Cogito Ergo Non Serviam

Passing Keystone Legislation Won't Save Senator Landrieu

Political strategy frequently coughs up a really dumb idea. The latest example of this is the desperate attempt by the Democrats to save the US Senate seat of Louisiana's Mary Landrieu. She faces a run-off against Republican Congressman Bill Cassidy on December 6. The less-than-brilliant idea currently under consideration is having a Democratic Senate pass legislation that started in the Republican House to authorize the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline. The premise, that one can rescue a doomed candidate by abandoning principles, is a ludicrous one.

First of all, Ms. Landrieu is a three-term US Senator from Louisiana. That she did not win 50% of the vote in the general election, and thereby was forced into a run-off, is an indictment of her tenure. If after 18 years, re-election is not a slam-dunk, one ought to retire. One election day, she secured 42% of the vote, while Mr. Cassidy got 41%; the difference was slightly over 16,000 votes. This time around, Tea Party candidate Rob Maness, who got 14% of the general election vote, is campaigning for Cassidy. Every poll out there says Mr. Cassidy's lead is hefty, bordering on insurmountable. The range is from 8-16%.

Second, the Republicans already control the Senate. For those Louisiana voters who actually think about this kind of thing, there is more influence with a legislator as part of the majority when it comes to bringing home pork, something Louisiana's delegation in Washington has done for decades. Electing Mr. Cassidy gives the state more leverage.

Approving the Keystone XL pipeline won't shift the votes sufficiently to save her. Yet, a fragment of the Democratic Party in the Senate appears to think it will. To break a filibuster, one needs 60 votes, and the 45 GOP Senators are all behind the bill. That means 15 Democrats have to vote to end debate. Republican co-sponsor of the bill, North Dakota's John Hoeven, said he was confident of 59 already. "I think we�ll have 60 votes -- 60 or maybe 61," Mr. Hoeven said in an interview today without identifying the supporters. "I think we have a pretty good chance of getting it tomorrow."

Presuming that there are 60 votes, and presuming that the bill passes, the Democrats who back the pipeline will have put the president in an awkward position. Either he signs the bill, effectively capitulating to the GOP, or he vetoes it, signaling a split in the party that it can ill-afford as it enters minority status in both chambers in January. If he vetoes the bill, it is difficult to see either chamber overriding his veto; neither will be able to assemble a 2/3 majority to do so.

In addition, the Democrats who vote for the pipeline will offend environmental groups, farmers and ranchers who depend on the Ogallala aquifer, various Indian nations, and many grassroots activists. This is not a beneficial thing to do at the best of times, and it is even worse when one considers that the president has two more years with a GOP Congress ahead.

Ms. Landrieu is not going to win a fourth term under any circumstances. The concept of throwing good money after bad applies here. Whether the Democrats abandon their opposition to the XL pipeline or not, she is finished. Sound strategic thinking says that the credibility of the party and the power of the president can only be preserved by preventing this bill from passing. Yet, not everyone in Washington understands strategy.

© Copyright 2014 by The Kensington Review, Jeff Myhre, PhD, Editor. No part of this publication may be reproduced without written consent. Produced using Ubuntu Linux.



Kensington Review Home