Thursday, November 10, 2011

Keystone XL Pipeline Re-Route a Sop "To the Kids," But Really An Obama Move to Garner Nebraska Electoral Votes

Some of us could see this coming by mid-week last week:
One source, who spoke to USA TODAY on the condition of anonymity because the administration was not ready to make a public announcement, said that “it’s going to happen, and it is going to happen very soon.” A second source said administration officials are preparing to make the announcement as early as today. Reuters News Service, the Washington Post and New York Times first reported that the announcement could happen as early as Thursday.

“They’ll be punting the decision to explore rerouting,” said a Congressional source, who was not authorized to comment on the State Department’s impending announcement. “They believe the rerouting exploration should be completed by the first quarter of 2013.”
Essentially, what Obama is doing here is kicking the ball down the road in a way that doesn't entirely alienate environmentalists, and hopefully improves his chances of carrying Nebraska, possibly Montana:
Some Republicans from Nebraska, one of six states the pipeline would cut through, have expressed reservations. Nebraska Gov. Dave Heineman, Sen. Mike Johanns and Rep. Jeff Fortenberry want the pipeline to be moved, saying a leak could contaminate the Ogallala aquifer.

hat tip -- notafaux

18 comments:

nswfm said...

yay! anyway! It's a start.

I just read the NYT and MoJo articles on this and came over to say congratulations to the people who Occupy the White House.

notafaux said...

I agree, nswfm: "It's a start," and the Occupy the White House people deserve recognition for success (yay!), temporary though it may be.

Thank you for the H/T, Phil. I understand your cynicism, which is nothing new to readers of PA, though I do wish you'd grant Pres. Obama some slack once in a while. I think the "sop" comment is a bit over the top. Is it really, truly a revelation that politicians do, well, political stuff to gain advantage? No. That's how the system always has worked and always will work in this country. Would the only acceptable alternative be that we elect "real/ordinary" people, not politicians, as our leaders? I think not. Then you get Sarah Palin or Herman Cain or some other Teabagger type who knows nothing about governing, or anything else for that matter.

We just have to recognize it's important to keep moving, pushing back against dangerous policies. I'm approaching this from the perspective of an Ohioan and staunch progressive Democrat, who's feeling hopeful right now that, like voters who delivered a landslide defeat of the anti-union law in my state, citizens can actually force change through tireless activism. I'm also a staunch Obama supporter, who has run out of patience with those who expect him to bring about change unilaterally--as if the president IS the government!!--and then sit around grousing because he isn't "doing his job" or "betraying his base." By now it's become almost trite to say that WE are the government, which is true, and leaders who don't listen to us are taking a huge risk at their own peril. Also true. Who knows, maybe the president and his advisors are getting the message about the pipeline? (OK, OK, it's election time, Obama wants to win Nebraska, he'll show his true colors in his second term, blah, blah, blah. I know that whole faux-progressive drill. But I don't have to like it or accept it.)

Anonymous said...

God god, Phil, do you EVER give our president due credit. What a sad sack you are. You remind me of cranky old McCain more and more. Is there anything in life you are happy about. What a drag it must be to be in your world on any level, you are just so friggin' negative. Why don't you just give it up, you will NEVER be anywhere as smart or as astute as Barack Obama, you aren't even worth shining his shoes, much less commenting on something that you are basing on hearsay. You really are just a low life blogger, trying to get attention in any way you can, including, ALWAYS bashing our amazing president.

Anonymous said...

This man has the grace and dignity that you, Phil, lack. He is a huge voice for keeping the environment healthy. He has the voice to speak the truth. He gives credit where credit is due. You might learn something from him, Phil, but knowing your tendency for bashing people, it's not likely.

I am so proud of our president.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9bbpfKX9Kk&feature=share

Philip Munger said...

Thanks for lauding my cynicism. It is well-earned over the past 45 years. The deal on " a sop to the kids" is actually a quote from a WH source. When I'm done with work I'll look it. Student waiting for help......

notafaux said...

Phil,

You say, "Thanks for lauding my cynicism. It is well-earned over the past 45 years." C'mon. Well-earned? How? As far as I can surmise, you're part of a generation that's been able to get a lot of mileage out of wearing the "progressive" badge while settling into a comfy middle-class existence. I know this class very well, and you have lots of company. But are these so-called progressives actually in touch with the current generation who must take up the cause anew? I tend to doubt it. As one who's considered myself a progressive all my life ('m several years older than you), I must say that my 35-year-old son--a university professor and progressive activist--is tackling issues that we thought we'd "solved" a long time ago. So I caution you not to rest on the laurels of a bygone era.

Anonymous said...

Don't let them get you down Mr Phil.
AKjah.

Anonymous said...

Ask the entire states of Nebraska, Kansas and parts of neighboring states what they would do if the aquifer became polluted and unusable for years to come. Your puffy white bread McDonalds bun would become so expensive that you'd start asking "wheres the bread"
Its a bout damn time, someone has the balls to put their foot down and start using some common sense. Even old Shelly "I love Iowa" bachmann ought to be coming around to this plan, as the aquifer would partially affect Iowa's businesses too.
No keystone through the aquifer please!!!

Anonymous said...

I beg to differ with NotaFaux's statement: "Would the only acceptable alternative be that we elect "real/ordinary" people, not politicians, as our leaders? I think not. Then you get Sarah Palin or Herman Cain or some other Teabagger type who knows nothing about governing, or anything else for that matter."
-------------
Electing "career politicians" is how we are where we stand today. They are not experts at "governing", they are experts and manipulating the masses in order to get elected. Then they become beholden to their true masters; the corporations. Really they only romance us when campaigning then they work for someone else once elected.

