10 Democrats vote with GOP to advance Keystone bill.

[AtomicKitten]

They have the numbers to filibuster.

Ass.Holes.

link: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/12/senate-keystone-pipeline_n_6459386.html

WASHINGTON -- The Senate advanced legislation Monday night to approve the Keystone XL pipeline, even though President Barack Obama has already said he would veto it.

The Senate voted 63-32 to clear a procedural hurdle and begin debate on the bill. Ten Democrats and one independent, Angus King (Maine), voted with every Republican to move the bill forward. Those Democrats included Sens. Michael Bennet (Colo.), Tom Carper (Del.), Bob Casey (Pa.), Joe Donnelly (Ind.), Heidi Heitkamp (N.D.), Joe Manchin (W.Va.), Claire McCaskill (Mo.), Jon Tester (Mont.), Tom Udall (N.M.) and Mark Warner (Va.). A final vote is expected later this week.

Despite the strong vote, the Senate lacks the two-thirds majority vote needed to overcome a veto. The House passed the bill last week by a vote of 266 to 153 -- also shy of the 290 votes needed to clear a veto.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

1. Uh-huh. All the usual "Democratic" suspects!! Edited:

Really?? Udall and Warner, too?

[geek tragedy]

2. Why the hell hasn't Carper been primaried? nt

[onenote]

4. he had a primary opponent in 2012

crushed him 88-12

there was a green candidate in the general election -- got less than 1%.

[DonCoquixote]

3. most of these people do not know better

But Claire maCaskill, SHAME! You were not suppsed to vote with DINOS.

[JDPriestly]

61. Do I recall correctly that Obama backed McCaskill rather than a more liberal candiate a few

years back?

Some thanks from McCaskill. Sad.

[DonCoquixote]

62. Obama has more knives in his back

Than Julius Caesar, and what is sad is that, while some are from the Cornell Wests (that never liked him anyway) so many were from those Centrists that he reached out to. What scares me is that I know the exact same playbook will be used in a new Clinton presidency, as it will be easy to write off said backstabbing as just old gripes against Hillary, or pandering to old gripes against Hillary.

[JonLP24]

5. My question would be how does South Dakota oil fit into all this?

If it isn't going down the pipeline which means we still have the bomb trains going through neighborhoods near you which literally could derail anywhere so which means this isn't the lesser of two evils but both of them.

[Egnever]

6. So?

Obama has already said he would veto it. If this gives them cover at home what difference does it make? Was going to pass without them.

[AtomicKitten]

8. It's why Democrats don't turn out to vote

... especially at midterms.

If they vote with the Republicans, why bother?

[Egnever]

14. No it's politics

Only political junkies pay attention to this crap and they vote. If you think they didn't poll their constituencies before this vote, you are incredibly naive.

In their districts I guarantee support for keystone is high.

[AtomicKitten]

17. much support is based on lies

It will NOT create a shit-ton of jobs .... only 35 permanent ones.

It will NOT become our oil .... it will be sold on the world market.

If it's politics, it's based on lies and weak-kneed Democrats are too afraid to tell the truth.

Feh.

[Egnever]

19. Doesnt matter what it is based on

If their constituents support it they would be fools to vote against it in a vote that doesn't matter.

[AtomicKitten]

22. It's their responsibility to educate their constituents.

Going along with a lie is easier, apparently.

It takes courage to tell the truth.

At times like this I really miss Paul Wellstone. Dems are very lucky indeed to have truth-tellers like Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren.

[Egnever]

25. When was the last time you were educated by one of your representatives

In the house or the senate?

[AtomicKitten]

28. I'm California born and raised.

Last edited Tue Jan 13, 2015, 05:28 AM - Edit history (2)

Liberal/progressive California: Manhattan Beach - Santa Cruz - San Francisco (I'm migrating north!)

I admittedly have a tough time understanding politics in corn-fed Middle America.

[Egnever]

29. Just an example

Mark Udall practically had to vote for this.

A plurality of his supporters want to see the Keystone XL pipeline built, a move Udall opposes, according to a new poll.

