The notion that Landrieu would have retained her seat if Keystone XL had been approved is absurd

[markpkessinger]

The suggestion that Senator Landrieu's electoral fate is tied to the outcome of the Keystone XL vote is preposterous. She is in a runoff in which, prior to the pipeline vote, she was slated to most likely lose. That remains the case afterwards. Her gambit in forcing a vote on the issue has never been anything more than a last-ditch effort -- a "hail Mary pass" if you will -- and the suggestion that she would have retained her seat had the pipeline been approved amounts to groundless speculation. Surely, even the pipeline's most ardent supporters would have to credit her for giving it her best shot. And if they weren't willing to so credit her, then there remains serious doubt as to whether there is anything she could have done to gain their support.

[brush]

1. That pipeline is all for the benefit of Canadian oil companies . . .

trying to use American land as a throughway to get their shale oil to the Gulf so they can sell it on the international market for higher prices.

I listened to her today touting the pipeline as a way to help America towards energy independence and lower gas prices which is just not true. That oil will not be marketed here as it's destined for China and India and other markets that pay higher than our domestic markets do.

She knows this yet still persists with the lies — for foreign companies no less. Makes one wonder how much 'dark money' was funneled to her from foreign sources for her to do this.

We've got to get the Citizen's United/dark money out of politics because we don't know where it's coming from.

Saudi companies, Russian companies, hell, even North Korea could 'buy' candidates . . . er ah . . . influence in our elections with that devil's spawn law.

[markpkessinger]

5. Exactly . . .

. . . But the pipeline's supporters have been pretty successful in promulgating the idea -- patently false thought it certainly is -- that the oil transported by this pipeline would have been destined for American markets. Most of the public seems to be clueless as to how the global oil market actually works.

[Cha]

17. So she was pushing bullshite.. shame on her. Pres Obama on Keystone..

snip//

In some of his strongest language yet, Obama pushed back against the Republican argument that the pipeline is a “massive jobs bill for the United States.”

“Understand what this project is: It is providing the ability of Canada to pump their oil, send it through our land, down to the Gulf, where it will be sold everywhere else. It doesn't have an impact on US gas prices,” he said, growing visibly frustrated.

“If my Republican friends really want to focus on what's good for the American people in terms of job creation and lower energy costs, we should be engaging in a conversation about what are we doing to produce even more homegrown energy? I'm happy to have that conversation,” he continued.

MOre..
http://abcnews.go.com/US/obama-doubles-immigration-keystone-pipeline/story?id=26905484

snip//

President Barack Obama said the Keystone XL Pipeline won't create as many jobs as supporters claim as the House prepares to vote today on a bill to approve the controversial project.

During his visit to Myanmar, Obama also said the pipeline won't lead to lower energy costs for Americans. At the same time, the White House stopped short of saying the president will veto the bill that Republicans are pushing.

MOre..
http://www.indianz.com/News/2014/015651.asp

[merrily]

41. According to Jon Stewart, the vote was delayed so that Dems like Landrieu

could rail against Obama on this issues, while more leftist Dems would not have to deal with the issue much and would definitely not have to deal with an approval vote, should that be the outcome.

[Wella]

2. Especially since the DNC is throwing her to the dogs

I wonder why.

[markpkessinger]

3. I'm no defender of the DNC . . .

. . . but it is highly doubtful Landrieu would be able to win this race with or without the DNC's help.

[Wella]

4. You may be right, but she'd have a better chance if the DNC weren't so blatant

in dropping her and denying her funds.

[brush]

8. Well if she's going to try to lie and say this pipeline is to benefit American markets . . .

when the pipeline is just to get Canadian oil to the Gulf and shipped to higher paying markets than our domestic market, which she knows, maybe we don't need her in Congress.

Hell, we have real republican to hype and push through policies that help big business and hurts our markets, so why do we need her to do it?

[Wella]

10. That's desperation AFTER the fact

It was a last ditch effort after the party dropped support.

[brush]

11. And that's okay?

We don't need blue dogs, we need real democrats, like all the ones that ran on the president's policies who won on election day.

Don't remember her touting the ACA. Maybe she wouldn't be in a run-off if she had.

[Wella]

12. It's understandable--and futile. The party should NEVER put anyone in that position

She was a reliable vote on key issues, such as the ACA. To throw her to the wolves is not supportive of a fellow Dem.

[markpkessinger]

15. And to fail to hold Democrats accountable when they act like Republicans . . .

. . . is to encourage more of the same.

[Wella]

16. The party drove her to desperate measures--they should NEVER have left her in that position

And thanks to the party (and holier than thou types) there will be a Republican in that Senate seat after the runoff in LA. Self-righteousness is cold comfort when the vote goes against the interests of the people.

[markpkessinger]

21. Please . . .

. . . Landrieu has been a blue dog corporatist all along. She has only herself to blame.

[Wella]

22. Better a blue dog than a Tea Party Republican

The blue dogs get legislation through that right-wingers would never vote for.

[markpkessinger]

25. That is precisely the kind of thinking . . .

. . . that has dragged the party to the right of Richard Nixon over the years, and which continues to kill us in midterms.

[baldguy]

27. That is precisely the kind of thinking . . .

. . . that has led to 30 yrs of RW GOP political dominance, in spite of being the minority party.

[Wella]

36. Bingo!

+1

[Wella]

35. No. It was Clinton and the DLC that have pushed the party rightward

not the Blue Dogs who haven't changed their stances in quite some time.

