UPDATE: Udall’s spokesperson gets all antsy about Udall’s “no” vote on Keystone XL from Floyd Ciruli’s Facebook post:

“In response to my post and blog, Strange Day for Udall, Udall’s spokesperson Mike Saccone says: Mark didn’t come out this week against the pipeline. What he has said this week and before is that Congress shouldn’t politicize the ongoing review process.”

So, Mike, he’s going to vote for it?  Is that what you’re saying or just that he is still going to vote no, but didn’t actually mean for it to get out in the press?  #confused

Next week, the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee is set to vote on a measure to approve the Keystone XL pipeline, and reliable anti-energy vote, Mark Udall, has already voiced his intent to vote no.  Here’s what Udall’s spokesperson said about his upcoming vote:

“If the Keystone XL pipeline were being routed through our state, Coloradans would want to know the decision was being made on the merits — and not congressional meddling.  That’s why Sen. Udall intends to again reject the notion that lawmakers know better than the engineers, scientists and experts whose responsibility it is to evaluate the pipeline application on its merits.”

First, the State Department has already noted that the KXL will have few environmental risks.  Perhaps the major risk in passing the KXL isn’t environmental, but political. One of Udall’s expected top campaign financiers is Tom Steyer, noted opponent to KXL.  So, Udall is against it before he’s for it, when it’s politically convenient (read: after the 2014 election)?

But, more importantly, what Udall’s spokesperson calls “congressional meddling” actually just looks more like “doing your job”.  It’s not Udall’s job to rubber stamp the whims of eccentric donors.  It’s his job to stand up for Coloradans, who would benefit from the building of this pipeline, and they know it.  Recent polling shows 66 percent of Coloradans support building the pipeline.

So, is voting for something that 2/3 of his constituents favor really “congressional meddling” or simply “representing constituents”?