Magox Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 (edited) I remember reading in Politico and WAPO that a big reason why Obama didn't approve the Keystone pipeline really wasn't so much about his own environmental concerns but because of the money he would lose through fundraising for his re election campaign. This provides a little context. San Francisco philanthropist Susie Tompkins Buell, one of the Democratic Party's most generous benefactors, is keeping her checkbook closed when President Obama holds high-priced California fundraisers this week. "I want to look him in the eye and say, 'Thank you so much' " for his work, said Buell, who expresses deep disappointment in the president's leadership on environmental issues, especially climate change. With Obama's 2012 re-election campaign in full swing, "I would just love to write my big check ... or have a high-dollar dinner here" on his behalf, she said. "I can't." But as Obama flies from Southern California to San Francisco today to vacuum up donations in the reliable Democratic ATM, Buell will attend neither of his $35,800-per-plate fundraisers in San Francisco, nor a fundraising rally at the Masonic Auditorium In October, Buell made headlines after she led a protest of monied Democrats in San Francisco against the controversial 1,700-mile Keystone XL oil pipeline. Her fellow protesters outside an Obama fundraiser included Michael Kieschnick, co-founder of CREDO Mobile and Working Assets, which has donated $75 million to progressive causes; IT executive David desJardins; and Anna Hawken McKay, wife of Rob McKay, a wealthy philanthropist whose father founded Taco Bell. The Democrats, who could have easily afforded the $5,000-a-plate Obama fundraiser, stood on the curb outside the W Hotel as Buell delivered a tough assessment of the president: "I don't know where he stands on anything," she said. Kieschnick said Buell's decision to take an aggressive stance was pivotal to the eventual outcome - a White House announcement last month that the application for the pipeline from the Canadian province of Alberta to Texas refineries would be rejected. "Before her involvement, the powers that be clearly dismissed our concerns" about the long-term environmental impacts of the pipeline, said Kieschnick, who has known Buell for 20 years. People inside the White House "clearly noticed," he said. "Then they realized this was not only bad policy, this was bad politics." White House officials, asked about Buell's concerns about Obama's record on the environment, cited the administration's move toward more-efficient vehicle fuel standards and alternative-energy plans as examples of the president's commitment to the environment. Funny how they felt compelled to respond to Buell's concerns. With Obama's return this week to San Francisco, Buell is hard at work on Keystone, warning that the fight isn't over. Senate Republicans, arguing that the pipeline will create jobs, have introduced legislation to allow the pipeline and have made it a 2012 campaign issue, as oil companies are renewing their push in support of the pipeline. "I appreciate that (Obama) has postponed the decision," she said. "But I'm worried." Buell said she spent this week "calling senators' offices ... donors, saying this is an issue that needs attention." Asked which elected officials pick up the phone when Buell is on the line, her political and charitable affairs director, Belinda Munoz, said simply: "Whoever has a 'D.' " Basically this is a tactic, not that I disagree with the contributors tactics, but certainly a ploy in demanding that the Pipeline ends up being a no go. No honey, no money, and that's what this boils down. Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/02/15/MND61N71MS.DTL&ao=2#ixzz1me4bAphT Kinda amazing how we have a president that cares more about saving his own ass over a project that would create ALL Private sector jobs that wouldn't cost the taxpayer a dime, and actually would even generate tax revenues, not to mention lessening our dependence on Middle East Oil. Edited February 17, 2012 by Magox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 "If Keystone doesn't happen, we're here to haul", Berkshire Hathaway spokesman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dante Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 I remember reading in Politico and WAPO that a big reason why Obama didn't approve the Keystone pipeline really wasn't so much about his own environmental concerns but because of the money he would lose through fundraising for his re election campaign. This provides a little context. Funny how they felt compelled to respond to Buell's concerns. Basically this is a tactic, not that I disagree with the contributors tactics, but certainly a ploy in demanding that the Pipeline ends up being a no go. No honey, no money, and that's what this boils down. Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/02/15/MND61N71MS.DTL&ao=2#ixzz1me4bAphT Kinda amazing how we have a president that cares more about saving his own ass over a project that would create ALL Private sector jobs that wouldn't cost the taxpayer a dime, and actually would even generate tax revenues, not to mention lessening our dependence on Middle East Oil. I wonder if the Oil companies were nationalized would he have the same stance? We all know he cares nothing for the private sector except when it comes to raising money. But if the oil companies were state owned would he feel compelled to keep his precious government employees working? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 Romney has a lot of ammo. Hopefully he's not afraid to use it all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 Romney has a lot of ammo. Hopefully he's not afraid to use it all. Obama has a much better message: "I will take care of you and protect you from the 1%." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted February 17, 2012 Author Share Posted February 17, 2012 Obama has a much better message: "I will take care of you and protect you from the 1%." Free **** for everyone is a tough message to beat. I as well truly see it as a battle for America's soul. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 Obama has a much better message: "I will take care of you and protect you from the 1%." Romney has ammo for that as well. But I agree that Barry will basically run on a divisionary platform, since he has almost nothing else to show for his first 4 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigfatbillsfan Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 (edited) Romney has ammo for that as well. But I agree that Barry will basically run on a divisionary platform, since he has almost nothing else to show for his first 4 years. Nothing to show other than: Healthcare reform. The largest arms reduction treaty in history. Osama Bin Laden dead. Overhauling the credit card industry Consumer protection Bureau Expanding healthcare protection for uninsured children The end of DADT A general push towards clean energy That's just a few to start. Is everything he's done great? Hell no, but he's not the useless piece of crap you guys make him out to be. Free **** for everyone is a tough message to beat. I as well truly see it as a battle for America's soul. Dude, put down the hookah pipe. Let go of the melodrama. "The battle for America's soul" has been going on since the signing of the Declaration of Independence. If Obama is re-elected I promise the sun will still come up the next morning. Edited February 18, 2012 by Bigfatbillsfan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted February 18, 2012 Author Share Posted February 18, 2012 Nothing to show other than: Healthcare reform. The largest arms reduction treaty in history. Osama Bin Laden dead. Overhauling the credit card industry Consumer protection Bureau Expanding healthcare protection for uninsured children The end of DADT A general push towards clean energy That's just a few to start. Is everything he's done great? Hell no, but he's not the useless piece of crap you guys make him out to be. Dude, put down the hookah pipe. Let go of the melodrama. "The battle for America's soul" has been going on since the signing of the Declaration of Independence. If Obama is re-elected I promise the sun will still come up the next morning. Health Care Reform ? He doesn't even like ever mention it Dodd Frank Bill? Nope, another net negative. A push for clean energy? Solyndra and Keystone are two huge negatives for him Out of everything you just said, the only thing positive for him to run on is the killing of Osama. And depending where he is, DADT, which would be a very very very minor achievement for an election year issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 Health Care Reform ? He doesn't even like ever mention it Dodd Frank Bill? Nope, another net negative. A push for clean energy? Solyndra and Keystone are two huge negatives for him Out of everything you just said, the only thing positive for him to run on is the killing of Osama. And depending where he is, DADT, which would be a very very very minor achievement for an election year issue. Bingo, except that the operation that led to the killing of UBL started under Dubya. So I guess DADT is it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigfatbillsfan Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 Health Care Reform ? He doesn't even like ever mention it Dodd Frank Bill? Nope, another net negative. A push for clean energy? Solyndra and Keystone are two huge negatives for him Out of everything you just said, the only thing positive for him to run on is the killing of Osama. And depending where he is, DADT, which would be a very very very minor achievement for an election year issue. So, it's not that he didn't have any accomplishments. It's just that you don't like the ones he had because the move the country in a direction that you don't like. Bingo, except that the operation that led to the killing of UBL started under Dubya. So I guess DADT is it. By that logic the recession started under Bush so I guess the unemployment rate isn't Obama's fault. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 So, it's not that he didn't have any accomplishments. It's just that you don't like the ones he had because the move the country in a direction that you don't like. By that logic the recession started under Bush so I guess the unemployment rate isn't Obama's fault. The recession started under Dodd, Frank, Walters etc. If not for their corrupt cronyism with Fannie and Freddie and their refusal to allow further restrictions on them we wouldn't be in the spot we are in. President Bush pushed no less than 21 times for legislation restricting them. But no, all I hear from you libs is that deregulation is the culprit. Dumb !@#$s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 So, it's not that he didn't have any accomplishments. It's just that you don't like the ones he had because the move the country in a direction that you don't like. No, it's that most of them are, at best, action for action's sake. Health care reform? A compromise solution that managed to give the worst of both worlds (socialized insurance, with market-driven care. It only looks good to shallow, stupid people). Financial reform? Ignored basic reality in favor of faux populist nonsense. Killing OBL? I think it's silly to give the guy sitting in the White House at the moment credit for something like that...but, yeah, okay, realistically the guy with his ass in the big chair gets the laurels. And how is a "general push" towards anything an accomplishment??? That's just retarded. By that logic the recession started under Bush so I guess the unemployment rate isn't Obama's fault. Can we instead criticize Obama for making idiotic statements like "This stimulus will keep unemployment under 8%," that subsequently turn out to be absolute bull ****? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted February 18, 2012 Author Share Posted February 18, 2012 So, it's not that he didn't have any accomplishments. It's just that you don't like the ones he had because the move the country in a direction that you don't like. That's why I said, A fight for America's soul! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 So, it's not that he didn't have any accomplishments. It's just that you don't like the ones he had because the move the country in a direction that you don't like. True, I don't like the direction of financial ruin in which he's taking the country. The "push towards green energy" wasted a billion dollars. The "push for healthcare reform" will waste several trillion dollars. As Maggie once said: "the trouble with socialism is that eventually you run out of other poeple's money." By that logic the recession started under Bush so I guess the unemployment rate isn't Obama's fault. Poor analogy. There's a big difference between pulling the trigger after 4 years of intel and failing to do a damn thing in 4 years. Can we instead criticize Obama for making idiotic statements like "This stimulus will keep unemployment under 8%," that subsequently turn out to be absolute bull ****? Like I said, Romney has a lot of ammo, including and especially his failed campaign promises. Most of the stuff Bfbf said can be used against him, and I suspect he won't be mentioning them. And then there's the "I was learning on the job" comment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koko78 Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 So remind me, when exactly did unconstitutional health INSURANCE reform become health CARE reform? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted February 19, 2012 Share Posted February 19, 2012 If Obama is re-elected I promise the sun will still come up the next morning. Yes, and in his second term, we can all expect his new Sun Tax;. Obama will explain at his next SOTU address that individual millionaires earning over $200,000/year tend to go on vacation more than people making less than $200,000 a year, and that means they're laying on the beaches more and thereby using the sun more than the middle class. So these millionaires will be charged an additional Sun Tax to make up for people who do not get to lay in the sun. This tax revenue will be used to hire the purple people beaters to create giant sandboxes in downtrodden areas so more people have a fair chance to lay in the sun. Because laying in the sun is a right, not a privilege. Sounds stupid, I know. But if you really pay attention to the way this president thinks, does it REALLY sound that stupid? Not really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigfatbillsfan Posted February 19, 2012 Share Posted February 19, 2012 Yes, and in his second term, we can all expect his new Sun Tax;. Obama will explain at his next SOTU address that individual millionaires earning over $200,000/year tend to go on vacation more than people making less than $200,000 a year, and that means they're laying on the beaches more and thereby using the sun more than the middle class. So these millionaires will be charged an additional Sun Tax to make up for people who do not get to lay in the sun. This tax revenue will be used to hire the purple people beaters to create giant sandboxes in downtrodden areas so more people have a fair chance to lay in the sun. Because laying in the sun is a right, not a privilege. Sounds stupid, I know. But if you really pay attention to the way this president thinks, does it REALLY sound that stupid? Not really. No really, it does sound that stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted February 19, 2012 Share Posted February 19, 2012 No, it's that most of them are, at best, action for action's sake. Health care reform? A compromise solution that managed to give the worst of both worlds (socialized insurance, with market-driven care. It only looks good to shallow, stupid people). Financial reform? Ignored basic reality in favor of faux populist nonsense. Killing OBL? I think it's silly to give the guy sitting in the White House at the moment credit for something like that...but, yeah, okay, realistically the guy with his ass in the big chair gets the laurels. And how is a "general push" towards anything an accomplishment??? That's just retarded. Can we instead criticize Obama for making idiotic statements like "This stimulus will keep unemployment under 8%," that subsequently turn out to be absolute bull ****? Of course. That's why Richard Nixon is generally given credit for the US Manned Space Program. He was, after all the President when Neil Armstrong et al landed on the moon. Libs are famous for giving credit where credit is due. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted February 19, 2012 Share Posted February 19, 2012 Of course. That's why Richard Nixon is generally given credit for the US Manned Space Program. He was, after all the President when Neil Armstrong et al landed on the moon. Libs are famous for giving credit where credit is due. But Truman personally killed Hitler! Ended the war! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts