145 Obama Campaign Staffers Call For Rejection Of Keystone XL Pipeline

The pipeline, which would transport Canadian heavy crude to refineries on the gulf coast, is a flashpoint for climate activists.

  • Share
  • Read Later
Manuel Balce Ceneta / ASSOCIATED PRESS

Thousands of protestors gather at the National Mall in Washington calling on President Barack Obama to reject the Keystone XL oil pipeline from Canada, Sunday, Feb. 17, 2013.

Former staffers on the Obama 2012 campaign have released an open letter Thursday encouraging President Barack Obama to reject the Keystone XL pipeline and not “disappoint” the people who helped elect him, tightening the vise around the president as the no-win decision approaches.

The pipeline has become a political touchstone for both parties, with Republicans pointing to it as an example of overregulation and Obama’s unfriendly attitude to business and Democratic climate activists have warned of an environmental disaster if it is constructed.

The pipeline, which would transport Canadian heavy crude to refineries on the gulf coast, must pass a final State Department environmental assessment and a determination that it is in the national interest.

The White House has asserted that it has no role in the process—a position that hasn’t appeased either side. “That’s a process that is operated out of the State Department and I would refer you to the State Department for updates on,” White House press secretary Jay Carney said last week.

The letter invokes Obama’s comments to staffers across the country on the day after the election. “For so long you have been the source of our hope and inspiration,” the letter, signed by 145 former staffers, states. “Please don’t disappoint us. Reject Keystone XL.”

Former Obama aides Bill Burton, Stephanie Cutter, Jim Papa and Paul Tewes consult for opponents of the project, The Washington Post reported last month, while former White House communications director Anita Dunn’s communications firm works for the pipeline’s developer, TransCanada.

Andrew Nazdin, who worked as a Deputy Training Director for Obama for America in Virginia in 2012 and is now the Field Director for Energy Action Coalition, said in a statement that Obama has repeatedly promised action on climate change and he risks going back on his word if he approves the pipeline.

“Climate change is a top issue for the youth voters that worked day-in and day-out to elect President Obama — the president promised action and we are going to hold him to his word, lead on climate, and reject Keystone XL,” he said. The letter sent by the former staffers is below:

22 comments
drudown
drudown

Tell me, how can any proponent of this ultra-hazardous pipeline credibly contend that the climate change induced weather (see, e.g., recent Oklahoma tornadoes) is not ultimately going to cause an ultra-dangerous environmental catastrophe? 

By analogy, if "fracking" was actually safe, why is there a "Halliburton Rule" to begin with?

(cricket, cricket)

terryclifton1
terryclifton1

Only the narcissist thinks they can control everything, including the weather..I don't know which religion is worse (though all are stupid), Scientology or The Church of Climate Change..Geez..

gysgt213
gysgt213

This pipeline is going to carry tar sands and not heavy crude.

MrObvious
MrObvious

Good, reject it. We don't need to take all the risk transporting this awful product so that our refineries can sell it to China.

grape_crush
grape_crush

'Lest wingnuts forget:

1. Keystone XL Would Not Reduce Foreign Oil Dependency

2. Keystone XL Would Have Increased Domestic Oil Prices

3. Keystone XL Overstated Number of Jobs to be Created

4. Current Keystone Pipeline Leaked 12 Times in Last Year 

5. The Environmental Concerns About Oil Leaks Are Justified

6. Mining Tar Sands Would Worsen Global Climate Change


drudown
drudown

In other words, it takes one "super storm" or criminal act that ruptures this pipeline...and...then what...the People just "take it"? This pipeline is a disaster waiting to happen.

gysgt213
gysgt213

Let me amend this.  When you report this as heavy crude people don't understand what that means and assume its just a different type of regular oil and when its not.

PerryWhite1
PerryWhite1

@MrObvious It's not even "our" refineries. They're privately owned, so whatever profit comes from it will be privately pocketed. But the risk is socialized.

Sue_N
Sue_N

@grape_crush 7. We have no idea how to clean up a tar sands spill.

8. Tar sands oil is far, far more corrosive than "regular" oil, so leaks and spills are inevitable.

9. Refer back to #7.

manlyman
manlyman

Drudy you are one gullible sap. Or just another lying liberal sack o sh,t. This country is loaded from one end to the other, frontwards backwards and sideways with pipelines already. Haven't seen much in the way of disasters of which you speak. And give me some bonifide examples of these so called dangers connected to fracking. Something credible mind you, not any of that limpwristed nutbag enviromentaal leftwing crap that youobviously

manlyman
manlyman

What's hard to understand gunnysack, is how we,ve even survived as long as we have as a country with so many lying idiots like you in it.

manlyman
manlyman

I said prove you liberal racist pile of garbage!

manlyman
manlyman

And the liberal bitches ain't much better at lying either.

ARTRaveler
ARTRaveler

The Pegasus oil line spill in Mayflower AR was also carrying something heavier than regular oil, more like the oil sands that the Keywtone pipeline will carry.  There was another spill in MO from the Pegasus pipeline although the pipeline is not in use.  ExxonMobil is using a 70-year old pipeline, originally built to send light oil northward to ship heavier and more corrosive south (flow reversed) and also increased the pressure in the pipeline based on whatever?.  This pipeline skirts 13-miles of the water supply lake (Lake Maumelle) for the Little Rock area and 450,000 citizens (out of a state total of slightl;y less than 3 million). Apparently, no one in state government was aware of teh change.  Some of those who had an oil lake appear in their yards weren't even aware of teh pipeline.

