Politics & Policy

Make Up Your Mind on Keystone!

Obama's indecision about the pipeline traps Americans in amber.


That word perfectly describes Obama’s “policy” on the Keystone XL pipeline. That this adjective rolled off the tongue of a union boss makes it as delicious as it is accurate.

“In another gutless move, the Administration is delaying a finding on whether the pipeline is in the national interest,” said Terry O’Sullivan, general president of the Laborers’ International Union of North America. “This certainly is no example of profiles in courage. It’s clear the Administration needs to grow a set of antlers, or perhaps take a lesson from Popeye and eat some spinach.”

#ad#Terry O’Sullivan is right. And so are the eleven Senate Democrats who wrote Obama on April 10 to express their exasperation with his relentless dithering on this vital matter.

“This process has been exhaustive in its time, breadth, and scope. It has already taken much longer than anyone can reasonably justify,” reads the letter, signed by Alaska’s Mark Begich, North Carolina’s Kay Hagan, Arkansas’s Mark Pryor, and eight others. As they specify, this situation “has involved two applications, five federal reviews, multiple open comment periods, and numerous opportunities for consultation and comment at either public forums or at staff-level meetings.”

Any piece of paper on Obama’s desk that bears the word “Keystone” surely gets emblazoned by a rubber stamp that reads, “Continue the research.”

On September 19, 2008, TransCanada first applied to build Keystone. Its paperwork arrived a bit late for President George W. Bush’s endorsement. Besides, Bush was busy nationalizing companies back then. So Obama then tackled this matter — at the speed of molasses. He subsequently has raised the paralysis of analysis to a fine art.

In the five years and three months that Obama has pondered Keystone, FDR could have built almost four Pentagons. President Roosevelt needed just 16 months to erect what remains — at 6.5 million square feet — Earth’s largest office building.

There are at least 42,000 reasons to approve Keystone. The U.S. State Department expects 16,100 direct construction jobs. Another 26,000 indirect spots await Americans who would fabricate steel pipes, produce “yellow iron” earth-moving equipment, and sell Keystone’s workers everything from hot food to cool drinks.

Buying friendly Canadian oil enriches our NATO allies next door while channeling petrodollars away from misogynists in Saudi Arabia and Marxists in Venezuela. And increased supplies decrease the price of petroleum. This should help Vladimir Putin focus on his budget rather than the Ukrainian frontier.

If none of this persuades Obama, fine. If he disagrees, he should have the guts to stand up and simply kill the pipeline.

If Obama believes that Americans waiting for work should keep waiting, then he should say so. If he thinks their ongoing unemployment is a necessary price to pay to prevent Keystone from exacerbating so-called “global warming” (even though the State Department concluded otherwise), then Obama should man up and make that argument.

If Obama decides that Keystone is kaput, then Montanans, Nebraskans, and Kansans who had counted on it can give up and seek hope and change elsewhere. The Canadians can forget about Texas and forward their oil to China (which would refine it without the strictures of the Clean Air Act). Meanwhile, Putin can relax. Oil prices will stay high at least a while longer.

Rather than approval or rejection, Obama offers the worst of all worlds: Suspended animation. He has made uncertainty a destination. Nobody knows where this is going. So North Americans sit around, doing NOTHING. We move neither forward nor backward. Americans and Canadians resemble ancient flies, frozen forever in amber.

Some observers find this cute, somehow, as Obama simultaneously teases the environmental and labor wings of the Democratic base. Each faction expects a diamond ring from Obama after November’s midterm election. This is pathetic. Obama’s stunning refusal to lead — in any direction — constitutes dereliction of duty.

This is what America bought when it elected and (inexplicably) reelected a coward who, on 129 separate occasions in Illinois’s state senate, voted “present.”

— Deroy Murdock is a Manhattan-based Fox News contributor and a media fellow with the Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace at Stanford University.

Deroy Murdock — Deroy Murdock is a Manhattan-based Fox News contributor and a contributing editor of National Review Online.

Most Popular

White House

Democrats in Peril

I will just make a prediction and try to keep out of the swamp of Trump-obsession as the weeks unfold. The anti-Trump movement is now in inexorable decline; it is a little like the Nixon defense forces after the Saturday Night drama in October 1973, with the departure of the attorney general, his deputy, and ... Read More

Canada Is Attacked Again

Media coverage of yesterday’s monstrous van attack in Toronto, which as of this writing is responsible for ten deaths and more than a dozen other casualties, was punctuated by political press conferences of the sort that are now an inescapable part of the dark theater of public tragedies. At his first ... Read More

Trump and the North Korean Tipping Point

The world has been stunned by North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un’s announcement last week that he was suspending his country’s nuclear tests in preparation for the impending meeting with President Trump. Even critics have had to concede that Trump’s bellicose rhetoric since last summer regarding the North ... Read More
Politics & Policy

E Pluribus . . . Gridlock

A mantra we hear everywhere these days is that diversity is a good thing. And no doubt, it is. Diversity facilitates an exchange of ideas and opinions, and it promotes economic growth. Moreover, the alternative to diversity is to suppress the views and opinions of some subset of citizens, which is completely ... Read More
Economy & Business

Trade Misunderstandings

I was distracted by other policy topics last week but not enough not to notice Peter Navarro’s article in the Wall Street Journal, headlined “China’s Faux Comparative Advantage.” Considering Navarro’s position in the White House, it is unfortunate that it demonstrates some serious misunderstandings ... Read More