soo it appears some do not know President Obama as well as they think they do...

[VanillaRhapsody]

Obama will veto Keystone bill!!!

http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/06/politics/keystone-obama-veto/

[JoePhilly]

1. And another DU outrage ...

... is on it's death bed.

Obama just needed any opportunity to sign Keystone!!! Part of his evil plan!!

Oh well, maybe some other "last straw" will emerge.

[NewDeal_Dem]

23. Keystone was already on its death bed thanks to low oil prices.

[upaloopa]

52. You are good at Monday morning quarterbacking.

That doesn't take talent.

[JoePhilly]

88. Na, I simply don't get caught up in the ...

... endless DU manufactured outrage, hair on fire, OMG Obama is about to force Keystone into law nonsense that goes on around here.

The Keystone situation is much like the "OMG, Obama is going to cave and GUT Social Security!!!!" OPs that DU had over and over and over, for Obama's first 6 years.

Endless hair on fire predictions, then, it doesn't happen.

Same was true for DADT ... Obama was never going to end it.

Same for an invasion of Syria, predicted by exasperated posters over and over, never happened.

The conventional wisdom on DU was that Obama was secretly planning to approve Keystone, and all he needed was an opportunity to do so ... the BASTARD!!!

And now, the opportunity is right in front of him. And he's going to veto it.

Tells you something about DU's Combustible Hair Club.

[jberryhill]

2. This move confirms that he is going to eviscerate Social Security

[randys1]

3. Exactly, just as soon as he outlaws Gay marriage and donuts

[JustAnotherGen]

4. Don't forget

He's going to make it illegal to sell anything but a Holiday Tree.

[rbrnmw]

11. he is also outlawing sprinkles on Christmas cookies.

[JustAnotherGen]

15. That ain't right

[rbrnmw]

17. not my sprinkles noooo

[Marr]

5. He's not promising to oppose the pipeline here, sorry.

He's promising to veto a Congressional power grab on the topic, which would take the decision out of his hands.

I certainly hope he will oppose the pipeline, but this... is not that.

[zipplewrath]

6. Exactly

But I'm afraid the BOG won't understand this distinction.

I was thinking today, I wonder what he'll trade the pipeline for in the future when they start connecting it to "must pass" legislation.

[VanillaRhapsody]

9. You mean the imitation distinction the "anti-boggers" create?

"President Barack Obama will veto the Keystone XL bill if Congress passes a measure green-lighting the oil pipeline, White House press secretary Josh Earnest announced on Tuesday.

[zipplewrath]

27. No

The distinction between Obama saying it isn't time to approve the pipeline NOW and reserving the right to approve it later.

[VanillaRhapsody]

48. because AS I said...he holds his cards close to his vest....he doesn't telegraph his punches....

He likes to hit the R's with a surprise Left Hook....haven't you learned anything about this man YET???

[zipplewrath]

53. Not to mention his "supporters"

The left has been hit with more than one of these "left hooks".
Which is how we ended up with mandates and no PO.
Not to mention tripling our presence in Afghanistan.

[VanillaRhapsody]

54. This supporter hasn't....

Perhaps some have the glass jaw!

Maybe if you are being hit by the same blows the R's are....you might want to rethink your positions...

[Marr]

14. Yep, it's a piece of political currency.

We'll see if it ends up being 'traded', and for what. I hope it goes down-- I'd truly like to applaud Obama on this point. But it would not surprise me in the least to see him offer it up to Republicans in "exchange" for some magic beans; like a temporary extension of something we already have.

[VanillaRhapsody]

19. of course not....

Why should now be any different than all the other times he surprised YOU???

[zipplewrath]

25. It isn't

That's sorta the point. His veto isn't a sign of anything larger. One learns not to read to much into one of his actions.

Like when he said that health insurance mandates were like solving the homeless crisis by demanding everyone buy a house.

[VanillaRhapsody]

28. what the heck does that have to do with this....

if they thought they were going to fast track Keystone on through.....they just got denied....much to the chagrin that some have here that he does the will of the Republican party.

[Marr]

30. I've never said he serves the will of the Republican Party.

I've said he tends to serve the will of Wall Street and the 1%, and he does. That's just demonstrably true. He's also a very smart politician who knows how to position himself and his party to move legislation.

