HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Democrats » John Kerry (Group) » JK, Keystone Pipeline, an...

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 05:49 PM

JK, Keystone Pipeline, and Charlie Pierce

http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/The_Latest_On_The_Pipeline

As Charlie Pierce said, from their lips to god's ears. Hang in there, Secretary Kerry; you're right, as usual. Please keep the President on the right path for us.
It appears that a Great Sad has descended on some of the supporters in Washington of our old friend, the Keystone XL pipeline. From their lips, of course, to god's ears.
House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.) said Friday that he is not holding out much hope that President Obama will approve the Keystone XL pipeline. "Though normally a pretty good optimist, I am not overly optimist that the president will allow the Keystone XL to move forward despite Nebraska's reroute of the pipeline thru their state," Upton said in a live Web chat on Michigan news website Mlive.com
. . .
Apparently, the dismals have come to chairman Upton and his compatriots because the president appointed John Kerry to be Secretary Of State, and Kerry already has voted against approving the pipeline, and because the president talked about climate change in his inaugural address. . . .
What will happen if the president and Secretary Kerry put the kibosh on the pipeline is going to be the mother of all hissy fits. The pipeline is an article of faith on the Republican right, not because it will necessarily improve this country's energy policy, but because refusing to build it would be a triumph for almost everyone the Republican right hates, and that hate is what propels conservative politics.

25 replies, 2829 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 25 replies Author Time Post
Reply JK, Keystone Pipeline, and Charlie Pierce (Original post)
MBS Feb 2013 OP
babylonsister Feb 2013 #1
ProSense Feb 2013 #2
babylonsister Feb 2013 #4
MBS Feb 2013 #3
freshwest Feb 2013 #5
MBS Feb 2013 #6
politicasista Apr 2013 #7
karynnj Apr 2013 #8
politicasista Apr 2013 #9
karynnj Apr 2013 #10
politicasista Apr 2013 #11
karynnj Apr 2013 #12
politicasista Apr 2013 #13
JI7 Apr 2013 #14
politicasista Apr 2013 #15
Mass Apr 2013 #16
Mass Apr 2013 #17
politicasista Apr 2013 #18
YvonneCa Apr 2013 #19
politicasista Jun 2013 #20
protect our future Jun 2013 #21
wisteria Jul 2013 #22
protect our future Jul 2013 #23
protect our future Jul 2013 #25
protect our future Jul 2013 #24

Response to MBS (Original post)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 05:59 PM

1. John Kerry is going to rock and roll with this!

At least I hope he does.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babylonsister (Reply #1)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 06:06 PM

2. Yeah,

let's hope.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #2)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 06:14 PM

4. I think/know he has his

convictions and the courage of them; if Obama is on board, I can see this pipeline going nowhere!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babylonsister (Reply #1)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 06:09 PM

3. I hope so, too!

Stay strong, Mr. Secretary and Mr. President.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MBS (Reply #3)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 07:58 PM

5. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MBS (Original post)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 11:43 AM

6. article in WaPo

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/kerry-suggests-action-near-on-keystone-xl-pipeline/2013/02/08/d1f671f8-723a-11e2-8b8d-e0b59a1b8e2a_story.html

Secretary of State John F. Kerry said Friday that he would stick to a “very open and transparent” permitting process for the proposed Keystone XL oil pipeline, adding, “I hope we will be able to make an announcement in the near term.”Emerging from a meeting with Canadian Foreign Minister John Baird, Kerry said, “We have a legitimate process that is underway, and I’m going to honor that.” He said it was “fair and accountable.” It was Kerry’s first meeting as secretary with a foreign diplomat, a nod to neighborliness but also to the importance of settling the Keystone XL issue.
. ..

The Keystone XL pipeline permit, a State Department matter because it crosses an international boundary, has become controversial because of environmental concerns about possible leaks and high greenhouse gas emissions linked to production from Canada’s oil sands, which would mostly supply the pipeline.
. ..
The State Department will soon release a new environmental impact statement, based on Trans­Canada’s revised application. That will trigger a several-week period for public comments and responses.
Since the election, pipeline foes have stepped up efforts to block the proposal. Kerry had raised their hopes by saying in his confirmation hearing that U.S. foreign policy “is defined by leadership on life-threatening issues like climate change.”


