Boehner: 'We May' Try To Attach Keystone Pipeline Plan To Payroll Tax Cut, Again

I know the GOP thinks voters are stupid enough to believe what you wrote, but we are not.

Tappy, we are in agreement, it also depends on how well the GOP spins this, the Obama campaign is just getting started and if the GOP tries this it will be one of the top campaign issues from the start.

If they do attach the pipeline and tax cut together, it is a win-win for the GOP, if President Obama vetoes the bill then the GOP will be able to say he is against tax cuts for workers, if he approves the bill then they can say he is for the pipeline, either way the Democrats lose this battle.

That's assuming that it gets to his desk. Doubt it would pass both houses.

Everyone knows what they pull. If they tie the pipeline to tax cuts, then Obama can spin it that the GOP can't do a straight deal without being bought by something and this time, he wasn't going to compromise the environment.

Dems need to start applying spin technique (using the truth, of course) and let it boomerang on the GOP.

Is this an instant replay? We've seen this dance before, and Mr. Boehner, you haven't gotten any better. As more and more of how little jobs, and what the real dangers are to our enviornment come to light, the alternatives that can and will be needed to make this a something plausable, and safe come to light, I have faith the people will understand the need for caution and further study, not just for profit for the rich, but the safety of water supplies and farm land, the people will wait till it's done right. Even Canada has agreed to move it if needed.

You can't teach an old dog new tricks, and Boehner is an old political dog. :-P

gmross.

I can only assume that you belive your logic. What universe do you come from?

The Keystone Pipe line deal will be approved by the President when the law is followed and not when the Teapublicans demand it be approved.

I thought that some semce of cooperation would be shown by the House Republicans after they got taken to the wood shed by their constituants during the rescess but I guess not.

I guess they should be put in the slow learner group.

Carl, I probably would get a CoH violation if I answered you, so I won't. Look in a mirror and ask the question in 2.7.

Even Canada has agreed to move it if needed.

I wonder why Canada doesn't want to refine this crap themselves? Why not pipe it to their Pacific coast and spare us the environmental risk?

Let them veto the tax cut extension! If I can't live without the few dollars a week that I get from the tax cut, I'm living way above my means and need to cut back somewhere.

Thinkaboutit, because Canada doesn't have the refinery's to do it themselves.

Also, the land that a 'pipeline' would have to go through in Canada is on Native's land and they are protesting any pipeline...

We don't hear about that (of course-because the MSM is trying to send the message that Canada wants the pipeline...), but protests are happening up there...

The republicans are disgusting. Another hostage taking is fine with Boehner? What won't these jerks do for the Oligarchy...

Thinkaboutit, because Canada doesn't have the refinery's to do it themselves.

It took all of 10 seconds for google to prove this idea completely false. Canada in fact has about 25 refineries including 8 in Alberta and 2 in British Columbia (much closer to China than Texas), try again?

Also, the land that a 'pipeline' would have to go through in Canada is on Native's land and they are protesting any pipeline...

This sounds more realistic.

He does it for money. Boner is a double dipper.

Those refineries that Canada has may already be working at full capacity.

Alex,

there are very few refineries in Canada that can process tar sands crude, the market was always the US so the refineries are in the US.

Thanks for the information. Why would refiners build refineries to keep them idle? Just waiting just in case for this keystone oil? No, the world does not work that way.

Louie Lou,

That's assuming that it gets to his desk. Doubt it would pass both houses.

Even if it doesn't get to his desk the GOP will still try to blame him for the loss of the tax cuts. This is an election year and the GOP is losing on all grounds, they need something that will swing more voters their way, and the loss of the tax cuts would do that nicely, even if it wasn't the presidents fault.

Those refineries that Canada has may already be working at full capacity.

All refineries are working at full capacity all the time (unless the price of gasoline falls too low and they need to prop it up) so not buying this.

there are very few refineries in Canada that can process tar sands crude

There were ZERO refineries in the U.S. that refined tar sands crude until someone decided to upgrade them. Canada can do the same and if they really just desperately need to get this stuff to the gulf, trucks appear to be working (and providing more jobs) just fine.

thinkabout it,

There is no market for it the CRAP in Canada, the Alberta would rather burn it than ship it east where the dirty easterner's would get their hands on it, and there is already a labor shortage in Canada. As for the refineries in texas and louisiana, apparently they are NOT running at full capacity, and also the crude that comes from the gulf is low enough quality that the refineries were already built capable of handling the CRAP.

