Bold Democrat Mary Landrieu Should Be Truthful About KeystoneXL

Landrieu Keystone
It is unclear if some Democrats are suffering an internal conflict of, and search for, identity because as the recent midterms demonstrated, a lot of them cannot come to grips with how to express their political affiliation. One would like to think that as Democrats, they would at least make a nominal effort to delineate themselves from Republicans or, dog forbid, at least tell voters the truth. It may have been Democrat Howard Dean who said not long ago that if given a choice between voting for a Republican, or a Republican-lite, voters of both parties will always opt for the real Republican; because they cannot trust a Democrat pandering for votes as a Republican. It is a lesson Senator Mary Landrieu, and soon-to-be-former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, would do well to heed.

For the second time in months, a Democrat is calling for a vote to approve immediate construction of Canada’s KeystoneXL pipeline. It is still an unconstitutional attempt to subvert President Obama’s sole Executive branch authority to approve a permit for foreign project crossing America’s national border. It is something Republicans have attempted in the past, and it is just as despicable when a Democrat does it; particularly to pander for votes that Republicans will seize upon and use against a Republican-lite candidate like Landrieu.

There is, of course, another strategy Landrieu can employ to appeal to Louisiana voters; tell the truth about the foreign corporation’s project. But it would mean being a strong Democrat like Senator Al Franken, Sheldon Whitehouse, Independent Bernie Sanders, and President Barack Obama who refuse to be pseudo-Republicans.

First, it is refreshing that a few bold Democrats are finally telling Americans the truth, albeit watered-down, about a climate-killing gift to a foreign corporation, Speaker of the House John Boehner, Koch Industries, foreign export profiteers, and China. At least there are a few Democrats who are not suffering political identity crisis. What is, frankly, stunning is that there is such a wealth of information at Landrieu’s disposal to inform Louisiana voters as to why enriching a foreign corporation, the Koch brothers, John Boehner, and foreign oil exporters will do nothing positive for Louisiana residents and in fact, be an detriment environmentally and economically; but that requires being a bold Democrat unafraid of being forthright with the truth.

Initially, Landrieu can tell Louisiana voters that of all the 1,500 – 2,000 temporary (2 years) jobs, and at best, 50 permanent ones, according to the pipeline’s foreign owner TransCanada, not one will be in Louisiana. The proposed pipeline route never crosses into Louisiana territory, and in fact terminates in two Texas cities; a refinery hub in Houston, and export shipping hub in Port Arthur. This simple fact is something real Republicans will not hesitate to tell Louisiana voters as proof that Landrieu’s pipeline advocacy is just a political stunt to garner votes.

She might also consider alerting Louisiana voters that because TransCanada’s refined tar is going to China, residents will never see one drop of the refined oil; that is until there is another of the 91 (as of 2012) regularly-occurring tar-sand spills that will certainly end up along Louisiana’s shores. Even the ignorant conservative folk living and working along the state’s shoreline will recollect what happened when another foreign oil company accident in 2010 polluted miles and miles of pristine and sensitive coastline.

While she is telling the truth about the pipeline, if she were a bold Democrat, Landrieu could expound on the costs to residents when the Koch brothers siphon diesel fuel from Midwest oil reserves to expedite tar to flow through the pipeline. According to an oil energy consulting firm founder, Philip Verleger, “The Canadian plan entails raising prices 20-23 cents in the central United States to get more money from consumers.” That increased fuel cost will not only impact Louisiana drivers, they will see increased costs for agriculture and food imports into the state as a result of increased transportation costs.

If none of those arguments against building a foreign corporation’s export pipeline convince Louisiana voters Keystone is a horrible idea, maybe alerting them who will profit will do the trick; because it will not be any Louisiana Republican voter. The Koch brothers will profit by hundreds and hundreds-of-millions of dollars refining a majority of the tar on its way to Texas for export. Oil exporters will profit from selling a foreign corporation’s oil on the international export market, and Speaker of the House John A. Boehner’s stock portfolio’s worth will increase beyond his wildest dreams. In fact, the federal Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) considered investigating Boehner for lying about the number of jobs the pipeline would create to expedite its construction and increase tar sand companies’ share prices. After that fact was revealed here, it incited creation of a (MoveOn) still active national petition demanding that Boehner resign or face a House ethics investigation and expulsion for lying to Americans for the sole purpose of personal profit. It is not the first time Boehner has been guilty of using his congressional position for personal profit due to favors to corporate interests.