Hard to read the tea leaves here...But I at least know that I'd rather have Kerry handling this than any other past Secretary of State I can think of.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MBS (Reply #6)

Fri Apr 5, 2013, 03:32 PM

7. +1

Lot of pressure on him from the environmentalists and green groups out there. Hopeful Obama goes green also, but IDK.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to politicasista (Reply #7)

Fri Apr 5, 2013, 06:11 PM

8. Here's a question for you

SoS Kerry has voted against Keystone and everything in his background would make him PERSONALLY want to speak against this - I suspect especially after the Arkansas spill. (In addition, I hope Teresa is asking him to stay true to what he knows is right.)

On the other side, it is very clear that there are significant powers that are pushing for this. In addition, Obama has given approvals for parts of it. We know that HRC was for it -- and we know the people she picked to study it were not unbiased scientists. Assume that Obama has already decided not to spend political capital on this AND the green groups have not been activist enough to put a price on the other side.

Do you want -

1) Kerry to go with his conscience (knowing the last few times he went against his gut - IWR and Edwards, his gut was absolutely right.) AND have Obama overrule him and take whatever heat he gets alone.

2) Kerry realizes that the last 3 years have boxed Obama in and to ignore his own reputation (one that he earned over 4 decades as an environmentalist) will be tarnished with most of the people he has fought for and with, just as was the case with many looking for Kerry to lead against going to war.

I hope Kerry goes with 1, there is NOTHING that can mitigate the disaster of approving this. It will at some point leak and it will be an environmental disaster. (The Clintons already presided over environmental disasters in Arkansas - so this likely was not visceral for HRC) Obama - in all fairness - though good on many issues has few credentials or any known interest in the environment.

Kerry saying he is not in favor does not stop Obama from approving it -- and it does not destroy either Kerry or Obama to disagree.

I found a parallel example in an unlikely way. I attended a lecture at a VT college about SoS Marshall and his advice to Truman on Israel. In America, the UN resolution that led to Israel's birth was very popular. George Marshall, one of the greatest SoS ever advised Truman to vote against it. His reason was that the partition was impractical and would lead to a second Holocaust. The partition actually created two states - neither had all parts contiguous. His view was that diving an area the size of Vermont could not work. As we all know, Truman (and the US) was the first world leader to recognize Israel and they did vote yes.

This example is relevant - Keystone and Israel/Palestine were BOTH very big issues and both had potential long term impacts that once done could not be undone. The President and SoS disagreed - both had strong reasons for having the position they did. ( Truman was also influenced by the public opinion.)

The lecturer, who was a professor and an archivist of George Marshall's papers was asked Marshall's reaction. His response was to tell the press that his job was to give the President the best advice he could ... and the President's job was to make the decision. This situation could be the same,

Some here have said that Kerry disagreeing with Obama would hurt Obama or would threaten Kerry's position. In fact, if an honest disagreement on one issue was something that Obama would demand Kerry resign over - he should resign. Not just for this issue, but because if disagreeing means that you are out, you might as well not be there. Personally I think that Obama is a bigger person than that and knows that a range of advice is better than an echo chamber.

More optimistically, I would hope that Kerry and climate scientists and ALL environmentalist will convince Obama. Where is America's usual xenophobia? Why are we allowing the length of the country to be put at risk to benefit a Canadian corporation? They have already destroyed parts of Alberta - why make it cheaper for them to continue ravaging that area.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to karynnj (Reply #8)

Fri Apr 5, 2013, 08:16 PM

9. To answer your question,

#1 is the best option. Go with your gut and let the chips fall where they may.

Also hope that Momma T can have a behind the scenes say with him, especially after the Arkansas pipeline leak, and others which Rachel Maddow (she is hot/cold sometimes) highlighted a few days ago.

Kerry did say in other thread to Miz Greenspan about Obama not wanting "yes people" in his cabinet, and remain hopeful that he and climate gurus and environmentalists can convince Obama. (don't know who Bill McKibben is, but he wrote some articles in the Nation and another blog about Kerry's "fateful" decision on KXL and highlighted the connections of Clinton, Obama, and Kerry's past campaign staffers tied to TransCanada and Alberta). Was going to post the links, but deleted them because they might have had a left slant to them.

