Raise You Hand If You Think Trump Worried About The Climate Crisis And Aquifers When He Gave The OK For The Keystone XL Pipeline

The Ogallala Aquifer is crucial to Nebraska and to the whole country

Jane Kleeb is the chair of the Nebraska Democratic Party and is also a Bold Nebraska activist. Her letter urging all the Democratic Party presidential candidates to take the NoKXL Pledge yesterday was on behalf of Bold Nebraska. This is the pledge:

• If elected, I pledge to take executive action on Day One to stop any construction on the Keystone XL pipeline-- no matter what-- and revoke the existing presidential permits issued unilaterally by President Trump for the Keystone XL and Dakota Access pipelines, sending both projects back to relevant federal agencies to undergo legitimate environmental review and Tribal consultations.
• I pledge to direct all federal agencies (State Dept., FERC, Army Corps) to submit these two projects, as well as all new pipeline and energy infrastructure projects to a true climate test, and reject permits for any project that would exacerbate our climate crisis.
• I pledge to protect the property rights of farmers and ranchers from eminent domain abuse, and to honor the treaties the U.S. Government has signed with sovereign Tribal Nations.

"Presidential candidates, she wrote, "are asked many questions about what they'll do if they are elected. Many of those questions focus on reforming vast structural problems-- which in most cases will also require a separate effort launched by Congress. But we have a question for the Democratic presidential candidates that a newly elected President will have full authority over on Day One in office: Will you reverse President Trump’s reckless, unilateral action to approve a permit and stop the Keystone XL pipeline?"

President Trump took an unprecedented and unilateral action in March 2019 to approve a single pipeline with the stroke of a pen, on an "Executive Memorandum" granting a permit for TransCanada's proposed Keystone XL tarsands export pipeline project.

U.S. Presidents are not empowered to write up proclamations that give Big Oil a free ride, and bypass our nation's bedrock environmental laws written to protect our water, land, clean air and a livable climate.

While Bold and other landowner, environmental and Indigenous groups have filed new challenges to Trump's illegal KXL pipeline permit in federal court, we are asking the 2020 Democratic presidential contenders to pledge now to revoke Trump's unprecedented, unilaterally issued permit for KXL.

If a Democratic president is elected, we ask they pledge to take executive action on Day One in office to revoke Trump's issuance of pipeline permits-by-presidential-fiat for the Keystone XL and Dakota Access pipelines, and immediately restore a true "climate test" for further review by federal agencies (Army Corps, FERC) of these projects-- and all new energy projects-- like Enbridge's Line 3 tarsands pipeline, fracked gas pipelines in Appalachia, and vast expansion plans for LNG exports.

We further ask candidates to end eminent domain abuse, and to honor our treaties with sovereign Tribal Nations.

The President of the United States should stand with the sovereign rights of Tribal Nations, the property rights of farmers and ranchers in rural communities opposed to the pipeline, and everyday Americans who care about a livable planet for our grandchildren who have been fighting together to stop KXL for nearly ten years.

This morning, Jane told me that Elizabeth Warren and Jay Inslee signed the pledge immediately and that so far, no one had refused. The pledge is for presidential candidates but Jane is thinking about one for candidates running for Congress. Mark Gamba is the progressive mayor of Milwaukie, Oregon, running for a congressional seat occupied by reactionary Blue Dog Kurt Schrader and he would, no doubt, be a Day One signer. "It is unconscionable that eminent domain is used to steal private property for the profits of oil and gas companies," he told us just now. "Eminent domain is meant to be used for the public good-- a new public road, a new city hall etc. Not a pipeline that won't even provide much in the way of taxes since the American oil and gas companies pay a fraction of what they should pay, and many of those pipelines serve one foreign corporation moving their product for shipment to another foreign corporation. When I'm elected I will work to pass a bill making this behavior illegal."

Nebraska Public Service Commission Approves Keystone XL Pipeline

As you probably know, the Blue Dogs, New Dems and DCCC are all furiously pushing Brad Ashford on Omaha voters again. Ashford, an opportunist who changes parties like normal people change underwear, was one of the 3 worst Democrats in the House for his one miserable term. Having been fired from his new job, he decided to jump into a race he can probably win in an anti-GOP wave, but not hold in a normal midterm. He's a big Keystone Pipeline proponent and normal Douglas County Democrats are happy to have a progressive alternative, Kara Eastman. This morning, after the pro-pipeline ruling, she told us that she's "opposed to today's decision by the Nebraska Public Service Commission approving the Keystone XL Pipeline." So are an awful lot of other Nebaskans, especially in the Omaha area. Kara:

For the last eleven years, I've has worked with Omaha Healthy Kids Alliance combating the devastating effects of lead poisoning, among other environmental hazards, in Omaha, Nebraska. Why was the organization started, you might wonder? Omaha has the nation’s largest residential superfund site where lead poisoning has affected thousands and has had an especially adverse impact on children. We now know what lead can do to water because we’ve seen the tragedy unfold in Flint, Michigan. In Omaha, the community has rallied around an organization to deal with lead-contaminated soil and a long-term health crisis. It was started because funds from a legal settlement from a large corporation had to be used to clean up a toxic, polluted Superfund site. The EPA also had to come in and spend hundreds of millions of dollars to clean up what a big corporation left us with-- lead poisoned soil. I know firsthand what unregulated industries do to our environment, our citizens, and our most vulnerable population-- our children. I know what can happen when concerned activists lose out to the possibility and allure of corporate profits and their well-funded campaigns to persuade people that their big business will benefit the community in the long run. I also understand that short-term thinking like that can and does lead to long-term catastrophic consequences and decades-long clean-up projects like the Superfund site in Omaha.

I oppose the Keystone XL Pipeline and its limited economic benefits to Nebraskans-- maybe 50 full-time, permanent jobs created in the long run. I oppose the pipeline because it will mostly benefit a large Canadian oil company. We don’t even need the oil in America-- we’re now exporting our oil surplus! We need to invest in renewables and new technology and not the old regime of dirty energy. I've seen regular people forced to cede their land and their rights to a foreign company so that construction can begin. I support the 10% of landowners on the proposed route in Nebraska who are still standing up for the property rights and won’t sell to TransCanada. But most of all, I oppose this project because of the potential for environmental destruction and the poisoning of our water due to small and large spills that can and do happen regularly-- about every other day on average in the US. An Iowa pipeline leaked over hundred thousand gallons of diesel fuel last year, and when a farmer found an undetected leak on Keystone 1 in South Dakota around the same time, the pipeline had to be shut down for 3 months! Finally, we've just seen 210,000 gallons of dirty tar sands oil leaking out of Keystone this past week in Amherst, South Dakota. Having dirty, tar sands oil seep into our soil and water-- as it will have 56 river crossings and be built over one of the nation’s largest aquifers-- is not a risk worth taking so that a multinational corporation can ship oil to Texas to refine and process for export overseas.

A few months ago, the Omaha World-Herald headlined a letter to the editor, Ashford's flip-flop on Keystone pipeline by Trent Cooper: "Former Rep. Brad Ashford’s change on the Keystone XL pipeline is the perfect example of why Democrats lose congressional seats and lost the presidency. I will never support him again. We need Democrats who will do the right thing for our state and country, not what it takes to keep their seat." No one likes a flip-flopper or an opportunist.