It is beyond hope that Landrieu would cite the environment  destroying consequences of constructing a foreign company’s pipeline regardless the Canadian government’s refusal to allow the pipeline’s construction over their land. Environmental dangers, much less climate change’s damage, is just something that conservatives could not care less about, particularly when the oil industry, the Koch brothers, a foreign corporation, and Republican John Boehner stand to profit.

Look, one might understand why a Democrat would feign being a Republican to preserve their Senate seat, but when even the GOP’s media outlet, Fox News, labeled the Keystone XL pipeline a “bad deal all along,” it is not a stretch for a Democrat to tell the truth. Last year Fox News said President Obama was absolutely right to nix the pipeline and went so far as to utter the stunning admission that the President “rejecting the Keystone XL deal was the best decision possible” and reiterated six reasons the pipeline was a bad deal; including enumerating exactly why critics of the project are right to continue stating them ad nauseum.

The only advocates for the KeystoneXL pipeline are the few who stand to profit and Americans too ignorant to heed the preponderance of dire warnings of every imaginable disaster related to the dirty oil industry. Republicans have attempted several ploys to subvert the President’s constitutional authority over a foreign project crossing into sovereign American territory, and whatever a Democrat’s reason for acting like a Republican, and there is no acceptable reason, it is just as despicable and informs why some Democrats need to resolve their identity crisis, get back to being bold Democrats, and oppose the pipeline’s approval with extreme prejudice.

34 Replies to “Bold Democrat Mary Landrieu Should Be Truthful About KeystoneXL”

  1. Republicans can feign being democrat but it just doesn’t work the other way around as the disastrous midterms just demonstrated.
    Good luck to you though Mary Landrieu. I used to respect you for being outspoken.

  2. The cowardice of Landrieu in pushing the pipeline simply to keep her seat is sickening, especially since he’ll probably fail in that pursuit, yet be rewarded for her cravenness with a seat on some multinational’s board of directors. She isn’t doing this for the sake of her constituents, nor the country, and even when she fails she gets a consolation prize, that will ensure she’ll never have to feel the pain of her bad decision. This is the sort of democrat that will always put her own welfare first — in other words, a conservative who will always make sure she gets hers, voters be damned.

  3. She reminds me of Blanche Lincoln, I hope she goes the way of Lincoln and loses-and when the time comes, I hope she comes back for Manchin and McCaskill …

  4. Canadians are a lot smarter than their American counterparts.

    The reason they chose to run the pipeline from Alberta to Texas is because British Columbia absolutely refused to have the pipeline cross their province. And a route to the Atlantic is appx. 3 times as long and would force the tankers to go about 5 times longer to get this crap to china.

    Of course our blue dogs are quite willing to allow a foreign country to befoul our land just to save 1 senator’s seat.

    One has to wonder how many others, besides Boehner, in congress have purchased stock in the companies associated with the pipeline.


  5. We don’t need the pipe line. If they want to build a pipeline they better send it to the West, that going to bone dry soon. We are doing fine with out oil. We are sitting on 10billion barrels right now that are not moving in North dakota. Mary, if this is all she has to run on. Then she is done. Run on real issues for the state.

  6. Dear posters….. One of the reasons the pipeline didn’t go through is due to ENVIRONMENTAL issues… REAL ones…. Everyone talks as tho the line needs to go to one of the 3 major coastlines…NOT…. St. Louis can handle the shipping and so can the ports on the Great Lakes…. but then again, we protect our environment to a greater extent than the south does…. Why pipeline to the south so it can be shipped/processed there…. For National Security reasons we should not have everything in one area of our country…. that’s stupid…. but I see greed and self-serving are promoting this….. BOTH PARTIES SUCK…. FEDERAL TERM LIMITS… People are fed up???? YES… then why keep voting for one of the two major parties… they need to be shocked by voting in an alternate party 3rd, 4th etc …but then again when only 36% of the voter show to vote this country is asking to be dismembered slowly… wake the puck up!

  7. With advances in solar, the pipeline is obsolete. Period.

    If the government would publicly commit to solar, we’d be way ahead – without generating all the destruction that comes with fossil fuel and nukes.

    If we commit to solar, the oil wars would end. The only reason to build this monster is to demonstrate a foolish commitment to peonage.

  8. Landrieu and all “Democrats” like her need to get out of the party. I hate to see a Republican take the seat, but I would rather that our “leaders” in the Democratic party know we will not tolerate Republican-lite Democrats any longer. I would rather we lose being true to our principles than win by compromising our values.

  9. Wow. you guys just continue to spew the same junk over and over. Lets break this down for you uninformed.
    1. currently this oil is being shipped across our country by rail. Same rail owned by Warren Buffet that has had numerous incidents resulting in massive fires and the dumping of the oil.
    2. pipelines have demonstrated over time that it is the safest way to transport this oil.
    3. while the kochs own mineral rights in canada, NONE of those would benefit from this pipeline. as explained by the owner of the pipe, the kochs and several investigative articles, it would niether carry or deliver any oil from or to the kochs, period! the kochs have admitted that this pipe would actually cut their profits
    4. i’m all for utilizing solar, wind or hydro electricity. however, the tech is not there to make it efficient and sustainable. gov’t should not be dumping $$$$$ to make it work.

  10. Talking about spewing junk that’s what Transcanada Oil does. They have as lousy a clean up record as Enbridge. How about you letting say BP oil store a tank of bitumen in your backyard?

  11. They’re not sending oil to the Koch’s, are you that dumb. The Koch’s own about a million acres of ground with tar sands. The tar sands will be mined and the sludge sent to refineries and then shipped to the highest bidder. The Koch’s don’t have to do anything but own the ground and sell the rights to mine it. And yes, the Koch’s stand to gross about $100 billion dollars from the tar sands they control.

  12. So allowing the railroads to continue to haul crude with less safety in place and far less efficient is your “supergreen” way of doing things. nice! i guess that’s your justification in taking warren buffets millions to support your liberal causes. how did you get into putting a tank in my back yard? aren’t we talkning about transporting crude?

    so you all want us to switch to solar panels and live oil free? you have no clue on the environmental impact of a solar panels or the other green products that sell you a bill of goods but hide the impact.
    solar cell factories – haz waste & empl exposure to several haz chemicals
    solar cell disposal – haz waste
    solar site – requires water for cooling
    battery storage – haz waste & not eff
    solar site – logistics to transmit power

  13. So basically on batterys, you are also against cars and lawn mowers?

    Yes, switch to solar as an alternative. Try it. Solar will not poison the entire water supply of millions.

    BTW, what are you arguring for? You forgot to say

  14. not sure if that piece is proof, but i hope its a sign that a private company can be successful with green energy. not sure how “carbon offsets” are value add, but I will let that go.
    i have worked on a wind farm and the carbon foot print to build a turbine is mind blowing. i just want to think through options, let the amazing engineers across this country continue to work & test better ways to capture green energy. We don’t need the gov’t to make laws that will only restrict our thinking and accomplishments. they screw up that process enough already.

    but until those processes are proven and available, we need to be more efficient with what we have. crude is not going away. its used in almost everything we own.

  15. Strangely enough, I have a huge wind farm down the road from me. I worked in manufacturing all my life and it doesnt take that much to build a turbine. Its not mind blowing. A great deal of electricity is now coming from wind and solar. I am not sure, but may I ask if you are paid to say this stuff?

  16. I just read all that to my husband who just responded “So basically it’s a bunch of rich a**h*les making other rich a**h*les richer?” *sighs* Pretty much, yeah.

  17. Sorry you guessed wrong. My name has nothing to do with the environment.
    Investing in alternative energy sources and weaning the world off fossil fuels is the progressive mindset. Giving the okay to pipelines that transport millions of gallons of bitumen to help Canada further poison the atmosphere where it is extracted is not. There is still litigation pending from landowners that don’t want it. Most importantly as many posters have shown the USA will not benefit from the Keystone. A combination of renewable resources is the way forward and we will only get better at it, as we already have.

  18. The Koch’s can make another $100 billion and finish to buy our country, and rip away whatever democracy is left.

  19. Boy thats a fact. now THATS mindblowing. Making a turbine isnt. He must have thought we were all stupid coming here paod to lie

  20. I agree sugar… Good luck Mary with whatever you decide to do.
    Please keep us posted on the dems that vote yes on the keystone so we can out them and get them replaced.

  21. There’s Been HOW Many Pipeline Spills in Alberta in The Last Four Months??

    Curious, I went back to July, August and September of this year, and found that October’s incidents weren’t unusual at all!! In July, 27 incidents were reported –16 of which involved pipelines spilling either crude oil or gas production. August saw 39 spills or releases happen, 28 of which involved pipelines. September–26, of which 22 were pipeline spills or releases. October– 41 total incidents ( 24 pipeline incidents).

    The grand total for four months….133 incidents of which 90 involved pipeline spills….68%!!!!

  22. Oil by rail is much, MUCH safer than pipeline transport. Several deadly accidents over the last two years notwithstanding.

    In its first year of operation, the Keystone Pipeline had 13 spills.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.