One of his signature moves, which we've all seen several times now, is to move unpopular agenda items by presenting them as a "compromise" with the Republicans. Extending those tax cuts for the rich, for instance, in exchange for a temporary extension of unemployment benefits. Or offering Chained CPI, ostensibly as something ceded in exchange for a budget.

[pampango]

33. There is a difference between the will of the republican party and the will of the 1%?

I've never said he serves the will of the Republican Party. I've said he tends to serve the will of Wall Street and the 1%, and he does.

It is possible for a president to serve one and not the other? If the 1% want the pipeline, how is threatening to veto the GOP's passage of it serving the 1%? Are the Obama-doubters now the ones claiming that he is playing multi-dimensional chess?

Yes, moving "unpopular agenda items" is Obama's fault. When he offers them as a "compromise" with the republicans, we should not blame republicans for insisting on these "unpopular" items but Obama for the nasty deed of compromising for something he deems important - like unemployment benefits. Do you oppose the act of compromising ever or just that his compromises were not ones you would have made or do you think he actually supports lower taxes for the rich and the pipeline?

Krugman: Why the One Percent Hates Obama - Their tax rates back to pre-Reagan levels

[Marr]

42. Sometimes, yes.

If Obama wants to keep the Keystone XL as a potential "compromise" point in some larger deal, then he'd be at odds with the Republicans when they want to take the decision out of his hands.

Look, just because you accept these "compromises" as sincere doesn't mean they are. To me, and many others, they often look more like political theater allowing both parties to push an agenda item while leaving one of them room to say they had no choice.

I don't really see how anyone could deny that this sort of thing is a staple of politics.

[VanillaRhapsody]

47. and who do YOU think the Republican Party serves?

[Marr]

55. Is this really so hard to grasp?

The Republican Party serves the 1%-- and itself. There is a powerful faction in the Democratic Party that also services the 1%. The DLC/Third Way has plainly stated their goal of attracting more money from big business and moving the party away from its traditional constituencies (labor unions in particular).

[VanillaRhapsody]

57. ding ding ding.....winner winner chicken dinner!!!!

there is NO powerful "Third Way" faction....they are NOT powerful.....the largest caucus in Congress is still the Progressive Caucus....you just fail to recognize some Congressmen as members....

So wrong on so many counts....

[Marr]

58. Oh, c'mon-- you're not going to convince anyone that the Third Way/DLC types aren't

a powerful faction in the Democratic Party. They make up the leadership, for crying out loud.

[VanillaRhapsody]

59. For crying out loud....you give them way too much credit....

damn few Blue Dogs around anymore...unlike years of yore...

[zipplewrath]

43. Just because he vetoes it, doesn't mean he's going to ultimately block it.

That is the distinction being lost in the OP.

[VanillaRhapsody]

49. No its a imitation distinction only held on to by those afraid to eat crow....

[zipplewrath]

60. Hardly

He can easily veto this current legislation and still ultimately approve the pipeline. It leaves him in control. And he can figure easily that he's better vetoing it now, when he's getting nothing for approval, and then trade for it later when he can get something he wants for it (increased minimum wage, ACA funding, etc.)

What actually has many of us concerned is that he'll trade this, which is relatively permanent, for something temporary, like a one year funding extension or something.

[VanillaRhapsody]

62. and that would be completely ridiculous.....

the man does NOT telegraph his punches...the Far Left have been wrong about him over and over and over again....yet they keep on trying to predict what he will or won't do!

Lets just say the Left Leaning Independents.... have some credibility issues...

[zipplewrath]

64. Which part?

The part where he maintains control and authority?
Or the part where he gets something from the GOP for doing what they want him to do?

[VanillaRhapsody]

66. Oh is he a Tyrant now????

that sounds awfully like the Far Right calling him a Dictator to me!

[zipplewrath]

70. Please out line where I used the word Tyrant.

Really, how about sticking to the substance of what I wrote, both of which are fairly straight forward exercised of executive power.

[VanillaRhapsody]

71. You didn't but you sure described one!

"The part where he maintains control and authority?"

You gave only 2 POSSIBLE scenarios.....one of which was ^^^ that....the other is him being the puppet of the Right Wing! So apparently he is either a Tyrant whose only motivation is control and authority or he is a puppet....you don't recognize anything else at all!

Neither of these has EVER been seen as a pattern with this man....he has surprised Left Leaning Indpenedents over and over again (just like he has the Far Right by the way)....yet no one is supposed to notice that Left Leaning Independents have NOTHING but a negative point of view about this man.....he could NEVER satisfy them because they see the world through gloom and doom glasses (just like the Far Right does I might add). He has NEVER done a single thing that Left Leaning Independents have EVER given him a sliver of credit for (also much like the Rightwing)....YET the rest of us are supposed to take their negative points of view seriously!

[zipplewrath]

81. Not "Only"

I gave two. I could have given more.

Neither of course was being a "puppet", I was crediting him with SOME negotiating skills, which he has rarely demonstrated.

And he has been credited by the left. I'm sorry your hatred for them blinds you to this.

You regularly see things that aren't there.

[VanillaRhapsody]

82. but you didn't....you for some reason chose only the worst two you could think of!

hmmmmmmmm why is that? and YOU have the audacity to accuse ME of hatred?

Don't try to turn this into MY problem....a little "introspection" on your part is very warranted.

[zipplewrath]

89. How are they the "worst"?

You're projecting a tad here. The first just has him maintaining control over the process. How is that the "worst"?

Oh, and you saw the recent statements out of the White House right? The ones where they stated that he may still approve the project, now that the Oklahoma Supreme Court has weighed in right?

Mr. Schultz said the president would still veto Keystone legislation pending in Congress if it is sent to him for consideration. “Regardless of the Nebraska ruling today, the House bill still conflicts with long-standing executive branch procedures regarding the authority of the president and prevents the thorough consideration of complex issues that could bear on U.S. national interests.”

In fact, the State Dept. environmental impact report issued last year actually was seen as an open door (under his own criteria) for Pres. Obama to approve the project.

NYT:


The department’s long-awaited environmental impact statement appears to indicate that the project could pass the criteria Mr. Obama set forth in a speech last summer when he said he would approve the 1,700-mile pipeline if it would not “significantly exacerbate” the problem of greenhouse gas emissions. Although the pipeline would carry 830,000 barrels of oil a day from Canada to the Gulf Coast, the report appears to indicate that if it were not built, carbon-heavy oil would still be extracted at the same rate from pristine Alberta forest and transported to refineries by rail instead.

[NYC Liberal]

67. Just like all those massive Social Security cuts he's making every other week.

I remember when he was pushing for the DADT repeal and many of the same folks were fervently insisting that he would never actually sign it. And then he did, and he was still attacked.

[VanillaRhapsody]

69. and they think we ALWAYS forget how OFTEN they have been wrong about Pres. Obama!

its been more than 6 yrs of them being wrong about him.....yet WE are supposed to think "they" are the real Democrats! They have some real credibility issues!

[NYC Liberal]

73. It just makes me remember that FDR was attacked in the same way,

by the same kind of people. They called him a corporatist, said he was in bed with bankers, and even wanted to replace him on the ticket in 1936 with a "Real Liberal."

Nothing new.

[VanillaRhapsody]

74. You are soooo right!

My grandmother who voted for FDR told me "there is nothing new under the sun". That in her lifetime she saw the same shit among R's and D's....same as it ever was according to her!

[NYC Liberal]

75. Personally, I'm tired of the attempts to manufacture fights among liberal/progressive leaders.

If you only read DU you'd think Hillary and EW were sworn enemies who hated each other's guts, when in the real world they are two great liberal Democrats who support each other. Every supporter of Hillary Clinton I know (and I'm one of them) also thinks Warren is fantastic and would happily vote for her should she win the nomination in 2016.

We are constantly told here how terrible President Obama is; nothing he does is right or good enough. Oh and that he's a "piece of shit" (who's worse than Richard Nixon). I've personally been told here that all of his progressive accomplishments don't matter.

So, the question to ask is: Who benefits when Democrats are divided and constantly attack their own leaders instead of Republicans? Hmmmm....

[VanillaRhapsody]

78. Right again on all counts!

It is unbelievable that here on DU there is so much belly aching about Democrats and complaining about DU members that support them....yet not once have I heard the "supporters" say they would "simply not vote at all" if any particular Democrat wins the nomination BUT I have heard it many times by the Left Leaning Independents.....you know the old saying...."with friends like these..."

[NYC Liberal]

83. It's amazing how much crap people get for supporting the Democratic President on "Democratic Underground"

I come to DU because I support DEMOCRATS for office. Not "Left Leaning Independents". I will vote for the Democratic nominee come November 2016, whether it's Hillary or Warren...or someone else.

The DU Terms of Service hits the nail on the head:

Everyone here on DU needs to work together to elect more Democrats and fewer Republicans to all levels of American government. If you are bashing, trashing, undermining, or depressing turnout for our candidates during election season, we'll assume you are rooting for the other side.

[Fred Sanders]

80. They had nothing but praise for each other personally, they may disagree on some things, but

the Two Armed Camps at DU...ridiculous.

[pampango]

34. Uh oh. The obligatory "BOG" reference.

Is everyone with whom you disagree a member of an 'evil empire' of sorts?

So the 1% wants the pipeline. (Unfortunately the pipeline is also popular in the polls as well.) Some believe that Obama secretly does too. (Though promising a veto of a bill that is also popular in the polls seems a strange way to prove it.)

When (not if) the majority-republican congress now authorizes the pipeline, he will veto it. Now one would assume this will make the 1% mad because they are not getting their new toy. Do you believe that, while he is vetoing the 1%'s new toy and asking congressional Democrats to uphold his veto of a popular bill, he is secretly winking at them and telling them, "Don't worry I will make sure you get your toy but it will have to be as part of a 'compromise at a later date'. Don't be too concerned. You know that I never get much from your republican servants in DC. The 'compromise' will be a bad one for liberals." Wink, wink.

I wonder if republicans often accused republican presidents of threatening to veto liberal bills, which they secretly supported, only so they could frustrate their base by offering the vetoed bill as a 'compromise' down the road.

[zipplewrath]

44. No

They aren't a member of an evil empire. But neither do they stick their fingers in their ears and say "La, la, la I can't hear you".

I believe he will accept this pipeline as part of a compromise in the future, and he doesn't want that taken from him now. My concern is mostly about what he'll get for what he'll give away.

[VanillaRhapsody]

50. because the THINK they know this man's mind....even though they are wrong about him OVER and

OVER and OVER again!

They don't think we can connect those dots!

[Igel]

10. Not much of a power grab.

Mostly just exerting an authority that's seldom been exerted.

President has general foreign affairs powers.

Congress has the specific authority to regulate international commerce.

Congress has rarely done this in the last 50-100 years, but until it became tradition for the Executive to do what Congress wasn't in the face of a perceived or real need the presidents typically said right up front, We're doing it in the absence of any Congressional action.

It's beyond saying that since Congress hasn't dealt with immigration, the President can.

It's saying that because the President has, any attempt to interfere is a Congressional "power grab." That somehow Presidential action and Congressional inaction voids or rewrites Constitutional language.

The State Dept. has typically issued permits for this kind of thing, with authority granted by delegation of Presidential authority. And when the President decided to ignore or overrule the State Dept., there was a similar kind of claim: This was the State Dept.'s jurisdiction, separate from what the President has authority over. It was viewed by some (who objected to not having the pipelined nixed by the State Dept.) as a Presidential power grab.

That last bit sounds familiar.

[NewDeal_Dem]

26. Thanks for that. I was too lazy to read the article. A good lesson; always read the fine print.

[Enrique]

36. yes, he might want to get credit for approving the pipeline

that could make political sense given the support for the pipeline in polls, and of course intense support from some special interests.

On the other hand, he has made substantive arguments against the pipeline recently, so he may very well intend on killing it.

By the way, regardless of the fact that it is the State Department which is technically making the decision, I think it's really Obama's decision, whichever way it goes.

[VanillaRhapsody]

51. OR you could be wrong about President Obama yet again!

How many times have the "anti Boggers" been wrong about him so far????

[Fred Sanders]

79. That is true, but Obama has made it clear he is no fan of the pipeline.

[AtomicKitten]

7. There's a lawsuit pending in Nebraska.

He's mentioned that a few times. He also has told the truth, that (1) it will create 35 permanent jobs and (2) it will be sold on the world market.

I'm more concerned about Chuck Schumer adding amendments to make the bill more palatable and what exactly the implications are of that.

[RiverLover]

8. Bingo! Me too. nt

[Phlem]

12. Excellent news!

[onecaliberal]

13. He's been saying he wouldn't sign it for quite a while.

This shouldn't surprise anyone who pays attention.

[Enrique]

37. i think he's been hinting up until now

this is an announcement, not a hint.

[WillyT]

16. Ah... VR... He Giveth... And He Taketh Away...

No Keystone... Good... Oil Pricing May Have Made That Easier...

TPP... Not So Much...

[rhett o rick]

18. This is what happens when the left ignores the Centrists and holds his feet to the fire. nm

[VanillaRhapsody]

20. Oh good grief!!!!

[rhett o rick]

39. We've been saying to deny approval of the pipeline for a long time only to be disparage by

others that took a neutral (wait and see) attitude, just like fracking and the TPP.

[VanillaRhapsody]

68. The "Wait and See" attitude was about President Obama.....

and we told YOU "wait and see"!

WE are NOT the surprised ones in this equation!

[rhett o rick]

84. It's hard to surprise someone that doesn't care. The progressive have been asking the president for

a long time to disapprove the Koch Pipeline. The non-progressives kept silent about the issue watching to see which way the Pres would take.

The progressive are against fracking. How do you feel?

[Phlem]

21. Amen!

[Ramses]

22. +1000

nailed it

[VanillaRhapsody]

29. Wow....talk about a "power grab" ....LMAO!

[Katashi_itto]

24. +1

[JustAnotherGen]

31. FYI - two Saturdays prior to the November election

A group of centrist Democrats got together for a house party fundraiser for the NJ 7 th district. The "star" draw was Booker - by many accounts a centrist.

This centrist expressed her thoughts on this stupidity.

So she thanks you and Greg Palast and Robert Redford for the stellar education - but I had nothing but head shakes of "yes" in agreement when I expressed how monumentally stupid it is to sacrifice water for millions of people to make Canada and the Koch brothers happy. From a bunch of centrists - who knew!

[LanternWaste]

45. After this, therefore because of this.

After this, therefore because of this.

[rhett o rick]

46. If you believe in representative government then you are obligated to lobby your elected

representatives. Many on the left have been lobbying for the Pres to take a stand against the Koch Pipeline for years all the while being disparaged as being Obama haters. Kinda like what's happening now with fracking and the TPP.

Putting pressure on elected representatives doesn't always work (we lost on indefinite detention and torture) but it's one of the few tools we have.

[msanthrope]

87. Rhett....none of us ever thought it would pass. We all knew we'd get

the right decision after the midterms.

We were cool, baby.

[fadedrose]

32. I'm happy for the Native Americans

whose sacred ground lays in the path...

[Scuba]

35. Is this the same guy who just signed a bill de-regulating derivatives and allowing more ....

... dark money in elections?

If so, the talley card is still tilted in the wrong direction.

[Shivering Jemmy]

77. wrong

[Scuba]

86. So he vetoed the CROmnibus? Hadn't heard that.

[Andy823]

38. Kind sad in a way

So many here can't stand to see the president in a positive light, they only want to see the negative. Could be that's just the way their life is, they see only the negative and refuse to admit that sometimes things aren't as bad as they think. Of course there are those here who are simply trolls with a completely different agenda and simply do their best to spread the doom and gloom so many here want to see.

[rhett o rick]

40. It's not necessary to call people "trolls" that merely wish to encourage the President

to follow a progressive path. He gets credit when he does and criticism when he doesn't. That's how it should work. Going along with every thing he does is neither Democratic nor democratic.

You think so badly of DU to claim that "so many here want to see" "doom and gloom"? I think the left want's to turn around the trend of the middle and working classes sliding into oligarchy.

[Andy823]

41. Never said that we should always go along

Please don't put words in my mouth. As for the troll comment, I did not say "every" person who disagrees is a troll. I believe there are trolls here who simply want to divide the board and stir up shit on a daily basis. The doom and gloom bunch are only willing to see the negative, never the positive. When new jobs are created they complain about low wages, yet I never hear them talk about taking that issue to their state reps, or about working on getting the minimum wage on the ballot in their states. When the president does something, like vetoing the pipeline they don't give him credit, they bring up all kinds of other things to bash him with.

The trolls know who they are, and as I said many of them are very obvious in what they are doing. I have no problem with people wanting to change things and make them better, I just have a problem with those who are only negative towards the president, and the democratic party as a whole and only want to stir things up day after day.

[Marr]

56. Yes, it's sad that Obama's most adoring fans are this desperate to cheer.

He did not veto the pipeline. He did not promise to veto the pipeline.

He promised to veto a bill that would take the decision out of his hands. That's a smart move, certainly-- but it means absolutely nothing in regards to his ultimate position on the pipeline's approval. How can people praise Obama as a smart politician (which he most certainly is) and so dogmatically refuse to acknowledge something like this?

Again, it's like his fans are so damned starved for something to cheer, something to wag in the faces of cynics, that they just ignore reality.

[Andy823]

76. Really?

"Starved for something to cheer"! Are you serious. The man has brought us back from the Bush recession and accomplish one hell of a lot since being elected. How do you think this country would be right now if he had NOT been elected?

Sorry, but it's those who bash him daily that have a problem, not those of us who support him.

[VanillaRhapsody]

63. there are a lot of Left Leaning Independent curmudgeons on this site that is for sure!

they are like Eeyore! Woe is me...Woe is me....gloom and doom...gloom and doom. Politics of fear too!

[TBF]

61. Good! Next VETO should be TPP.

[VanillaRhapsody]

65. This was just a threat in response to THEM....

He holds his cards close to his vest...he is not going to reveal anything he is up to without a very good reason to do so....everything is strategic. You only need to look at the big picture and give the man some damn credit for a change. My Grandmother always said....you catch more flies with honey than you do vinegar....all the Left Leaning Independents have is vinegar....not enough carrot...tooo much stick! Why should he even care WHAT they think....he will obviously never be able to please them!

[TBF]

72. I have no issue with him -

My issue is with capitalism. I wouldn't want his job & if I were him I'd do my vetoes from Hawaii the next 2 years.

[Hekate]

85. They're going down kicking and screaming, VR. The ODS is strooooong.

[VanillaRhapsody]

92. Isn't it though....MY GAWD....I am old enough to remember the Clinton Years AND all the way back

to the Reagan years (the Junior Bush years being the absolute worst).....On that scale......the Obama years are ranking pretty fucking good! AND all the while the Republicans haven't been successful in their crusade to slime this man's reputation with their shit throwing and pathetic impotent attempts at digging up dirt on him....desperate and clinging to straws....gasping and salivating over the puniest shreds of ridiculous faux scandals in the process....continually making themselves look like fools....much to our amusement.


YET....to some....this Administration is an "abject failure and total disappointment"!!!

[Hekate]

93. YOU feel old? Oh, honey, I voted for Humphrey and got flipping Nixon!

Who ARE these infants who talk such trash about Barack Obama? I've waited my whole life for this man, and ... Oh crap, you know what I mean. What I get at DU is "Go back where you came from, the BOG's over there."
aaaaagh

[VanillaRhapsody]

94. Exactly.....sometimes its hard to recognize this place....I swear....its like upside down world!

[kentuck]

90. Elections have a way of changing the political winds...

...especially after getting your ass kicked.

[ChosenUnWisely]

91. Actions speak louder then words........

Get back to us if and when he ACTUALLY BACK UP HIS WORDS WITH ACTION.

Right now all people are hearing and seeing is Rhetoric.

[Hekate]

95. Oooo, is that the "pretty speeches" slur? He acts, checks off one promise after another, but...

....those blinded by Obama Derangement Syndrome cannot see it.

So what was your "unwise choice"? Voted for a Dem and got a Dem instead of the Second Coming of the Messiah?