The whole Keystone vote stunt is just pathetic.

[cali]

What the fuck are they thinking anyway? They have to know that this is not only a frivolous, stupid, fruitless attempt to save Landrieu, but a move that pisses off a lot of the base.

So why did Reid and the leadership pull this? What possible upside is there?

[Takket]

1. if landrieu was the 50th democrat seat i could see it but...

even if they do save her, what difference does it make??????????? Makes me wonder if she is just a BS explanation for this vote.

[cali]

4. they can't save her, but you're right, it's not like she's the 50th seat.

[tritsofme]

13. In 2017 she could be the 50th seat.

[belzabubba333]

24. assuming no one else would be

[tritsofme]

37. If her seat flips to R, it would be require a 4 seat pickup as opposed to 3

To win back the Senate, assuming Hillary is headed to the WH of course. So this election definitely is important for 2016.

[Yupster]

44. She's a gonner

I think they know that but they have to show some loyalty to her. She's been part of the club for so long.

[Autumn]

2. They have an eye on 2016? Because...

fuck it I don't have a clue. Or maybe they don't give a flying fuck about the base.

Seriously are we going to vote for republicans? I'm not about to do that , those asses are stupid and would probably vote to pass the Keystone Pipeline...

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

3. A move to pave the way for a "bi-partisan" compromise. aka "sellout".

[unblock]

5. i would argue, what downside is there? it would easily pass in the new congress anyway.

i don't know that it would much help keep landrieu's seat, but every little bit helps and every senate seat we can keep counts.

obama can always veto it, now and/or in january.

frankly, i don't know if it really needs to pass the senate; it may be enough for landrieu to simply get a chance to go on record voting for it. in fact, i hope that's the outcome, it fails to pass, but landrieu keeps her seat.

[cali]

6. the downside is that it's pissing off a considerable chunk of the base and a lot of

the environmental movement. and Landrieu has no chance of retaining her seat. anyone can see that.

[branford]

12. It's not that simple.

First, Keystone will pass in the new Republican Senate. It's understandable why some Democrats would want it to pass now if it could help Landrieu, and make retaking the Senate in 2016 much easier.

Second, despite the opposition of many here, Keystone is very popular, including with a majority of Democrats.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/07/keystone-xl-poll_n_4919025.html

And third, the Democratic base comprises more than just environmentalists. Unions, another key Democratic constituency, supports Keystone. Welcome to the Big Tent.

[cali]

15. It's not nearly as simple as you're portraying it.

yes, it'll pass in the Republican Senate. No, that doesn't mean the democrats are obligated to put it up first. and I never said that environmentalists are the only part of the base. It's a study of political cowardice. Keystone is bad news.

[H2O Man]

18. Well said.

It is a sad day, indeed, when we see DUers parroting misinformation such as "unions support it." Yes, a very few do; but truth be told, most unions do not support the proposed pipeline.

This raises the troubling question: do those who repeat such nonsense simply ignorant, or are they purposely attempting to mislead others?

[former9thward]

22. Who is trying to mislead who?

Yes, a very few do; but truth be told, most unions do not support the proposed pipeline.

AFL-CIO Backs Keystone XL

The AFL-CIO is moving this winter to be support the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline.
This has some people surprised on the grounds that the project is set to create very few permanent jobs. The issue here, however, is all about the building trades unions. The building trades have been backing Keystone for a long time because from the viewpoint of a construction worker all jobs are temporary jobs. Actually building the pipeline will involve thousands of construction workers.
The larger union federation had been staying studiously "neutral" out of concern for larger issues of coalition politics, alliance with the environmental movement, etc. But there's no big countervailing forces inside the labor federation against the building trades' interest in the pipeline. The State Department's recent report that gave a favorable verdict to the pipeline changes the calculation in terms of the bigger coalition. If the State Department is giving it a thumbs up, then for all the unions that don't care it's not clear what's gained by neutrality. And for the building trades the upside of building the pipeline remains what it ever was—construction jobs.

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

A.F.L.-C.I.O. Backs Keystone Oil Pipeline, if Indirectly

ORLANDO — The A.F.L.-C.I.O., the nation’s largest federation of unions, has issued an apparent endorsement of the Keystone XL oil pipeline — apparent because it enthusiastically called for expanding the nation’s pipeline system, without specifically mentioning Keystone.

And while some union leaders said the federation’s stance stopped short of an official endorsement, the nation’s building trades unions — eager for the thousands of jobs the pipeline would create — issued a statement saying the A.F.L.-C.I.O.’s stance was a clear endorsement of the Keystone pipeline.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/28/business/energy-environment/afl-cio-backs-keystone-oil-pipeline-if-indirectly.html?_r=0

Unions jump into the controversy over Keystone pipeline

Although many in the labor movement side with those who oppose the Keystone XL pipeline for environmental reasons, the AFL-CIO's Building Trades Department, the Operating Engineers, the Laborers and the Electrical Workers are pushing President Obama to approve its construction as quickly as possible.

http://peoplesworld.org/unions-jump-into-the-controversy-over-keystone-pipeline/

Who is trying to mislead who?

[branford]

41. Your belief that Keystone is "bad news" does not change the political calculus.

'The Senate just voted down Keystone despite 59 "yes" votes, including Democrats. Congratulations, you've maybe delayed Keystone for a couple of months, although it was probably the worst case scenario for the Democrats.

Landrieu is now (even more of) a lost cause, and come January the Senate will have 54 Republicans. Come very early next year, the Republican-controlled Congress, again with Democratic votes in both the Senate and House, with easily pass a bipartisan bill approving Keystone. They may even attach it to "must pass" legislation like a continuing resolution budget bill or a defense supplemental for funding the ISIS campaign. The Republicans will then claim all the credit for passing legislation that's popular with over 65% of the population, including a majority of Democrats and unions, particularly in purple states in the Midwest that are critical to Democratic presidential aspirations in 2016, no less picking-up seats necessary to retake the Senate. If Obama vetoes the legislation, he will correctly be able to be characterized by Republicans as obstructing the will of people, thereby providing more political benefit to the Republicans and neutering the "party of no" messaging, while also again alienating much of the critical Democratic union base in key electoral states. All this despite the fact that the president has not actually stated he will not approve Keystone, only that he doesn't want to be "forced."

What you call political cowardice might more appropriately be called representing the will of one's constituents.

Canada will continue to exploit the tar sands regardless of Keystone, the pipeline is actually already mostly complete, and the oil is currently being shipped across the country, only using less safe reliable rail and trucks. Fighting Keystone is little more than tilting at windmills, and it's inexplicable why it should become the standard bearer for environmental politics.

Unless the price of oil continues to precipitously and radically decline sufficient to render Keystone nonviable, which is unlikely and would ironically also result in the increased use of fossil fuels since a carbon tax in the USA has absolutely no chance at all of passage, Keystone will ultimately be approved. However, the current strategy will ensure that only Republicans will gain from the ultimate decision.

[louis-t]

27. Are you saying union jobs will be created?

Which unions? Which jobs? Are any of them permanent? Maybe the 50 people it takes to maintain the pipeline will be union?

[madville]

31. They are construction jobs

Many construction jobs are union, welders, pipe fitters, iron workers, machinists, truck drivers, concrete, etc.

Almost all construction projects are temporary, so yes, there are hundreds of thousands if not millions of union tradesmen who work construction projects in this country. They work for some entity under the contract then move on to the next project or take a break when that one is completed.

[louis-t]

39. So will they actually 'create' jobs that aren't already there?

Or will it just be work for people who already have a job? It depends on the definition of 'create'.

[madville]

40. So is it impossible to "create" a construction job?

If the federal government funds a new bridge and 1000 people work on it for two years, did that project not create 1000, two-year, construction jobs?

After the project is over, the state may employ a few workers to maintain said bridge. Same thing here, it's creating a couple of thousand temporary construction jobs and a handful of permanent maintenance jobs, that's the case with almost ALL construction jobs regardless of political implications.

[JoeyT]

38. The problem is they're not real fond of unions either,

since they tend to oppose FTAs.

So the Democratic party has discovered yet another segment of the base that can go fuck themselves, because they can win without them. Again. And then they'll be shocked when they lose. Again.

[W_HAMILTON]

30. Would it, though?

I would guess that most of the Democrats that will be jumping ship to vote with the Republicans are also the same Democrats that just lost and won't be back come 2015 anyway. Their Democratic "yes" vote will just be replaced by a Republican "yes" vote.

[unblock]

42. yes, it would. democrats can't sustain filibusters very well, except for pretty overt things.

we just don't have the kind of party unity the republicans have, and they've got plenty of money enough to buy off enough democrats.

if it can pass in this congress, it certainly can pass in the next. and it's very, very difficult to see it very nearly passing this congress and them not being able to eke out one more vote in the next congress.