There is no market for it the CRAP in Canada

Canada has no market for oil or oil products?

the Alberta would rather burn it than ship it east where the dirty easterner's would get their hands on it

What are you even talking about? China is closer if you go west from Alberta to the pacific coast, and that is where most of it will go even if you shoot south to the gulf first. Which "dirty easterner's" are you talking about, Europe?

apparently they are NOT running at full capacity

The only reason a refinery runs below capacity is if it is damaged (think Katrina) or if the oil companies want to prop up the price of it's products. There are many stories of tankers parked off shore waiting in line or for the price of oil to rise that prove this point. Here is a clear picture of the "capacity" in the United States, notice that each of the gulf coast refineries in fact provide more oil products than any other refinery, the only number that comes close would be all the midwest refineries COMBINED.

the crude that comes from the gulf is low enough quality that the refineries were already built capable of handling the CRAP

Not at all. But there is this which is a much more accurate assesment of tar sands and debunks your entire post.

Thinkaboutit,

Canada has OTHER sources of oil than the Tar Sands, Western Canada has traditional oil wells that provide enough higher quality crude to satisfy the local markets in Western Canada. Eastern Canada gets its oil from either the middle east or Venezuela, but that is because ALBERTA WOULD RATHER BURN THEIR OIL IN OPEN PITS THAN SELL IT TO EASTERN CANADA. It is a historical politics thing, not a logistical thing. For a backdrop, read about the NEP, which is the source of that animosity.

China may be closer in terms of distance, but you have two mountain ranges to go through.

Another reason a refinery may run at full capacity is that the economy has slowed down to the point that the demand for products has decreased to a point where the prices that you can fetch for those products is lower than the cost of the raw materials used to make those products. In that scenario, the only recourse of action is to LOWER PRODUCTION. And I never commented on the production capability of the gulf coast refineries, in fact the business plan for the Keystone XL pipeline itself used the terminology that I am using, that it would allow for the shipment of the crude to the currently UNDERUTILIZED refineries in the gulf that were owned by Valero (a US company) to refine into diesel and other lesser refined products to be sold to offshore customers. That is the business plan.

If a refinery has been damaged, say due to katrina, then it is the capacity that has been impaired.

As for your assessment, I worked up there, and because I am from eastern canada, my presence was very clearly not welcome, and the project that I was on was to facilitate the lower cost of tar sands production by using nuclear power to create heat rather than natural gas.

As to the CRAP, it is very acidic due to the extremely high sulphur content, and is EXTREMELY low quality compared to what comes out of the gulf, and what comes out of the gulf isn't exactly high quality crude. All of it ends up being refined into the same products, it is just that the lower quality crude requires more refinement than say, the very sweet crude that comes from the oil fields of Saudi Arabia.

To be honest, I don't give a @!$%# about the pipeline, one way or the other. Put it there, don't put it there, makes no difference to me. Cost of gas, doesn't affect me in any way whatsoever, I can afford it at 20 dollars a gallon.

The market for Tar Sands going back into the 70's was ALWAYS the US. There never was a domestic market for Tar Sands crude.

If that was misunderstood, sorry.

This appears to be a racist statement.

Boehner is white....well kind of an orangey white...but still.

Are you saying Boehner made that statement???? You lie!

Calm down Bill before you go into vapor lock.

Has the proposed pipeline been rerouted to address the concerns of conservative Nebraska? If not why would you want to ram it down the throats of your fellow conservatives in that state?

Is opposing Obama so important that you would put at risk the legitimate environmental concerns of fellow conservatives?

This appears to be a racist statement.

This appears to be desperation rearing its ugly head.

Did your check from Freedomworks clear yet?

No person or entity that is getting our tax money feel they are being subsidized enough. What else is new? Obama and the dims are very good about giving away our tax money as well as the money borrowed from China.

and the dims are very good about giving away our tax money

And you wonder why no one takes you seriously..../sigh/

Bill K - #16.1 is spot on but the dems are not smart enough to accept the facts. They divert and deflect and shoot the messenger. Keep up the good fight.

No person or entity that is getting our tax money feel they are being subsidized enough. What else is new

You were asked about oil company subsidies. You immediately changed the subject from oil company subsidies. So, how about them oil company subsidies?

16.1 is spot on but the dems are not smart enough to accept the facts. They divert and deflect and shoot the messenger. Keep up the good fight.

Now, a good sock puppet account will provide some kind of contrasting view so that you can tell it's a different person. Also, some substance other than "hell yeah, ditto ditto ditto!" would be appreciated. You don't even seem to be trying, Bill.

