TCTI: Too Crazy Too Ignore
 Dave Ross
AP: 269f7885-ba4b-4b34-acfb-2268087c4786
Thousands of protestors gather at the National Mall in Washington calling on President Barack Obama to reject the Keystone XL oil pipeline from Canada, as well as act to limit carbon pollution from power plants and "move beyond" coal and natural gas, Sunday, Feb. 17, 2013. But as it turns out, it's not just a liberal cause anymore. (AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta)

When a liberal cause turns conservative

BY Dave Ross  on February 19, 2013 @ 5:44 am (Updated: 10:22 am - 2/19/13 )

At his inauguration the President mentioned climate change. To environmentalists, that means stopping the Keystone oil pipeline, which is being built to bring oil from the Canadian tar sands to the Gulf of Mexico.

Activist Bill McKibben was at last weekend's pipeline protest outside the White House. He's worried that the President is so determined not to be stereotyped as some liberal oil-phobic, anti-car, pipeline hater that he might be too eager to compromise.

But the opposition, as it turns out, isn't just from hyper-sensitive urban liberals.

"I just don't believe that a Canadian organization, that appears to be building a pipeline for their financial gain, has more of a right to my land than I do," said Julia Crawford.

Crawford owns a Texas farm and doesn't want a pipeline under it.

Then there's this woman - Deborah Medina. "Why would the legislature allow a company, merely passing through our state, to forcibly take land for Texas landowners?"

You've never heard of Medina, but she ran for governor of Texas, is a Tea Party member and considers gun rights sacred. She doesn't exactly come across as a Save-The-Polar-Bears type, and she told a state hearing last year she doesn't see how this Canadian company gets off forcing its pipeline across private land.

With gas prices going up, the President is under pressure to approve the full pipeline. But with the protest expanding from an environmental issue to a property rights issue - he might have the political cover to say no, and be seen not so much as a fossil-fuel-hating liberal, but as a property rights protecting conservative.

Read more:
Celebs, enviros arrested at White House pipeline protest

Dave Ross, KIRO Radio Talk Show Host
Dave Ross is co-host of The Ross & Burbank Show on KIRO Radio (weekdays 9-Noon) and never too far from the spotlight.
More Dave Ross

MyNorthwest.com - Purpose of Comments statement
Bonneville Media encourages site users to express their opinions by posting comments. Our goal is to maintain a civil dialogue in which readers feel comfortable. At times, the comments can descend to personal attacks. Please do not engage in such behavior. We encourage your thoughtful comments which: have a positive and constructive tone, are on topic, are respectful toward others and their opinions. Bonneville reserves the right to remove comments which do not conform to these criteria.

Comments (66)


  • Add A Comment

  • It's me! Ha ha! wrote...
    "With gas prices going up, the president is under pressure to approve the full pipelin." Why? It will have no effect on domestic gas prices
    February 19, 2013 1:12 pm
    Hey Chuck. Do you think the price of gas at the pump will not immediately begin to drop if Obama approved this almost overnight? Look at what happened when President Bush announced the lifting of the moratorium on off shore drilling of oil. Prices dropped dramatically very fast. The very same moratorium his dad put into place!
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • CH wrote...
    I spelled that way on purpose
    February 19, 2013 2:10 pm
    write!
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Hayduke wrote...
    It's me, boo who: Gas is sold on the WORLD market.
    February 19, 2013 2:51 pm
    And as such, domestic drilling and the Keystone pipeline will have no discernible effect on what we pay at the pump here. Or are you really so stupid that you actually believe it's just simple supply and demand? Gas is still near $4 a gallon, yet our usage has significantly declined over the last few years, partly because of price, partly because of the recession.