A couple of years ago Bold Nebraska was far harsher towards Ashford, when Jane Kleeb, now Nebraska Democratic Party chair, wrote that Ashford was siding "with a foreign oil corporation over Nebraska farmers and ranchers." Ashford, she wrote, "voted for a second time to approve the risky Keystone XL tarsands export pipeline, despite strong opposition from his constituents and a promised veto of the wrong-headed bill by President Obama."

“Rep. Ashford continues to support eminent domain for private gain with his vote for the risky Keystone XL pipeline,” said Bold Nebraska director Jane Kleeb. “To pretend this massive, foreign tarsands pipeline somehow does not impact climate change or risk our water discounts science and common sense. Farmers and ranchers can only breathe a sign of relief because President Obama will veto this reckless bill.”

Over 3,500 concerned citizens signed a Bold Nebraska petition urging Rep. Ashford to vote against the Keystone XL bill, and dozens braved a freezing January day to show up at his Omaha offices to protest and register their disappointment with Ashford’s staff after his first vote in support of the pipeline.

Rep. Ashford recently stated in a response to a constituent’s letter critical of his support of TransCanada’s Keystone XL that he “will be an active voice in Congress seeking to decrease our energy dependence on foreign sources of energy.”

Last time we checked, Canada is a foreign country. Furthermore, the tarsands piped through Keystone XL would be exported to China and the world market and do nothing to serve U.S. energy independence.

Rep. Ashford is also spreading misinformation to his constituents, claiming in a letter that TransCanada “would be held legally and financially liable for any damages incurred as a result of a spill at any point along the route.”

In fact, TransCanada advises landowners to take out liability insurance at their own expense, and does not have a bond in place in Nebraska to cover spill clean-up. Further, since this is a tarsands (vs. traditional oil) pipeline, TransCanada is exempt from paying into the U.S. Oil Spill Liability Fund. Facing huge costs from a spill, the company could conceivably file for bankruptcy in the U.S. and the federal government, landowners and the State of Nebraska would be left holding the bag.

Finally, Ashford makes a false claim in his letter that the 2011 re-route of the pipeline now “avoid[s] the environmentally sensitive Sandhills,” when the State Department’s environmental review of the pipeline even acknowledges this to be untrue.

Rep. Ashford’s constituents and Nebraskans fighting to protect our land, water and climate are deeply disappointed that Ashford has again opted to toss them under the bus and side with the Koch Bros., the GOP and a foreign oil corporation.

Sierra Club Wades Into The Muck In South Jersey

The video above is of Alex Law. He's not the corrupt conservative, Donald Norcross, who was just endorsed by the crackpot who runs New Jersey's Sierra Club and who Alex and progressives across New Jersey and across America are hoping to defeat in the June 7th primary.

I checked around among progressives in New Jersey I know and-- with one exception, an official who told me Jeff Tittel is "crazy"-- everyone described Tittel, Sierra Club's director in the state, in far worse terms than "crazy." One top staffer in the legislature told me Tittel is "one of the state's most destructive characters... on a par with the Christie people." Another told me that Tittel is "an embarrassment for the Sierra Club nationally." Not a single progressive had a single good thing to say about him. The reason I was asking was because he had just handed George Norcross' kid brother a Sierra Club endorsement. Nearly every person I spoke with mentioned that on one level or another Tittle is "on the take," although I couldn't get anyone to agree to go on the record, so maybe "crazy" is more accurate than corrupt. The Sierra Club should look into that themselves.

The Norcross Machine wouldn't normally care about getting endorsements from environmental groups. After all, Donald Norcross' very first vote in Congress was to cross the aisle and join the Republicans in a bid to force President Obama's hand on the Keystone XL Pipeline. Obama ignored Norcross and his Republican allies and vetoed the project the Norcross Machine hoped to use to make money for themselves. Before he got to Congress, Norcross was a state legislator known as being the most hostile Democrat in Trenton to anything related to the environment or towards ameliorating the impact of Global Warming and climate change. New Jersey's Clean Water Action, for example, rated him a 25% for the period covering 2010-2013. That's a deep, deep "F." For those same legislative sessions, the New Jersey League of Conservative Voters rated Norcross a 63% and a 55%. In 2014 Environment America gave him a score of 33%. Every other congressional Democrat from New Jersey was given a 100% or a 93%. Norcross' 33% was identical to the grade they assigned his Republican buddy Frank LoBiondo.

And then along comes Tittel, just as Norcross started seeing Alex Law making serious inroads against him, calling Norcross "a true environmental leader in Congress," something that is patently absurd, as Tittel and Sierra Club members are well aware. "Whether it’s working to protect our water, our air, or public lands, he is there fighting for us. He is a leader on wind and solar and energy efficiency and working to reduce climate impacts. Rep. Norcross has stood up against the Tea Party and the Republican right and their assault on clean energy, climate change, and rolling back clean water protections. He is working to protect and expand public lands and he is himself an avid hiker and outdoorsman.  He has stood up for the EPA to prevent rollbacks on carbon emissions and drinking water." All of that was untrue and all of it was written for Tittel by Norcross' campaign staff. "Donald Norcross," he lied with a straight face, "has one of the best records on the environment in Congress."

The press release also mentioned that Norcross "has been endorsed for re-election by the campaigns of both Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders." That is also false. A hack politician from Perth Amboy, Assemblyman John Wisniewski, who wants Norcross Machine support for his 2017 gubernatorial run and who has managed to worm his way into Bernie's New Jersey campaign, endorsed Norcoss on his own. Bernie has not. Progressive Punch rates Norcross-- whose deep blue district Obama won with 66% against Romney-- a solid "F" and gave him the lowest score of any New Jersey Democrat in Congress, 68.75. (Bonnie Watson Coleman, for example can boast a score of 96.23, Donald Payne's is 93.81 and Frank Pallone's is 86.84.) Norcross has worn out the carpet between his seat and the Republican side of the aisle in the House.

We contacted Alex Law, the progressive in the NJ-01 congressional race and the candidate who has, unlike Norcross, has endorsed Bernie and is running on his platform, about this inexplicable Sierra Club endorsement. He said he didn't want to comment on that but mentioned that "As a proud progressive, I support a robust increase in environmental clean up programs. Further, I believe the United States must lead the world in sustainable energy. We have a tremendous environmental and economic opportunity to position our country as the supplier of cutting edge solar and wind technology that nations around the world need. If we seriously shift our national investments away from fossil fuels and towards sustainable energy, the world will move with us as our American creativity will bring the price of sustainable energy further and further down. My opponent Donald Norcross has taken thousands of dollars from big oil and big coal and has voted for the Keystone Pipeline, which has shown that he is committed to the kinds of backwards policies currently pushed by Republicans. For those who care about the environment, this race is crucial to making sure Democrats have a real progressive voice representing New Jersey in Washington."