Come on! Bring your game face if you want to be taken seriously.

Spot off about the "dims." Off topic. More of the same old, same old cheap shots that don't really take the place of doing your homework before you comment or basing your on topic comments on factual evidence.

I agreed when the Obama when the troop withdrawal deadline in Iraq was adhered to, when healthcare was passed. I disagree with his economic policies, job creation and foreign policy in the ME.

There are two sides to everything.

rescue,

absolutely! BP was the most current that came to my mind, so I went with that one for purposes of my post. You can use any of the spills that have occurred and the bottom line is the same. There is a huge risk involved, and I for one support the President for not jumping on the band wagon and pushing it through. There is too much speculation involved, and I think everyone needs to be very leery of any program that has that much speculation attached to it. We have proven time and time again that we can not be responsible in transporting or drilling for oil.

~A

Again the only idea the dims can come up with is "tax the total @!$%# out of..." it. Is it any wonder why the economy is not growing? Is it any wonder why the wealthy won't invest in America?

I could give 2 @!$%#s or a @!$%#. How dare they export gas when I am paying almost 4 bucks a gallon.

I'm all for taxing it AL...but, they won't be able to tax anything Angry...

The refineries in Texas are in what is called an 'International Tax Free Enterprise' Zone...

It should benefit Americans first....either through increased tax revenue or through cheaper gas at the pump...take your pick righties, no one gives a @!$%# about your multinational mega-corps any more.

We are getting the triple shaft AL...

The oil is for 'export and sale to the global market', we don't get 'first dips'...

We get NO taxes on it, because it is processed in a 'tax free zone'...

AND we carry the environmental burden should there be any 'spills'...

Again the only idea the dims can come up with is "tax the total @!$%# out of..." it. Is it any wonder why the economy is not growing? Is it any wonder why the wealthy won't invest in America?

• !

#14.1 - Sun Jan 22, 2012 1:29 PM PST

The economy was growing faster in 2010 when the democrats were in charge.

dcsstone.

It isn't that it is processed in a tax free zone, it is that it wouldn't be sold in the US, where the taxes are applied as the fuel taxes are a retail thing. There also would be no resource royalties because the oil wasn't extracted from the US.

Bill K. NY

Again the only idea the dims can come up with is "tax the total @!$%# out of..." it. Is it any wonder why the economy is not growing? Is it any wonder why the wealthy won't invest in America?

Proof it.

Again the only idea the dims can come up with is "tax the total @!$%# out of..." it. Is it any wonder why the economy is not growing? Is it any wonder why the wealthy won't invest in America?

That's nonsense.

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2011/07/22/AP-A-boom-in-corporate-profits-a-bust-in-jobs-wages.aspx#page1

A Boom in Corporate Profits, a Bust in Jobs, Wages

"I've never seen labor markets this weak in 35 years of research," says Andrew Sum, director of the Center for Labor Market Studies at Northeastern University.

Its called economic treason against the United States. Our largest and richest corporations are raking in huge profits while not reinvesting in America and American jobs. They are continuing the pattern of outsourcing jobs, factories and investing offshore. The new business model is to exploit workers in near slave labor sweat shops in India, China and other countries while trying to exploit Americans as consumers for their products. These are the one and the same corporate slobs that are paying little or no income taxes due to the Republicans extending tax loopholes.

Business had their highest profits of any quarter in our history in the third quarter of 2010. Since then our largest corporations have been investing and saving their money offshore while increasing already over the top excessive executive pay and bonuses.

The economy was growing faster in 2010 when the democrats were in charge. Corporations are not responsible for lowering the unemployment rate, the government is responsible. The government is not lowering the unemployment rate fast enough.

Anything that comes out of Newts mouth is just pure corn dog that comes out your rear.

Newt is starting to rattle off lie after lie after lie in recognizing how dumb his audience is. Its the old Fox, Rush strategy of simply telling a right wing audience what they want to hear, true or not.

It really isn't that difficult to fact check the Keystone Pipeline. This is really the case of Boehner, Newt and other Republicanjs lying their butts off.

mountainmike: I agree. It is easy to research the Keystone Pipeline. In fact, I've read much information and created a timeline, which illustrates the events leading up to the Republicans putting President Obama's decision in the payroll tax cut legislation. They are, indeed, lying their butts off. I'm particularly disappointed in Senator Lugar. He has always seemed to base his decisions on sound evidence. I know that he has a primary challenge from a Tea Party member, but I'm disappointed, nonetheless.

