You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Economy
Pipeline Politics: The Real Reason Behind Champ's Keystone Veto
2015-03-01
Bottom Line Up Front (BLUF) from bits harvested in the article.
[Daily Caller] Let's face it. The veto of Keystone XL was political, nothing more, nothing less. It was a childish attempt at revenge; the equivalent of taking one's ball and going home.
The Sohioan magazine, Oct 1977, Trans-Alaskan Pipeline, and a silent tribute to the thousands of hard working men and women [many of them gone now] who had the vision and determination to see it built. I salute them, great Americans all.
If this sounds conspiratorial at all, consider a recent study from Reuters. The international news agency found that from 2009-2013, during the dog days of the recession, red state federal funding fell by 40 percent while blue state funding fell only 22.5 percent. Coincidence? Perhaps, but doubtful given the partisanship of this administration.

As a thought experiment, let's suppose for a moment that Keystone XL ran through Illinois or California, states that favor Obama and Obama favors. Is it realistic in any way to assume that Obama would deny his home state, one of the most Democratic in the country, 40,000 jobs? Or in California, where the Obama administration issued cushy green energy loans to Solyndra, a company connected to Nancy Pelosi's brother-in-law?

Now, consider South Carolina, a red state if there ever was one and the home of a shiny new Boeing manufacturing plant sued by the National Labor Relations Board, a body stacked with Obama appointees.
First barrel of oil through the Trans-Alaskan pumped in 1977. Impact on environment, absolutely minimal.
Link
Posted by:Besoeker

#11  They had a big stink here about coal trains. No doubt Buffett's trains will have just of hard time.

(Haha... Who am I kidding. I'm sure so called environmental concerns will evaporate by then.)

Posted by: CrazyFool   2015-03-01 15:23  

#10  Warren Buffett Trains, coming to a town near you, if you live West of the Mississippi

Posted by: Chuckles Gravins5654   2015-03-01 15:12  

#9  Ah, yes, the trains.
Posted by: Procopius2k   2015-03-01 15:06  

#8  Warren Buffet owns trains, therefore, trains it is
Posted by: Frank G   2015-03-01 14:43  

#7  Unless you simply want to leave it in the ground, I believe a cost/risk benefit analysis would show pipelines and ocean going vessels are much safer than railroad tank cars. Anecdotal yes, but I'd go with a pipeline over rail.
Posted by: Besoeker   2015-03-01 14:34  

#6  Besoeker, lots of environmental impact from TAPS; the caribou love it. And bad impact too, though indirect - associated with the Exxon Valdez spill. a Keystone alternative, to a West Coast, foggy, rocky export port, stands to repeat that disaster.
Posted by: Glenmore   2015-03-01 14:19  

#5  Its the Chicago way - reward your friends, punish your enemies - using the government to do so.

And make no mistake - we are his ENEMIES. Thats how he sees us: people to be conquered and punished.
Posted by: OldSpook   2015-03-01 14:09  

#4  Canada will process the oil, whether or not we buy it.

If we don't buy from Canada we will buy it from somewhere else. Almost certainly a country that supports Islamic Terrorism.

For Champ, this is a feature, not a bug.
Posted by: Iblis   2015-03-01 11:50  

#3  Champ's minders and PR apparatus covet all forms of controversy. Constantly keeping the pot stirred serves to effectively mask former and future misdeeds.
Posted by: Besoeker   2015-03-01 07:30  

#2  Often politicians like such controversies since they rally the troops and rise money for the effort.
Posted by: airandee   2015-03-01 07:22  

#1  He's a petulant little bitch, bought and paid for
Posted by: Frank G   2015-03-01 06:52  

00:00