You can contribute to Alex Law's grassroots campaign by tapping the thermometer below:

A Look At Two Contrasting Endorsements In The Florida Senate Race

Chuck Schumer's corrupt candidate for the open Florida Senate seat, Patrick Murphy-- recently voted the most ineffective Member of Congress-- and the House's most effective progressive, Alan Grayson both announced very telling endorsements yesterday. Grayson was endorsed by Jane Kleeb, the grassroots organizer who helped kill the Keystone XL Pipeline. "I worked for years to stop Keystone XL, and there's only one candidate in Florida's Senate race who can say the same thing. Only one, and that is Alan Grayson," said Jane Kleeb, Bold Nebraska Director. "He stood strong when other Republicans, and Democrats, buckled to corporate pressure and pushed President Obama to approve this potential environmental disaster through our Heartland’s water supplies and farms. Alan Grayson never wavered, and he never quit fighting to stop the export pipeline. No other candidate in this race will protect our environment and fight for clean energy jobs with the same guts as Alan Grayson. He stands up to corporate bullies and we stand with him."

Schumer's corrupt right-wing candidate, Murphy, who "left" the Republican Party fairly recently-- but still votes for much of their agenda-- dutifully voted in favor of the Keystone XL Pipeline every time the GOP brought it up. In fact he was one of only 19 bribe-taking conservaDems who joined the GOP in voting to remove President Obama from the Keystone Pipeline decision-making process, a mind-blowing vote for a Democrat-- even a fake Democrat like Murphy-- to take.

But all those votes for Keystone XL was the basis of his big endorsement announcement yesterday. America's most right-wing and most corrupt union-- LIUNA-- pushed very strongly for Keystone XL. It was no surprise to anyone that they embraced Murphy. LIUNA, which disaffiliated from the AFL-CIO in 2006 and, earlier, was prosecuted by the Department of Labor for racketeering, corruption and ties to organized crime, is perfectly matched with Murphy. At the height of the battle over the Keystone XL Pipeline LIUNA threatened progressives in Congress that they would help Koch-backed Republicans beat them in November. (They had already started funneling cash into primaries on behalf of right-wing Democrats like Colleen Hanabusa against progressives.) Terry O'Sullivan, the conservative union boss, decided threatening House incumbents was the best tactic for his members and he singled out several top targets-- all 100% union backers: Frank Pallone Jr. (D-NJ), Anna Eshoo (D-CA), Raúl Grijalva (D-AZ), Tim Ryan (D-OH), Keith Ellison (D-MN), Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), Carol Shea Porter (D-NH), Alan Grayson (D-FL), Jackie Speier (D-CA), Barbara Lee (D-CA), Mike Honda (D-CA) and Judy Chu (D-CA). Here's part of a letter O'Sullivan sent to members in Jan Schakowsky's Illinois district, where she was facing a crackpot Republican who wanted to abolish unions altogether:

As we head into the 2014 election season, I want to bring your attention to an issue of critical importance to our Union; your member of Congress is trying to destroy job opportunities for our LIUNA brothers and sisters. Representative Jan Schakowsky recently signed a letter to U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry urging him to reject the Keystone XL Pipeline, a vital infrastructure project that would create millions of hours of work for LIUNA members, increase U.S. energy independence, and safely transport a resource that will be developed with or without the pipeline.


To all proud, strong and united LIUNA brothers and sisters, I say, enough is enough! Our members and their families are angry, disappointed and disillusioned with out-of-touch, job-killing politicians who choose to side with environmental extremists over work for our members. There so-called "friends" of ours are destroying good-paying work opportunities with family-supporting benefits, at a time when LIUNA members are trying to put food on their tables, keep roofs over their heads, and maintain middle-class lifestyles.


For every action, there is a reaction, and our reaction to this frontal assault on our way of life needs to be loud and clear. If you do not stand with us, we sure as hell will not stand with you.


…[Your] member of Congress has chosen to side with hard-core anti-Keystone organizations rather than with hard working LIUNA members and their families. Please keep that in mind when Congresswoman Schakowsky seeks your vote this fall, and be sure to let her know how angry and disappointed you are that she is trying to keep your brothers and sisters from working.


If Congresswoman Schakowsky and other politicians continue to stand in the way of jobs for Laborers, let's make sure they "feel the power" and fury of LIUNA this November.

Schakowsky was reelected with nearly 66% of the vote and LIUNA bosses proved themselves impotent as their own members helped re-elect all the Democrats on their enemies list. Grayson was another one they targeted and Kleeb, who is originally from Florida and is credited as one of the most influential opponents of the toxic pipeline, hailed Grayson for his diligent and unwavering opposition despite the threats from O'Sullivan.

In acknowledging her endorsement yesterday, Grayson said, "It was organizing heroes like Jane Kleeb who convinced President Obama that rejecting the Keystone XL Pipeline would put the wellbeing of our environment ahead of oil company profits. Few people dared to stand up and point out the pipeline would not offer a long-term benefit to our economy, and was merely a gift to foreign oil companies at the expense of our environment. I’m grateful she stood up to take on that fight, and I’m honored that she’s standing with me now."

So who do you stand with on this? President Obama, Alan Grayson, progressives and Jane Kleeb or with the GOP, Patrick Murphy and a corrupt union boss who recently fumed that "President Obama today demonstrated that he cares more about kowtowing to green-collar elitists than he does about creating desperately needed, family-supporting, blue-collar jobs.  After a seven-year circus of cowardly delay, the President’s decision to kill the Keystone XL Pipeline is just one more indication of an utter disdain and disregard for salt-of-the-earth, middle-class working Americans... Barack Obama’s disdain for working people is evident. The President may be celebrated by environmental extremists, but with this act, President Obama has also solidified a legacy as a pompous, pandering job killer."

Please consider the choice that Florida voters will be making between Grayson and Murphy and keep in mind that Schumer has made sure Murphy's would be swimming in Wall Street cash. The banksters have given him $787,750 so far this cycle, more than any other non-incumbent running for the Senate from either party-- and more than they've given many Senate incumbents as well as powerful GOP allies like Speaker Paul Ryan ($589,288) and House Financial Services Committee chair Jeb Hensarling ($592,465). Grayson really needs some financial assistance from grassroots Democrats who don't want to see Schumer end his career. Please consider contributing here.

Polar opposite of what Murphy & his GOP allies say

America Has Built the Equivalent of 10 Keystone Pipelines Since 2010

The blue lines show expansion since 2005. Note the expansions to Port Arthur and Corpus Christi, Texas.

by Gaius Publius

As you may know, TransCanada Corporation, the owner and builder of the Keystone (KXL) Pipeline, has recently withdrawn its application for approval, hoping, most analysts say, for a more carbon-favorable next president. Obama didn't take the bait, didn't interrupt the approval process, and rejected the proposal anyway: "He announced on Friday that he would not approve the Keystone application, saying the project did not serve the nation’s interests."

That great victory obscures a sobering fact. A virtual Keystone pipeline is being built anyway. Yadullah Hussain at Financial Post:

America has built the equivalent of 10 Keystone pipelines since 2010 — and nobody said anything

While TransCanada Corp. has been cooling its heels on its Keystone XL proposal for the past six years, the oil pipeline business has been booming in the United States.

Crude oil pipeline mileage rose 9.1 per cent last year alone to reach 66,649 miles, according to data from the Washington, D.C.-based Association of Oil Pipe Lines (AOPL) set to be released soon.

