Obama lobbying Senate Dems against Keystone XL pipeline

posted at 11:35 am on March 8, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

First, Barack Obama won’t make a decision on the Keystone XL pipeline, until House Republicans force his hand and he denies approval.  Then Obama claims to want an “all of the above” energy policy and the White House “welcomes” the news that TransCanada would start building the pipeline anyway.  Just how “welcome” was that news?  According to Politico, Obama has begun to lobby Senate Democrats against an effort that would expedite approval for Keystone:

President Barack Obama is intervening in a Senate fight over the Keystone XL oil pipeline and personally lobbying Democrats to reject an amendment calling for its construction, according to several sources familiar with the talks.

The White House lobbying effort, including phone calls from the president to Democrats, signals that the vote could be close when it heads to the floor Thursday. The president is trying to defeat an amendment that would give election-year fodder to his Republican critics who have accused him of blocking a job-creating energy project at a time of high gas prices.

The pipeline would create 20,000 jobs and provide a much-needed expansion of North American oil resources to American refineries in the Gulf of Mexico.  Even the NYT’s Joe Nocera recognizes the ability of Keystone and the massive amounts of natural gas in the US to free us of our dependency on overseas oil resources.  Obama’s own State Department — on which Obama tried to lay the blame for the permit rejection — stated in a report that the Keystone pipeline was strategically critical for the US, and that the risk to the environment was overstated:

TransCanada Corp. (TRP)’s proposed $7 billion pipeline to Gulf Coast refiners poses “no significant impacts to most resources” along its route across six states, a U.S. State Department environmental review found. …

The pipeline is needed to maintain supplies of heavy crude oil to Gulf Coast refineries as imports decline, according to today’s State Department report. Imports from Mexico andVenezuela are falling while refining capacity in the Gulf Coast is projected to rise by 500,000 barrels a day by 2020.

Alberta oil is separated from sand and clay with intense heat in a process that releases more greenhouse gases than pumping conventional crude. Representative Henry Waxman, a California Democrat, has said the pipeline will carry “the dirtiest source of transportation fuel” available.

With gas prices spiking upward, voters will wonder why Obama seems so keen on blocking a pipeline that will create jobs, bring more supply on line, improve the US strategic position on energy, and pose little risk to the environment.  That doesn’t look at all like an “all of the above” solution, or a “welcoming” attitude, does it?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Too late.

Canada has gone elsewhere.

Great job, Oliar, it’s too bad the Mittfilth want you to have another 4 years of hellish destruction of this country.

ebrown2 on March 8, 2012 at 11:38 AM

Surprise!

Two-faced liar is two faced!

novaculus on March 8, 2012 at 11:38 AM

But the MSM told me that those mean Republicans were blocking this. I’m so confused.

faraway on March 8, 2012 at 11:38 AM

*crickets chirping*
Let’s focus on rush and romney

cmsinaz on March 8, 2012 at 11:39 AM

It’s ALL about Obama. Hail Emperor Nero Obama II. He played golf while the country circled the drain.

aniptofar on March 8, 2012 at 11:39 AM

We don’t kneed no stinking oil!!

In other good news: another gasoline refinery set to close in Pennsylvania.

US East Coast Faces Severe Oil Shortages and High Prices as Refineries Close

NickDeringer on March 8, 2012 at 11:40 AM

There are pipelines all over the place in this country bringing Gasoline, Natural Gas, Steam, and other energy sources from supply spot to demand. I still dont understand what is different about this one? Please help me understand Lieberals!

Rich on March 8, 2012 at 11:40 AM

treason? impeachment? oh f__k it, American Idol is on tonight. la la la la la la la la…..

GhoulAid on March 8, 2012 at 11:41 AM

It is in the progressive agenda to keep America dependent on oil. Fact is, 0bama promised this when he ran for president, so we pretty much deserve it.

Rebar on March 8, 2012 at 11:42 AM

Why couldn’t Obama have just learned to play guitar and be like Jimi Hendrix???

SWalker on March 8, 2012 at 11:42 AM

Obama approves Keystone, or any other fossil fuel based initiative, and Obama loses the OWS vote, and his Energy Secretary, not to mention his green-energy re-election cash contributors.

Priorities.

