Laura Clawson pointed out that the shameful, and apparently imminent, vote on the Keystone XL pipeline may not actually lead to it being built.
Since Speaker John Boehner has said that the House will not be voting on an internet sales tax bill, attaching Keystone to that might be the best way to give Landrieu her vote while not actually doing anything. But it's so noxious that Democrats would be willing to sacrifice principle but not money on a long-shot race.
So maybe the vote is just some window dressing in a feeble attempt to save her seat in the Senate? Doesn't matter, even if true. This is unacceptable. Mary Lieberman is no ally of mine, and she is no ally of the Democrats. Maybe she has been an ally on this issue or that, over the years, but this is a serious dissing, a backstabbing action that is unforgivable.
Facing a run-off election in three weeks to hold onto her seat in Louisiana, the woman who is now the most endangered Democrat in America raced to the Senate floor on Wednesday—shortly after it reopened following last week's election—to call for an immediate vote on a top GOP priority: approval of the Keystone XL oil pipeline. "I want to say yes to Majority Leader Mitch McConnell," Landrieu said. "The time to start is now. The public has clearly spoken."
(Thanks to
Free Jazz at High Noon for finding that quote and article in The Atlantic)
After seeing that quote, as either a Democrat, or some other person of lefty persuasion, can you honestly believe that she is on our side on either issues or politics? Enough to let her pull this shit? if so, I strenuously agree to disagree with you.
Her gambit won't work. She is going to lose. The DSCC has pulled out of her race because they understand this. But even if were possible for her to win, capitulating to her whims on such an important issue (even if, perhaps, the vote is symbolic), is just plain stupid. There is no 77th dimension kabuki chess going on here, unless it is being played on us by Sentate Dems and POTUS. I am going to give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that that is not what is going on.
There was a fair amount of glee here Tuesday night when folks got into this diary about the deal the President made with China about carbon emissions. I don't recall who the prescient commenter was who suggested that this would be a trade for KXL, but that sobering idea was presented promptly. Whatever benefits toward moderating climate change related damage might be realized via the China deal, we are almost certainly pissing into the wind if KXL gets built.
After all, it's the earth's second-largest pool of carbon, and hence the second-largest potential source of global warming gases after the oil fields of Saudi Arabia. We've already plumbed those Saudi deserts. Now the question is: Will we do the same to the boreal forests of Canada? As NASA climatologist James Hansen has made all too clear, if we do so it's "essentially game over for the climate." That message is getting through. Witness the incredibly strong New York Times editorial opposing the building of the pipeline that I was handed on our release from jail.
There has been much introspection here, in the last week, over how Dems failed so miserably last Tuesday. Surely there are a myriad of reasons. But some of those reasons include an inability or unwillingness of Dems to have some principles, articulate them clearly and repeatedly, and stick to them. I understand that Mary Lieberman is from an oil state, and, in the nauseatingly corrupt system we have today, therefore, beholden to do the bidding of big oil. But she has made it painfully clear that she has far more loyalty to big oil (not her constituents) than to the party she purports to be part of.
She is backstabbing her own party. KXL specifically, and the Environment and climate more generally, are core issues for Dems. By pushing for a KXL vote, in an impotent attempt to save her seat in the Seanate, she is actively sabotaging what she claims to be her party. Would we tolerate someone in the same position as she is in proposing to slash Medicare or Social Security? … I really don't know. I've seen enough comments here today justifying her action, and the enabling of Senate Dems, that I guess many here would accept that behavior, rationalize that behavior, and justify that behavior. I'd like to think that those are some core issues that we could all agree on, but I am pretty sure we'd have a significant minority of commenters explaining how and why such bad policy would be a good move politically.
This is a big part of why Dems lose. People don't know what Dems stand for. I am not sure if or what Dems stand for (aside from social issues). Maybe Dems could make some sort of statement of principles and fight for it? We could call it a platform. Whadya think?
The Repubs don't have such a problem. What they stand for might be selfish, mean and cruel. But at least they know what they believe in, who they are, and they stay on message. And they fight. They don't go belly up and push the opposition agenda for them.
She will always be Mary Lieberman to me. If I lived in Louisiana, I would stay home on runoff day. I couldn't bring myself to vote for her opponent, but I most certainly would not lift a finger for her (unless it was the middle one). Oh, and she can take Joe Manchin with her.
"That's bullshi—…. I'm not going to put up with that," Manchin told Politico when discussing the prospect of Democrats blocking the Republican agenda over the next two years.