Romney: "I will build that pipeline if I have to myself."

[zulater]

Mitt Romney drew a line in the oil sands on Friday, focusing on the controversial Keystone pipeline project opposed by the White House and saying, “I will build that pipeline if I have to myself.”

Romney blasted Obama on a range of policies during a speech to the Republican National Committee’s State Chairmen’s National Meeting in Arizona, but singled out the controversial project that would route Canadian oil sands south to Gulf Coast refineries.

The White House earlier this year rejected making a decision on the pipeline until the project had been reviewed, a process expected to take at least until after the November elections. But House Republicans this week, when pushing through legislation to extend needed federal transportation program funding, included a mandate to approve the pipeline.

Romney pledged that he would expand drilling for gas and oil as president and would buy oil from Canada. He attacked what Obama has frequently termed his administration’s commitment to an “all of the above” energy plan.

“It does not seem like an all of the above energy policy to me,” Romney said. “And then I figured it out: The president does like all of the above. He likes all of the energy sources that come from above the ground. So anything below the ground he doesn’t like: Coal, oil, gas. We all like wind and solar. But we also like those below the ground.”

http://thehill.com/video/campaign/22...have-to-myself

[suitanim]

Mitt Romney drew a line in the oil sands on Friday, focusing on the controversial Keystone pipeline project opposed by the White House and saying, “I will build that pipeline if I have to myself.”

Romney blasted Obama on a range of policies during a speech to the Republican National Committee’s State Chairmen’s National Meeting in Arizona, but singled out the controversial project that would route Canadian oil sands south to Gulf Coast refineries.

The White House earlier this year rejected making a decision on the pipeline until the project had been reviewed, a process expected to take at least until after the November elections. But House Republicans this week, when pushing through legislation to extend needed federal transportation program funding, included a mandate to approve the pipeline.

Romney pledged that he would expand drilling for gas and oil as president and would buy oil from Canada. He attacked what Obama has frequently termed his administration’s commitment to an “all of the above” energy plan.

“It does not seem like an all of the above energy policy to me,” Romney said. “And then I figured it out: The president does like all of the above. He likes all of the energy sources that come from above the ground. So anything below the ground he doesn’t like: Coal, oil, gas. We all like wind and solar. But we also like those below the ground.”

http://thehill.com/video/campaign/22...have-to-myself

He's just a clone of Obama, though...errrrrrrr.............ummmmmmmmmmm....... .......

[GoSlash27]

If you don't like what he's saying, give him a couple days.

[suitanim]

The most interesting aspect of this battle is how it once again highlights the key differences between the GOP and the Democrats. While the GOP is almost 100% in lock-step agreement over XL Keystone, the Democrats are deeply divided. On one hand you have the Environazis who thinks it's better to dot every hill with thousands of windmills and litter every valley with thousands of solar panels whilst the government subsidizes the whole mess to the tune of billions, and on the other you have the unions who feel Obama owes them for all their campaign contributions. Their vision is obviously much clearer inj it's simplicity, as they see the XL as meaning somewhere between 20,000 and 100,000 new jobs, and probably a good chunk of them union jobs.

The problem is both the envirowhcks and the unions are far too indoctrinated to actually vote AGAINST Obama in a general, so he has the political capital to make a decision that necessarily will displease one or the other.

HOWEVER, with gas still hovering around $4 a gallon, and unemployment above 8% for the foreseeable future, this is one of those issues that if the GOP digs in and starts battering Hopey over non-stop between now and November, it should draw off some Independent votes from him. I don't know if it's a fatal wound for him, but it's definitely a deep one...

Incidentally, I had to laugh because yesterday the AP had a story that basically tells us that gas prices won't rise anymore, so we should be happy at $3.75. Which is a fucking joke, because gas should probably be not a nickel higher than $2.50. This was nothing but a pro-Hopey puff piece trying to get all of us to drink the Kool-aid that irresponsibly and unnecessarily high gas prices are bad under Bush, good and okay under Obama. I also saw a story that wasn't even from the Onion that asserted that (hold onto your socks and pull, THIS is a good one!) the media actually favored Romney over Obama!

With this kind of mis/disinformation ubiquitous in the pop media, no wonder Obama is still tied with Romney in the polls!

