Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Steve P on January 2, 2012 at 17:39

Let's look at this from two different perspectives. 

 

First, the national interest.  Let me start by saying that far too often in our (the country's, but in particular Louisiana) we have been easier that the current President in caving in to get a deal.  In the case of our great state, the caving in was to get the "immediate gratification" of a "deal" instead of bargaining for the "right deal."  By that, I mean we (resource dependant states) traded off jobs and cash for our future quality of life by not ensuring that adequate protections were put in place to ensure that the long-term costs of those jobs were not too high (Please, consider ALL of Louisiana, not just the corridor along the MS river).  But these are red herrings in the Keystone Pipeline case.  As I will discuss below, these are truly false issues for the Keystone Pipeline.

 

Second, the political interest.  Who among us that , shall we say with understatement, who are not strong supporters of the current president, don't relish the dilemma the president faces with the competing interests of the unions and the environmentalists.  President Obama got strong (spelled, $$$$$) support from both groups in the prior election.  As the President has attempted to transition (after 3 years) from campaigning to governing (damn those facts!), he has come face to face routinely with the stark reality of jobs versus theory.  To quote my least favorite politician, Al Gore, the Keystone Pipeline presents an "inconvenient truth" for the President. On its face, the environmental issues are pretty easy to address and dispose.  The problem for the President is that the "facts" do not fit easily with the high-minded positions of the environmental vote.  While I profess no expertise in the actual risks of the pipeline to the Great State of Nebraska, come on - how many people think that a newly-constructed pipeline will pose a threat to the Ogalla Aquifer? We all understand what the political issues are here - it is, nothing more or less, than "big oil" versus the environmentalists.

 

Going back to the national interests.  Let's consider for a moment (that's all that is needed), oil from Canada or oil from - Libya, Iran, Iraq, you name it.  To borrow from my legal background, it should require a "compelliing argument" against the Keystone Pipeline to offset the continued import of oil from the aforementioned countries (and I didn't even mention our brother from Venezuela).  There is no compelling argument.  The risks are nominal.  But we should sit back and let the unions make that argument.

 

Remember how Reagan cleverly captured a huge portion of the union vote?  Our current President seems to have skipped that class.  I will never support taking jobs in exchange for sacrificing our future with mortgage liabilities for cleaning up the mess we are making.  But, again, the risks of the Keystone Pipeline are nominal.  The entire issue is centered around the "big oil" and dependence on fossil fuels issue.   And the average voter these days is not so worried about philosophy, but about jobs and national security.  The "Professor" is not only out of step with the electorate, but is not even presenting a good argument.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by essay on January 2, 2012 at 18:52

i spent 10 minutes typing something out and my power flickered, it's so not worth redoing.  you summed it up pretty well.  obama = king canute, and a potted plant > obama 2012.  should have went with hillary, suckers.

ABO Anyone But Obama 2012, even ron paul or donald trump would be infinitely better.  hope for some change, yawl.

• ▶ Reply