votes "Nay".

The very charismatic Bob Casey

voted nay.

Unfortunately, they're not so strong on the coal terminal proposal.

CALIFORNIA...

Joe Donnelly of my state of Indiana.

A true DINO in every sense of the word.

I didn't vote for him in the 2012 elections (We had Donnelly and Mourdock to choose from- some choice.)

Yet another reason why Indiana doesn't rule the world.

Last edited Sun Mar 24, 2013, 04:37 PM - Edit history (1)

out here in Montana, both DINOs not only voted for it but have been stumping for it for a while now, all across the state, and a portion of it will pass through a portion of the state. But that's mostly out by the Indian Reservations so who cares (according to them and the average bigot in the state)? And mind you, we have already had a couple nasty pipeline spills in the state, like the Yellowstone River in Billings, and they never said a thing about that, and the nastiest one is still being cleaned up for, what is it two years? And they have no idea how to clean up tar sands shit, not a clue... kind of like a BP Gulf spill waiting to happen. Then we have those billionaire brothers who invented fracking buying up large tracts of land all over the state, and of course they are all for it and heavily funding the elections...

So I would have liked to see one other option on the poll... BOTH SENATORS. Sorry excuses for representation that they are.



Edited to add some points of reference...


http://www.nbcnews.com/id/26315908/#43648767

That was Simple crude

As for tar sands spills, let this be our guide:

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/26315908/#48143060

These news clips should be sent to all the folks on the list in the OP, clearly inform them that if this is what they mean by significant jobs creation, we don't need this pipeline. I intend to send them to the DINOs from MT who allegedly "represent" me.

They'll vote for this and other Dems will vote for unnecessary defence spending etc.

I live in New Jersey. There's only a few I would claim though. Warren, Sanders, Grayson...

. . . at least we can reach him in the press.

will be getting a call from me, one of his constituents, on Monday asking him why the hell he voted yes.

And my husband works for a big oil company!

I don't think the environment would be well served by having McCaskill vote against the Keystone pipeline only to lose her seat to someone like an Akin or a Blunt. It's a choice between having the pipeline and a Dem Senator or having the pipeline and a Republican Senator.

"Yes, and I approve of it...I don't think the environment would be well served by having McCaskill vote against the Keystone pipeline only to lose her seat to someone like an Akin or a Blunt. It's a choice between having the pipeline and a Dem Senator or having the pipeline and a Republican Senator,"

...you approve of destroying the environment because your Senator is up for re-election in 2018?

The choice as you framed it is fairly ridiculous. An individual Senator isn't more important than protecting the environment. Would you say the same thing if the issue was health care?

I take a back seat to no one on caring for the environment, and I think it is better served by a McCaskill than any Republican. If McCaskill thinks she needs to vote for the pipeline, then I trust her to do the right thing. There is no sense dying on that hill and letting the Republicans take that hill and a dozen more by losing a Senate seat in Missouri.

Also, the Keystone Pipeline issue is not a cut-and-dried issue by any stretch. It is unclear to me that environmentalists (among which I include myself) should be fighting that battle before others. I would rather see positive investment in wind power and solar. I would rather see more car mileage wins and retrofitting of old buildings and equipment for better energy efficiency. I would rather see the local Labadie coal plant converted to natural gas. All those things have positive effects on jobs growth are not as vulnerable to Republican yahoo tactics as the Keystone Pipeline in the show-me-and-I-still-won't-get-it-anyway state.

I would rather see global warming directly addressed. Fighting Keystone just looks like it has a very poor cost-benefit ratio. There are already pipelines all over the place, and that oil is going to be burned. We are better off fighting for ANWR, reducing demand, and moving to alternatives than fighting a losing battle for little results.

And yes, of course. If there were a quixotic or otherwise low-value healthcare goal that needed to be sacrificed to secure the long term goals of healthcare (by keeping a Missouri Dem in the Senate for example), then I would definitely make that sacrifice.

And (on edit) it isn't just one seat up in 2018. McCaskill can lift up other Dems in 2014 or drag them down based on her votes. I vote for lift up.

We aren't fish. We don't have to chase down and bite everything that looks like a tasty bug.

If you are reading that I am saying that "an individual Senator is more important than the environment," you are seriously not reading. You are not making a winning argument in this case. I am simply stating the elementary and obvious fact that we need to pick our battles. In fact, our Dems have done a great job in doing just that, and I see the corner turning on the environment.

I did update my post before you responded pointing out that it is not just one Senate seat. McCaskill can help elect other Dems and can fight for the general cause of environmentalism by staying relevant. Missouri needs to be moved politically from where it is, not from where we might wish it was.

I'm against the pipeline. I just try to look at it with an eye to priority. It looks to me like it is not even close to important enough to justify undermining trust in our elected Dems by gigging them for their decisions on it. That strikes me as foolhardy.

"If you are reading that I am saying that "an individual Senator is more important than the environment," you are seriously not reading. You are not making a winning argument in this case. I am simply stating the elementary and obvious fact that we need to pick our battles. In fact, our Dems have done a great job in doing just that, and I see the corner turning on the environment. "

...I understood you perfectly. You need to re-read your initial comment, in which you stated:

"It's a choice between having the pipeline and a Dem Senator or having the pipeline and a Republican Senator."

Both Senators? What does Delaware stand to gain from this?

maybe there is some connection to this pipeline thing.

Nelson (D-FL)

I never voted for him anyway

bennet of co

I live in the land of cotton
the Democrats there are long forgotten.

responses I get to my emails to him are nothing but canned hot air that doesn't address the subject.

I've told him numerous times that I'm never voting for him again. He is nothing but a fraud.

have oil dripping from their chins. Sadly.