Between 2009 and 2013, more than 8,000 miles of oil transmission pipelines have been built in the past five years in the U.S., AOPL spokesperson John Stoody said, compared to the 875 miles TransCanada wants to lay in the states of Montana, South Dakota and Nebraska for its 830,000-bpd project. By last year, the U.S. had built 12,000 miles of pipe since 2010.

“That’s the point we make,” Stoody said. “While people have been debating Keystone in the U.S. we have actually built the equivalent of 10 Keystones. And no one’s complained or said anything.”

What does "10 Keystones" look like? Read this and refer to the map at the top:

The 487-mile southern leg of the project, dubbed the Gulf Coast project, between Cushing, Okla. and Texas refineries came on stream in 2014.

While the northern leg of Keystone XL remains under review, the Lower 48s have seen new oil pipes crisscrossing the country.

“If you look at 2010 versus now we have seen historic realignment that has transformed the infrastructure situation,” said Afolabi Ogunnaike, analyst at Wood Mackenzie. “There has been tremendous investment in pipelines and more investments are coming on.”

The U.S. midstream infrastructure is responding to a near-doubling of U.S. production over the past six years. The U.S. saw an 11.6 per cent increase in crude oil transport via pipelines in 2014, according to AOPL data.

As I said in this Virtually Speaking Sundays episode (second half of the show), the way to eliminate carbon emissions is to strangle ("disrupt") supply and/or strangle ("disrupt") demand. I favor disrupting supply, since demand for energy coupled with diminished carbon-based supply will accelerate the creation of alternative energy sources. As the article makes clear (there's more in it than I quoted), increased delivery capacity enables as much supply as producers are willing to create. It's hard to disrupt supply when (1) they're digging as much as they can profit from, and (2) there are no barriers to transporting to refineries and users, including foreign ones.

Bottom line — the victory against the pipeline named Keystone is real and important. That said, it's just the first touchdown in the first quarter of a much longer game. It's not over. (Sorry for the sports metaphor; 'tis the season.)

GP

The Keystone XL Pipeline May Be Dead, But Corrupt Democrats Like Patrick Murphy Who Backed It Aren't

Yesterday President Obama succumbed to the same pressure from serious activists that made Hillary Clinton switch positions on the Keystone XL Pipeline a month or so ago. Friday morning he announced that the 7-year "review" of the Keystone XL Pipeline project was over and that the controversial and dangerous Pipeline would not be built.

“The pipeline would not make a meaningful long-term contribution to our economy,’’ the president said in remarks from the White House.

The move was made ahead of a major United Nations summit meeting on climate change in Paris in December, when Mr. Obama hopes to help broker a historic agreement committing the world’s nations to enacting new policies to counter global warming. While the rejection of the pipeline is largely symbolic, Mr. Obama has sought to telegraph to other world leaders that the United States is serious about acting on climate change.

The once-obscure Keystone project became a political symbol amid broader clashes over energy, climate change and the economy. The rejection of a single oil infrastructure project will have little impact on efforts to reduce greenhouse gas pollution, but the pipeline plan gained an outsize profile after environmental activists spent four years marching and rallying against it in front of the White House and across the country.

The rejection of the pipeline is one of several actions Mr. Obama has taken as he intensifies his push on climate change in his last year in office. In August, he announced his most significant climate policy, a set of aggressive new regulations to cut emissions of planet-warming carbon pollution from the nation’s power plants.

Republicans and the oil industry had demanded that the president approve the pipeline, which they said would create jobs and stimulate economic growth. Many Democrats, particularly those in oil-producing states like North Dakota, also supported the project. In February, congressional Democrats joined with Republicans in sending Mr. Obama a bill to speed approval of the project, but the president vetoed the measure.

But there aren't many Democrats in Congress from North Dakota; there's one. The vast majority of Democrats who backed building the Keystone Pipeline are just garden variety corrupt politicians, not a whit better than any garden variety Republican politician. Take Patrick Murphy for example, an ultra-corrupt Florida New Dem who Wall Street is currently trying to buy a Senate seat. Florida has no refining or oil industry and would see no benefits from the Keystone Pipeline. Murphy-- who has been ordered by Chuck Schumer and Jon Tester to do the best he can portraying himself as an environmentalist-- despite having been one of only 28 Democrats to have voted to drill for oil off Florida's coast (170 Democrats voted NO). The only other Florida Democrat to vote for off-shore drilling was corrupt conservative New Dem Joe Garcia, who was promptly defeated for reelection.

Meanwhile Murphy has voted an astounding six times to build the Keystone XL Pipeline. In January, for example, he joined 27 other corrupt conservative Democrats-- many of whom have taken hundreds of thousands of dollars in legalized bribes from Big Oil and Gas, like pro-Pipeline Blue Dogs Henry Cuellar (TX-$397,275) and Jim Costa (CA-$317,199). Like Murphy, these are some of the most consistent backers of the GOP agenda of any Democrats in the House-- scum like "ex"-Republican Brad Ashford (Blue Dog-NE), Sanford Bishop (Blue Dog-GA), Cheri Bustos (Blue Dog-IL), Jim Cooper (Blue Dog-TN), Gwen Graham (Blue Dog-FL), Dan Lipinski (Blue Dog-IL), Sean Patrick Maloney (New Dem-NY), Donald Norcross (from New Jersey's notoriously corrupt Norcross Machine), Collin Peterson (Blue Dog-MN), Filemon Vela (New Dem-TX), etc.

In May of 2013, long before either Grayson or Murphy was running for the Florida Senate seat each is now contesting, another Keystone vote-- with Murphy voting with the Republican polluters and Grayson voting with the Democrats and environmentalists-- the actions of both congressmen should help Florida primary voters understand just what they would be getting as a candidate. Grayson offered a resolution challenging the constitutionality of the GOP plan to take the decision-making for Keystone XL pipeline out of President Obama's hands. "The Keystone XL Pipeline deal is an earmark to a foreign corporation, plain and simple," Grayson said. "House Republicans claim to have been incredibly keen on ridding our legislative system of Congressional earmarks-- yet here they are-- hypocritically sneaking one in for a foreign corporation. They seem to believe that the 'no earmarks' rule does not apply to them. That’s just unacceptable." Only 19 Democrats voted with the GOP that day, Murphy, of course being one of them. No other Florida Democrat, neither Gwen Graham nor Joe Garcia, voted to strip President Obama of his decision-making power; just Murphy-- who Chuck Schumer and Wall Street are now determined to reward with a Senate seat!

"Today," said President Obama, "the United States of America is leading on climate change with our investments in clean energy and energy efficiency. America is leading on climate change with new rules on power plants that will protect our air so that our kids can breathe. America is leading on climate change by working with other big emitters like China to encourage and announce new commitments to reduce harmful greenhouse gas emissions. In part because of that American leadership, more than 150 nations representing nearly 90 percent of global emissions have put forward plans to cut pollution.

"America is now a global leader when it comes to taking serious action to fight climate change. And frankly, approving this project would have undercut that global leadership. And that’s the biggest risk we face-- not acting.

"Today, we’re continuing to lead by example. Because ultimately, if we’re going to prevent large parts of this Earth from becoming not only inhospitable but uninhabitable in our lifetimes, we’re going to have to keep some fossil fuels in the ground rather than burn them and release more dangerous pollution into the sky.

