The Oil-Pipeline fiasco

Looking back over time, when a current president up for re-election is trying to gain more support, they will suddenly become more moderate, cross party lines more, and basically do everything they promised to do from the start.

A great example of this is Bill Clinton. With the backing of Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, he was able to begin the process of balancing the budget prior to the 1996 election, which he won. By cutting government spending, he won the support of many moderates for the election, some of whom would have voted Republican without that strategic move.

This year, Barack Obama, the incumbent, has a chance to do the same thing. In what figures to be a very close election, and with huge issues such as the war on terrorism, the pesky economy and growing debt and prevalent (and polarizing) social issues such as abortion at the forefront of this election, Obama had an opportunity to win some support from the moderates by signing a bill legitimizing an oil-pipeline from the tar sands of Canada to the refineries in Texas.

In what was a stunning political move to many, he did NOT sign the bill.

This move made a huge splash in the political world.

It did not make any sense in terms of increasing the votes he would get, but it does set an interesting precedent in terms of doing the right thing.

The far right would rather see myself on the ballot than another four years of Obama. Signing this bill would have no effect on their vote.

The environmentalists who adamantly opposed this bill were already Obama supporters, and will vote Democrat if they put up a real donkey in honor of their party’s symbol. So, by signing this bill, Obama was not trying to get votes from the environmentalists.

What that leaves is the moderates, some on the right and some on the left, including me, who for the most part do not like the signing of this bill. Obama did not sign this bill, and it will cost him votes.

Does this mean the unthinkable?

Did Barack Obama make a political move that — and please, stay with me on this one — was a part of his platform, because he believed it was the right thing to do?

Sticking true to his guns, a United States president made a political move that cost him votes, despite pressure from lobbyists, congress and the public, because it was what he believed in, was one of the things that got him elected.

Like him or not, like his political motives or not, like his decision or not, what Obama did took some balls.

I gained a lot of my respect back for Mr. Obama this past week. He not only refused to sign the bill into law because it was what he believed in, but he also proposed a new bill (that is not to say he drew up a blueprint for a new pipeline, but he detailed why he didn’t sign the bill and the issues attached to it) that explained where the pipeline would have to go to avoid interfering with an environmentally unstable area.

Gotta love that!

The political landscape is changing drastically, and currently my vote is up for grabs. But by doing what I did not support, the very opposite of what I wanted to see, but by sticking to his guns, Obama gained some respect from me. Let’s see if he can impress me further!

What is the most important aspect of a person’s political stance?