Dems Grapple With Dilemma On Keystone XL Pipeline

[eridani]

http://www.manufacturing.net/news/2014/03/dems-grapple-with-dilemma-on-keystone-xl-pipeline?et_cid=3823057&et_rid=54679148&location=top

Wealthy party donors are funding candidates who oppose the project — a high-profile symbol of the political debate over climate change. But some of the party's most vulnerable incumbents are pipeline boosters, and whether Democrats retain control of the Senate after the 2014 midterm elections may hinge on them.

The dilemma was highlighted Thursday as President Barack Obama's former national security adviser — and now a consultant to the oil industry — said Obama should approve the pipeline to send Russian President Vladimir Putin a message that "international bullies" can't use energy security as a weapon.

The comments by retired Gen. James Jones came as a top Democratic donor again urged that the pipeline be rejected.

Tom Steyer, a billionaire environmentalist, has vowed to spend $100 million —$50 million of his own money and $50 million from other donors — to make climate change a top-tier issue in the 2014 elections.

Steyer, who opposes Keystone, declined to say whether he would contribute to Democrats who support the pipeline, including Sens. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Mark Begich of Alaska, Mark Pryor of Arkansas and John Walsh of Montana. All face strong challenges from Republicans in energy-producing states where Obama lost to Mitt Romney in 2012.

[pnwmom]

1. The headline is right -- this is a dilemma. n/t

[blkmusclmachine]

2. Keystone is a done deal. It'll be rolled out to be maximally destructive for the Nov. elections.

[TransitJohn]

10. They're just figuring out how to blame the left for the Nov. losses. eom

n/t

[Fuddnik]

3. The only dilemna they face is what excuse to use to justify it.

It's a done deal, and how do they explain themselves.

As usual, divvy up the votes, so it looks like they tried to stop something their corporate sponsors want.

GOTV? GFY!

[Nye Bevan]

4. How about the fact that the AFL-CIO supports it?

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2014/02/06/afl_cio_and_keystone_why_labor_likes_pipelines.html

[rhett o rick]

7. Does that mean you support it? nm

[Nye Bevan]

8. Yes I do, assuming environmental safeguards are imposed.

The oil will be moved one way or another, and a pipeline under US supervision is probably the safest way. Safer than tankers and trains, certainly.

[rhett o rick]

9. "The oil will be moved one way or another". Ok, but it doesnt have to cross our country.

We run all the environmental risks for little or no gain. Do you have statistics proving it's safer than trains or tankers?

As far as imposing safeguards, that's a joke. They will promise to be good and pay a pittance when they fail.

[dsc]

11. to the extent that the pipeline makes the oil cheaper to bring to market that isn't true

Not all that oil costs the same to remove from the ground and pipeline is the cheapest mode of transport, so if there is no pipeline than some of the more expensive to remove oil won't be removed because it won't be profitable and thus some oil won't be moved.

[Blanks]

5. They'll use jobs to justify it...

It's all part of the 'pit the working class against one another' scheme to get people worked up over something that's already been decided.

[RandiFan1290]

6. Oh my! I wonder who will win?

[Autumn]

12. Grappling my ass. They are just figuring out the best time to approve it to do the

least damage to themselves and their campaign coffers and their nests when they leave office. .