[Mach1]

If you don't like what he's saying, give him a couple days.

Really?

President Flip Flop: Barack Obama’s Broken Promises, Policy Reversals and Continuous Flip Flops

http://www.therightsphere.com/2012/0...us-flip-flops/

It a very loooong list.

[suitanim]

Really?


http://www.therightsphere.com/2012/0...us-flip-flops/

It a very loooong list.

I think the salient point was that, even for the people who have bought the media meme that Romney is a flip-flopper, he's made such a pretty profound statement when he says something like "I'll build it myself" that there is effectively nowhere else to go with it. This isn't like Obama leading from behind, vacillating and hemming and hawing. Romney has definitively made his case here. End of story, he's 100% behind XL Keystone pipeline. Any diversions by his detractors or opponents are, again, irrelevant...

As an aside, when I ever get back to the "Setting the record straight" thread, the job is made much easier because both of these guys have executive records to pull from versus simple campaign promises.

[GoSlash27]

Really?


http://www.therightsphere.com/2012/0...us-flip-flops/
It a very loooong list.

No argument here. Is this supposed to somehow prove that Romney is not a flip-flopper? 'Cuz seems to me that this just shows yet another trait they have in common.

[GoSlash27]

I think the salient point was that, even for the people who have bought the media meme that Romney is a flip-flopper, he's made such a pretty profound statement when he says something like "I'll build it myself" that there is effectively nowhere else to go with it. This isn't like Obama leading from behind, vacillating and hemming and hawing. Romney has definitively made his case here. End of story, he's 100% behind XL Keystone pipeline. Any diversions by his detractors or opponents are, again, irrelevant...

As an aside, when I ever get back to the "Setting the record straight" thread, the job is made much easier because both of these guys have executive records to pull from versus simple campaign promises.

False. If it proves politically expedient, he'll just say "I have always been against the pipeline".

[SMR]

False. If it proves politically expedient, he'll just say "I have always been against the pipeline".

I understand what you're saying, but something tells me Romney won't flip flop on this one, IMHO.

[zulater]

I understand what you're saying, but something tells me Romney won't flip flop on this one, IMHO.

That would kill slash. He'd hate for Romney to do anything that might help this country and would be viewed as a political success. Kinda fucked up when you think about it.

[GoSlash27]

I understand what you're saying, but something tells me Romney won't flip flop on this one, IMHO.

You may be right, but remember that the only thing that will keep him from reversing direction and blatantly lying about his previous position is a lack of motive.

[GoSlash27]

That would kill slash. He'd hate for Romney to do anything that might help this country and would be viewed as a political success. Kinda fucked up when you think about it.

Not half as fucked up as expecting somebody like Romney to exhibit traits such as honesty, consistency, or conservatism. I have no idea why you'd hope for anything from the man other than what you've already seen.

[zulater]

Not half as fucked up as expecting somebody like Romney to exhibit traits such as honesty, consistency, or conservatism. I have no idea why you'd hope for anything from the man other than what you've already seen.

I hope and expect to Romney to do a much better job than the current President when and if elected to office.

[suitanim]

If Romney is elected the XL Pipeline will be completed. Period. There's nothing more to say.

[The Patriot]

It's funny how Keynesian Republicans suddenly become when the oil companies are involved.

[suitanim]

It's funny how Keynesian Republicans suddenly become when the oil companies are involved.

If anything, I'd say the enviroweenies were the Keynesian's on this one. You're going to have to explain to me how the GOP wanting to greenlight a private pipleline project is Keynesian.

Heard an interesting corollary (that is very, very plausible) theory as to why Obama drug his feet: Trains.

Buffet just invested a shit-ton in trains, and (very few people know this) there are 2 100-car trains a day shipping oil from the tar sands to the refineries in Texas. Now, the greenies should know that shipping oil via rail is potentially 100,000X more damaging to the environment than a pipeline, but that doesn't fit the narrative, so we hear nothing about it. The longer there is no pipeline, the longer Buffet gets to monopolize the shipping of this oil.

[Mach1]

Those evil greedy rich, unless your a demorat it's okay.

[The Patriot]

If anything, I'd say the enviroweenies were the Keynesian's on this one. You're going to have to explain to me how the GOP wanting to greenlight a private pipleline project is Keynesian.