Remember, the “O” talked about them a lot for a couple years?

Putz.

coldwarrior on March 8, 2012 at 11:42 AM

Is there a end to this abyss that is O’s lying? I think not.

nobar on March 8, 2012 at 11:43 AM

But… but… Rush Limbaugh called Sandra Fluke a slut! And… and… look over there!

RebeccaH on March 8, 2012 at 11:44 AM

Obama: “I want all of the above except I want algae and nothing else.”

BuckeyeSam on March 8, 2012 at 11:44 AM

too bad the Mittfilth want you to have another 4 years of hellish destruction of this country.

ebrown2 on March 8, 2012 at 11:38 AM

Excuse me?

I would vote for Romney in my state’s primary.

That makes me “Mittfilth”?

aquaviva on March 8, 2012 at 11:45 AM

ABO 2012

22044 on March 8, 2012 at 11:45 AM

The only reason he’s lobbying Senate Dems is to protect his ecowacko greenie base before November 6th. He could careless about the Senate Dems’ chances in their own re-election bids – remember – he doesn’t want any of campaign war chest diverted to Senate or House races. It’s all about him. Disgusting, as usual!

Bob in VA on March 8, 2012 at 11:45 AM

When these “earth friendly” liberals stop using anything related to petroleum *cough* never will happen *cough*….THEN I will consider listening to their sermons about how much destruction the Earth is sustaining.

search4truth on March 8, 2012 at 11:46 AM

SWalker on March 8, 2012 at 11:42 AM

The Armed Forces wouldn’t have taken Obama.

And…Hendrix was raised by his father.

coldwarrior on March 8, 2012 at 11:46 AM

finally, some fight in the repubs….

now, this message needs to get out there….

Dr. Demento on March 8, 2012 at 11:47 AM

Why couldn’t Obama have just learned to play guitar and be like Jimi Hendrix???

SWalker on March 8, 2012 at 11:42 AM

because you can’t TAKE someone else’s talent and absorb it for yourself….otherwise he would have through Affirmative Action. Doubt he’s worked a hard day in his life…been handed everything his whole life.

search4truth on March 8, 2012 at 11:47 AM

Anyone honestly surprised, is not paying attendtion.

BigGator5 on March 8, 2012 at 11:47 AM

Obama is paralyzing this country.

Let the chips fall where they may, but the GOP candidates should be homing [not honing!] in on Obama not each other.

BuckeyeSam on March 8, 2012 at 11:48 AM

If only I were running for President of the United States I could make a great campaign ad…

… What? Oh.

/

Seven Percent Solution on March 8, 2012 at 11:48 AM

Alternate headline: “Obama asks Senate Democrats to Fall On Their Swords For Him”.

theCork on March 8, 2012 at 11:48 AM

Why couldn’t Obama have just learned to play guitar and be like Jimi Hendrix???
SWalker on March 8, 2012 at 11:42 AM

That takes talend and ability.

tommyboy on March 8, 2012 at 11:49 AM

This issue should be the noose around Obama’s neck on November 6th. Every commercial No KS-XL = $5/gas.

The Count on March 8, 2012 at 11:50 AM

Canada has gone elsewhere.

ebrown2 on March 8, 2012 at 11:38 AM

An updated plan, with a new route, is being submitted sometime this week I believe.

BadgerHawk on March 8, 2012 at 11:53 AM

Obama lobbying Senate Dems against Keystone XL pipeline

Face it – Our dear El Presidente Downgrade wants you to pay higher prices for your energy and everything else.

Chip on March 8, 2012 at 11:53 AM

I don’t suppose Columbia would churn out a Poli Sci retard that might be bright enough to just foil evil Republicans, and sign the bill.

Nah

MNHawk on March 8, 2012 at 11:54 AM

The Keystone XL pipeline, if built, would follow a beeline southeastward from Alberta across eastern Montana, western South Dakota, and northeastern Nebraska, linking up to an existing pipeline leading into Missouri.