"As long as I’m President of the United States, America is going to hold ourselves to the same high standards to which we hold the rest of the world. And three weeks from now, I look forward to joining my fellow world leaders in Paris, where we’ve got to come together around an ambitious framework to protect the one planet that we’ve got while we still can.

"If we want to prevent the worst effects of climate change before it’s too late, the time to act is now. Not later. Not someday. Right here, right now. And I’m optimistic about what we can accomplish together. I’m optimistic because our own country proves, every day-- one step at a time-- that not only do we have the power to combat this threat, we can do it while creating new jobs, while growing our economy, while saving money, while helping consumers, and most of all, leaving our kids a cleaner, safer planet at the same time.

"That’s what our own ingenuity and action can do. That's what we can accomplish. And America is prepared to show the rest of the world the way forward."

Patrick Murphy's response: crickets, of course. [Actually, what he said to a reporter who asked him yesterday was that he spoken "with some of the Canadians about what they were doing and their plans and things..." Apparently the Canadians didn't tell him that their own ports had voted overwhelmingly it not allow the filthy and dangerous sludge to be transported to them. But no one ever accused Murphy of being a smart man or a thorough one.]

Regardless of Murphy's convenient incoherence, this is what Congressional Progressive Caucus co-chair Raúl Grijalva said right after the announcement. "This is a testament to years of public action on a critical issue. After pushing together in the right direction and never losing hope, citizen activists prevented a major source of dirty fossil fuels from being rubber-stamped. Everyone who believes individuals can move mountains when they work together will remember today with pride as long as they live. I know I will, and I know how thankful I am for the work of everyone who made today happen... Nothing is inevitable when enough people stand shoulder to shoulder and never flinch. Now let’s get back to work building a sustainable energy economy that doesn’t even have to debate whether the next Keystone is a good idea."

Grayson was overjoyed when he heard about the president's decision and immediately let Florida Democrats know:

Congratulations, Planet Earth! President Obama has rejected TransCanada’s Keystone XL Pipeline application.

The Keystone Pipeline would have moved oil from one of the dirtiest sources on the planet-- the Alberta tar sands-- directly to Gulf Coast oil refineries owned by... wait for it... the Koch Brothers. And thence out of the country.

Net increase in US oil production: zero. Net increase in gasoline available in the US market: zero.

But if the pipeline had been built, the price of US gasoline would have gone UP, as Canadian oil competed against US oil for limited refinery capacity.

Oh, and the Koch Brothers had made sure that our government couldn’t tax the oil passing through the pipeline, even though just about every other country in the world with a pipeline does.

And one last thing: the pipeline could have destroyed an aquifer that provides drinking water to millions of Americans, and 30% of our irrigation water.

How do I know all this? Because I exposed the Keystone Pipeline as a Koch Brothers pet project years ago. Even though the Koch Brothers had spent more than $4 million to defeat me in 2010. They can’t push me around.

Thank you, President Obama. I thank you, and the environment thanks you.

...Now let’s talk about my Democratic primary opponent, Patrick Murphy. He voted at least six times to take the Keystone Pipeline decision away from President Obama, and force the President to license it.

To heck with the President’s legal authority, says Patrick Murphy. To heck with the environment, says Patrick Murphy. Patrick Murphy wanted those big, fat oil-and-gas PAC checks. You and I think about clean air and clean water. Patrick Murphy thinks about mucho dinero for his campaign.

Even as the evidence against the Keystone Pipeline grew and grew, Patrick Murphy remained dedicated to it. Why? Because as Esquire magazine said, when you buy Patrick Murphy, he stays bought.

Congresswoman Chellie Pingree (D-ME) was another staunch opponent of this terrible idea. Murphy should read what she had to say and rethink his dedication to right-wing framing on environmental issues-- not because he's in a tough primary battle, but because he still needs to learn a lot about what it means to be a Democrat. Pingree: "The Keystone pipeline was a bad idea from the beginning. It would have been bad for the environment and bad for the country's long-term energy security. Instead of investing in dirty tar-sands oil that will create massive amounts of greenhouse gas pollution, we should be developing new sources of clean energy that create good paying jobs right here in this country. We can produce a lot more jobs for a much smaller investment by focusing on clean energy projects. Maine is a great example with the wind power industry already supporting over 1,500 jobs a year while at the same time creating a new source of clean energy that we can use right here at home."

Please consider contributing to Alan Grayson's grassroots campaign for the open Florida Senate seat. Polls show him beating whichever Republican is nominated. This is money Grayson's opponents will be able to tap into, not money he'll ever get a dime of.

Will Ohio Democrats Allow Chuck Schumer (D-Wall Street) To Pick Their Senate Nominee For Them?

Portman, Sittenfeld, Strickland

Chuck Schumer and the reviled Beltway Democratic Establishment have mandated that conservative and failed fossil Ted Strickland-- DINO darling of the NRA-- must be the Democratic candidate against GOP incumbent Rob Portman in next year's Senate race. Schumer believes that the way to beat a Republican is by running a candidate who espouses Republican values and ideas, even though this strategy has been discredited time and time again. Republican-lite candidates sometimes win, but then disappoint the Democratic base and fail to be reelected.

This is especially ironic because Democrats in Ohio have been largely craving "new blood" to lead the charge against  destructive GOP dominance in their state. And progressives in Ohio have put forward a young and dynamic candidate, Cincinnati City Councilman P.G. Sittenfeld, who offers an independent, forward-thinking, values-oriented perspective that Ohioans say they want-- but that scare the hell out of unimaginative Stalinists like Boss Schumer.

When asked a few days ago if he would take a stand on the Keystone XL Pipeline, Strickland punted: "The Keystone pipeline doesn’t involve Ohio. So I’m staying out of it. It’s too divisive." Who needs to get rid of Portman if all there is as an alternative is Portman II? Sittenfeld said that by refusing to take a position on the dangerous pipeline-- meant to transport filthy Canadian coal tar to Texas refineries and ports so it can be shipped to China because Canadian ports have banned it-- Strickland "isn’t showing the kind of leadership Democrats need to beat Rob Portman," and renewed his call for a series of six debates before the March primary so "rank-and-file Democratic voters can compare us side by side before they decide who their U.S. Senate nominee should be." Strickland is ducking the debates. And on the substance of the issue, Strickland/Portman and Sittenfeld couldn't be further apart:

This is another issue on which Gov. Strickland and I strongly disagree-- and I believe he’s wrong on a number of levels. First, the pipeline-- which would carry some of the dirtiest oil on the planet-- would exacerbate climate change, and that most certainly would impact Ohio and Ohioans.

Climate change is a real and present danger to the lives of Ohio families. It contributes to the algae problem in Lake Erie, threatening Toledo’s supply of drinking water, which impacts hundreds of thousands of people. And by contributing to asthma and other respiratory illnesses, the carbon pollution that results from the burning and production of filthy tar sands oil is especially harmful to Ohio’s children.

Second, even if the Keystone XL didn’t affect Ohio, serving in the United States Senate demands a level of leadership that focuses on the national interest. We can't afford Senators who want to 'stay out' of an issue as fundamental to the survival of the planet as climate change.

Third, since when did it become acceptable for Senate candidates to avoid dealing with issues because they are controversial and ‘divisive’? Isn’t that the kind of cover-your-behind politics that voters say they’re sick of? Leaders lead-- they don’t bob, weave, evade and equivocate.