drudown
drudown

@manlyman

Ps. Tell me, if the GOP campaign contributors ' sham "charities" deem they actually suffered "damages" to have standing to sue the State...do the People in Red States that are being denied access to Obamacare (i.e., despite the Supreme Court's ruling: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf ) have standing to sue their GOP elected officials that are denying them the benefit of the Legislation the Congress passed for their benefit? I fancy.

drudown
drudown

@manlyman

"Truth fears no trial." - Thomas Fuller, MD


You are dang right that I am liberal...your corrupted, brainwashed ilk have tried to hijack the very meaning of "liberal" (no array of terms could more aptly describe a "Founding Fathers" state of mind) in order to inculcate your intellectually deficient groupthink. Incredibly, the GOP wants to displace a robust debate on the merits with some alleged contest of principles, e.g., forget the FACT implementing Obamacare will (a) save the People TRILLIONS over the next 100 years + (b) its competitive pricing/pre-exisitng condition provisions open up Health Care to millions of people presently shut out + (c) helping the poor and aggrieved this way puts the lofty Christian precepts the GOP purports to believe in actually into practice. 

It's the...dreaded....(enter JAWS music) "Socialist Boogeyman"!!!

"In...yo...face!" - Michael Scott

 What a hypocritical disgrace. 

Do not ALL elected leaders have a FIDUCIARY DUTY to set aside partisan beliefs if refusing to implement the Supreme Court's ruling not only renders the Supremacy Clause a mockery, but will result in greater suffering, foreseeable deaths and greater out-of-pocket costs to the People? 


 Ah me, lo and behold, the deepest distortion and cognitive dissonance touch and concerns Energy Policy. To be sure, I find it sad how unapologetically GOP voters hypocritically invest their Faith in "the lives of the unborn", as if, in the end, climate change does not present a greater risk than every abortion- justified or not- put together? 


So, feel free to dispense your shopworn critique and hollow insults about the messenger...but the fact remains that your party's entire agenda is to (1) starve the State of government of the necessary revenue to maintain our Military strength, (2) frustrate the People's right to the State's substantial performance implicit in the Social Contract creating a government of Limited powers to begin with because, after all is said and done, the GOP was bribed in order to (3) allow the market players to have their way. There is nothing you can insult or impugn that changes this obvious state of affairs. So, if YOU don't mind even more poisoned groundwater (see, e.g., perchlorate plume under the Inland Empire, CA) on account of some professed allegiance to Adam Smith's ideology, perhaps a better view is that the a certain woman that could be President may see it differently. Maybe she is willing to leave a legacy of putting measures in place that help preserve what is, in reality, owned by the People via constructive possession. I find it humorous when the "conservative" Media implies that, "gee, if the People lose something temporarily [Privacy rights; carte blanch immunity for market players; mutually advantageous diplomatic relations with Russia], that honorable elected officials serving thereafter cannot simply "reset" what was never, in fact, truly undone or impugned. There is no agreement that hurts the People's interests that cannot be set aside by the State the grants law to enforce it. The State is the de facto proxy of the People in every respect.


Why should anyone endorse the GOP that is hell bent on conditioning the People to "hate the IRS" or "be angry at the President for random murders abroad" or "distrust the Independent Judiciary"? This is the only government we have. The People should vote in a single party that is committed to improving our lives, not tearing down the last few hundred years of improvement. This also true of the environment. If you truly care about this world's environmental future...vote for her. 


The fact the GOP refuses to even endorse tax measures implemented SPECIFICALLY tied to ensuring the preservation of the State's natural resources, fish stocks, clean water, food industry and agricultural base...just shows how ignorant and unworkable it is to "pledge" allegiance to a policy that makes our collective lives worse. What, the People don't want more revenue to fund our Police/Fire/EMT/CIA/FBI/Defense/Homeland Security/Education/Regulators with streamlined efficiency? That's the "ultimate issue". The GOP's biggest lie is that the "solution" to past/present/future "shortcomings" or "inefficiencies" or "fiscal waste" by the State is to implement a "no new taxes, ever" mandate. From a more mature view, that is as shortsighted as the emblematic Education GOP "No Child Left Behind" program: the schools needing fiscal support the most are denied any revenue. What kind of prudence is that? Contrary to GOP conditioning, dynamic organizational institutions do not "thrive" or "die" like some organic plant. To the contrary, these need supervision and regulation in order to ensure that the People are getting the fundamental "benefit of the bargain". I find ironic that the GOP has deluded its base to fret over "keeping more of their paycheck" as the GOP policies essentially frustrate the purpose of the State taking money at all, e.g., with taxes this high, education infrastructure shouldn't be crumbling. Sorry, I think most Latinos living in the US would rather have our Congress raise money to improve the lives and general welfare of EVERYONE living here than some hollow pandering.

The GOP wants to pay lip service to "America first" as it concocts phony reasons to invade and occupy other nations, placing us at our worst. 

US taxpayer funds should be spent on benefiting US people. If we can have short term tax increases on the richest Corporations (e.g., via retroactive taxation and closed loopholes), the State could (literally) deliver more economic growth and job creation than can ever, ever be realistically "pro forma"'d by the present GOP "no new revenue, ever" + "cut all social programs and education" (a la European "Austerity") + "deregulate major industries to enable price manipulation." 

Finally, because you seem unwilling to dispassionately debate the cost/benefit of "fracking"...view these links to consummate your shellacking. 
 
http://orsierraclub.wordpress.com/2010/11/15/sierra-club-on-60-minutes-natural-gas-and-the-hazards-of-fracking/
 

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7054210n
"After the event, even the fool is wise." - Viscount Symonds

manlyman
manlyman

Liberal are such liars. No way even you can posssibly believe this crap you barf. And I suppose you would actually have us believe you hold your heads up when you walk among normal people. What a repulsive bunch.