The survey, conducted in mid-February by Democratic polling firm Hickman Analytics found that 43 percent of Udall’s supporters are behind the project to build an oil pipeline from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico, with 39 percent opposed.

Overall, 66 percent of those surveyed support the pipeline, with 23 percent opposed.

And here is a look at a map of his last run for the senate, it took three days for the election to be called.



Better he should make a meaningless vote to be beat over the head with it next election? This was politics nothing more.

[AtomicKitten]

30. I blame the Electoral College.

If the amount of representatives for each state was based on population, this would be a different ballgame. California has the same amount of Senators as states with a few Republicans and a lot of cows.

Going to bed now. I enjoyed our conversation.

Cheers.

[Egnever]

32. Night

[The Shredder]

51. Not us....

I live here in this state, and we will not support the Keystone pipeline, and the rural areas are but a few, and badly gerrymandered.

More and more are opposing as they are learning of the Keystone pipeline and how it may affect them.

[rpannier]

55. Edmund Burke once said

Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays instead of serving you if he sacrifices it to your opinion.

Oh... and didn't Udall lose the election?

[rusty fender]

66. You've mistaken Mark Udall for Tom Udall

Tom is Sen from NM. Mark is from CO and is no longer in the senate.

[Scuba]

35. Why are you making excuses for them? Their job is to do what is right, popular or not.

[Egnever]

58. LOL

What did he do that was wrong?

Cast a meaningless vote?

Shame on him!

[Scuba]

34. +1

[Cha]

63. I know.. that's what's so damn frustrating.. they're aquisescing to the LIES. Just like during Mid-

terms when they ran from the President and ACA.

[former9thward]

68. So it is sold on the world market.

The world market is the reason gas prices have dropped so much. Do construction jobs not count? If not then they needed to be taken out of the monthly jobs number and the unemployment rate needs to be adjusted far higher.

[AtomicKitten]

69. I support infrastructure projects such as road and bridge

repair as a jobs program. Building a leaky, filthy tar sands pipeline, not so much. Besides, much of the pipeline has already been built in red states jumping the gun.

[former9thward]

70. One more pipeline among thousands

and it is the end of the world. Ok, got it.



BTW, I am part of the AFL-CIO part of the Democratic Party. Thy support it, so do I.

[AtomicKitten]

72. More reason to oppose it.

Last edited Wed Jan 14, 2015, 07:04 PM - Edit history (4)

Oil and gas companies have fouled this country including coast and especially the Gulf of Mexico. It has to stop. We are the caretakers of this planet and will pass it on to the next generation. We're doing a shitty job.

I support unions but feel they are wrong on this. Instead they should lobby for a jobs program that repairs and maintains the infrastructure of this country. It is desperately needed. Do that and everybody wins.

[former9thward]

10. It was not going to pass without them.

The filibuster rule meant the needed 60 votes. This passed with 63.

[Egnever]

15. only if someone put forth a filibuster

Did anyone? No. Why bother? Obama already said he would veto it.

It's politics.

[joshcryer]

18. If anything it lets Obama show he's serious.

This way it sends a signal to the Republicans that their efforts to, say, overturn Obamacare, or gut welfare, are pointless.

[Egnever]

23. If nothing else.

Obama can take the heat for a lot of the crap the republicans are going to try to pull for the next two years, and provide cover for Dems running in more conservative districts.

[joshcryer]

24. He's already trashed to hell and back.

Might as well pull out that veto pen.

And to the people who think the Republicans can get 4 more vote: you've got to be fucking kidding. This is going right down ideological lines. Even an open amendment bill where pork can be levied won't work.

[AtomicKitten]

20. With the 10 Dems defecting, they didn't have the votes to filibuster.

They needed 8 of those 10 to sustain a filibuster.

[Egnever]

21. if then ....

You have been around long enough you should understand voting on bills by now.

If it's a meaningless vote they let people wander. This was a meaningless vote, Obama already said he would veto it.

Again politics.

Let Obama take the heat from any keystone supporters he can't lose a thing. Why filibuster when it is completely unnecessary?

[AtomicKitten]

26. If truth be told, he'd probably be fine taking the heat.

I read today his approval rating is 51% and on an upward trend. He's no lame duck and people are responding to his current aggressive posture.