Heard an interesting corollary (that is very, very plausible) theory as to why Obama drug his feet: Trains.

Buffet just invested a shit-ton in trains, and (very few people know this) there are 2 100-car trains a day shipping oil from the tar sands to the refineries in Texas. Now, the greenies should know that shipping oil via rail is potentially 100,000X more damaging to the environment than a pipeline, but that doesn't fit the narrative, so we hear nothing about it. The longer there is no pipeline, the longer Buffet gets to monopolize the shipping of this oil.

I myself am not opposed to a private pipeline, but I remember reading that over 50 landowners in its path were complaining that TransCanada was threatening them with eminent domain. If green-lighting this project means declaring eminent domain or subsidizing it in the interest of the nation, then that's Keynesian economics. Which can be good... except that it disrupts the conservative narrative that government doesn't do anything for big corporations.

But yeah, if TransCanada is going to buy up all the land and pay for the pipeline's construction and maintenance, then by all means. But somehow I get the feeling there are some hidden subsidies to follow.

As for the Obama theory, its interesting, given the Democrats recent scandal with alternative energy and Obama's notable preoccupation with trains.

[GoSlash27]

I myself am not opposed to a private pipeline, but I remember reading that over 50 landowners in its path were complaining that TransCanada was threatening them with eminent domain. If green-lighting this project means declaring eminent domain or subsidizing it in the interest of the nation, then that's Keynesian economics. Which can be good... except that it disrupts the conservative narrative that government doesn't do anything for big corporations.

But yeah, if TransCanada is going to buy up all the land and pay for the pipeline's construction and maintenance, then by all means. But somehow I get the feeling there are some hidden subsidies to follow.

As for the Obama theory, its interesting, given the Democrats recent scandal with alternative energy and Obama's notable preoccupation with trains.

No it's not. Keynesian economics is the theory that government deficit spending spurs growth regardless of how the money is spent. Let's not mix terms here. What you're talking about is free enterprise vs. centralized economic planning, and Suit's response is the obvious rebuttal; it is the central planners that are hindering the project in the first place.

[The Patriot]

No it's not. Keynesian economics is the theory that government deficit spending spurs growth regardless of how the money is spent. Let's not mix terms here. What you're talking about is free enterprise vs. centralized economic planning, and Suit's response is the obvious rebuttal; it is the central planners that are hindering the project in the first place.

Keynesian economics, as I understand it, is government intervention in the private sector to stimulate economic growth. Deficit spending is just one controversial aspect of the school of thought. The proponents of the pipeline argue job creation and energy independence. I'm pretty sure government spending to create private sector jobs is Keynesian, but then I could be wrong. You could argue economic planning, but I don't see how supporting a private pipeline benefits the nation all that much. Oil companies have money. If there is oil to be had, they'll find a way to transport it. Conveniencing TransCanada won't significantly decrease global oil prices as much as it will increase a private company's profit.

[GoSlash27]

Keynesian economics, as I understand it, is government intervention in the private sector to stimulate economic growth. Deficit spending is just one controversial aspect of the school of thought.

That's where the error is coming from; your definition is incorrect. Keynesian economics is simply a macroeconomic theory of the business cycle and how government monetary policy effects it. You can see it in play in FED policies such as QE and maintaining low prime rates, but it has nothing to do with this case.

[suitanim]

Keynesian economics, as I understand it, is government intervention in the private sector to stimulate economic growth. Deficit spending is just one controversial aspect of the school of thought. The proponents of the pipeline argue job creation and energy independence. I'm pretty sure government spending to create private sector jobs is Keynesian, but then I could be wrong. You could argue economic planning, but I don't see how supporting a private pipeline benefits the nation all that much. Oil companies have money. If there is oil to be had, they'll find a way to transport it. Conveniencing TransCanada won't significantly decrease global oil prices as much as it will increase a private company's profit.

A) Pipeline is safer, cheaper, an more effective than rail. B) There will be job creation. No one knows how much, as the figures vary. The left should be happy because, regardless, there WILL be at least hundreds of new permanent regulator jobs from this (I'm tongue-in-cheek, but it's also true), C) Even if not a single drop of this oil stays in the US for domestic consumption, it will still be a reliable supply from a stable source dumped into the World markets, so there will be a positive net effect. It's my understanding, though, that in the long-term, this will have a significant impact on domestic supplies. Refineries will almost certainly be built, plus there is always the fact that the profits stay in the originating country.

