, , , , , , , ,

Ah, yes, the Keystone XL pipeline.


Padding Mary Landrieu’s resume (November 18, 2015)

Rep. Vicky Hartzler (r): shifting tar sands (November 15, 2014)

We need the Keystone XL pipeline because? – part 3 (November 15, 2014)

We need the Keystone XL pipeline because? – part 2 (November 14, 2014)

Charles P. Pierce is meaner (November 14, 2014)

And then all hell broke loose (November 13, 2014)

We need the Keystone XL pipeline because? (November 13, 2014)

Senator Claire McCaskill (D) [file photo].

Senator Claire McCaskill issued a statement on Facebook about her vote yesterday in support of the Keystone XL pipeline congressional construction permit and she received a lot of comments from her political base. A lot of comments:

[….] I DO NOT stand with you on your very wrong vote! You campaigned on the premise that you understood rural Missouri so you should remember we value our land and resources and wish to keep them clean and free from pollution.

[….] No, no, no. Sen McCaskill, these pipelines spill and there’s very little benefit for the communities in their path. And burning the tar sands will mess up our climate. Stop trying to win over Republicans. It won’t work.

[….] I respectfully disagree.

[….] You need to resign

[….] You will be primaried because of this.

[….] Claire, how in the world does this boost America’s energy security? The oil is produced in Canada, transported by pipeline through the United States and exported through Texas and put on the international market. What jobs are created by building the pipeline quickly evaporates and the American taxpayer are stuck with the bill of doing any cleanup that comes from any spills. Environmentally, this oil is the dirtiest and nastiest to take from the earth and process. It’s unbelievable that you’d support this pipeline and it’s quite sad that you choose to pander to those who would never support you in any election or in most any venture.

[….] I must say, I am disappointed.

[….] I have supported you for a long time, but not on this issue.

[….] At least 41 of your colleagues have some common sense and give a dam about the environment.

[….] I cannot support you on this Senator Claire

[….] I will take your stance into consideration when you are up for reelection. At the very least with the GOP we know where they stand. I am disappointed to say the least.

[….] Very poor decision. May impact my future voting.

[….] Puke. How about a sustainable infrastructure jobs bill including solar power? I know you have to appease the Missouri demo/republcan’ts, but a spine is more important.

[….] Perhaps you should have a chat with Elizabeth Warren who seems to get it about this issue. Very disappointed in you

[….] Fifty permanent jobs. Yippee.

[….] I’m a longtime supporter of yours and believe in your work but passionately and wholeheartedly disagree with you on this.

[….] Sorry I totally disagree with you on this. Our country needs to put it’s collective mind into developing renewable clean energies so that future generations actually have non toxic world to live in. Stop catering to fossil fuel industries.

[….] This lifelong Democrat is feeling the nausea of spin, Senator. This is Canada’s oil pipes thru the US with zero requirements for any of it to remain in the US. The about face on supporting the pipeline as a “job creator” like tax cuts for billionaires is pathetic. If you vote for this the pipeline I hope it runs behind the back yard of your house and you are willing to have MO Democrats hold you accountable if one drop of oil leaks on our land, rivers or water supply.

[….] I’m sure the Koch bros approve this message. I do NOT!

[….] Less than 50 jobs,Claire. Stop.Trying.To.Pander.To.People.Who.Will.Never.Vote.For.You! Democrats acting like republicans and running away from the President is what lost us the Senate.

[….] Sorry, Claire. It’s got less than nothing to do with America’s energy security.

[….] This pipeline creates 35 permanent jobs! On the other hand when the pipeline breaks, which everyone knows it will, there is no way to clean up the tar sands and you hurt our planet. No job is worth the environment!

[….] This is definitely going to impact my support for you. I’m disappointed to say the least.

[….] Sorry Claire you’re wrong on this

[….] I have been incredibly thankful for you supporting equal rights. I am highly disappointed and completely disagree with you on this issue.

We need to be good stewards of our environment and invest in clean energy solutions. Aside from environment impact, the jobs created will be temporary and how many of them will be outsourced to “undocumented workers”?

I hope you sincerely reconsider your position in event the new congress will bring this back up.