Weeeeellll...simple, if they don't talk about it...then it 'doesn't happen'...

The congress has been trying to create a depression with there bankster family friends. Notice they are starting to make loans.

The speculation can only go so far. They bankster families are at a witts end with the huge powers of the Consumers Protection Bureau . They fear it.

I am impressed but will the Bureau act?

Furthermore, it's amazing how oil prices go up, then down for no apparrent good reason?

Prices of stuff go up and down all the time, only we pay more attention to gasoline for some reason.

What should be noticed in this regard is that the oil companies keep oil energy at just below the cost of alternatives, then claim the alternatives do not make fiscal sense. And they are right- no investors will lend a billion dollars to build a solar energy plant, for example, if the electricity it generates does not compete with fossil fuel.

Then there are the price spikes every few years that rake in profits before the consumer can react.

Our national security is being damaged by Oil companies that buy into battery technology corporations and then stop the innovation.

The price of oil has been increasing when there are speculation feeding frenzies. For example, there is currently a perceived threat of supply issues, so speculators are starting once again to buy and sell oil dozens of times before it reaches the pump as gas. That generally means they will DOUBLE the price.

What we really need to do is BAN oil speculation, as we are simply grossly over indulging a bankster gang of white collar criminal slobs buying and selling oil back and forth for profits while causing nation wide inflation. In fact, they are speculating in oil and food to cause inflation. Want a bail out of Main Street requiring no taxpayer money? This would happen over night with a ban. Prices of gas at the pump and food at the grocery store would decrease substantially.

What we really need to do is nationalize the oil companies. Then we could laugh at high oil price since the profits would be returned to us.

There are too many factors and actors outside the US government control. The global oil market is too big and powerful. You cannot control it.

WOW! Nice find CR

Nice link!! Everyone should read it...some interesting points...especially the point about the jobs being grossly overestimated...i have thought this from day one. anytime, any political party tries to push something through...but promising a record number of anything...be afraid...be very afraid....

~A

Good find crazyrooster...Credit where it is due props to fox for printing it, every once in a blue the actually do report and show dissenting opinion

Texes She happens to be right about global warming. Don't believe everything roger ailes wants you to believe

As much as I would like to take credit for this, I have to admit that my Fox reading next door neighbor sent it to me! He actually thought that this slammed Obama! I did not have the heart to tell him that it didn't! He spent all day Friday thinking that it was great that Obama finally got put in his place, he has not said anything about this since Friday night, I think he might have actually read it now?

Some interesting points...especially the point about the jobs being grossly overestimated.

Interesting how Boehner uses the inflated number- "Twenty thousand direct jobs". The question is, why are Republicans so enamored of this project? Answer: Republicans obey their oil company paymasters.

a pipeline to the Canadian Pacific will probably be built.

Not likely...the proposed pipeline would cross 'Native Tribal' lands and they are actively up in arms and protesting the pipeline...(various links)

It's so bad that several higher ups in the Canadian government (like the pro-pipeline PM himself) are being told they may be recalled if they keep up the push to build this pipeline...

Conk, we already have a pipeline running from Canada to refinaries in America. This new pipeline is just only for Canada to run their oil down to the Gulf of Mexico where the oil will be shipped to China and other countries. The oil in this new pipeline will *not* benefit America.

So what good is a pipeline running through our country where the oil will not be use by Americans? If Canada want to sell their oil to other countries, let them build their pipeline to one of their own ports. It's not fair to America to run risks of environmental disasters for oil that we will not ever use.

dcstone,

I don't believe that there is any 'recall' legislation in Canada, so a recall isn't possible.

Alberta wants a pipeline. Alberta I suspect will get a pipeline. The potential flow of Canadian oil is so great I doubt existing pipelines are adequate, and it is easier and more reliable to ship from The Gulf Of Mexico than through the Great Lakes. Maybe it is hack Chicago politics that Obama wants no pipeline to Texas? The Great Lakes, which close to shipping in the winter, can not compete with the Gulf as a shipping route. Also the Saint Lawrence system can not handle supertankers.

Oil from Alberta has the potential to be huge on a global scale. Oil is not gasoline; oil is not diesel; oil is not heating fuel; oil is not jet fuel; oil is not plastics or fiber or really anything useful, until oil is refined. The business of refining is profitable; petrochemicals are profitable. Texas knows how to do these things at a profit. Real opportunity. And the fuel refined in Texas COULD be sold in the United States.

This is an economic opportunity. If Obama fritters it away it is a disgrace. If Obama would, he could require refining of the petroleum shipped through the pipeline to be refined in the United States (but then his greenies hold their noses at refining too, don't they sometimes?).

Maybe the problem from Obama's point of view is simply that Texas just isn't voting the right way. Chicago politics---reward your friends, punish your enemies.

Rubbish, Conk.

Gas, other fuels are top U.S. export – USATODAY.com

the problem isn't Texas, the problem is Nebraska with the ill fated decision to route the pipeline over an aquifer that is very shallow meaning it is very susceptible to environmental contamination.

Yellow Dog---what is your point in relation to the pipeline? There might come a time when the United States would like to have that Alberta oil coming down to the Texas refineries, particularly if other sources embargo; Alberta oil can strengthen the hand of the United States greatly. Does Obama want to weaken the position of the United States? I would be tempted to think "so it would seem". You say "Rubbish, Conk Gas, other fuels are top US export". I know that they are already. One more time; refineries in Texas can process this oil at a net gain to to United States economy. The United States had best be able to export something. Of course the Alberta oil might require that more refineries be built on the Gulf which would employ some people in that area, and maybe not just in Texas.

Oh, yes, of course! From the greenie point of view, more refineries---HOW HORRIBLE!

Jonathan---It's Obama's call whether the pipeline is built to Texas. If he blows the call and the pipeline is not built, the business opportunity is lost. It would be right and proper for Obama to be negotiating interest for the United States economy instead of obstructing the pipeline, which he appears to be doing.

By the way, do you remember when the Alaska Pipeline was built or are you too young? The critics said it would kill all the caribou and destroy the tundra and the environment. Hasn't hurt much I know of yet though. The Alberta pipeline should be a much easier project. No such thing as no risk, but do you want oil or not?

conk,

And you care why? There is actually a limit as to how much tar sands oil can be extracted in a given year. So if all the oil that can be extracted is being extracted, what advantage is there to creating more options for refinement. It doesn't do anything for US security.

(now I can actually come up with a rationale for it, but it has NOTHING to do with US security).

And yes, I remember when the alaska pipeline was being built, though I I believe I was in high school then, though we didn't really pay much attention to it in quebec. As for the pipeline itself, it is a very expensive one, with a lot of the pipeline being in the air so that wildlife can move around it.

As for this pipeline, it would have some easier aspects and some much more difficult aspects.

What is much easier to deal with are the thermal aspects in terms of ambient temperatures.

What is much more difficult to deal with is the highly corrosive nature of the CRAP that comes out of the tar sands that is called crude. It is quite corrosive compared to normal crude, which means that the pipeline itself will have higher risk of leaking due to corrosion.

The issue with routing the pipeline over a very vulnerable aquifer is that if there is a leak (note the difficulty with the CRAP), because the aquifer is so close to the surface, you end up potentially contaminating the water supply for more than 8 or more states. Now, if you are ok with that, then you probably don't live in that area, but you sure as hell eat food produced in that area.

The pipeline could be there for 30 years and not cause a problem, or it could be there for 2 years, leak, and end up impacting the ability of the united states to feed itself and the ability for the people in more than 8 states to drink clean water.

Do you think that is worth it, or do you think that maybe it would be wise to reroute the pipeline so that it doesn't risk the ability for people to drink or the country to grow food?

Jonathan-1917156

the problem isn't Texas, the problem is Nebraska with the ill fated decision to route the pipeline over an aquifer that is very shallow meaning it is very susceptible to environmental contamination.

Key problem with the deal.

I think it unlikely that the pipeline will cause any damage to either the water supply or the food supply. I can't vouch for no risk, I can vouch for one thing as a secondary issue. I do believe that the aquifer we are speaking of here is the Ogallala Aquiver. The Ogallala it is said will be mostly used up in 25 years. The Ogallala essentially does not recharge. That doesn't mean that I want to see it contaminated, but I wouldn't want to see the Mississippi River or the Missouri contaminated either. Without regard to whether the pipeline is built over the Ogallala, the thing to be avoided is a break in the pipeline that causes a major spill. These farmers who are mining water from the Ogallala are going to have to do something else than irrigate in a few years (most of the expanse of Ogallala will not supply 25 years irrigation) but if the pipeline is moved to circumvent the Ogallala, well then all right. The United Sates can do quite well enough without the Ogallala though---which is fortunate since when it does dry up the United States will have to anyway. Concern for the Ogallala is overstated anyway---the top of the water bearing stratum is 100 to 400 feet down and it's area is so vast that one oil spill would not ruin the aquifer anyway I should think. Sounds like a scare tactic to me. Not that I would want an oil spill; I certainly don't.

