Naming Names: "Democrats" Who Voted For Keystone

[kpete]

Here are Democrats who voted for the bill: Sen. John Walsh and Jon Tester of Montana; Joe Manchin III of West Virginia; Mary Landrieu of Louisiana; Tom Carper of Delaware; Joe Donnelly of Indiana; Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota; Michael Bennet of Colorado; Mark Begich of Alaska; Mark Pryor of Arkansas; Mark Warner of Virginia; Kay Hagan of North Carolina; Claire McCaskill of Missouri; Bob Casey of Pennsylvania.


http://my.firedoglake.com/blog/2014/11/18/mining-the-earth-18-nov-2014/

[HereSince1628]

1. Mostly recognizable to me as places where mineral extraction is important to the economy

N. Carolina and Virginia are places I don't know well, the others all have a lot of something being dug out of the ground

[bravenak]

2. My Senator.

He lost his race I believe. Couldn't bring enough Democrats to the polls. I wonder why?

[bigwillq]

3. K and R (nt)

[arcane1]

4. Would any of those states actually benefit from KXL, or are these Dems just kissing Koch ass?

[alp227]

11. Those states seem to be targets for KXL related jobs.

especially LA and WV & basically any heartland state like MO.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

5. Is anyone really surprised at that list?

Same names you'll see giving 'bipartisan' cover to various RW legislation.

[MiniMe]

6. The one I don't understand is Kay Hagan

She lost the election, and NC doesn't get a benefit from oil and gas here.

[appal_jack]

8. Scuttlebutt is that she will vie for Burr's seat in 2016.

You're absolutely right that Hagan's vote makes no sense. However, suspend your clear-thinking for a moment, and think like a Blue Dog. Voting against Keystone now would 'tar' Hagan as a radical eco-freak. How then would she court those fracking-loving 'unaffiliated' voters that she always seems to love more than the Democratic base? Better to be 'tarred' as a 'drill baby drill' politician, for (nonexistent) jobs, or 'Merica (the polluted), or something.

Naturally, if Hagan loses in 2016, it will be the liberals' fault.



-app

[marions ghost]

22. exactly as I see it

well said

[FSogol]

17. VA and NC have both gotent oil company dollars and attentions in recent years.

There is untapped oil off the coasts. Luckily, VA's Senator's split on the vote.

Kaine voted against.
Warner vote for.

[Tom Rinaldo]

19. Some wishful thinking for ya...

Maybe, just maybe, she would have voted against it if there weren't already enough votes to stop it. That does happen in the Senate, allowing Democrats to play to their local voters when their vote is not really essential. Don't know it that happened here of course, but it won't hurt Hagan to have voted as she did if she wants to run again.

[earthside]

7. The biggest bozo of the bunch is my Senator.

Michael Bennet of Colorado.

He's barely a Democrat, anyway.

He was the 'genius' who was chair of the Democrats Senate Campaign Committee this cycle.
Being such an abject failure, maybe he thought he could atone by giving Landrieu a final desperate 'yes' on Keystone XL.

I hope Bennet gets a progressive primary challenger in 2016.

[likesmountains 52]

9. Me too.

Yesterday I called every one of his Colorado offices and the DC number...all of them went straight to a message that the mailbox was full. Asshole all the way.

[fizzgig]

24. i could vomit

bozo is a good word for him.

[Ravenna44]

10. Does anyone have the patience to educate me?

I haven't paid any attention to keystone - its pros and cons.

I assume the con is local environmental damage

And i am guessing the pro is that it frees us from having to depend on (And therefore meddle with, control, or suck up to) gulf countries. Also it saves us from using other forms of energy like coal, which is maybe worse for the environment. And maybe it creates high paying jobs that improve people's lives.

All in all that sounds like a toss-up to me. Am I missing something important?

[arcane1]

12. It has none of those pros. It's Canada's oil to sell to whom they please, at whatever price.

It doesn't save the US a damned thing. We're just the land it passes through, with two dozen jobs to deal with it.

[cali]

14. No, it's not just about local environmental damage

Sure, the damage Canada is extensive and the threat to the Ogallala is real. Extraction of the tar sands oil is a filthy process- much dirtier in terms of greenhouse gases than regular crude. No, it doesn't free us from using coal, and the jobs are not a big factor. The pros are relegated to a very tiny number of corporations and people. We're already awash in cheap home grown oil and gas. Why do you think the price of oil has plummeted?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025835700

http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/18/politics/keystone-pipeline-senate-vote-explainer/

[Calista241]

16. What are they going to do if they can't get a pipeline?

They're going to mine it anyway and ship it via rail wherever they want it to go. And rail transport is much more environmentally damaging than a pipeline.

It just seems to me like we already lost this battle. We lost it when Canada gave permission to the companies to mine the tar sands there.

[cali]

20. actually, rail transport is not more environmentaly damaging

it seems to be a wash, but we shouldn't be enabling further mining.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

15. Why don't you educate us...

...on which conservative website you could go to to get a balanced view?

[arcane1]

21. Probably the same site they came from n/t

[marions ghost]

23. yep

I hear...

[Tom Rinaldo]

18. The "silver lining"

When the new Senate convenes with a hoard on new Republicans they will pick up at most 4 new votes for Keystone since so many of the Dems they are replacing voted for it already. That means Keystone is still veto proof IF Obama takes that stand.