Barack Obama’s exquisitely timid Keystone Pipeline veto.

Barack Obama was literally too afraid to show his face after vetoing Keystone.

As expected: the President has decided to side with environmentalists over blue-collar unions (and the rest of the country, mind you) by vetoing the bipartisan Keystone Pipeline bill. But did Barack Obama at least do so publicly, to great fanfare? Since this is so important, after all? Of course he didn’t. That would imply moral courage. Nah, Barack Obama did so with his head down and as timidly as he dared – and these days, Barack Obama can dare to be pretty darn timid.


“The presidential power to veto legislation is one I take seriously,” Obama said in a brief notice delivered to the Senate. “But I also take seriously my responsibility to the American people.”

Obama vetoed the bill in private with no fanfare, in contrast to the televised ceremony Republican leaders staged earlier this month when they signed the bill and sent it to the president. House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, said Republicans were “not even close” to giving up the fight and derided the veto as a “national embarrassment.”

A national embarrassment, indeed.  One that extends all the way to even the DNC.  Marvel at their ‘celebration’ of this event:


I mean, geez. When a politician’s own pet agitprop office doesn’t dare have Barack Obama look you in the eyes…

Moe Lane (crosspost)

7 thoughts on “Barack Obama’s exquisitely timid Keystone Pipeline veto.”

  1. The above plans would still need Presidential approval, but the politics in Alaska in regards to oil is very different from the lower 48. Right now Alaska would pretty much roll out the red carpet to help Canada out.

    1. According to an enviro-loon I spoke with recently, the Canadians are looking at a short-term solution of shipping the oil by rail to one of the ports on the Columbia near Portland, OR, where it would be shipped over to China.
      I have yet to hear whether more oil is spilled yearly by train derailments (which happen more frequently than pipeline breaks) or pipeline breaks (which appear to release more oil per incident than train derailments)
      As I am a conservationist (note – NOT a greenie nor a loon) I prefer the less impactful technology .. whichever one it turns out to be.

Comments are closed.