Don't trouble yourself trying to figure out whether President Obama is more political than ideological. He's an expert at straddling both and getting his way without compromise.
Analysts have long debated whether partisan Obama would prevail over ideological Obama in his decision to approve or reject the Keystone XL pipeline, but in the end, it may be a false choice, as both could win under the overarching dominance of Saul Alinsky-Obama.
Keystone XL is intended to carry crude oil from Alberta to refineries in the Gulf of Mexico. Environmentalists have long opposed construction of the pipeline, arguing it would do great damage to the Sandhills region of Nebraska. Supporters have contended that the project would have little, if any, negative environmental impact, is critically important for U.S. energy independence and would be a great boon to the economy and create thousands of jobs.
Many believed that Obama's eventual approval of the pipeline was inevitable and that he was just delaying the decision to get past the 2012 elections, after which he could safely withdraw his opposition without worrying about further wrath from environmental absolutists.
But since the elections, Obama has continued to obstruct the pipeline. He is still doing so as we are approaching mid-2014 even though the State Department found in January that the project would not have a significant effect on global warming; Obama has always insisted that the pipeline's alleged impact on global warming is his primary concern.
Many people, including no less a supporter of Keystone than Texas Gov. Rick Perry, predicted Obama would ultimately have to approve the project because, according to Perry, "there is no defending not opening the XL pipeline." Perry continued: "I don't know why he's going to wait for two or three months to do it, but at the end of the day, it is too important to America. It's too important to the security of this country. It's too important to job creation."
Though Perry's optimism and bullishness on America are wholly appealing to me, it appears you just can't count on Obama to follow impenetrable logic or to do the obviously right thing for America.
In April, Obama once again kicked the can down the road, postponing indefinitely a final decision on the construction of the project. His shamelessly subservient State Department announced that it would give the other federal agencies "additional time" to provide their input.
Some may interpret Obama's decision to further stonewall the project as another example of his "leading from behind," but I disagree. It has always been and remains a mistake to misinterpret Obama's incompetence and lack of engagement concerning many aspects of his executive duties as evidence of his indecisiveness.
When it comes to his overall direction -- his overwhelming dedication to fundamentally transforming the nation -- there is no vacillation, no equivocation, no lack of direction. He is hellbent on using "climate change" as an excuse to further sabotage America's free market system.
Obama adviser John Podesta, his "point man on climate policy," said recently that "taking action on climate is one of the most important goals in the president's second term. He feels a profound and urgent obligation to get as much done as he can before he leaves office." According to Rolling Stone, Obama is determined "to use his presidential powers to effectively hasten the phase-out of dirty coal from America's energy system." He directed the Environmental Protection Agency to develop new rules to limit carbon pollution from power plants.
So, Obama has opted for his ideology in favor of partisan politics after all, you ask? No, not quite, because he obviously believes that his two goals are mutually beneficial. He must do everything he can to elect as many Democrats as possible because they (and the disgraceful liberal media) are the ones who enable him to advance his agenda.
Obama was not about to disappoint the richest Democratic donors, who, at the time Obama's State Department announced its further postponement, were getting ready for their annual meeting of the Democracy Alliance, a confab of wealthy liberals who share Obama's commitment to destroy America's founding principles.
So though on the surface it may have appeared to some that Obama had thrown overboard some of his red-state Democratic senators up for re-election, it just so happens that many liberal activists, including San Francisco billionaire Tom Steyer, were promising to leverage their super PACs to support beleaguered Democratic candidates. Indeed, Steyer reportedly pledged to spend $100 million to help Democrats in November, and his driving passion is to kill Keystone.
So with Obama, you don't have to wonder whether he'll finally yield to his ideology, his party or corrupt money.
Why should he when he figures he can have all three? Fortunately for us, however, he is probably figuring wrong, as he'll find out in November.