    As for the argument that it would create hundreds of thousands of jobs, take a look at this hilarious video of clips from Fox news, which estimates it would create 2200 jobs. No wait, 10's of thousands of jobs. No, MILLIONS of jobs!!!

    http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/energy/blogs/fox-news-keystone-xl-will-create-2000-85000-one-million-jobs

    In fact, according to some, Keystone may actually RAISE the cost of gas:

    http://www.nbcnews.com/business/why-keystone-pipeline-would-boost-pump-prices-223667

    http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-03-26/why-the-keystone-pipeline-wont-ease-pain-at-the-pump

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • GoldFish wrote...
    Hayduke
    February 19, 2013 3:35 pm
    Check your fact, Oil consumption has risen since 2009, only went down as a factor of the recession for two years. And I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but everything is based off of demand curves and supply curves. Price is set where those two curves meet which is also the point where consumer and seller surpluses are maximized. In addition, when calculating supply of Oil companies decide how much they are willing to produce using the economic models of Non Renewable Resource Extraction. The more Oil they have in the future, the more they will be wiling to extract for a lower cost in the present (lower supply curve). It's a simple economic function that cannot be denied. Also, as far as jobs are concerned, this pipeline will create jobs we desperately need. The inherent nature of construction alone will create jobs, not even including permanent jobs of maintenance and operation.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Rangerhawk wrote...
    Eminent Domain
    February 19, 2013 2:51 pm
    Power lines, roads, natural gas pipelines, irrigation canals and yes oil pipelines under and over ground. The needs of the many versus the private property owner. This pipeline could absolutely salvage the legacy of this president and restart the U.S. economy for real. My guess is it's going to happen.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • William Lawn wrote...
    Too funny
    February 19, 2013 4:10 pm
    Eminent domain. For private enterprise?

    5-4, the usual suspects against.

    I agree with them.

    I think it is hilarious that because it is oil, you morons think seizing private land is OK.

    How about a shopping center?

    Like the case in Norwood Ohio. Or the development in Connecticut?

    You guys are too funny.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • rational wrote...
    Misnomer
    February 19, 2013 6:14 pm
    You can stop using the term "liberal" to describe the political left...the secret it out...your side is anything but liberal.

    As for Deborah Medina...you progressives are so predictable. you find a quote from someone classified as a "conservative" (or classic liberal) and you use it to support your views even if you disagree with them in every other way.

    I suspect her concern is not the pipeline but the method proposed to obtain land. Instead of the free market purchasing of the land it appears the intent is to use the progressives' cherished statist method of eminent domain...but hey, don't let the facts get in your way.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • gaymarriedchristianfromhollywood wrote...
    Your understanding of political philosophies is very limited. It's usually a sign
    February 19, 2013 9:06 pm
    Of someone who has listened are confused over the word libertarian. It is really quite simple. The word without capitalization can be associated with the Eighteenth Century libertine philosophy or with the present civil libertarian associated with the ACLU, but once you capitalize it, it refers to the Libertarian Party and becomes an entirely different animal. Watching their conventions on C-SPAN over the years, the visual experience caused me to wonder if perhaps they
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • gaymarriedchristianfromhollywood wrote...
    had a unspoken rule
    February 19, 2013 9:11 pm
    Man, my phone is acting weird, won't type right
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • rational wrote...
    gaymarriedchristianfromhollywood
    February 20, 2013 6:38 am
    Actually it's your understanding of political philosophies that is lacking. Try reading some Hayek or Mises and you'd learn that the term "liberal" was coopted by the progressives in the US.

    Indeed, what in Europe is or used to be called 'liberal' is in the USA today with some justification called 'conservative'; while in recent times the term 'liberal' has been used there to describe what in Europe would be called socialism. But of Europe it is equally true that none of the political parties which use the designation 'liberal' now adhere to the liberal principles of the nineteenth century. Hayek - Liberalism.

    Here's a link that would provide you with some historical perspective...http://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Liberalism

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • gaymarriedchristianfromhollywood wrote...
    Thanks. I try not to get most of my knowledge from wikipedia, but
    February 20, 2013 9:42 am
    I'll check it out. What I was trying to say earlier was that your understanding of "liberalism" appears to be derived from watching or listening to too many Ron Paul speeches. Libertarians are strange. They think just because they advocate for personal freedoms and little to no government it makes them "liberal". it doesn't. It just makes them strange. Why are you getting your philosophy from two dead guys whose heyday was the middle of the last century? (No, that was not a shot at Ron Paul) Philosophies change, the way countries interact changes, the way people interact changes. The world has changed dramatically. I guess what I'm trying to say is, maybe you should broaden your horizons before you start preaching to people about the words they choose to use to describe themselves.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • rational wrote...
    gaymarriedchristianfromhollywood
    February 20, 2013 6:58 pm
    Actually that's not wikipedia, which I agree, is not a reliable source (although not too bad on generic sorts of topics that don't have strong advocates to manipulate the info).