Still it makes me physically ill when Democrats are unable to herd cats. Going along with their assclown counterparts is truly repulsive in light of the GOP fillibuster-a-thon that went on for the last several years.

[Egnever]

31. Again this was politics

They are herding the cats just fine.

These votes weren't people straying this was people being allowed to go off script to try to protect their seats. They counted what they needed and let the people who needed to and that they could afford to vote against it.

The bill only marginally passes. Obama gets to make a big show of vetoing it and the pukes get the scarlet letter of passing it. It would have passed regardless unless the Dems filibustered and again there is no reason for it Obama already said he will veto it.

The idea that everything should be filibustered is republican BS and is one of the main reasons our government is broken right now. We should not be encouraging pointless filibusters and legitimizing the republican way of governing. We should be calling them out for the children they are and governing responsibly.

[turbinetree]

45. Disagree

The point of the filibuster is to exercise and show how the republicans are hypocrites, they had the means to protect the citizens of the country.

In Citizens United it was warned and exposed that foreign powers and companies would corrupt this system of government this is a clear example of this corruption.

Any and all trade deals must go through the Senate and the president can make the final determination of the validity of the deal, you have /had a state supreme court (Nebraska) siding with a foreign company and government.

But when you have a republican leader that filibustered 419 bills to harm the governance of the peoples (small d) democracy that is not governing that is a de-facto corrupt system of greed.

Look no further than his wife's (Chao's) family and the shipping company.

[joshcryer]

27. No one protested?

Senators may speak as long as they wish until cloture is passed (and that cannot happen unless they give up the floor).

It seems people don't understand how the filibuster rules work. Even with the virtual or silent filibusters, you can still ... actually ... physically filibuster.

To answer my own question, of course no one protested, because it wasn't going to pass veto-proof majority and it's a non-issue as far as political actions are concerned.

[misterhighwasted]

7. Sen Hoeven R-NDakota says "They need only 4 votes to override a Pres veto

And they are working on getting those 4."
(Counting on some being purchased perhaps.)

[AtomicKitten]

9. I don't get it. Keystone has virtually no upside.

They must be paid well by the lobbyists.

[misterhighwasted]

11. Oh they certainly are paid well.

Someone posted in DU a couple days ago, what the Kochs & TransCanada have paid for lobbyists to get this passed. Will try to locate it for you.
The upside is the billions to be made by these big oil Corps, and a few others, with the passage of Keystone.
Billions & trillions $$ profit is the upside for them. Not much of an upside for anyone else however.

[AtomicKitten]

12. and there's this --

http://www.allgov.com/news/top-stories/keystone-pipeline-lobbyists-were-hillary-clinton-fundraisers?news=844095

http://www.allgov.com/news/controversies/susan-rice-invested-in-tar-sands-and-keystone-pipeline-121130?news=846349

[misterhighwasted]

37. Oh yes, absolutely. Setting policy to benefit themselves. DC is quite the exclusive club, isn't it.

DC has evolved into a global corporate business model.
And sadly, the citizens of this Nation are considered when it benefits the corporation, its bottom line, the bonus payouts to those who keep the busin as model from moving backwards toward a democracy.
Its an exclusive club that protects itself.

[madville]

53. The only upside for the corporations is it might make it a little more profitable

The oil is going to move by rail and other existing pipelines regardless of if this gets passed or not, it might just be slightly less profitable for the corporations doing it.

The railroad will make money if it stays primarily by rail and maybe add more good union jobs in the process. It's going to get transported, sold and refined regardless of what happens with Keystone so I'd rather see it moved that way.

[Egnever]

16. LOL of course he did

https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00031688

[Samantha]

13. How do these legislators plan to get the Presidential Permit

required for any pipeline crossing international borders? Those pipelines must be approved by the Executive Branch, not the Legislature.

Sam

[merrily]

33. D.C. kabuki?

[B Calm]

36. Democrats my ass!

[staggerleem]

38. Please note what this vote was about.

This vote was NOT a yes or no about approving the pipeline. It was a vote about whether or not the Senate should TALK about the Pipeline in their official session. 10 Democrats voted to TALK about the pipeline, NOT to approve it - they can vote differently (if they want to) when it comes to approval.

