Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

hatrack

(59,587 posts)
Sun Feb 17, 2013, 07:07 PM Feb 2013

Star-Tribune Op-Ed: Expect Obama Betrayal On Keystone XL

EDIT

This decision is important also because it represents a rare opportunity for this president to leapfrog the whole messy bargaining process that has been his scapegoat for the continued existence of banks "too big to jail," as one pundit put it, to Guantanamo, to guns. For once he has a golden opportunity to not just preach about right and wrong, but to stand up to those same adversaries who keep derailing his dreams for a better America and to throw a sizable wrench in their plans.

On the fate of Keystone, the president has the final say. No horse-trading required. It's open field running to "meaningful progress" (Obama's term) not through market-based solutions but by confronting the problem head-on.

By "problem," I mean both warming and that other menace: corporate manipulation and greed. Obama's oil-lobby-sponsored opponents in Congress can't block his Keystone decision with a never-ending filibuster. If he says no on Keystone, that's it. Done. And in that one gesture he can silence the doubters who think his awakenings on gay rights and immigration reform (for example) were inspired more by political expediency than conviction.

"He's gonna cave," I e-mailed a friend as the president wrapped up his spirited energy spiel with one more pie-in-the-sky solution -- a government-sponsored research think tank that would speed those market-based solutions. (Wonder if Exxon Mobil's rumored geo-engineering research to redirect solar rays might qualify for a grant.) I knew that Keystone was a go when Obama let it slip that "naturally" he'd be granting a whole slew of new oil and gas permits as part of the energy independence effort.

EDIT

http://www.startribune.com/opinion/commentaries/191468781.html?refer=y

13 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

jannyk

(4,810 posts)
1. Figured that when I heard the SOTU
Sun Feb 17, 2013, 07:20 PM
Feb 2013

and the word "Pipelines" was tucked in with roads, bridges and other infrastructure.

CaliforniaPeggy

(149,629 posts)
2. I'm pretty sure he's going to cave too, and I am bitterly disappointed.
Sun Feb 17, 2013, 07:22 PM
Feb 2013

I don't understand how he can do it, but there it is.

Of all the positions he's taken that have angered me, this one will be the worst.

Peregrine

(992 posts)
3. He's not caving
Sun Feb 17, 2013, 07:28 PM
Feb 2013

He supports Keystone and always has. He is a corporate stooge like all the others. Keystone is intended to get the oil out of the US, not to support the US as he will claim.

 

MotherPetrie

(3,145 posts)
4. Let's see, choice between preserving the environment or making venal people richer
Sun Feb 17, 2013, 08:59 PM
Feb 2013

Which oh WHICH will our oh so lofty-worded President Obama choose?!

The suspense is just killing me!

NOT.

joshcryer

(62,276 posts)
5. Obama on Keystone, "make this project a priority... go ahead and get it done."
Sun Feb 17, 2013, 09:09 PM
Feb 2013
Keystone XL pipeline: President Obama vows to cut through red tape
On his energy tour across America, President Barack Obama can’t seem to win for losing.

During a stop Thursday in Oklahoma, Obama announced the administration would “cut through the red tape” for the southern leg of the Keystone XL pipeline — disappointing environmentalists who had counted it a victory when the president denied a permit for the project’s full, Canada-to-Texas version.

At the same time, Obama incited the ire of some political opponents who called his late embrace of TransCanada’s oil pipeline disingenuous.

Obama issued an executive order creating a steering committee that is supposed to devise improvements in permitting decisions but not to get involved in any particular project. He also signed a memo that directs federal agencies to “coordinate and expedite their reviews, consultations and other processes” to speed up decisions on domestic oil pipeline projects — such as Keystone XL’s southern, Oklahoma-to-Texas segment.


This is a foregone conclusion. Sorry guys. Hate to say I told you so.

ProfessionalLeftist

(4,982 posts)
6. More interesting links / info about Koch involvement with this thing
Sun Feb 17, 2013, 09:11 PM
Feb 2013
http://www.kochbrothersexposed.com/tellclintonno/thefacts.php

Obama cannot honestly claim to give a damn about climate change, corporate manipulation & greed, or true energy independence and approve this thing - but he may try - and I'm not gonna buy his spiel about it. Pfft.

All this so a few oil tycoons can get rich refining tar sands oil to sell to China. Bullshit.

bvar22

(39,909 posts)
7. He will do as he has always done, only this time...
Sun Feb 17, 2013, 09:24 PM
Feb 2013

...there will be far fewer excuses or rationalizations for the apologists.

I wouldn't be surprised to see some creative Hostage Taking Kabuki Theater
where our poor, impotent President is "forced" to compromise away the pipeline for a handful of Magic Beans to be delivered at a later date.
We will see.

I HOPE & PRAY that I am wrong.
I will gladly eat a serving of crow if the President STANDS UP for the people who elected him this time, but I won't be holding my breath.


President Obama IS "The Pipeline Decider."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x809952




You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their rhetoric, promises, or excuses.
[font size=5 color=green]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]









You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.
[font size=5 color=green]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]

pasto76

(1,589 posts)
9. how can the president oppose a commercial project? can he veto this?
Sun Feb 17, 2013, 10:09 PM
Feb 2013

his 'opposition' to this has been about the republican attempts to exclude keystone from undergoing EPA reviews. Im not a fan of oil sands, but calling this a 'betrayal' seems quite a stretch.

the author of the article also says 'too big to jail' was something a pundit said. Maybe they confused Senator Warren with a talking head...

Amonester

(11,541 posts)
10. Examining the options and their consequences:
Mon Feb 18, 2013, 01:32 AM
Feb 2013
Option NO:

The Harper neocon big oil puppetmasters throw a tantrum, call for sanctions on Canada's most important trade partners, the US, and who knows what else. Since most of the tar sands already belong to the Chinese state-sponsored entities, they get to plan for getting 'their' oil through brand new refineries that will have to be built somewhere in Alberta, and sent to some port (existing, or brand new too) somewhere on the Pacific coast.

End results:

Chinese workers will get paid to design and manage the whole thing, Canadian workers will get hired to build refineries and pipes, and US workers will be banned from the whole project (no high-paying nor low-paying jobs for them); the tar-sands petrol will get to SE Asia a little later, but it will get there nonetheless.


Option YES:

US workers will get paid to design and manage the whole thing, very few, if any, Canadian workers will get hired; the tar-sands petrol will get to SE Asia sooner, but it will get there nonetheless.

Income taxes will be paid to the IRS in addition.



In other words, the end results will be the same as that dirty oil will get to China, no matter whether the NO option or the YES option is chosen.

But the YES option will bring some benefits, which will not materialize if the NO option is taken.

Sad choice, but...

CRH

(1,553 posts)
12. Option 'Don't' ...
Mon Feb 18, 2013, 09:46 AM
Feb 2013

Don't supply the bullet in a game of environmental russian roulette. If their is no principle, what is left, raw capitalism? If so, we deserve extinction.

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»Star-Tribune Op-Ed: Expe...