Moving the pipeline off of the Ogallala will not stop opposition to the pipeline however. In fact, the most substantial opposition rests on opposition to derivation of oil from tar sands. Obama himself early in his administration went to Canada and attempted to persuade Canada to not pursue oil from tar sands, the reasons being that they were a threat to his greenie concepts. Too much carbon release. Too polluting says Obama. A threat to greenie stuff being competitive. A threat to United States clean air, lower carbon emissions policy and leadership in the world. Please, oh please don't sell us this oil from tar sands, says Obama; I want to make everyone go green. There were some people in Canada who essentially told Obama to mind his own business and go home, and I don't think Obama liked it. I really think the Obama administration citing the Ogallala Aquifer is nothing more than subterfuge.

Quite a few of Obama's greenie friends have made it pretty clear they hope to block the extensive extraction of oil from tar sands by limiting pipelines. Truly large amounts of Alberta oil could be sold with adequate pipeline structure. That would interfere with the greenies plans.

Oil rules. And that is why I care---and if Alberta wants to sell, the United States had best buy instead of being obstructionist.

Conk, you have several misconceptions about the pipeline and the product it will carry. Also you may want to brush up on the cost of this refining process. It probably would not damage Port Arthur much as it looks like Gotham City any way.

From what I understand so far about this. Canada drills for the oil. Canada builds the pipeline. Canada ships the poorest type of crude across the US because they do not want to dirty up their land processing it. Refineries in Texas will process this for Canada. Canada will sell the fuel to foreign markets from a Tax free zone.

This does not have a lot of pluses for the American people as I see it.

Pipelines wear unevenly and any sand that remains will wear the pipeline at a greater rate. Last year I woke up to a Benzene morning when the 30 miles away Enbridge pipieline broke. It is not safe technology.

The pipeline should be built and the oil refined in Texas. Economic power is still based on fossil fuels and that is not going to change anytime soon, however much Obama wants to kill oil.

Nonsense.

The Keystone corporations drawing up the paper work to detail the new route for the pipeline and submitting those plans with environmental impact statements is BUSINESS AS USUAL - exactly how pipelines have previously been approved without Boehner intervening and trying to force a pipeline through congress.

Obama has NOT killed the pipeline. The corporations can resubmit the paper work with the new route.

YD

Actually Canada ships the CRAP to the US because there really isn't a market for it in Canada. The West has a relatively low population and they refuse to sell to the east (long story) so the end point market is the US. As for the environmental impact, not sure of there is a refusal to dirty up the land because the dirtiest part is the mining (calling it drilling is wrong because it is essentially strip mining) and upgrading (which is taking the tar and steam extracting the CRAP from it. The waste product from that is essentially a toxic substance that is mostly sulphur.

And NO, Valero is the company that would sell the product, the crude will be sold to valero by an american owned tar sands developer. Once Valero buys the crude, it is 'american owned'. Valero is one of the largest referiners in the US.

Thanks, Jonathan, I knew you could help me out. My first reaction was if the states it runs thru were ok with the pipeline, why should I care. Now the more that comes out on it , the more I am beginning to think it is not so good of an idea.

But the states AREN'T ok with it. Nebraska in particular is against it.

The scarlet state of Nebraska, home state of C4P? Against the koch bros pipeline?

The scarlet state of Nebraska, home state of Penny from the Big Bang Theory, one who makes me feel like a dirty old man. (OH wait, she is only playing someone from Nebraska lol, she is really from southern california)

Tex, this is about agent orange not Obama. Try to keep up and on the subject.

The repubs are having a hard time getting people to oppose President Obama....

President Obama's approval rating has been improving.

.http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/01/19/us/politics/19poll-documents.html
Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2011/12/20/bloomberg_articlesLWISQZ6S972A.DTL#ixzz1h7jGAN5yhttp://www.gallup.com/poll/151628/Congress-Ends-2011-Record-Low-Approval.aspx

Obama has to secure the base because he is losing independents by the droves.

In case you haven't noticed, REPUBLICANS are losing moderates, independents and cross over voters by the droves with their lunatic right wing field of presidential candidates. That will only get worse if an unethical slob like Newt becomes the front runner.