[….] I never saw a pipe that doesnt leak.

[….] Claire, you are wrong on this one. Ask your supporters. They vote NO!

[….] Is the purpose of this pipeline an avenue for Canada to ship oil to China? Won’t it create less than 50 permanent jobs. Would rebuilding America’s bridges be a great way to create lots of jobs?

[….] You’re wrong…Just a handful of jobs after construction is completed and the US gets nothing but a pipeline for BIG OIL to use to export Canadian dirty oil..You should be ashamed for your support..

[….] Then let Canada export to the west coast of their country since the oil is going to China anyway. Oh Snap! Their people are too smart for that.

[….] What’s your plan when our water supply is polluted beyond help? You sold out Claire…….I will remember when election time comes up……and I am a Die Hard Democrat……..You sold out.

[….] You’ve lost me on this one senator and I ask you to reconsider.

[….] Shame on you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[….] I would like for her to explain how the pipeline benefits the citizens of Missouri.

1. It will reduce State revenue

2. It will cut railroad jobs

3. It will increase gas prices

4. It gives neighboring states a no-tax revenue source for infrastructure

5. We are on the hook for clean up

6. Diverts funds that could be used to develop solar and biomas to oil companies

It doesn’t even benefit America.

1. Moves Canadian oil to foreign markets bypassing US markets.

2. Cuts into US owned railroad profits and US railroad jobs

3. Allows Transnational companies to evade US taxes

4. Gives more profit to political manipulators

Claire, along with the Blunt and the Republicans persons are not just wrong they are enemies of the state.

[….] I am VERY disappointed in your vote for this bill!! Just how do you justify your support?

[….] Disappointed in your choice Clair. Can’t support you on this.

[….] I’m disappointed in your vote. It sounds like you have been drinking the GOP kool-aid.

[….] losing interest in supporting you Ms. McCaskill….

[….] Sorry Senator, you are wrong on this one. We don’t need the minimum number of jobs that would be created (even for construction). The damage to America’s water supply and ecology in general is potentially catastrophic. Let the Canadians do this if they want it. It won’t help America’s energy security, this oil will go on the international market, probably to China. I am very disappointed by your vote.

[….] I’m also surprised and disappointed. Estimates of 40,000 jobs has been discredited, and the environmental risk is real.

[….] I’m very disappointed in your actions of late. Maybe next time think about those who vote for you rather than those who might (but probably won’t) vote for you.

[….] This is extremely disappointing. The market situation takes precedence over the continued existence of the species too often. I thought you were better than that.

[….] No Claire, you do not want to support this , it is too dangerous!!!

[….] As a long time supporter of you Senator, I have to say respectfully, you are wrong on this issue. Polluting the US environment to pad the pockets of oil companies is not a risk we are willing to take. I suggest you listen to those who sent you to represent. Democrat re-elections are always tough in a red state, and it’ll be even harder while driving your base away.

[….] I believe you need to have different analysts researching this subject so they can feed you more accurate information. You are right though this is only about how it gets to market. It comes from Canada and will do nothing more than travel through the U.S. before going to market. The U.S. will take the environmental and cultural hit and get no benefits. The money will be in the oil company pockets with very few permanent jobs created. This does nothing for American security – it is not our oil.

[….] Very disappointed. How about getting behind renewable energy? Working on our infrastructure?

[….] I have supported u till now, not on this one!

[….] Disappointed. We have Republicans to spout these talking points. We don’t need Democrats to start on it, too!

[….] So sorry Srnstor McCaskill but you are wrong on this one. I’m very disappointed.

[….] Claire McCaskill is WAY TOO SMART to buy this line. Dig deep enough and we’ll probably find all kinds of connections to the petrochemical industry. I thought she was a person of integrity. She can never be trusted again.

[….] I would hope that the overwhelmingly negative response from the people who have taken the time to support/follow your page would give you an idea of how unfortunate and disappointing your decision was for the people who elected you to represent them.

And about thousand more responses along the same vein.

Somehow I don’t think the number of Keystone XL pipeline workers willing to man phone banks and go door to door at the next election is going to offset the hemorrhaging in the base.