Barack Obama has set himself up for a high-profile defeat on one of the most important issues of the campaign.
The president has put his feet in cement in opposition to the Keystone oil pipeline. But on Capitol Hill, more and more Democrats are joining Republicans to force approval of the pipeline, whether Obama wants it or not.
The latest action happened Wednesday, when the House passed a measure to move the pipeline forward. Before the vote, Obama issued a veto threat. The House approved the pipeline anyway -- by a veto-proof majority, 293 to 127. Sixty-nine Democrats abandoned the president to vote with Republicans. That's a lot of defections.
Part of me cheers, while part of me hopes they don't save his sorry ass from himself.
Win-win!
"Part of me cheers, while part of me hopes they don't save his sorry ass from himself."
Well said Kate. The most important thing for our friends to the south is to vote Obama and his fundamental change agenda out this fall.
While we were on a Southern Caribbean cruise at the end of March, I discussed the US political situation with dozens of Americans and only about two seemed to vaguely support Obama while the rest recognized the danger Obama's agenda has for the future of the country. This is in sharp contrast to similar discussions on past cruises over eight years when Democrats seemed to be a majority.
They were also confused about the merits of the health care changes Obama is attempting to make.
You have to scratch your head when a government is spending $.40 of every dollar through debt. The idea that Obama is still polling as high as he is scares me. I have read that more Americans are taking out of the pot than are putting in and that probably explains things.
Another scary reality is that two by-elections in BC went to the NDP. They will probably win the next provincial election. This time I will not stick it out I will move my company to AB.
I'm not sure it's going to matter even if the House does force it through. His opposition is going to stick to him. If he lets it pass, he shows he's too weak to hold his own party. If he continues to work against it through the departments, it shows him working against a bipartisan majority.
No matter what happens, Obie loses on this issue.
I was in Augusta for the Masters and got to talking with a local guy who was working with CBS on one of the camera crews. He was a veteran of Iraq1, having served in the marines. He was a drywaller who had absolutely no work for about a year. The CBS gig was his first paying job in that time. He wanted to know what I thought of US politics especially the Canadian perspective on Obama. I told him that the majority of the “sheeple” thought he was a good guy just over his head. I indicated that Obama was a far left socialist with an agenda that would cause economic ruin in the US. In spite of this our conversation continued. He told me that he planned to vote for Obama even though he thought the president had done a terrible job. I asked the money question, “Would you vote for him if he was a white guy?” He said no way. I asked him if he thought his actions were in any way racist since it seemed to me that the voting decision was entirely based on the color of Obama’s skin. He ended the conversation. Oh yeah, one more thing the guy was black.
brian mallard - great comments; you were right to suggest that the voter was racist!
There are several interesting things -
First, is that the GOP are, correctly in my view, and hopefully they will continue, refusing to confront Obama's personal image. That is, they recognize that a lot of Americans cannot reject Obama, as a person, because of the generation long legacy of Affirmative Action, white guilt and so on. So, the GOP campaign seems to be deliberately leaving the public with their view that Obama is a 'nice guy' and steering the discussion strictly to issues.
Economic issues, jobs, energy supplies, gas costs, costs of living, food, etc. These are gender and ethnic and skin colour neutral issues which people can latch onto and strongly criticize the Democrats for their actions here.
But, heh, what this does is to put Obama into a box. He, himself, can't campaign on these issues, since he and the Democrats have made such a mess of them all!
So, the Obama gang are reduced to campaigning only on personal issues - which boomerang every time. The throwers of these backhands aren't from Romney's direct campaign but by various pundits.
They tried the War on Women, with Obama calling up Fluke personally, only to be sidelined by Rosen's attack against Ann Romney and 'women at home'.
They tried the dog-on-the-roof 20 odd years ago, only to be exposed as Obama eating dog meat 40 odd years ago.
They've tried the 'silver spoon' tactic only to be met by Obama's slithering along via Affirmative Action.
Now Obama is reduced to offering 'meet with me and George Clooney' sessions. And meanwhile, the GOP continue to talk about the budget, gas, pipelines, etc, etc.
Fascinating.
Brian Mallard
your post says it all in a nut shell, it's not about goverance, it's about partisan and the person. Too many people will not abandon "their" party, no matter how poorly their "man" is performing
Yes, interesting but they still need to pass it throught the Senate on a bipartisan veto proof basis.
The Keystone XL question is whether Harry Reid is going to play point man on this issue?
Cheers
Hans Rupprecht, Commander in Chief
1st Saint Nicolaas Army
Army Group “True North”
Hang in there my Canadian Comrades we are gona try and redirect the ship come November.