    And sorry, not a fanboy of Ron Paul...in fact I think he's a bit of a nutjob, although he is correct on some topics. And I thought your Ron Paul joke was mildly funny.

    You say philosopies change, but it's surprising how little they do in essence, really.

    The 2 people I cited were leading economists who lived through the period that the term liberalism went through it's co-option in the US, so they had a front row view.

    And given that you have no real idea of my horizons are it's rather pointless for you to imply yours is greater.

    I realize we're running into one of those areas of conflict between progressives and classic liberals...my side believes words have actual definitions, your side believes words just have a general, nebulous sense about them. You inferred as much, in fact, when you suggested philosophies change...for a progressive things don't have solid meanings...that way they can't be held accountable for anything...all you have to do is say you meant something else.

    As for "preaching" about words people choose to decribe themselves...you can call yourself a sparrow or an elephant but it wouldn't make it an accurate self description. and likewise, progressives are not liberal. Facts are facts, rather you like it or not.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • gaymarriedchristianfromhollywood wrote...
    My guess is that you're a libertarian. You speak like one.
    February 20, 2013 8:46 pm
    I still don't think you understand the difference between what you think of as "liberalism" and what I thik of as "liberalism". Classic liberalism refers to the liberalism of the individual, where as the more modern interpretation of liberalism accounts for the collective (as in the duty we have to one another). If I understand your point of view that's your problem with progressives calling themselves liberals. That's why you keep saying that liberals arent really liberals. I get it, it's just not a very interesting point. It's all semantics and frankly you spend way too much of your time on that argument, that's why I suggested you broaden your horizons, or at least attempt to make an argument. I am not sure what you mean when you 'for a progressive things don't have solid meanings...that way they can't be held accountable for anything'. I guess I'll just chalk that up to another point you're having trouble making. But we do agree on Ron Paul. He's a nut job, but he does make some good points.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • rational wrote...
    gaymarriedchristianfromhollywood
    February 21, 2013 5:40 pm
    I understand the topic more than you think, but that's no matter. You are correct, we are looking at the same word placing the emphasis on different points. You are correct, classic liberalism deals with individual freedom whereas modern "liberalism" (what Hilary referred to as early 20th century progressivism) deals not with freedom but with the collective.

    I take issue with the misuse of the term liberal because the modern view is actually antithetical to being freedom. When you subvert the individual to the collective you can only do so by force, which is anti-freedom...anti-liberal.

    I'll accept that you think I spend too much time on this topic, although my experience is most don't even begin to grasp most of the elements...then again, most folks are low information types and couldn't care less. All they want to do is laugh at Honey Boo Boo and comment on Facebook regarding the Kardasians latest adventures.

    Sounds like we're of similar perspective on Ron Paul. I can at least respect that he's consistent even if I don't always agree with his position. As for the libertarian thing...to be honest, I consider myself a classic liberal. There is much simularity between that view and libertarians, so I do align with them on many areas, but there is also some areas I don't overlap with them.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • SeattleD wrote...
    I hope Julia Crawford can shut this pipeline down
    February 19, 2013 6:14 pm
    and I hope the Teapublican party gets behind her and every other property owner that doesn't want Obama forcing them to have an oil pipeline cross their land.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • rational wrote...
    SeattleD
    February 20, 2013 6:26 am
    Obama shows no interest in allowing rather less forcing the pipeline. But I'm sure you'd be thrilled for him to have another scape goat he can blame for his failures as would he.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • It's me! Ha ha! wrote...
    All you moron Left wing Parrots make this look so easy.
    February 20, 2013 6:29 am
    All your programmed mindless Left wing Parroted responses.

    Shooting fish in a barrel comes to mind! Oh, Wait! Can't use the word, "Shooting" can I? Might offend some Liberal somewhere in our nation!

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }