blame the President when price of gas increases again which it will. The American population are very emotional about gas prices and I could see them looking at someone to blame on higher gas prices. We obviously know gas prices would not affect it one way or the other, however the American populous????

which way Obama was going to lean on Keystone XL.
Stop being so smug!

Congress wanted to subvert the process now in place - Kerry will make a report and recommendation, and then Obama says yes or no - as I understand it.
What worries me is what deals will Obama make in order to get his Fast Track.

I worry about this too ... especially after the tag team with Dimon on the CRomnibus

[img][/img]

Please, cut the shit.

...good for you.

Those of us who have actually defined our opposition to the pipeline in terms of tar sand extraction's destructiveness to the environment have been urging this administration to turn away from their early stated support for aspects of the pipeline. In fact, the State Dept. environmental impact report issued last year actually was seen as an open door for Obama to approve the project.

NYT:

The department’s long-awaited environmental impact statement appears to indicate that the project could pass the criteria Mr. Obama set forth in a speech last summer when he said he would approve the 1,700-mile pipeline if it would not “significantly exacerbate” the problem of greenhouse gas emissions. Although the pipeline would carry 830,000 barrels of oil a day from Canada to the Gulf Coast, the report appears to indicate that if it were not built, carbon-heavy oil would still be extracted at the same rate from pristine Alberta forest and transported to refineries by rail instead.

In fact, another key border-crossing pipeline benefiting tar sands producers was approved in November 2013 by the State Dept.

Today, the Nebraska court cleared an obstacle for the Keystone pipeline:

Rejecting arguments from three anti-Keystone landowners, the Nebraska justices upheld a 2012 state law that allowed Republican Gov. Dave Heineman — rather than an independent commission — to approve Keystone’s route inside the state. Friday’s ruling will let the State Department resume its almost-completed review of the Canada-to-Texas oil pipeline, which the department halted in April amid uncertainty about the Nebraska case.

White House spokesman Josh Earnest said in November that the Obama administration was waiting for the Nebraska Supreme Court ruling about the route of the Keystone X-L oil pipeline, before completing an evaluation of the project.

“The State Department is examining the court’s decision as part of its process to evaluate whether the Keystone XL Pipeline project serves the national interest. As we have made clear, we are going to let that process play out,” White House spokesman Eric Schultz said in a written statement.

Mr. Schultz said the president would still veto Keystone legislation pending in Congress if it is sent to him for consideration. “Regardless of the Nebraska ruling today, the House bill still conflicts with long-standing executive branch procedures regarding the authority of the president and prevents the thorough consideration of complex issues that could bear on U.S. national interests.”

This veto threat is certainly welcome, but there's a question, given the narrow definition of the President's opposition to the pipeline which does not equate with most of environmentalists objections to the destructive practice of tar sand extraction of oil, of whether this veto is about his own preogative in saying yea or nay, or if it represents a definitive opposition to the project in the end. The veto would not end the decision-making process; just prevent Congress from making that decision on its own. The verdict on the pipeline before the end of his term will still loom; not to mention the narrow margin in the Senate which would uphold his veto and the threat of some 'deal' which would move the approval forward.

These political decisions by the WH or any other politician require our full skepticism (if we are in disagreement) and dissent; not naive expressions of trust and hand-sitting. Still, if it works for you, by all means, carry on.

the United States, through NAFTA, if the pipeline does indeed get a no from Obama.

With the NAFTA and the TPP and TTIP agreements, Obama can make a big environmental show of nixed projects and new regulations, and then the Investor State can sue and get what they want anyway - or else be awarded a big chunk of taxpayer money. Happening now, in several countries. We have already given Canada the right to confiscate land from Americans using eminent domain. Sweet, eh?

And again, saying Congress cannot force-feed Keystone DOES NOT mean that Obama will not give the go-ahead at some later time. He just does not want Congress to make that decision, that's all.

I think it would be idiotic to cheer about anything at all, until the dust settles and we see what happens to the TPP and Social Security. And Net Neutrality. Deeds, not words.

Or they will claim credit - he wants to allow it, but they held his feet to the fire.

I'll always remember the repeal of DADT. The insistence Obama would not actually do it continued until after he had signed it. I forget the explanation, as it was insane. I think it was that after he signed it, he still would not enforce the law as he had signed.

Some people cannot be wrong, ever.