Democrat Senators in Montana (Tester) and Missouri (McCaskill) are facing tough elections this year, and another in Nebraska (Ben Nelson) is retiring. Democrats Mark Pryor (AR) and Mary Landrieu (LA) are not up for election this year, but their states would benefit from the oil. Good luck trying to convince them to vote against the Keystone XL pipeline…

Steve Z on March 8, 2012 at 11:54 AM

ebrown2 on March 8, 2012 at 11:38 AM

I’m no mitt fan, but this doesn’t help. Provative? no, just boring.

MontanaMmmm on March 8, 2012 at 11:54 AM

I have Obama reelection plan figured out. He is trying to create so many ads for Republicans that they would run out of money trying to hit him on everything!

Archivarix on March 8, 2012 at 11:55 AM

1. Like Romney said there is little that 0bama can do to lower the price of gas. However, there is a heck of a lot that 0bama can do to increase the price.

2. Remember that 0bama is NOT a far left ideologue, just ask him.

jukin3 on March 8, 2012 at 11:55 AM

There are pipelines all over the place in this country bringing Gasoline, Natural Gas, Steam, and other energy sources from supply spot to demand. I still dont understand what is different about this one? Please help me understand Lieberals!

Rich on March 8, 2012 at 11:40 AM

Yes, a map of all the energy-goods pipelines looks like a road map of the nation. Here’s one: United States Pipelines Map

Why fight this one? Because they attempted to build it at the apex of the enviro-socialist movement and it’s supposed to somehow be oil that’s ‘dirtier’ than other oil.

slickwillie2001 on March 8, 2012 at 11:57 AM

This issue should be the noose around Obama’s neck on November 6th. Every commercial No KS-XL = $5/gas.

The Count on March 8, 2012 at 11:50 AM
-
Simple, effective, perfect. :-]

diogenes on March 8, 2012 at 11:57 AM

At the next opportunity Jake Tapper should call obummer down on this move. We want to see it on all the networks.

jake49 on March 8, 2012 at 11:58 AM

*sigh*

Tim_CA on March 8, 2012 at 11:58 AM

“You Lie” is the truest thing ever told about Obama.

He detests the laborers, while he/his live like emperors.

May gasoline prices suffocate his chances…alas to replace with whom/what?

Schadenfreude on March 8, 2012 at 11:59 AM

Democrat Senators in Montana (Tester) and Missouri (McCaskill) are facing tough elections this year, and another in Nebraska (Ben Nelson) is retiring. Democrats Mark Pryor (AR) and Mary Landrieu (LA) are not up for election this year, but their states would benefit from the oil. Good luck trying to convince them to vote against the Keystone XL pipeline…

Steve Z on March 8, 2012 at 11:54 AM

I (think) Tester got the short straw when he had to vote against the Blunt amendment. He may vote against Keystone as he may already be going unda da bus, but he has come out in favor of it so it would be a bitter pill. ba dump dump.

MontanaMmmm on March 8, 2012 at 12:01 PM

All that we have to do to defeat Emperor Hussein I is to make him OWN the price of gas.

Which he should. Actions like this are part of it.

wildcat72 on March 8, 2012 at 12:03 PM

Could anybody unintentionally do as much damage to this nation as Obama has done? I don’t think so. This is deliberate sabotage against the American people.

Happy Nomad on March 8, 2012 at 12:04 PM

too bad the Mittfilth want you to have another 4 years of hellish destruction of this country.

ebrown2 on March 8, 2012 at 11:38 AM

Excuse me?

I would vote for Romney in my state’s primary.

That makes me “Mittfilth”?

aquaviva on March 8, 2012 at 11:45 AM

Not if you don’t lie about his weaknesses and attack those who want small government.

ebrown2 on March 8, 2012 at 11:38 AM

I’m no mitt fan, but this doesn’t help. Provative? no, just boring.

MontanaMmmm on March 8, 2012 at 11:54 AM

The simple truth. The active promoters of Romney want the gravy train to continue and viciously attack those who disagree.

ebrown2 on March 8, 2012 at 12:08 PM

Look at our President lying to the American people (no really we wanted the KXL pipeline but process blah, blah, blah) and trying to get Dems to do his dirty work for him. Pathetic. I wonder if he is going to let them have some of his campaign money if they do his bidding? Play for pay?

magicbeans on March 8, 2012 at 12:09 PM

So lemme get this straight … he was against it before he was for it before he was against it before he didn’t deny it before he was for it with an “all of the above” before he is now lobbying the Senate to be against it.