Other interesting tidbits (don't know these matter) is that COS McDonough put climate change on the Obama agenda. Obama was at a fundraiser in Frisco at the home of a staunch Keystone XL opponent, (overshadowed by the Obama-AG Harris kerfuffle of course), and Burton said that poll numbers were not going to influence his decision.

To be honest, more dialog is needed on project and the issue of fracking. The problem is that most Americans aren't familiar KXL and its consequences. They only hear that it creates jobs and the unions are for it because they are part of the Dem base that Dems need in 2014/16. Hopeful that the leaks will change Obama's mind, but he is realizing the semi-consequences of appointing Clinton people in his first term.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to politicasista (Reply #9)

Fri Apr 5, 2013, 09:01 PM

10. Thanks for the thoughtful answer

Your last paragraph - and an Obama comment on people being more concerned with the economy rather than the environment are the at the root of the dilemma. The pro pipeline people have inflated the economic pluses. One hard piece of information in the State Department report is that it will create only 35 permanent job

As to Clinton people - of course, he would have hired Clinton people. ANY Democrat who wanted to work in government in the 1990s would have considered doing so. Many far more progressive and liberal than the Clintons.

That was a great blog post - he is a liberal/progressive activist on the environment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to karynnj (Reply #10)

Fri Apr 5, 2013, 09:07 PM

11. You're welcome

Making an effort to be more positive around here these days.

Spot on about everything here. Haven't brushed up on the Truman-Marshall history, but it's informative. And what you have said is true about the Clinton people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to politicasista (Reply #11)

Fri Apr 5, 2013, 09:49 PM

12. I had never heard of the Truman/Marshall stuff even though I had

read at least some things on Israel's early years. In fact, it was a fluke that I heard this. We live in Burlington now and my husband saw a flyer for the talk (open to the public) at a synagogue we have gone to. It sounded interesting (and was) so we went.

When I started to answer your comment, it hit me that this was - if anything - a bigger President/SOS disagreement and I really liked Marshall's comment - that I hoped I got close to correct.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to karynnj (Reply #12)

Fri Apr 5, 2013, 11:22 PM

13. It's very good information n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MBS (Original post)

Sat Apr 6, 2013, 03:51 AM

14. he already knows what the right thing to do is

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JI7 (Reply #14)

Sat Apr 13, 2013, 02:54 AM

15. Hope so

*fingers still crossed*


Thought do not like him being stuck with something he voted against as Senator. And do not like that his environmental creds and effectiveness is being demeaned to praise the work of Markey and Warren, (and bash his former aide aka the talented Councilwoman Ayanna Pressley, who is considering running for Mayor of Boston just to praise others in the running), but guess that is how wannabe pols/ Dem activists operate, vile and it is. sheesh.

And also do not like the game that is played here. Though all for keeping the pressure on and it is Obama's decision in the end; some of those people from Code Pink to all the environmental groups should have been writing those letters to Sec. HRC who was all for this project. There is a slow wake up to how BC/HC use people when it comes to policies.

May get dismissed as being concerned, but do not like to see decent (ok good) public servants get thrown under the bus and be pressured to go against everything they stand for.

Again, all for the Sec. State Kerry going with gut and letting the chips fall where they may.




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to politicasista (Reply #15)

Sat Apr 13, 2013, 09:41 AM

16. Haven't seen anything concerning Pressley,

but some bloggers and tweets are just stupid. You have to take them for what they are, stupid.

Markey is good. If anything, I see a lot of progressives diminishing his creds because they want something more flashy. This is stupid. If I do not have Kerry for senator, I want Markey.

Yes, when you support somebody, you will try to show his opponents in a less favorable way. The other thing I would say is that there are domains where Warren IS more effective than Kerry was. Banking is the obvious. I am not upset if somebody says that Warren brings something when it comes to banking. This said, I think it is unfair to a couple other senators, like Brown and Sanders, who have been there for a lot longer than she is (as a senator and as a Democrat) and are effective too.

What you have to get is that the game is played for the media and a very small circle of supporters, and they only care about a 10 second clip (My guess is 30 seconds is too long at this point). Warren, who has worked on these issues with people like Doctor Phil for years, is good at that. Will she make a better senator for that? Only time will say, but at this point, she attracts the media and a ridiculous number of people saying she should run for president (really?). But you also see heads explode when she takes position that do not belong to what her supporters think she should do (yes, tax on medical devices, and a few others).