Let me be crystal clear. I oppose the Keystone XL pipeline and I would vote against it. I have outlined aggressive measures to deal with climate change. And I once again call on Gov. Strickland to stop stalling and agree to a series of six debates with me, just like our Democratic candidates for President are having. We should stand toe to toe and let the voters compare us side by side. After all, if Ted’s afraid to debate me, how can he possibly beat Rob Portman, let alone protect Ohio’s interests in the Senate?

In its coverage, the influential Columbus Dispatch got to the point of why wishy-washy conservaDems like Strickland are fatally flawed champions for working families. "A political battle erupted on Thursday as U.S. Senate candidate Ted Strickland was attacked on opposite fronts after saying this week he did not have a position on building a controversial oil pipeline linking Canada to Texas." Sittenfeld's contrast with Strickland was immediately followed with an attack from the Portman camp.

Corry Bliss, a Portman spokesman, said the Ohio Republican "is proud to support" the pipeline because "it is good for our economy, energy production and national security... Given his record as governor, when Ohio lost over 350,000 jobs, it is clear that Gov. Strickland not only lacks the ability to lead, but he also lacks the ability to even answer yes or no questions," Bliss said. By the end of the day, Strickland aides declined to say whether he has a position on the pipeline.

So instead if a debate on the merits of Keystone XL-- with Sittenfeld opposing it and Portman pushing it-- you get Strickland looking confused and incapable, which may be attractive to someone like Schumer and his ilk but is far from what Ohio voters are looking for. Blue America has endorsed Sittenfeld, and if you'd like to make sure a progressive from the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party, as Howard Dean put it (or to update it slightly, a Democrat from the Elizabeth Warren wing of the party), wins the nomination and goes head-to-head with Portman in 2016, please consider contributing what you can here. None of the candidates on that page are the Schumer puppets and Wall Street shills the DSCC is pushing.

Hillary: On Board With The Boardroom

The courageous environmentalist who refuses to take a stand on Keystone XL

"Dems," reads a headline in the Beltway trade paper The Hill, "Give Clinton Pass On Keystone." A more accurate, less Beltway headline would read: "Some Dems Give Hillary A Pass On Keystone, And Many Others Are Demanding She Take A Position." Every Democrat I know wants her to take a position. And they want her to oppose it. Professional careerist Democrats see it very differently, of course. To them sound public policy, which is almost always controversial, is always secondary to career opportunities.

Of course The Hill questioned the sincerity and motivation of Democrats who were demanding answers, particularly Bernie Sanders, who they claimed is "looking to bolster his credentials with environmentalists," saying, "It is hard for me to understand how one can be concerned about climate change but not vigorously oppose the Keystone pipeline."

Clinton is getting a pass from many Democrats on Capitol Hill, even those opposed to the pipeline, something that could undercut the pressure on her to publicly say that the pipeline should be constructed or shelved.

“I think the decision is going to be made in this administration, so I think her position on this is moot,” said Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), a fierce Keystone opponent who is not pressing Clinton to come out in opposition.

“I want to make sure that she’s the president, and I think her recent video shows how important the climate priority is for her, and how she wants to develop that argument is, to me, up to her. I don’t question her judgment on this,” he said.

Even the lawmakers most opposed to Keystone gave Clinton cover on the matter.

 “The climate policy is what we care about,” said Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colo.), a Clinton supporter and vice-chair of the congressional Sustainable Energy and Environment Coalition (SEEC). 

“Out of respect for the president and her professional role in his administration, it would be improper for her to comment at this point on the Keystone pipeline while the decisions are currently pending.”

Clinton introduced the first aspects of her climate change platform this week but gave scant details on several issues important to environmentalists, including off-shore drilling and oil and gas policies.

Yet it was her strident refusal to say if she supports Keystone that struck home the hardest for greens.

“This is President Obama’s decision,” Clinton said. “And I am not going to second-guess him, because I was in a position to set this in motion, and I do not think that would be the right thing to do.”

She then laid out a marker for when she might offer her position: “If it’s undecided when I become president, I will answer your question,” she said.

The answer did not please environmental groups.

“We find it completely unacceptable that she cannot provide an answer,” Jane Kleeb, the founder of the anti-Keystone group Bold Nebraska, said. “She is the only candidate in the presidential race that doesn’t have an answer on where she stands on Keystone.”

...Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.), a co-chairman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, hasn’t endorsed a presidential candidate yet, and he said Clinton’s wavering on Keystone is a leading reason why.

He said he thinks Clinton is eventually going to have to take a position on the issue given not only its policy implications, but its symbolic importance for many environmentalists in the Democratic Party. 

“If it is a symbol, it’s an environmentally important symbol, Keystone, and to 2016, politically, a very important symbol,” he said. If Clinton were to come out against the pipeline, “I think her campaign would be very pleasantly surprised at the positive reaction. Symbol or no symbol, it’s there.”

Grijalva is one of the few Democrats on Capitol Hill to scrutinize Clinton’s silence on Keystone.

...Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.), who hasn’t endorsed a candidate, said he “assumes” Clinton opposes the pipeline because of the climate proposals she began rolling out this week. He said Clinton is right to resist taking a position just because her rivals are pushing her toward one.

“She doesn’t want to look like she’s being pushed by anybody. It’s not good for her campaign to appear to be sort of influenced. But at the same time, the base wants these things,” he said.

“At the end of the day, I wouldn’t be surprised if O’Malley, Sanders and Clinton have taken very comparable positions.“

But green groups say they don’t want to judge a candidate on assumptions alone.

Kleeb said she thinks Democrats should push Clinton to take a stand on Keystone, but she expects many of them are “playing the long game” and trying not to alienate the odds-on favorite to win the party’s nomination.

Her group, she said, will look to pressure Clinton when she campaigns near the Iowa-Nebraska border later this summer by playing a game of dodge ball outside her events.

“Us in the heartland aren’t looking for an invitation to the White House,” Kleeb said. “We’re looking for clean water.”

There's an alternative to Hillary-- and I'm not talking about a worse alternative. I'm talking about Bernie Sanders. Do you want to help him save America for real? Here's the page.

29 House Dems Join The GOP To Push The Keystone XL Pipeline Boondoggle-- What Is The Punishment?

Last week DCCC Chair and Steve Israel puppet Ben Ray Luján appointed Illinois Blue Dog Cheri Bustos DCCC vice-chair for recruitment. Wednesday she voted, once again, to force President Obama to start building the Keystone XL Pipeline on Republican terms, terms that are extremely disadvantageous to Americans. And Bustos, the Illinois Democrat who votes most frequently against progressive proposals and with the GOP, is trying to the Democratic Party Senate nomination for the seat Mark Kirk currently holds-- something that would virtually guarantee Kirk a second term.