[SacoMaine61]

40. +1

[AtomicKitten]

42. Please note I used the word "advanced"

Last edited Tue Jan 13, 2015, 02:09 PM - Edit history (1)

... indicating I understand it's a procedural vote.

Also note this vote marks the first time a bill approving Keystone hasn't been blocked in the Senate.

[sinkingfeeling]

47. +100

[Gore1FL]

39. I sent a message to McCaskill to complain.

She really sucks as a Senator.

[RationalMan]

41. I would rather have real Democrats in Congress even if their numbers were less...

this is where a multi-party system works best. Having just two parties with a sprinkling of so-called "independents" makes governing very difficult and getting traction for new policies almost impossible.

Unfortunately I think the powers that be want us to have a broken bi-partisan system. They can exploit it by paying off members in both parties for what they ultimately want.

[bluestateguy]

43. Angus King is against Keystone

He will vote no. He just voted for the procedural matter to let the bill itself come up for a vote.

[Fred Sanders]

56. Yes, this is a procedural vote, the final vote will be 60, barely over the filibuster, and that may

be question.

Republicans are very poor at math, totally veto roadkill if it gets that far.

And the bill is not to approve the pipeline, it is to take away authority from the State Department, an unprecedented move.

[turbinetree]

44. GREAT

This bill should have been filibustered by every democrat in this body.
And as for the corrupt supreme court in Nebraska that really says a lot about the politics and the corruption in the state, when it comes to property rights, you own the top but when it has to be put underground you have no say or anywhere for that matter a foreign entity has more rights that the citizens of the state and country.
I was always taught that the imaginary line of the property line was mine since I bought it when it reached into the sky and down below----apparently not and I am a democrat and not DINO like these 10, they have no back bone, none, they are hypocrites on principle.

[sinkingfeeling]

46. Just because a senator votes to debate a bill doesn't mean they'll vote

to the build the pipeline.

[blkmusclmachine]

48. Does the Democratic Party actually STAND for anything anymore?

Disgusting!

[DeSwiss]

49. Yes.

- Reelection.

http://vimeo.com/20355767

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

65. Yep.

"Were parties here divided merely by a greediness for office,...to take a part with either would be unworthy of a reasonable or moral man." --Thomas Jefferson to William Branch Giles, 1795.

[The Shredder]

50. Bennet is finished

We are currently looking for a primary candidate to replace this Blue Dog turd. He's also responsible for the election losses as he was in charge of the Senate D election committee..

Whatever idiot R throws out, will not win here in Colorado.

Gardner's also one and done, but must wait until 2020 to get rid of this turd unless he decides to resign right now.

[StevieM]

73. Welcome to DU!! I don't know how fair it is to blame Bennett for the 2014 election losses.

We had a whole bunch of problems in that election. And he wasn't responsible for the House and gubernatorial races.

I was very surprised to see that Bennet voted for it. I would not have guessed that he would be one of the yes votes.

[jen1980]

52. Can they be charged with treason?

Disgusting.

[RussBLib]

54. thank you

for some reason, I was thinking that 60 votes was enough to override a veto, but it's actually 66 (or 67?)

[lonestarnot]

57. WTF? Mr. President said he would veto and they still vote with the pugs? Bastards!

[fantase56]

59. Tom Udall voted for this?????

Can't believe it or understand why. The son of Stewart Udall????? Wrote a "sharp" inquiry to him but I'm really pissed about it. Thought better of him.

[midnight]

60. Paul Wellstone referred to this trend in the Dem. party as the kinder, gentler republican party..

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

64. That's the "Not as bad" wing that we're supposed to vote for.

[MatthewStLouis]

67. Damn it Claire! Missouri rednecks aren't the ones who made you a Senator!

Fight for us, just a little, and take a stand.

[INdemo]

71. We dont know what kind of deals were made on other upcoming legislation

when Obama met with the Repuke Majority leaders. So I would not be shocked if the President went back on his word and signed the Keystone bill.Its not like he has never changed his mind on other issues