So, be careful. Those shiny objects become less shiny with time (Look at Obama, he has disappointed a lot of people, both those who say it and those who do not because they do not want to add to the bashing).

Coming back to the Boston Mayor race, I will say it here once more. With that many candidates, it is a shame that there is no women running. I hope she runs. The idea she should not run because she will split votes with Arroyo is ridiculous. Let's hope she runs, for women and for minorities. (I do not live in the Boston area anymore, but it is time to get the city out of the old boys' club.

I hope Kerry does not feel compelled to follow Obama's lead on Keystone (hard to believe he does not want the pipeline when he signed on his southern part in 2012), but we will see.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mass (Reply #16)

Sat Apr 13, 2013, 09:44 AM

17. An awesome set of articles about Keystone.

http://www.thenation.com/blog/173809/tell-secretary-state-john-kerry-stop-keystone-xl-pipeline#

What we can do. Sign these petitions and encourage Kerry and Obama to do the right thing.

It does not matter whether we believe he will do the right thing or not. People need the supports of constituants even to do things they would do otherwise. I remember Kerry once saying we need to show we want action for climate change. Now is the time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mass (Reply #16)

Sat Apr 13, 2013, 09:01 PM

18. She is taking the high road

and focusing on the local (progressive) issues that matter. There is another AA woman (from the current mayor's office) that is considering running, but hasn't said anything publicly yet. It will be interesting to see how things play out.

I have not been much into political Twitter and blogs since the dustup in this group awhile back; because they have become a 365 zoo of outrageous and stupid. You are right, they are stupid. (The Markey being boring thing sounds so American Idol). Let him, Warren, Kerry, and Pressley shine without pining them against each other. It's not a competition, it's about who are best qualified to run things and get the job done, which is why the US media still is a big joke.

The parts about Warren are interesting. Good luck to her. It may not be long before she gets called an "emoprog" by the so-called pragmatic Dems. Sanders has already won first place on the Emo Honor Roll. Beginning to think it's not about Obama, Biden, etc just trying to make a living being outraged at everyone or anything 24-7.

Also agree about Obama (there have been some things to disagree with him on i.e. education), but the outrage (not saying that it is not sincere) can be so middle school in social media land, which is why I have been sticking to music on Twitter (that can get crazy too!) and blogs.

Thanks for the perspective on the Boston Mayor (media) race. You, Tay and others are right, MA is a diva state. TN is a when it's convenient-volunteer state.

As for Keystone, still remain hopeful that Kerry can rock and roll (hat tip to babylonsister) with the murky kxl. Didn't know that Obama already signed on the southern part, but it is interesting that it is not included in the budget (do not know if that is a good/bad thing).

However, it sounded like he is/was telling environmentalists to brace themselves for the final decision in his speech in Frisco last week, but agree, we shall see.


Thanks for the petition. Peace.





edit to change issue to "issues"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to MBS (Original post)

Wed Jun 26, 2013, 03:32 PM

20. Some optimism

maybe? From PS thread.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023092749

Sounds like the WH is punting the ball over to State.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MBS (Original post)

Sun Jun 30, 2013, 07:38 PM

21. As I understand it--and I may be incorrect because

I haven't done the research--SOS Clinton arranged for the Keystone project to be a done deal, but she didn't sign off on it. That was to be left for the next SOS: John Kerry. Therefore, he would have been blamed for the Keystone deal becoming a reality and she would come out of it smelling like a rose. Am I right or am I wrong?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to protect our future (Reply #21)

Tue Jul 2, 2013, 06:11 PM

22. Thats the way I heard it. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wisteria (Reply #22)

Tue Jul 2, 2013, 07:01 PM

23. So if this is true--and once again let me reiterate

that I haven't done the research--it could sink Mrs. Clinton's chances of becoming president in 2016 should she decide to run. Once voters learn that she paved the way for the Keystone project to become a reality, she might lose the nomination; again, should she decide to run.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to protect our future (Reply #23)

Tue Jul 2, 2013, 07:06 PM

25. Oops. The self-deleted post was mine.

I posted the same thing twice. Sorry!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wisteria (Reply #22)

Reply to this thread