Keep in mind that "real/ordinary" people like Elizabeth Warren ARE NOT career politicians, yet seem perfectly intelligent and capable of governing, in fact, she seems MORE qualified that probably 80% of the current inhabitants of our 3 branches of government.

Not all non-career-politicians, ie. "real/ordinary" citizens, who aspire to higher office are worthy of comparison to Sarah Palin. That's the problem with American politics; some of the best and brightest would be ashamed to be part of our corrupt political process, that's why we end up with the rogue's gallery that we choose from.

LLL

Anonymous said...

Gee, Barry's "fan club" is getting a bit hot under the collar! He's not perfect folks, in fact far from it, but don't worry, he's the best Dem we have right now, so he's most likely going to be around for a while longer. I sincerely hope that a "lame duck" Obama isn't going to burst your bubble though. I somehow think your are going to meet the "real Barry" next term and I hope you are ready for it.

I've never seen such a juvenile bunch of fan boys and girls though. Save it for musicians and stars of screen and stage. It seems very odd at best to heap such adulation on an elected official.

mmboucher said...

I think Senator Barry Sanders was very much involved in the decision to hold off on this pipe-line sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/news/?id=27392e92-438e-499d-951f-e19c48290561

mmboucher said...

News November 10, 2011 from Sen. Bernie Sanders @SenatorSanders sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/news/…

Anonymous said...

MSE. If President Obama were truly serious about protecting the environment, he wouldn't have "delayed" making a decision on whether or not to approve this project. He would have decisvely shitcanned it!

Instead - Obama is leaving his options open. Yup, kicking the can down the road.

The Dear Leader worship in this thread is downright scary. And the difference between Palinbots and Obamabots is -- ?

notafaux said...

@LLL says, "...some of the best and brightest would be ashamed to be part of our corrupt political process, that's why we end up with the rogue's gallery that we choose from." You elegantly express what I should have said--but did not-- and I thank you.

For the "rogue's gallery" on the left end of the spectrum I place blame squarely on 1) the national Democratic Party (to which I've refused to give my money, though I do support Sherrod Brown and Dennis Kuchinic. as well as activist causes in Ohio) and 2) so-called progressives (whom I've observed first-hand for many years).

Personally, I prefer a progressive president. Ideal candidates would be Bernie Sanders (but he declines to run) and Elizabeth Warren (she's just getting started and I have high hopes for her). In fact, I've voted for Dennis Kuchinic whenever he's run in a primary, but he's never had sufficient backing from the Dem party. So, now Pres. Obama is the Dem in the WH. Yes, he probably got there with the help of big money, and yes it may be indistinguishable from the big money that's funding the Repubs. But I support the president: he's the best we have, and he's far better than anyone else out there, in either party, right now. Plus, he seems to be a good man who's doing his best to govern the country in highly fraught times--especially in light of the fact that he has had little support from his own party in pushing progressive programs.

Frankly, I don't know why Obama would even want the job for a second term, considering the flak he's been getting from so-called progressives, whose vitriol rivals only that of Teabagger Nation types (ugh). And this is the point where I have stop to think seriously, with some alarm, about what's gone wrong in our country. As I noted above, one real problem is "progressives." I can attest that I know, from experience, the current version of the progressive movement; and over the decades I've watched it disintegrate into a shell of its former self.

notafaux said...

My previous comment was too long, so I'm posting the rest...

Here among the cornfields of south-central Ohio (literally surrounded by right-wing militia groups), I live in a community that's received acclaim for being uber-progressive for more than 160 years. Much of the reputation comes from the local college, which was at the forefront of every cutting-edge issue of the day: abolition (the Underground Railroad operated here); education for African Americans, women, and low-income students; work-study programs; social and labor reform (a past college president was the architect of the TVA and an area flood control system); LGBT rights. The list goes on.

The college naturally attracted progressive activists, who served on the faculty and administration and formed the nucleus of village government and social life. Although the college went through some hard times from the beginning, the progressive spirit remained fairly vibrant until the 1980s, when a new breed of folks came to town. I think of them as progressive careerists--empty suits--who loved wearing the badge but who had no real substance, in terms of embracing actual progressive causes. They embarked on a "mission" of expanding the college into a university with national and international satellite campuses. By the late 1990s the grand experiment was a failure, and three years ago the college was shut down. The university arm remains, however, in a new multi-million-dollar building here in town. The careerist-progressive administrators are still pulling down 200K+ salaries (while faculty are paid peanuts) as they rotate through a revolving door to bigger and better things elsewhere on the national scene. Needless to say, the university is deep in debt.

This fall the college re-opened as an entity separate from the university, with a new board of trustees, president, and faculty; small freshman class; and alumni funding. The board, hoping to channel/spark a renewed progressive spirit, hired a great-grandson of Teddy Roosevelt as president. The college has started a student-operated farm, helped initiate a local solar farm, and designed a curriculum around green technology and world social/political issues. The interesting thing is that this venture is oriented toward the current generation of progressives--both faculty and students. The vision is forward-looking, and for the moment the careerists are not part of the picture. A lot of people around here are counting on the college once again being the wave of the progressive future. (What a relief from the old-timer progressives, who mostly hang around town these days, muttering into their beards about how Obama has sold them out.)

Anonymous said...

Kuchinic s/b Kuchinich above.

clark said...

try again.
kucinich.

notafaux said...

@clark. You noticed that too :). Rest assured, I corrected the embarrassing glitch several hours prior to your comment.