So to answer his question, would he be in favor of higher gas prices in an election year? The answer, Mr. Prezuhdunce, is a resounding yes, because actions speak way, way louder than the words of a compulsive pathological liar and conniving narcissist.

stukinIL4now on March 8, 2012 at 12:10 PM

With gas prices spiking upward, voters will wonder why Obama seems so keen on blocking a pipeline that will create jobs, bring more supply on line, improve the US strategic position on energy, and pose little risk to the environment.

Voters will only wonder about that if they actually hear that Obama is blocking the pipeline — a fact we know the MSM will not report.

Meanwhile, Barry/Baraka will keep giving speeches insisting that he wants an “all of the above” approach to energy, and most voters will remain clueless about his repeated efforts to block the Keystone pipeline.

AZCoyote on March 8, 2012 at 12:13 PM

Ed Henry please repeat your question

cmsinaz on March 8, 2012 at 12:15 PM

But the MSM told me that those mean Republicans were blocking this. I’m so confused.

faraway on March 8, 2012 at 11:38 AM

*crickets chirping*
Let’s focus on rush and romney

cmsinaz on March 8, 2012 at 11:39 AM

We really do need a big change in the media…as we know it. We need the kind of media we are seeing on the internet more and more. The Andrea Mitchell’s and Georgie Porgies are not journalists anymore…they are Pied Piper’s!

KOOLAID2 on March 8, 2012 at 12:17 PM

Too bad we can run our cars on the BS that the Dems produce. We have a never ending supply of that.

jeffn21 on March 8, 2012 at 12:18 PM

Why couldn’t Obama have just learned to play guitar and be like Jimi Hendrix???

SWalker on March 8, 2012 at 11:42 AM

No affirmative action available. You actually have to have some skills and learn how to play.

msupertas on March 8, 2012 at 12:24 PM

I don’t understand why our child-in-chief is so dead set on destroying our nation.

sadatoni on March 8, 2012 at 12:26 PM

The president is trying to defeat an amendment that would give election-year fodder to his Republican critics who have accused him of blocking a job-creating energy project at a time of high gas prices.

Had to read it twice, but I think this is that ‘tangled web we weave’ my mommy warned me about.

The Child King apparently hasn’t heard this bedtime story (yet).

Tsar of Earth on March 8, 2012 at 12:27 PM

Obama will approve it, with much fanfare and after lobbyists fork over enough dough, in October.

PattyJ on March 8, 2012 at 12:33 PM

Obama is paralyzing this country.

Let the chips fall where they may, but the GOP candidates should be homing [not honing!] in on Obama not each other.

BuckeyeSam on March 8, 2012 at 11:48 AM

One is. But His Mittness is mocking him and telling everyone that the President can’t precisely set the price of gas.

Has anyone considered that Romney might be an Obama plant?

Portia46 on March 8, 2012 at 12:51 PM

haven’t you heard, Keystone will only create a small amount of temporary jobs and not affect gas prices àt all. The Obama Media told me so!

William Teach on March 8, 2012 at 12:51 PM

What does this have to do with access to contraception?

Oxymoron on March 8, 2012 at 12:55 PM

NWO Global Warming program/propoganda > U.S. citizen safety

apocalypse on March 8, 2012 at 12:55 PM

Reid and Piglosi to the liar in chief, it’s called pay to play, you know, like when you give us some dough from your stash and we vote for what you want. This is all just one big game to these people with the rest of us getting squeeze in the middle.

Kissmygrits on March 8, 2012 at 1:03 PM

This is the cheapest, most cynical kind of political gamesmanship. WTH? Is it possible for one person to be this arrogant? Incredible.

College Prof on March 8, 2012 at 1:11 PM

Ok… what would the pipeline do?

1) It would create jobs.

2) It would lower the price of gasoline.

3) Pipelines are safer than shipping or rail transport for oil. So we’d have fewer spills.

4) It requires less fuel to move oil on a pipeline than by rail or boat; so a pipeline would reduce wasted/used fuel.

So opposing the Keystone pipeline makes sense, but only if you want fewer jobs, higher oil prices, more oil spills, and more wasted oil (or any one of those is important enough to accept the others).

