as he had wanted. And they were eager to force him to choose between supporters in the labor movement, some of whom are pushing for the pipeline, and others in the environmental movement who vehemently oppose it. So they decided to go for it.
At the same time they knew he’d likely have to reject the project, and for them that created a dilemma.
“It’s a question of whether we’d rather have the pipeline or the issue,” said one of the GOP aides. Black or white.
In the end they chose the issue.
Posted by Phil Scarr on January 20, 2012 at 1359 hrs
Fascinating,
Bipartisan Support Builds for Job-Creating Keystone Energy Project
Posted by Michael Ricci on December 16, 2011Bipartisan support for the Keystone energy project has only continued to grow in the week since President Obama said he would “reject” legislation supporting the job-creating pipeline.
Yesterday, Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA) told reporters that Keystone “has the backing of several Democrats.” “It’s always had more Democratic support than people thought,” she said. All told, as many as 14 Senate Democrats are reportedly supportive of Keystone. That’s in addition to the 47 House Democrats who voted earlier this year to require the administration to act quickly act on the project.
Here’s a rundown of what Democrats on both sides of the Capitol have said in the week since President Obama came out against congressional action on Keystone:
Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA): “Landrieu says she’d support Keystone in payroll/ui/doc fix bill. Says ‘good deal’ of D & R support for it.” (Trish Turner, Twitter, 12/15/11)
Sen. Mark Begich (D-AK): “Another sticking point is that Republicans inserted in their bill language that would fast-track the proposed Keystone X-L oil pipeline extension from Canada down to the Lower 48. …Senator Begich is supportive of moving the project forward and his office says that’s not a problem.” (Alaska Public Radio, 12/14/11)
Sen. Kent Conrad (D-ND): “I personally think the pipeline is absolutely in the national interest. It’ll help us reduce our dependence on foreign energy, at least foreign sources that are hostile to our interests… I, for one, on this side would hope that this could be part of a final package…” (Floor remarks, 12/14/11)
Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO): “Well, let’s hope we can negotiate something like that… if states’ rights are being protected and if this is going to be something maybe that we can try to jumpstart the approval process, make it go more quickly.” (MSNBC, 12/14/11)
Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV): “I am for the Keystone pipeline. … everyone’s for it, it creates thousands of jobs!” (Fox News, 12/12/11)
Sen. Jon Tester (D-MT): “I am proud to again offer my support for the Keystone XL pipeline and the jobs it will create. We need a quicker decision, based on the merits of this project.” (Floor Remarks, 12/13/11)
Rep. James Clyburn (D-SC): “I’m very much for the pipeline. There is no question about that.” (MSNBC, 12/14/11)
Rep. Dan Boren (D-OK): “I commend the Speaker for including the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline that is supported by business and labor.” (Release, 12/12/11)
Rep. Dennis Cardoza (D-CA): “‘I think the president’s wrong on this,’ said Cardoza, who is retiring after this Congress. ‘He can veto whatever he wants, but those are both policies I support.’” (POLITICO, 12/7/11)
Rep. Gene Green (D-TX): “Rep. Gene Green (D-Texas) said he’s not swayed by Obama’s veiled veto pledge. … ‘The Keystone is awfully important,’ Green said.” (POLITICO, 12/8/11)Again, these are all things Democrats have said in the week since the leader of their party said he would “reject” Keystone’s inclusion in a jobs bill extending payroll tax relief and unemployment insurance. For months now, Democrats have joined Republicans in supporting the pipeline – which is also backed by a broad-based coalition including organized labor – because it would help create jobs for workers struggling in President Obama’s economy.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 20, 2012 at 1448 hrs
It would probably be better if you didn’t listen to the voices in your head quite so much. Or perhaps have the doctor up the voltage on your ECT. That might help clear out the cobwebs…
Excuse me Phil,
I happen to think that US Presidents who bow to foreign leaders disgrace the office.
I happen to think that US Presidents who swear to preserve, protect and defend the constitution then ignore that oath disgrace the office.
I happen to think that US presidents who castigate their predecessor’s policies then follow them disgrace the office.
I happen to think that US Presidents who say they want to help the working people then prevent job creation and cause prices to rise disgrace the office.
You should consider your own medicine…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 20, 2012 at 1536 hrs
TerryN: Rising to the bait may not yield the expected results.
I happen to think that US Presidents who bow to foreign leaders disgrace the office.
Like this?
http://liberalvaluesblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/bush-bowed.jpgOoo, you must really hate this, then!
http://www.hermes-press.com/bush_kiss.jpg
I wonder if he got the tongue…I happen to think that US Presidents who swear to preserve, protect and defend the constitution then ignore that oath disgrace the office.
You mean like authorizing torture? Or selling arms to Iran? What specific constitutional issue concerns you?
I happen to think that US presidents who castigate their predecessor’s policies then follow them disgrace the office.
Like this, you mean?
In Reagan’s 1982 State of the Union, he went after his predecessor for blame plenty of times:
“To understand the State of the Union, we must look not only at where we are and where we’re going but where we’ve been. The situation at this time last year was truly ominous.”
...
“In the last six months of 1980, as an example, the money supply increased at the fastest rate in postwar history 13 percent. Inflation remained in double digits and Government spending increased at an annual rate of 17 percent. Interest rates reached a s taggering 21 1/2 percent. There were eight million unemployed.”
...
“First, we must understand what’s happening at the moment to the economy. Our current problems are not the product of the recovery program that’s only just now getting under way, as some would have you believe; they are the inheritance of decades of tax and tax, and spend”
...