[markpkessinger]

37. And how do you think they accomplished that?

. . . They did it by getting Democrats to buy into the notion that they could court corporate cash while still purporting to represent the interests of working people. That is, they encouraged Democrats to endorse a corporatist agenda, as Landrieu certainly has done,

[Wella]

38. Of course. That's no surprise. Many non-Blue-Dogs have bought into this notion and I'm sure you've

voted for one or two of them.

Landrieu is not singular in this aspect nor are Blue Dogs in general. In fact, most Democrats are thoroughly dependent on corporate donors, which is why we got an ACA that is a basically (to phrase Bill Maher) a blow job to insurance companies and not health care for the masses. Obama, Baucus, Pelosi--go through the list. Obama is backed by Goldman Sachs as is Ted Cruz (who is married to an GS employee) as is Hillary Clinton (whose daughter is married to a GSer as well).

Landrieu, in many ways, is more honest than these others. She was hung out to dry by Obama, by Harry Reid, by Debbie Wasserman-Schultz and was denied crucial support in a tight race and now is being denied money in a runoff with a Republican. (Makes you wonder whose side Obama, Reid, and Wasserman-Schultz are on.) So Landrieu made a desperate money grab--and lost. It's far more honest than the Goldman whores who don't tell you they're whores.

[markpkessinger]

39. I think we're in fundamental agreement on the issues . . .

. . . Our disagreement is over whether or not the DNC's support of Landrieu would have made an appreciable difference.

[Wella]

40. Ok. I can live with that.

I think it would have. I also think something's up with allowing her to flounder and a Republican to take her seat.

[Wella]

43. Just FYI, here is a Republican ad against Landrieu, tying her to freaking Gruber, of all things

They're going for blood in LA. This is why I understand her desperation.

#t=42

[arcane1]

6. It was a lame excuse to vote "yes", IMO.

[bigwillq]

7. She's awful.

Ready for her to be out of the Senate.

[bullwinkle428]

9. Down by 21 points in current polling. Only the delusional would believe

that she had any kind of chance against that Cassidy clown.

[stevenleser]

19. Yep, it's ugly. I am not one for giving up, but now would be the time for Landrieu to start firming

up her plans for what to do when no longer in office.

That's not the same thing as giving up, but it does not look good.

[drray23]

13. for a democrat

She gave a disappointing speech on the senate floor. She went as far as to claim this pipeline would generate millions of jobs. Yeap she said millions arguing that it would prove that the us is so serious about energy independence that the economy would surge as a result. I was stunned. It is the kind of nonsensical rhetoric i expect from louis gohmert or similar rw wacko, not a democrat.

[Cali_Democrat]

14. Logged back in to rec this

You took the words right out of my mouth.

I fail to see how the approval of keystone would win her reelection.

[baldguy]

18. It will make it just that much easier to convict Obama after he's impeached.

Mission accomplished, anti-Dem "progressives"!

[markpkessinger]

20. Huh?

Under what scenario do you envision the GOP coming up with the 67 votes needed to convict the President at an impeachment trial? Your post is delusional.

[baldguy]

23. Well, the anti-Dem "progressives" think he's just a DINO Republican in sheeps clothing, anyway.

You want delusion? Look at some of those posts.

[markpkessinger]

24. Many of us have criticisms of the President . . .

. . . and that doesn't make us "anti-Dem." It makes us anti-corporatist. But that aside, there are no Democrats in the Senate who would go along with a Republican impeachment effort, nor, dare I say, would any of the progressives on this site.

Also, I think you will find that those of us whom you label "anti-Dem" are actually supportive of the President's plan to veto the pipeline, provided he were actually willing to follow through on the threat.

Again, you're delusional.

[baldguy]

26. Just wait and see which of the anti-Dem "progressives" starts supporting it.

They parrot everything else from the Teabaggers, why not the drive to impeach?

[markpkessinger]

28. Who parrots everything the Teabaggers say?

Please, cite the threads here on DU that parrot Teabaggers' comments.

[tkmorris]

42. Dude, you are shouting nonsense

[MADem]

29. I don't think anyone is saying that, particularly since the run off election isn't until next month.

Also, everyone knows that Obama would -- and will -- veto any Keystone legislation crossing his desk.

The idea was for her to "demonstrate" that she's not opposed to the industry that is responsible for a lot of the LA GDP.

It was an empty gesture, signifying nothing. Sort of like wearing a flag pin. A "part of the club" type thing.

Her fate is not tied to the OUTCOME, her fate was and is tied to her willingness to "demonstrate" that she considers the feelings of the oil and gas interests in her state.

It may not be enough but who knows?

Here's the bottom line--if she loses, the guy who wins her seat isn't going to vote against Keystone, either, should it come up again in a few months' time.

[markpkessinger]

30. I haven't seen it said here . . .

. . . but Ive seen precisely that suggestion on various websites today.

[MADem]

32. Well, all you can do is consider those sources I guess! nt

[unblock]

33. missing the point. it was only really about giving her the opportunity to *vote* for it.

her fate wasn't tied to the outcome, it just let her go on record supporting what i gather in her state is a popular bill.

[markpkessinger]

34. Read some of the comments made to the NY Times article on this . . .

. . . by people suggesting that the defeat of the bill means defeat for Landrieu (and by implication, that approval of the bill would have meant victory for Landrieu). That's what Im talking about. Here's a link to the article: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/19/us/politics/keystone-xl-pipeline.html?smid=fb-share