[maced666]

7. Because they want credit for it.

It's popular with most people and the re pubs were going to pass it anyway. So stealing the thunder.

[H2O Man]

8. There is not

a potentially positive upside to this. Just the opposite: it is an ugly measure of just how pathetic the House and Senate have become. And I say that as a person who has had a great respect for Congress as an institution .....and still thinks that a couple of elected representatives are honorable people. But very, very few these days.

Recommended.

[cali]

16. I agree, of course. As I just commented to someone defending it in this thread, it's

a portrait of political cowardice. However, a lot of people, even here, seem to think it's just fine.

[H2O Man]

19. You are much nicer than me.

"A portrait of political cowardice" is too kind a description for me -- even though I really do like the tip of the hat to "Profiles in Courage." I think it is a portrait of repulsive slime.

[cali]

21. portrait of repulsive slime certainly fits the debate on C-Span

I think I must be nuts to be listening to this. Heitkamp just said who would you rather buy your crude from, Canada or Venezuela? As if tar sands oil is crude oil.

[misterhighwasted]

9. Watching Senator Markey kick Keystoners behinds..SENATOR MARKEY for Pres 2016 Please

Markey spells out the TRUTH about dirty Canadian sludge.

Keystone
EXPORT
Pipeline
--------
Because the intent is to EXPORT. 50 jobs created & oil companies make billions in profit.

[misterhighwasted]

11. Oh Ya, F k YOU Sen Walsh/D Montana & Sen Landreiu, you too!

Such ignorance within the dem party

[HappyMe]

10. I don't know.

I honestly don't think Landrieu has a chance in hell. You would think that after the lack of turn out, they would maybe do a little soul searching, aka don't piss us off.

[misterhighwasted]

14. Hope President Obama has his VETO pen ready.

The bill supporting finance & development of solar & wind clean enegy has been held up in Congress for two years.
TWO YEARS.
An industry that would create far more jobs & boost the economy & benefit the air we all breathe.
Not one mention of this form of energy in the Congress.
This better cleaner form of energy gets shoved to the bottom so Canadian filthy toxic sludge can turn a hefty profit for a few.

Son of a bich! Pisses me off
Our last great hope lies with the Veto Pen & the brave people of the Rosebud Souix Tribe of South Dakota.
Support their battle please.

[HappyMe]

17. The fact that the clean energy bill has

basically been dumped by the wayside makes this stupid 'save Landrieu' effort an even more bitter bill to swallow.

I have hope for a veto. The Rosebud Sioux have my support.

[Liberal_Dog]

20. Agreed

This doesn't make any sense at all.

[kentuck]

23. It's a test.

To see if the Democrats are ready to bend over and hold their ankles.

[Jackpine Radical]

25. It's absolutely in line with their massive, futile effort

to save Blanche Lincoln in 2010 after financing her Primary against the progressive Halter.

They LIKE sold-out and corrupt Blue Dogs.

[MisterP]

26. it's always so cute when they say "we just want to do what we need to win" after punting

so, so many elections--often torpedoing primary challengers polling AHEAD of the Republican

the trick (so to speak) is to figure out which trick they're going to be using NEXT: I'm guessing voter caging or ignore-blaming the youth vote

[Maedhros]

28. Their attitude is:

"Don't like what we're doing? WHERE ELSE ARE YOU GOING TO GO?

Now, go get your shine box!"

[jalan48]

29. She's part of the club

These folks protect one another.

[spanone]

32. pathetic...yes. shameless....yes. craven....yes.

there is absolutely no upside. imho

[The2ndWheel]

33. What are you gonna do, ya know?

[link:

|

[EEO]

36. Poor Perot.

[a kennedy]

34. Laundrieu is such a blowhard......ugh

[customerserviceguy]

35. The base isn't really necessary for a couple of years

At which time there will be truly evil Republicons to focus our attention on.

Besides, any Democratic Senator who votes for this knows that the President is going to veto it, so that Landrieu can accomplish her goal of separating herself from Barack Obama, and the pipeline goes down. For now, at least. I do expect the Republicons to jam it through when they have control of the Senate, even if they have to attach it to a continuing resolution to keep the government going.

Why not at least have the possibility of getting something for it, instead of the nothingburger that we're eventually going to have to eat on this subject?

[bullwinkle428]

43. Well, they got out of having to try to confirm Loretta Lynch as AG, but

not to fear - I'm sure Mitch McConnell and his gang will be MORE THAN HAPPY to take care of that once they take the reins next January!