Skip to comments.Obama Digs In: 'Personally Lobbying Democrats to Reject' Keystone Pipeline (Senate to Vote Today)
Posted on 03/08/2012 8:06:13 AM PST by katieanna
President Obama is digging in on the Keystone XL pipeline. He is "personally lobbying Democrats to reject an amendment calling for its construction," Politico reports.
The White House lobbying effort, including phone calls from the president to Democrats, signals that the vote could be close when it heads to the floor Thursday. The president is trying to defeat an amendment that would give election-year fodder to his Republican critics who have accused him of blocking a job-creating energy project at a time of high gas prices.
The amendment, proposed by Sen. John Hoeven (R-N.D.), states that Obama would have no role in such cross-border permitting decisions since, in this case, the pipeline would originate in Canada. The measure would need 60 votes to pass, and Obama has already lost two Democrats who back the proposal - Sens. Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Mary Landrieu - and is at risk of losing more moderates and vulnerable Democrats.
The Keystone XL pipeline would create an estimated 20,000 jobs and, likely, drive down the price of gasoline in the long run. It would seem to be a good move at a time of high unemployment and high gas prices.
And, in fact, most Americans like the idea of the Keystone pipeline. According to a November poll, of likely U.S. voters, 60 percent "at least somewhat favor building the pipeline which President Obama has delayed until at least 2013 because of environmental concerns."
We need more than a couple of Dems. I am sure the Maine Sisters will vote against this.
She will NOT run in 2014...
From your lips to God’s ears but how do you know?
Slowly, slowly Louisiana is rising up from the ashes of years of democrat destruction.
Don't egg them on!
This is about as clear an example as it gets as to what Obama’s priorities are:
What Obama thinks is best for his re-election VS what is best for the country.
This will also expose, in no uncertain terms, those Dems who also cannot put aside partisan politics and who do not put the country first. A lot of them are between a rock and a hard place here ..... back Obummer (for whatever reason - he’s not giving anybody any of his campaign money this fall) & also piss off constituents dealing with high gas prices or vote for what is best for the country.
Three reasons...she’s not popular, she’d have to raise a ton of $$ and she will face a serious opponent..so even if she manages a win, she’ll be in the minority..nope..she retires..
After all, if America were self-sufficient with it's own oil supply, WE WOULDN'T NEED IRAN and it would be "bombs away" on their silly azzes.
I live in Montana.
I know that I should really put in a call to both of my ‘rat Senators (Tester and Baucus), but I don’t think that I’m going to bother.
1) Neither of the doofus twins (or any of their staff that I’ve ever contacted) really want to hear anything but the magical sound of their own jaws bangin’ together. They simply don’t represent anything in Montana but their contributors who happen to reside here (mostly part time).
2) It doesn’t matter the topic, the benefits to Montana and/or the country or their own words and promises, all that Baucus and Tester will ever do in the senate is EXACTLY AS THEY ARE TOLD. We might as well have sent a pair of Howdy Doody dolls to Washington.
3) (And most to the point) If Tester, as I suspect, follows orders per 2 above and votes against the Keystone project, I’ll take great personal pleasure in tying this vote around his fat neck like a millstone and flogging him around the fleet for all time to come.
I thought about adding a “PS” to my previous post:
After the vote, TAKE NAMES and KICK BUTT.
I see you and I are already on the same page. :-)
This is pretty big. They are saying that the President can no longer be counted on to make a decision in the country's best interest and the President has to resort to lobbying (i.e. trying to convince) his party to vote against what amounts to an impeachment vote.
Okay, now you get to explain what you've been smoking, along with when The 0's made ANY decision that was "in the country's best interest.
No hurry. We've got all day tomorrow to look over the latest lies about our economic "recovery", too.
Would Harry Reid have allowed a vote on the Keystone Pipeline unless he knew beforehand that he had enough votes to defeat it?
Would the president have allowed such a vote to go forward and gotten so involved in the outcome if he had the slightest fear that enough Democratic senators might mutiny against him to approve the pipeline, thereby forcing the Democratic House members to weigh in on this politically toxic issue, and, if approved by the entire Congress, then forcing him to veto it? Very doubtful.
Let’s hope not.
Obama calls and tells these legislators how to vote, encouraging them to vote his way, thereby politicizing the issue...and then he turns right around, on the same day, and announces to the people that he hatres it when politician politicize issues like the keystone pipeline.
Sort of like when he answered a reporter abut not wanting to make any comments about Rush Liimbaugh and other pundits and their positions and statements, noit five minutes after he had made disparaging xomments about Rush himself.
This man is a sociopath and abject marxist oideolog who believes everything he says should rigidly apply to everyone else...except him.
The Man who Depsises America
America at the Crossroads of History
I just got off the phone with his nasty little aide. I told him that we pay Reid’s salary and he is voting against the people’s will and interests. My telling him I am a black woman who can’t wait to vote straight R ticket in November really sent him into orbit.
Would Obama have flown to Denmark to beg for the Olympics (to be held in Chicago) unless he had a nod and a wink that he would succeed? Failure would make him a laughingstock. Surely he wouldn’t risk such a debacle.
These are not the brightest knives in the drawer.
I’ll never understand how a place like Montana can elect a RAT senator, much less two RAT senators. What gives?
Incredible. If he loses, he will be seen as desperate in his calls. If he wins and fuel prices continue to rise and unemployment spikes up, well, he just looks totally out of touch with a majority of Americans.
As someone noted upthread, President Obama is reduced to calling Senators to not vote for a project that adds jobs. Whoever is handling the President's political calculations is doing so in an odd way.