Eminent domain is a long standing precedent in this country. It's muddying the waters to bring that into the discussion as some kind of anti-GOP smoking gun, as that had NOTHING to do with Hopey's decision to delay this until he (thinks) get re-elected.

[GoSlash27]

As an aside, when I ever get back to the "Setting the record straight" thread, the job is made much easier because both of these guys have executive records to pull from versus simple campaign promises.

Uh-oh! Looks like GoSlash27 has thrown the challenge flag. Let's go to the tape.



After reviewing the statement, the premise on the field is overturned...

[SteelCityMom]

Ok, I haven't read the whole thread...and this isn't a comment supporting Obama or anything....but does anyone realize that the fact that the pipeline goes from Canada to the Gulf means that the oil is being exported? Are we even likely to see the benefits of this pipeline?

This isn't about oil, but natural gas. I live in W. PA. I have a frack pad literally 300 ft. behind my house (at the moment). The majority of natural gas that we produce here in PA goes offshore, and we never reap the benefits of it (not even in jobs...most jobs are out of state). I know that's a bit off topic, but where is this gas and oil going? And what is the US being reimbursed?

Maybe I'm in the minority, but I'd like to see the benefits of something like this.

[Mach1]

but does anyone realize that the fact that the pipeline goes from Canada to the Gulf means that the oil is being exported?

Or could it be thats where the refineries are located?

[X-Terminator]

We are reaping some of the benefit in that natural gas prices have plummeted since we started drilling for it. I remember way back in the 90s my grandmother getting $1000+ gas bills for the winter months (Dec-Feb). As far as I know, that isn't happening as much (then again, I haven't had to pay for natural gas in almost 10 years). But yeah, I'd like to see more of the gas (and oil) staying here and the companies keeping more jobs here rather than send them out of state. As far as how much we are being paid for the gas we ship overseas...well, I'd like to know that myself.

[SteelCityMom]

Or could it be thats where the refineries are located?

That very well may be true...but there are refineries in PA too, and the natural gas still gets shipped overseas. People here were lured in by the promise of jobs, cheap gas, and money for the state...which hasn't panned out the way politicians said it would.

[SteelCityMom]

We are reaping some of the benefit in that natural gas prices have plummeted since we started drilling for it. I remember way back in the 90s my grandmother getting $1000+ gas bills for the winter months (Dec-Feb). As far as I know, that isn't happening as much (then again, I haven't had to pay for natural gas in almost 10 years). But yeah, I'd like to see more of the gas (and oil) staying here and the companies keeping more jobs here rather than send them out of state. As far as how much we are being paid for the gas we ship overseas...well, I'd like to know that myself.

That's about where I'm at too. I've never seen a $1k gas bill, but prices vary from company to company sometimes. I think $500 was the most I ever saw, and that was in a crappy little house in the city. $200-$250 has been average for us for a while now (but I like to keep the heat down anyway).

I'm not against any of this, in terms of natural gas or the pipeline...I just want to know that the jobs and money are REALLY staying here where they belong. So far, I don't feel very confident in that.

[Mach1]

which hasn't panned out the way politicians said it would.

lol....nothing these ass hats ever say pans out.

[suitanim]

Of COURSE natural gas is going to get shipped overseas...we have a glut of it. These companies aren't going to take a loss on the gas they are drilling for. This is still America, and profits are not (in spite of what Hopey might have you think) a bad word. It's cheap as dirt now, and I see no reason why a company can't try to make some money along the way. Fracking also creates jobs, too, so...

As far as piping the oil to the Gulf, as another has said, that's where the refineries are. If the oil companies want to add their gas, refined in the US, in a stable country, into the World supply, good for them. It will still drive the price down, and if they earn more profits, they can turn around and reinvest in drilling even more oil in the US and Canada.

The lefty envirowhacks have done such a good job crucifying oil companies that it's almost acceptable to just rip them up without thought. It's still better to stop and think critically about the matter first...