Obama Rejects Argument Keystone Will Add Jobs, Cut Fuel Cost

[Martin Eden]

70. That depends ...

... do the citizens of "oil states" really have anything substantial to gain from Keystone? Perhaps a gulf state with refineries and a port to ship the tar sands product would stand to gain some permanent jobs, but for the most part I think the political harm to Dem candidates who oppose Keystone is the false narrative that the pipeline equates to a significant number of jobs and lower gas prices & less dependency on foreign oil in the US.

IMO one of the biggest problems in the Democratic Party is an inability or unwillingness to cut through the false narratives and take a strong stand on good policy. A determined effort to move away from dirty fossil fuels like tar sands and coal towards green energy technologies will be good for the economic health of our country and the health of its people -- and is absolutely necessary for an environmentally sustainable future.

I think the question that needs to be asked is whether it's wise to sacrifice essential policy for the dubious benefit to a few candidates in oil & coal states. If those candidates decide to break from the party platform on energy policy that is their prerogative, but I think a much greater benefit for the electoral fortunes of Democratic candidates nationwide is to take a strong stand on good policy that is necessary for a healthy future.

Let's remember that voters (especially young people) stayed away in droves this election, largely because they saw little to vote FOR. The key to victory and to much needed progress is for the Democratic Party to take a strong stand for the long term interests of the vast majority of citizens and to make that convincingly clear through words and deeds.