Obama Issues Veto Threat on Keystone Pipeline Bill...Or Does He?

Townhall.com is reporting a "Veto Threat", but I'm not so sure it's a veto threat.

Look at the language used:

"I can confirm that the president would not sign this bill," Earnest said at Tuesday's White House press briefing after being asked about House Keystone legislation fired earlier in the day.

"We indicated that the president would veto similar legislation considered by the previous congress and our position on this hasn't changed," Earnest said. "I would not anticipate that the president would sign this piece of legislation."

Do you see the difference?

Earnest isn't saying that the President would veto the bill, he's saying the President would not sign the bill. There's a big difference. If the President doesn't sign a bill presented to him within ten days, it becomes law if Congress is not adjourned.

Now, maybe I'm being a little too specific about what the White House Press Secretary said, but I think it's worth considering. After all, the WH Press Secretary is someone who is careful with his words, right? Could Obama take the position that he isn't going to sign the bill, but not veto it? That could be a possible middle ground for him. Could this be possible? Am I onto something?

Or am I just over-lawyering the Press Secretary's words?

Keystone XL Dies in the Senate

Mary Landrieu was just cut loose from the herd.

Democratic incumbent Sen. Mary Landrieu (La.) failed to convince enough members of her party to support the Keystone XL pipeline Tuesday evening, a vote considered a desperate attempt to save her Senate seat.

Legislation that would have expedited the approval of the pipeline failed 41-59, falling short of the 60-vote threshold needed for approval. All 45 Republicans voted for the bill.

Not that getting this vote through would have saved her anyway. Oh well, I guess the next question is whether the new Senate will be able to get to 67 votes.

President Held Hostage By Environmentalists

Obama doesn't want to build the Keystone pipeline because he's an environmentalist. That's fine, I guess. Everyone's entitled to their preferences and priorities.

I guess that he's got global warming (oops, I mean climate change) as a higher priority than creating jobs. Just don't tell me that he's focused on creating jobs. Because he's not.

You know what his real focus is? He's focused on doing everything he can to get a Democrat controlled House next year, and pleasing the environmentalists is his way of shoring up his base. If he allows this pipeline to be built, they'll stay home on election day.

Here's the other thing. The President says that he doesn't want to build the pipeline because it will lead to carbon emissions. Fine, assuming arguendo that everything he says is true, and that carbon emissions will result from the pipeline, and that the world will die a fiery death because of the pipeline. So what?

Canada has a bunch of oil that they want to refine. Do you think if we say no, that they'll just stop? Maybe the Canadians will just build some more refineries in Canada. Also, you don't think the Chinese (or some other country) would be happy to refine the oil? The Canadians could just build a pipeline to British Columbia, and Chinese supertankers get the oil, take it over to China, and then refine it. The oil is going to get to market. That's a guarantee.  And the carbon emissions in the hypothetical that I've described are more than if we just send it down to Louisiana. The only question is whether the USA will be involved.

I just want the President who doesn't think many jobs will be created by this pipeline tell me about all the solar and wind jobs that he's created.

Northern Pipeline Bad; Southern Pipeline Good

Ok, you may recall that our President said "No" to the Keystone XL Pipeline. Apparently, the President gets to have a say whenever a pipeline crosses international borders.  Later, he personally lobbied Senators to vote against the pipeline. He got on the phone and told Senators to vote it down. Ok, fine. He's against the pipeline. I get it.

Apparently, despite our President trying to kill it twice, the folks in Canada who want to move the oil decided to build the Southern portion (Houston to Oklahoma). I guess they're gambling that Obama is going to change his mind or that maybe a new President will approve the Northern part. In any event, the Southern part of the pipeline is being built, and Obama has nothing to do with it. Since it doesn't cross any international borders, that makes sense. With me so far?

So today, our President shows up in Oklahoma, where they are building the pipeline that he has personally tried to kill twice. I'm thinking he going to really give those guys a piece of his mind and tell them that it's just not going to happen, and they need to get on board with clean energy. I'm thinking he's going to say "In your face! I stopped your pipeline!" However, this is what he said:

"Today, I am directing my administration to cut through red tape, break through bureaucratic hurdles and make this project a priority," Obama said amid applause.

Wait, what? Isn't he the "bureaucratic hurdle"? This makes no sense at all. Can one of my readers explain this to me?

We Didn't Really Need Jobs or Oil Anyway

Yeah, I guess this was pretty predictable. Instead of having the oil go through the Great Plains, the Canadians are going to have to pipe it over the Canadian Rockies, load it onto super-tankers, with ship captains who probably like to drink too much and like to play "slalom" with the icebergs (See video below), and refine the oil in China.

Yeah, great move. 

Elizabeth Warren and the Keystone Pipeline

One issue that I haven't heard much about has been the Keystone pipeline. As I understand it this is the deal:

Canada has a bunch of oil. They need to refine this oil. We have one of the world's largest refinery complexes in Houston, TX. Accordingly, a company in Canada would like to partner with some private companies in the USA and build a pipeline (with their own money) to get the oil from Canada to Houston. However, before they can build the pipeline, they need the US Government to agree to let them do this. Seems pretty straightforward to me.

However, the Democrats (in control of the White House and the Senate) are opposed to having the pipeline built. Their argument is that building this pipeline will be a climate-change disaster. Apparently, the benefit of the jobs created, the lowering of the price of oil, and the reduction of our reliance on imported oil from the Middle-East is not enough to offset the danger to Gaia that will result from building a pipeline through the mostly uninhabited great plains.

Even the Boston Herald is starting to see the sheer lunacy of the resistance to this project. They have a new article out criticizing Elizabeth Warren's opposition to this pipeline, who all the Democrats like to think of as "the smartest person in the room".

Here's my favorite part of the article, which perfectly sums up the current Democratic energy policy:

Instead, the Liz Warren left starts with “No war for oil,” then “No oil from Canada,” “No nukes,” “No coal” and then the inevitable, “Hey — wait! My iPad just died and there’s no electricity to charge it. Where’s my oil?!”

Remember: They’re the smart ones.

Just to review: The pipeline will cost zero government dollars; it's being built by private companies. It's the perfect kind of infrastructure we need right now. It will create jobs. It will lower the price of oil. It will reduce our dependence on oil from the middle-east. Oh, and if you think that not building the pipeline is going to thwart Canada from refining the oil - think again. So the oil is going to get refined one way or another. The only question is who do you want refining it: the USA or China?

On a final note: Everything still runs on fossil fuels, so until Elizabeth Warren invents a car that runs on oatmeal and will do 0-60 mph in 7 seconds and will drive for about 400 miles, we're going to still need oil. That's just a damn fact.

My reaction to the Democratic energy policy.