In all, 29 Democrats-- primarily from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party-- crossed the aisle on the final Keystone approval, a bill President Obama will veto. Right now there aren't enough Democratic votes to override that veto. But it will be interesting to see if Bustos is one of the ones who takes that path. These are the 29:

• Brad Ashford (Blue Dog-NE)
• Sanford Bishop (Blue Dog-GA)
• Robert Brady (PA)
• Cheri Bustos (Blue Dog-IL)
• Jim Clyburn (SC)
• Jim Cooper (Blue Dog-TN)
• Jim Costa (Blue Dog-CA)
• Henry Cuellar (Blue Dog-TX)
• Mike Doyle (PA)
• Gwen Graham (Blue Dog-FL)
• Al Green (TX)
• Gene Green (TX)
• Rubén Hinojosa (TX)
• Sheila Jackson Lee (TX)
• Dan Lipinski (Blue Dog-IL)
• Dave Loebsack (IA)
• Sean Patrick Maloney (New Dem-NY)
• Patrick Murphy (New Dem-FL)
• Rick Nolan (MN)
• Donald Norcross (NJ)
• Collin Peterson (Blue Dog-MN)
• Cedric Richmond (New Dem-LA)
• Kurt Schrader (Blue Dog-OR)
• David Scott (Blue Dog-GA)
• Terri Sewell (New Dem-AL)
• Albio Sires (NJ)
• Marc Veasey (TX)
• Filemon Vela (New Dem-TX)
• Tim Walz (MN)

Many of them have taken extremely large sums of money from the Oil Industry. And several others are counting on Big Oil and related business interests to help them move up politically. Aside from Bustos' Senate ambitions, lifelong Republican spoiled brat turned New Dem Patrick Murphy has told intimates that if Marco Rubio decides to run for president and not for the Senate, he will run for the Florida Senate seat. Another Florida reactionary, freshman Blue Dog Gwen Graham, is also coveting that Senate seat. And Big Business interests, which are not fans of Oregon Secretary of State Kate Brown, are talking up right-wing business shill Kurt Schrader as an eventual replacement for scandal-plagued Oregon Governor John Kitzhaber.

Should the Democratic Party be promoting and rewarding the worst members among themselves? That's exactly why it's so important that instinctual reactionaries like Steny Hoyer, Steve Israel, and Joe Crowley be stopped from consolidating power inside the party and be in positions where they can replicate their own toxic anti-working families ideology.

Not unrelated is the way resources have been allocated by the DCCC for incumbents in tight reelection bids. Yesterday, we found out that Republican Johnny Tacherra is back for a third try against Blue Dog Jim Costa. In November, Costa won-- barely-- in the recount, 46,277 (50.7%) to 44,943 (49.3%), an extremely low turnout in a pretty blue district (D+7) where Obama beat McCain 58-40% and beat Romney 59-39%. The district is nearly 60% Hispanic. Many traditional Democratic voters didn't bother turning out for Jim Costa, who spent $1,116,677 to Tacherra's $342,204. This time Costa, who just voted with the Republicans for Keystone and has the worst ProgressivePunch lifetime crucial vote score of any California Democrat (43.73), is expecting at least $2 million from the DCCC. Bad voting records seem, if anything, to encourage the DCCC to spend even more on bad candidates like Costa.

Unbearable Noodge Watch: This "one more chance" business -- not cool, DNC!

No, no, no, no! Or to put it another way, uh-uh, no!

by Ken

I could have sworn we had this discussion the other day. Remember, after you promised I'd had my "last chance to become a card-carrying Democrat"? "Presumably as of midnight I'm in the clear!" I wrote. "Even if that was Pacific Time, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if it was, I'm still good. Free! Free at last!" As I wrote, "I never expressed any interest that I'm aware of in becoming a card-carrying Democrat," but I was prepared to let bygones be bygones -- on the understanding that this "card-carrying Democrat" business was really and truly over.

Now comes this "one more chance" business," and I'm throwing my penalty flag.

I expect you're pretty busy people, you DNC folks. Why, it must take you untold hours to dream up all those horrible fund-raising e-mails you dump into our mailboxes, even though none of the people I know believe you care about any of the things that matter to us, with the possible exception that those Republicans are sure a horror show, aren't they? But we don't consider that much of a basis for political kinship.

Like I was saying, I imagine you're busy folks, so it seems quite likely that you haven't read our colleague Noah's Saturday post:



Noah was steamed about the Senate vote to approve the Keystone XL Pipeline,

a project that would seize private property from American-citizen landowners through the heartland of our country. Many landowners have turned down offers of very large six-figure sums of money from oil interests to allow the companies to build the pipeline across their property and over the nation's largest aquifer. Think about that. What could go wrong?

Oil companies and their bought-and-paid-for minions in Congress -- who, unlike real Americans, never saw even a single dollar, let alone six figures, they wouldn't gladly pocket -- tell us that carting the world's dirtiest, Canadian oil through the pipeline will be safe and that carting it by train is not always safe. On Thursday, the $enate voted to approve the pipeline, by a margin of 62 to 36, ignoring the fact that three pipelines have burst in the past two weeks.

What Noah was most steamed about was the inclusion among the 62 "yea" votes of nine Democrats. The Keystone Nine, you'll recall, are Senators Bennet (Colorado), Carper (Delaware), Casey (Pennsylvania), Donnelly (Indiana), Heitkamp (North Dakota), Manchin (West Virginia, site of the most recent of those three pipelines that have burst in recent weeks), McCaskill (Missouri), Tester (Montana), and Warner (Virginia). As Noah pointed out, this voting bloc puts the pipelinistas within vote-counting range of a veto-overridable Senate majority.

I expect the DNC doesn't consider it its place to comment on the "Democratic values" exemplified by the Keystone Nine. Which is just one reason why the DNC and I don't have much to talk about.

POINT OF ORDER, PLEASE, DNC



This card you've been talking about -- you remember, the one that was to make each responding sap a "card-carrying member of the Democratic Party." That was the deal, wasn't it?) Now I don't happen to be in the market for such a card, but looking at this sample, may I note that I don't see any mention anywhere on it of any "Democratic Party." I guess in some shorthandish way the idea is that the "Democratic National Committee" is authorized to bestow membership in the party. But I went to college, and graduated, and I don't see any such story here.

A MOMENT IN THE COUNTDOWN FROZEN IN TIME



Am I getting through here, DNC? That would surprise me. Nevertheless, I thought I'd ask.

#

Why Democratic Voters Stay Home for Elections -- Ed Schultz Eloquently Discusses a Prime Reason

Of the three pipelinies that have burst in the last two weeks, the latest was in West Virginia. The state's nominally "Democratic" U.S. senator, Joe Manchin, was one of nine "Democrats" who voted for the Keystone XL Pipeline.

by Noah

Shortly after the November elections that resulted in a disaster for the so-called Democratic Party, I asked Howie if he thought the Democrats in Congress would ever wake up. It was a rhetorical question. His answer was the obvious "No."

This past Thursday was a sad day for progressives and, really, all Americans, if they thought about it. On Thursday, the United States $enate voted to approve the Keystone XL Pipeline, a project that would seize private property from American-citizen landowners through the heartland of our country. Many landowners have turned down offers of very large six-figure sums of money from oil interests to allow the companies to build the pipeline across their property and over the nation's largest aquifer. Think about that. What could go wrong?

 Oil companies and their bought-and-paid-for minions in Congress -- who, unlike real Americans, never saw even a single dollar, let alone six figures, they wouldn't gladly pocket -- tell us that carting the world's dirtiest, Canadian oil through the pipeline will be safe and that carting it by train is not always safe. On Thursday, the $enate voted to approve the pipeline, by a margin of 62 to 36, ignoring the fact that three pipelines have burst in the past two weeks. The most recent broken pipeline is in West Virginia.

