I'm expecting him to disappoint many with Keystone XL
It seems to me that unless he punts on the decision again, he'll decide to let it go ahead. That will infuriate many who portray it as the final nail in the coffin on climate change. With James Hansen free from his federal position, I'm sure he'll be out in front with the condemnation.
But I expect he will get some plaudits from "middle America" on the decision. (Papers in ND are already saying that the pipeline spill in AR is no big deal and should not affect the KXL decision - http://www.thedickin...37/group/Opinion/ ) Not that it will matter in the House, of course. But it might help swing some races that would swing the other way in the '14 election. Single issue voters will attempt to be very noisy either way.
There are lots of other things he has to worry about in the decision, too - http://www.nytimes.c...ml?pagewanted=all
He's in a nearly impossible position with respect to that, and with respect to trying to run the federal government in general. It's easy to say he should bend the House to his will, but he can't. He has no leverage because the voters didn't give him the leverage he needs. So he has to play the hand he was dealt. When he tries to get leverage by being creative with the cards he has, by proposing compromises[*] or even accepting some of the Republicans proposals in exchange for other things he wants, he's called all sorts of names by those who seemingly refuse to accept that he's not king.
It sucks, but that's where we are.
What do I think he should do? Accept the KXL with conditions - a) regular thorough inspections of the pipelines and facilities; b) increased regulation of old coal-fired plants to get them cleaned up or offline sooner; c) some sort of tax increase to make it more expensive to burn fossil fuels (or elimination of the egregious oil company tax breaks). He probably only can do a and maybe b through the EPA. But he can make an issue out of c. If he can use the KXL to get substantially more carbon-spewing things offline, it's a win for nearly everyone.
[*] - e.g. on the Chained CPI for Social Security. The proposal I saw (and posted about a few weeks ago - I'll post the link if I can find it again) was that the CPI would be adjusted, but benefits would increase for lower-income retirees. But you don't hear about that from those who say he's wanting seniors to eat generic dog food instead of Alpo - http://www.balloon-j...-you-were-my-man/
<sigh>
Cheers,
Scott.