“Now the budget deficit this year will exceed our earlier expectations. The recession did that. It lowered revenues and increased costs.”
Hmmmmmm….. Like that, right? So you hate Reagan then?
I happen to think that US Presidents who say they want to help the working people then prevent job creation and cause prices to rise disgrace the office.
You mean like this?
http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/jobs.gifYou should consider your own medicine…
Ahhh, the ever popular “I know you are but what am I” defense. Wow, you really got me with that one!
Posted by Phil Scarr on January 20, 2012 at 1713 hrs
Ahhh… the ever popular ‘Bush did it too…’ rationalization. Nice sources, btw.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 20, 2012 at 1738 hrs
So TransCanada got an answer: down. With a note that told them to fix a few things and reapply. And TransCanada is already in the process of doing so.
Uhhh, don’t this so RS
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 20, 2012 at 2026 hrs
I love how libnuts like Phil Scarr cannot provide any rebuttal other than name calling. If ANYONE is an idiot or listening to voices in their heads, its the moronic liberals who voted for a cipher promising nothing but hopey/changey.
Posted by Gunny G on January 21, 2012 at 0111 hrs
Gunny G: I’m sorry you’re unable to follow the links to the sources where I offer more than enough rebuttal to the silly comment made by TerryN. I find it amusing when wingnuts write stuff like
This disgraceful Kenyan Marxist has been doing his best to destroy our country for 3 years. Now the evidence is clear and overwhelming that he hates America and all it stands for. He has become a clear and present danger to our way of life and he must be removed from power.
And then
Well, he is a disgrace, and a clear and present danger to the USA.
Opinions are like assholes, everybody has one. Hardly worthy of a rebuttal..
Posted by Phil Scarr on January 21, 2012 at 1029 hrs
Smeety: Not sure what your point is… I was merely observing that when TerryN wrote
I happen to think that US Presidents who bow to foreign leaders disgrace the office.
consistency demands you hold all US Presidents to the same standard.
FWIW, bowing to certain foreign leaders is part of diplomatic protocol. Holding President Obama to a different standard than any other US President is… well, a double-standard, isn’t it? That’s my point.
But then you knew that already, didn’t you…
Posted by Phil Scarr on January 21, 2012 at 1035 hrs
I stand by what I wrote and could add even more to it if I felt that it was worthwhile. I didn’t want to spend more than a minute rebutting Mr. Phil.
Phil can cut and paste from lefty sites and add links but it doesn’t change a thing. On the surface it looks like someone researched his comment and brought “facts” to the discussion. In reality in makes Phil feel better by reinforcing his own opinions.
Presidents are people and nobody’s perfect. I take the whole person into account and never liked Obama due to his Bill Ayers, Tony Rezko, Jeremiah Wright and ACORN connections prior to his election. He also lacks leadership qualities and is trying hard to widen the divide in this once great nation. For all the reasons I mention from the top of my head I will always believe he is a disgrace to his office.
Now he’s standing in the way of jobs while giving away billions of dollars that eventually get sucked into bankrupt ventures.
Hope and change indeed.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 21, 2012 at 1441 hrs
For all the reasons I mention from the top of my head I will always believe he is a disgrace to his office.
Cindy Sheehan and other BDS apostles were equally stilted. Nice to see manifestations on all sides.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 21, 2012 at 2201 hrs
We will just think positive so that positive vibes will come in Canada,maybe Obama needs to think that project first!
Daily
Deals
Groupon
LivingSocial
dealaggregator
discountPosted by Calgary Deal Liker on January 23, 2012 at 0254 hrs
Phil,
I don’t happen to agree with Terry’s opinion, but I do agree that your rebuttals were lame. For instance there is no context to the Bush bow. In fact, it looks like the other man is about to put something around his neck rather than a bow. Perhaps that is why it is only a still shot. Context would prove the charlatanism. The infamous Obama bowing video gaffe clearly showed him bowing as a subordinate rather than an equal of state. Probably just incompetence on the part of his staff, but he picks his staff.Similarly you captured the Reagan quotes perfectly, but utterly misunderstood Terry’s comment. Every President complains about his predecessor. Terry’s comment included castigation and then following the same policies. Reagan did not do this. He followed few unimportant and zero important Carter policies. Obama campaigned against all war, proudly noting he was one a very few Senators to have voted against the Iraq action. That ended the very day he took office. Huh, wonder what that initial briefing actually includes… Bush taxed and spent, Obama condemned his policies, but then continued on the same policies in a larger font. Obama has been 4 more years of Bush with different names on the spending and Government expansion projects.
You kind of had one right, though. Obama has not been nearly as effective at growing and abusing Chief Executive powers as Bush, Clinton or Reagan(read: abridging constitutional checks on the Presidency or ‘failing to uphold the constitution’). Not for lack of wanting, IMO, it is just that he is as ineffective at that as everything else. He doesn’t hate America, no one wants to admit that political buffoons are running the US. Everyone believes it, and the world wide economy shows that, but no one wants to admit it. Probably because he has shown some ability at vindictiveness and he might still get re-elected.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 23, 2012 at 1420 hrs
Total Entries: 20000
Total Comments: 134051
Most Recent Entry: 05/25/2012 06:26 am
Most Recent Comment on: 05/25/2012 10:25 am
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 104
Total anonymous users: 2
Most Recent Visitor on: 05/25/2012 11:44 am
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).