Of course, trains do derail, sometimes horribly, but how does that justify risking permanent pollution of the nation's largest aquifer, the aquifer that grows our crops? And how does that justify seizing land that families have, in some cases, owned for generations? We expect republicans to talk about things like rights of private ownership while backing their Big Oil masters and screwing the public. To republicans there is no piece of land on Earth that should not be a target for a nice coating of crude. But in this case, nine democrats agreed.

As much as anything, this issue should be seen as not just a pollution and climate-change issue, but also one of individual property rights. What's going on amounts to land theft.
The end result of Thursday's vote is that when it comes to our private-citizen property rights vs. the rights of oil companies that are already subsidized with our taxpayer money and don't pay taxes themselves, we are not a two-party system. Instead, we have republicans that call themselves democrats and republicans that call themselves republicans. In one sense, the republicans who actually call themselves what they are seem more "honorable" than the republicans that pretend to be democrats. And yet, Democratic Party leaders wonder why they couldn't get people to vote for them in the recent midterm elections.

Here is the list of the Democratic $enators who sold us out:

Bennet (Colorado)
Carper (Delaware)
Casey (Pennsylvania)
Donnelly (Indiana)
Heitkamp (North Dakota)
Manchin (West Virginia -- that pipeline bursting in his own state didn't matter)
McCaskill (Missouri)
Tester (Montana)
Warner (Virginia)

They even sold us out for oil that isn't even for us. It's Canadian oil headed for China and India. Some of them will have no problem lying about the pipeline construction creating "thousands of great jobs," just like newly minted $en. Joni Ernst (R-IA) did in her recent snake-oil response to the president's State of the Union speech.

Now, Canada could have built the pipeline over Canadian land to the Pacific, but apparently Canadians didn't want that. Funny how nearly all of the U.S. media, who run oil-company commercials all day, can't bring themselves to mention things like this. Money doesn't talk, it swears, very loudly.

It isn't a long list, the Keystone Nine, but when it comes to overriding a presidential veto, if President Obama does decide to veto the pipeline, it's a very significant list. It's also significant that Harry Reid could not or would not keep these nine fake democrats in line.

It takes a two-thirds majority to override. Are five more phony democrats lurking in the weeds, maybe just a visit from the K Street Bribery Squads away from joining with the real republicans? If we're lucky, Reid was just letting the Keystone Nine vote to approve for other reasons. To do that, he would have to be very confident that a presidential veto will eventually be sustained, but meanwhile the message sent to democratic voters overall is not a good one. Unlike the republicans, the democrats, as illustrated by the Keystone Nine, do not stay together in lockstep. The time to start doing that was years ago. The democrats need to show voters that they will stand up for them and not capitulate. Their continued and continued and continued Vichy-style politics will not motivate voters.

Here's Ed Schultz. He sees this issue as so important that he devoted the first 20 minutes of his Thursday show to the issue of the Democratic Party needing to grow a pair and stand up for the people who voted for them. It's no small thing that things are so dire in Washington that, in the clip, even an untrustworthy conservadem corporatist like Rep. Steny Hoyer comes across as being on the correct side.



Schultz gets very eloquent and very fiery around the 7:44 point of this clip. If you don't have time for the full 20 minutes, start there, but it's all worth it. Among other things, he makes a call to "end the purchasing" and to "draw the line" for us, not for Big Oil, and certainly not for the Republican Party. No more talk about supporting the middle class without action to match; no more deals, cave-ins, and compromises; no talk of "tinkering" with Social Security; etc. It's time to give repugs a big dose of their own medicine. He'd make a hell of a football coach at halftime, but I'd be surprised if any of the players in Washington are listening. Past is prelude.

"If you're not willing to fight for me, how in the hell do you expect me to line up and fight with you?"

#

Crystal Ball Time: How Will Keystone XL Play Out?

The easiest part of the equation is the House. On January 9, the House took up an especially ugly bill written by Oil and Gas industry lobbyists and passed it 266-153 with every single Republican plus 28, mostly bribed, Democrats rallying against life on planet earth on behalf of quick wealth for a few fat cat oil execs. No news there.

Monday the Senate voted on cloture to end debate and move forward with a vote. That passed 63-32, 10 right-of-center Democrats plus Angus King voting with all the Republicans:

• Michael Bennet (CO)
• Tom Carper (DE)
• Bob Casey (PA)
• Joe Donnelly (IN)
• Heidi Heitkamp (ND)
• Angus King (I-ME)
• Joe Manchin (WV)
• Claire McCaskill (MO)
• Jon Tester (MT)
• Tom Udall (NM)
• Mark Warner (VA)

Next, the Senate will vote on a series of amendments that sets the stage for the debate on energy policy and Climate Change going into the 2016 election cycle.

Senate Democrats opposed to the pipeline are offering amendments that they think will be tough for the GOP to vote against or that will play well in the 2016 elections.

In offering the measures, they think they can take advantage of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s (R-Ky.) pledge to run the Senate differently from Democrats by allowing members of both parties to offer amendments more freely.

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), for example, plans to offer a nonbinding resolution on whether lawmakers agree with the 95 percent of scientists who say human activities contribute to climate change. [UPDATE: McConnell, breaking his pledge regarding an open amendment process, won't allow Bernie's resolution to come to vote, not wanting to embarrass his primitivist caucus into taking a public stand on reality.]

“There are lots of things that members of the Senate can disagree about, but I think we should not be disagreeing about what the scientific community tells us,” Sanders said in a brief interview with The Hill.

He said the scientific community is “virtually unanimous” in its opinion that greenhouse gasses produced by industry are warming the climate and causing “irreparable damage.”

“I am going to offer an amendment which will allow Republicans to tell the American people whether or not they agree,” he said.

Another promised amendment would require companies transporting crude oil through the Keystone pipeline to pay into an oil spill cleanup fund. And Massachusetts Sen. Ed Markey (D) is expected to offer a measure that would ban the export of any oil shipped through the pipeline.

Here's the text of Bernie's resolution that McConnell won't allow a vote on:

It is the sense of Congress that Congress is in agreement with the opinion of virtually the entire worldwide scientific community and a growing number of top national security experts, economists, and others that –

(1) climate change is real;

(2) climate change is caused by human activities;

(3) climate change has already caused devastating problems in the United States and around the world; and

(4) it is imperative that the United States transform its energy system away from fossil fuels and toward energy efficiency and sustainable energy.

And that brings us to the veto and the steps that follow the veto. The White House has already said President Obama will veto this particular bill. Big Oil is 2 votes shy in the Senate from being able to override the veto. What then? I suspect that Obama will be one to making a deal with Big Oil and their Republican clients. I bet Obama would sign on in return for Congress passing a real jobs-creating infrastructure bill, as long as a few odious aspects of the legislation as removed-- like the exemption of TransCanada from paying their share into America's Oil Spill Liability Fund, what Ted Lieu called "giving a foreign corporation a license-to-leak." Once the bill is cleaned up, I'm betting Obama would be more than willing to sit down with McConnell, sell out the Democrats who voted NO and make a deal.