Please tell me what Obama is going to do with the pipeline part of the bill.

[rgbecker]

I believe he needs to act within 60 days. What does that mean? Has someone heard what he intends to do? Once they were saying he would veto a bill with the pipeline in it.

Just asking.

[immoderate]

1. I heard (!) that the State Department said it cannot do the appropriate impact statement in time.

Therefore, I heard it speculated that Obama said he won't sign off without their approval.

This needs verification. Sorry.


--imm

[TheWraith]

4. Per the WH Comm Director, it "virtually guarantees the pipeline will not be approved."

White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer, via Twitter a few days ago: "The House bill simply shortens the review process in a way that virtually guarantees that the pipeline will NOT be approved."

[spanone]

2. democrats said it will more than likely kill the bill

since environmental reports won't be completed by 60 days

[gateley]

3. As far as I know, he hasn't stated his position either for or against, so anyone's prediction

at this time is just conjecture, I think.

[reACTIONary]

5. I beleive State Dept (?), which has to approve the deal...

...has stated that 60 days is not enough to do the due diligence to approve the deal, and so would have to disprove it.

What I think will happen (I'm NOT a real authority on this) is that they will threaten to disapprove it and make it appear to be the Republican's fault. If the Republicans are taking heat for the potential disapproval, they might get cold feet and find a way to back out of the 60 days.

But I'm just speculating / guessing.

[NorthCarolina]

6. The pipeline will go through (eventually if not sooner),

and Obama will imply that he is against it but had no choice, or was forced to allow it as a part of compromise, or for the better good...you know, the usual.

[Honeycombe8]

7. Not sure. It's a tough decision. Unions are for it; environmentalists against it.

The environment is one of my main issues. I care deeply about it. But even I would have to give that decision a lot of thought and see some deep environmental impact studies that I could trust. That's because the country is really in serious economic trouble, and the pipeline would help a lot of workers and the economy generally. Every decision is weighing the importance and impact of one thing against another.

As an environmentalist, I don't know if I'd be that upset if he approved the pipeline. That is, I think I would understand the decision. Although, I probably would come down against it, unless an environmental impact report said the impact wouldn't be THAT great (which I doubt).

[rgbecker]

8. Thanks for the help.

I love the DU. Only here do you get the whole story from both the optimists and pessimists.

[customerserviceguy]

9. He's going to say that "if the answer needs to be given right now, the answer is no"

He's going to say that he will not be rushed into anything by the Republicons, and that union workers need to understand that. He'll hold out hope that if proper environmental studies are done (by 2013) the answer could be "maybe".

At least that's what I get from reading between the lines. He'll have a much harder time if Rethugs insist on approval of the pipeline as a condition of extending UC, the FICA tax cut and the doc fix beyond some short 2-3 month period. I have a feeling that after the ass-whuppin' the Repukes took today, the tea party will be much better prepared in a couple of months to deal with Boner.

[arcane1]

10. The repubs are going to spin this pipeline as "oil for America" despite the reality of it

THAT is what he is going to have to defend against: the absurd notion that this pipeline is our key to oil independence. It's hard to fit "most of this toxic Canadian crap will be sold to other countries on the open market" onto a bumper sticker :/

[Motown_Johnny]

11. then they can build a refinery in freaking Montana and not pipe it all the way to the Gulf

screw 'em