Obama's Dilemma on Keystone XL . . . As If

The New York Times would have us believe that the President faces a tough choice on the Keystone XL pipeline project.  The only tough choice he faces are which lies he will trot out to justify betraying American workers who would benefit from the project.  The Greenies were in full throated protest today over the impending decision, even though the outcome is not in doubt.  The original pipeline was rejected because of some not believable nonsense about protecting Nebraska grasslands.  Those objections have been set aside with a new plan that has received approval from the governor of Nebraska.  But the left has made clear all along that their objection is linked to global warming, not any harm the pipeline might cause grasslands.

All that is left now is to see how Obama hides the fact that his administration's agenda is driven entirely by the pseudo-religious agenda of the left.  The oil trapped in the tar sands of Alberta is going to find its way to market, no matter what the administration does.  The only question is whether Americans get jobs as a result or not.  The President recently announced his sixth pivot to jobs and the economy; he will abandon this pivot in record time as soon as the Keystone decision is announced.  There are unions who are in favor of the pipeline, but that won't matter.  Obama is dedicate to the farthest left of his base.

Keystone Pipeline and Latest "jobs" Bill

The Democrat controlled Senate passed a two month extension of the payroll tax cut and an unemployment benefits extension. Although touted as a jobs bill, this will do little to help the economy. The payroll tax cut has so far done nothing, and will continue to do nothing except bring the day of reckoning on social security much sooner. That this doesn't produce cognitive dissonance at the AARP is beyond me and shows how deeply they are embedded with the Democratic party.






However, the Republicans managed to get a provision into the bill forcing the administration's hand on the Keystone XL pipeline. I was wondering how the left might spin this, and was surprised at the pretty realistic coverage by Joan McCarter at DailyKos:

Of course this doesn't mean that construction on the pipeline itself will be expedited, it's just intended to make Obama look bad at the beginning of an election year. When it's denied, as the State Department has already said would happen if forced to have to decide in just 60 days, Republicans can screech about his killing jobs. If he overrules the State Department, a possible but unlikely outcome, then Republicans can watch his base explode. Their favorite pastime.

Of course Joan doesn't remember the first Bush years, and all of the Reagan administration, where this was the favorite pastime of Democrats. It's a healthy part of the political system, because it forces choices on the parties and makes them say what they stand for. This is why being in power is hard, you can't equally please all parts of your coalition. In this case Obama will be forced to choose between his base of enviro-greenies and labor. I think that he will still try to finesse the deal, but it will be a test of how badly he wants to be re-elected. My guess is that because he does desire re-election, he will stiff the greens, because they have nowhere to go, and ensure labor support, because they have cash and boots on the ground.

Obama Sides with Enviro Extremists over Jobs

Wait, that's dog bites man stuff. H/T W.C. Varones. The State Department has put off approval of a pipeline from the "tar sands" of Canada to the United States until 2013, despite the pressure it would put on Mideast dictators. Of course the decision was portrayed as a result of the administration's purported concern over the Sand Hills environment, but we know this is about global warming. Obama is just too big of a pusillanimous vacillator to say so. From a previous discussion on the real reason this is being opposed:

Opposition to the Keystone pipeline, designed to bring so called "tar sands" oil from Canada to the United States is usually couched in language about the potential impact to water supplies and the like. However, famous global warmist James Hansen, also director of the Goddard Space Flight Center, explicitly links opposition to the pipeline to preventing global warming.

Phase out of emissions from coal is itself an enormous challenge. However, if the tar sands are thrown into the mix it is essentially game over. There is no practical way to capture the CO2 emitted while burning oil, which is used principally in vehicles.

Note that this is a tacit admission that there is plenty of oil in the ground, by a leading warmist. It is interesting to note that the enviros try to have it both ways, arguing simultaneously that our dependency on oil will come a cropper as we run out of oil, and also saying that if we keep burning oil we will wreck the environment. If we were really running out, then they wouldn't have to worry, would they?

Meanwhile, no mention of the whole AGW thing in the presser associated with the another job killing Obama administration decision.