Are any of those good things?

gekkobear on March 8, 2012 at 1:35 PM

The stupid people in our masses don’t have a clue about the validity of the pipeline. They need to be educated to the fact that you can talk algae and all the other “green” alternatives all you want, but those won’t/can’t come online for another 7-10 years. The Chevy Volt and Solyndra have proven that just fine. We need fuel now, and the pipeline is maybe two years (and 20,000 jobs) away from delivering. We also need a president with balls who will order the refineries open. We refine the world’s fuel oil for their use, so we need to start playing hard ball.

stacman on March 8, 2012 at 1:56 PM

The OBOZO “energy policy”= NO ENERGY except that from taxpayer funded, eco-nut crony capitalism/socialism (which, of course, ALWAYS go bankrupt and produce NO ENERGY).

TeaPartyNation on March 8, 2012 at 1:57 PM

eminent domain still not addressed.

private property should be the main concern at the moment, before support for the gulf-based-export to be waved about.

John Kettlewell on March 8, 2012 at 2:05 PM

When Obama says that fossil fuel is a thing of the past, he just does not understand the situation, and hopefully the voters will make him a thing of the past on November 6th.

Amazingoly on March 8, 2012 at 2:32 PM

Keystone XL and the 700,000 bpd of Canadian Syncrude is 100% about kicking Venezuelan crude to the curb. Another argument is secondary are out of complete and total ignorance of crude oil & REFINING.

Kermit on March 8, 2012 at 2:52 PM

We don’t kneed no stinking oil!!

In other good news: another gasoline refinery set to close in Pennsylvania.

US East Coast Faces Severe Oil Shortages and High Prices as Refineries Close

NickDeringer on March 8, 2012 at 11:40 AM

Why do you say GASOLINE refinery? Is it is out of complete ignorance of refined products?

Here is the deal, those refineries are old and antiquated and were relying on crude imported from the Middle East, light sweet crude. There also is the problem with local regulations.

The really big new was the closing of Hovensa in St. Croix in January. It was the largest refinery in the world at one time rated at 650,000 bpd crude refining capacity. However, two of its crude units were converted to visbreakers which enabled it to refine much less expensive Venezuelan heavy crude. So was “only” a 500,000 bpd refinery. Venezuela’s oil company PDVSA is way in the red and close to $10 billion in arrears to pay bills. It had bought 50% of that refinery when $8 BILLION was invested in upgrades and additional process units to economically refine Venezuelan crude.

Kermit on March 8, 2012 at 2:59 PM

Obama: “Look over here!! Algae!!!”

Bitter Clinger on March 8, 2012 at 3:25 PM

Of course. Remember Obamas “People” ride public transportation -no need for gasoline.

angrycodgr on March 8, 2012 at 4:26 PM

We are losing yet another battle because we continue to allow the left to frame the argument.

Why the heck is the State Department and Obama even involved in approving the path of a pipeline through Nebraska? This is a state’s rights issue.

The only say the State Department should have is approving whether or not the pipeline can cross the international boundary. After that, the only other arguable involvement from the Feds should be where the pipeline crosses state boundaries.

Other than that, the States (Including Nebraska) are entirely capable of figuring out the route of the pipeline.

Obama shouldn’t even be involved in this discussion, and we lose if we continue to argue based on how the left frames the discussion.

weaselyone on March 8, 2012 at 4:37 PM

weaselyone on March 8, 2012 at 4:37 PM

I’ve been wondering that as well. Why don’t they just go ahead with pipelines that meet but don’t connect at the border. Then the oil can be loaded into fatty’s train cars, travel a mile South where they are then unloaded into the rest of the pipeline on the US side?

That would make Little Bammie look like the complete fool that he is.

slickwillie2001 on March 8, 2012 at 4:44 PM

The ONE, The Only, The Obamassiah! No issue he cannot straddle!

GarandFan on March 8, 2012 at 7:53 PM

I do believe I saw that guy in the “Planet of the Apes” movie. Same mean face.

rjulio on March 9, 2012 at 12:46 PM

The LIAR-In-Chiefis at it again!?! No small wonder they have a J@ck@ss for a party symbol!?!

Colatteral Damage on March 9, 2012 at 5:03 PM