Voting for a Mormon was not in my agenda, but by God, I'll take two stiff drinks, put a clothes pin on my nose and walk right in there and pull the lever.
The longer the Keystone pipeline issue stays in the headlines the better as the price of gas will be the dominant factor in showing obamas snub to the suffering public and the pain at the pump. It will also continue to highlight his failed energy policies as well as his energy ministers inability to understand that this is not Europe and $10 per gal gas will destroy what's left of the economy. Steven Chu is a severe liability in this respect. He may peddle to work on his bicycle to save Gaia , that will only annoy the vast majority that don't have that option. Keystone should remain front and center in the news until November.
Martha Hall Findley chimes in...
But calling it “ethical oil” is completely counterproductive and only serves to make the job harder for those of us trying to get more people onside.
http://tinyurl.com/7mlnz5q
I can tell an election is coming up down here when Democrats start favoring their constituents' interests over radical environmentalism.
They're not saving him from himself, they're abandoning ship. Note the first paragraph from the story you linked to yesterday about the diversiity, or lack thereof, of Obamas campaign team:
"President Barack Obama’s team is looking to hire more African-Americans, a search that has stirred a debate among black Democrats about Obama’s record on diversity and its implications for his reelection."
That's making excuses for when blacks don't support him like they did in 2008. I bet you see a lot more of it between now and November.
"Part of me cheers, while part of me hopes they don't save his sorry ass from himself."
Kate- I would argue that rather than helping Obama, this actually has great potential to be damaging for him no matter how it comes down.
If this passes the Senate, which may happen as several Dems have been indicating that they won't vote against it, it still has to go to Obama.
He has two choices: sign it or veto it. If he signs it, he will damage his standing with his base. If he vetoes it, he gives Romney another weapon to be used in the campaign.
Best case for Obama is that he can convince Dem Senators to fall on their swords for him so he can blame everything on Congress.
@ Glenn at April 20, 2012 1:32 PM
Good link. Certainly brought out the foam at the mouth tree huggers in the comment section and Findleys attitude shows why the Libs were decimated in the last election.
Not to mention; google 2008 Presidential election results by red states vs blue states then google XL Keystone Pipeline route. If you will notice that the pipeline is routed thru red states. It's all politics and very dangerous politics at that. Obama can't have red states creating jobs and lowering their un-employment numbers.
I would say, lose-lose for Baraka.
,
It likely won't get the necessary support in the Senate to be veto proof. I believe that both houses have to reach super majority to overturn an executive veto.
Interesting that two of the main buzzwords of this potus campaign have Alberta roots:
Keystone
Fracking
(must pi$$ off Ontario to no end)
"It likely won't get the necessary support in the Senate to be veto proof. I believe that both houses have to reach super majority to overturn an executive veto."
Gus at April 20, 2012 2:03 PM
You are correct. The House probably has the votes to over-ride a veto, but the chances of that happening in the Senate are slim.
Shows there is some hope for the land of Old Glory on the positive side.
The only 'win win' for USA, at this time IMO, would be to vote for and back the only man running for President who is not backed by wall street and special interest groups: Dr.Ron Paul.
Mitt is Bama lite, Mitt was the architect of Obamacare! Mitt supports bail outs, TSA, NADA, and endless money draining foreign war adventures. Mitt flip flops like a seal and is only 'better' because he is 'notobama'. Dr. Paul is the Champion of the Constitution: the most magnificent document ever created by man, IMO.
I could not pull that lever for a flip flopping tax and spend loving puppet of the elites - I would write in the name of The Patriot, Ron Paul if I were able to vote in the American election.
In Canada, many years ago, I voted for Lyin Brian because Eric Nielson was on the ballot. I justified that vote as a vote for Eric not Malroony. American voters vote for their Presidents separately and they have the option of writing in the person they choose. If Ron Paul were not on the ticket, I would use the option.
should be NDAA..
Jema 54 -
If Romney gets in with a Rep Congress, it will be politically impossible for him or them to run again as Republicans, unless they govern at least as far right as Reagan, which is where the base is. The base is far more fiscally conservative than they were in 2000.
Romney, btw, is the guy who defended the right of corporations ( not Wall Street ) to earn profit, when Santorum and Gingrich were yapping at them. Paul will end up enthusiastically backing Romney.
"Part of me cheers, while part of me hopes they don't save his sorry ass from himself."
Obama is planning on a narrow victory in which he turns out his ( radical ) base. No way he will approve Keystone; he'd be finished with the nutroots if he did.
The problem here is that we're too late in the game. It's mid-April. If we're lucky, the bill gets passed with a veto-proof majority in the Senate by end of June, but July is more likely, and that's if we're lucky.
August is the conventions. Then September-October, the candidates are on the campaign trail. Guess what? Obama doesn't have to veto it. He just puts the bill in his pocket, says he's too busy, but he'll get around to it "right after I'm re-elected". This lets him teleprom.. er, talk out of both sides of his mouth on the issue, telling greenies he can't afford to offend labour during the campaign, and telling labour the reverse. Win-win for him.
No one could get away with this for more than a few months, but with the help of a complicit media, this will be child's play for Bambam.
small c conservative at April 20, 2012 3:29 PM; - NDAA, TSA, Patriot Act, Military Complex blackmail, undeclared wars, mandated medicare, property seizures, curbing civil liberties...all unconstitutional... all Mitt backed. Ron Paul would be a hypocrite if he backed Mitt.
Ron Paul has huge crowds come to listen to what he has to say...Mitt? Not so much.
KevinB, once the House and Senate pass him a bill, if he doesn't sign it within two weeks it is Law.
I forgot the link, small c conservative:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5BpL6eQyXDs&feature=related
Maybe Romney will find himself enthusiastically backing up Ron Paul.
"The idea that Obama is still polling as high as he is scares me."
That's entirely due to all the lying SOBs in the MSM. If we had an honest MSM that reported all the facts fairly and honestly, Obama first of all wouldn't have been elected. That aside, if we had an honest MSM now, Obama's numbers wouldn't even be half of what they are today. My disgust and contempt for the vast majority of the MSM is boundless.
Ed Minchau:
That only assumes that Congress is in session. Once they adjourn for the summer, as I mentioned, it's the conventions, then the campaign trail. Bambam gets his remaining friends to delay the bill as long as possible before adjournment, and then it's "pocket veto" time. It's not like any of these guys, GOP or Dem, are going to give up their summer vacations for something as trivial as the good of the country.
@ Jema54 at April 20, 2012 4:48 PM
I agree that much of what Ron Paul says is on the money, but some of his ideas are pure lunacy, particularly his opposition to a US defense establishment superior to any potential enemy's, and his notion that the US has made a mistake by adopting a policy of destroying radical Islam.
Both are deal breakers for me.
And really he hasn't proved to be much more than a lone talker in the House: what has he achieved as a Congressman?
small c conservative - there is a vast difference between defense spending and funding a Military Complex - eg a billion dollar Embassy in Iraq is not 'defense spending'.
Ron Paul is the only Military Veteran in the race - Newt and Romney sat out the Viet Nam war in France (draft dodgers with $$)"studying".
Defense spending is internal and Ron Paul would be the last man standing who would cut self defense spending. Ron Paul is the only Republican who defends the right of an individual to bear arms so he can defend himself!
Troops stationed all over the world cost a lot of money. America is broke. Ron Paul wants to bring the soldiers home - Dr. Paul was a soldier, he understands the hell of war; armchair generals don't.
Ron Paul receives twice the donation $$ from the individual soldiers as do all other
President hopefuls (including the 'present' President) combined.
Ron Paul is a lone talker and he is fearless. He has been the main steam behind the partial audit of the fed. He is relentless in his defense of individual God given rights, he is a strict follower of Constitutional Law.
The Constitution makes it illegal for the President to declare war without Congressional agreement. Congress has not declared war since WWII.
Islam is no worse than Communism, why is China not on the 'hit' list with Islam? And do you think that Pakistan and the other 'stans' eg Turkestan, Kazakhstan etc. should be on the "Islam' hit list? What about all the Islam countries in Asia and Africa? That is a BIG war - a World War. There are radicals in every one of those nations.
The nations that support Islam would not attack a well defended USA. Ron Paul believes that Christan countries should leave the Islams to sort out their own problems in their own countries.
If Ron Paul is has lunetic ideas, why do most of the soldiers agree with him? Are the troops lunetics?
Ron Paul is fighting for individual economic, political and social freedom based on the Constitutional Rights of citizens (verses rights 'granted' by government). People with ambition have been attempting to take down the Constitution since it was created by the Founders back in the late 1700's; fierce defenders of Freedom kept them at bay. Ron Paul is a Defender of the Constitution.
If you had a son in the American Military, small c conservative, who would you want in the White House? Troops are citizens, not gument owned cattle.
@ small c conservative at April 21, 2012 12:57 PM
"US has made a mistake by adopting a policy of destroying radical Islam."
As it relates to Christianity, all Islam is radical. The radical parts we disagree with are the ones that actually follow the Koran. Ron Pauls is right in that we should just leave them alone to stew in their 7th century backwater instead if imposing democracy, Christianity, human rights, western ideals or anything else they haven't asked for or even want. None of it is any of our business. Ron Paul is the only one who understands that.