To be crude, get it, how about this as the case, a Rick Santorum spot for President in late October, 2012
"President Obama refused to build the Keystone Pipeline from close to home from Canada, not the Middle East, in spite of the Iranian nuclear program, that Israel struck after Iran tested a nuclear weapon this May. Although God bless our troops occupying the Straits of Hormuz and the Free Arabic Republic of Khuzistan with our allies the Mujahedin e Khalq in their war with the mullahs, if Keystone had been underway, maybe gasoline wouldn't be $10 a gallon."
Paid for by Rick Santorum for President.
Why find out if that spot would be like Ronald Reagan saying to you know who something about howya doin out there four years later, crudely speaking?
The Keystone Pipeline is a curious affair, as on the surface, its hard to see what the argument would really be about, if much that constitutes American politics is no longer on the surface, but buried in tar sand, so to speak.
As to the Keystone Project, to build a pipeline from Canadian tar sands to the Gulf of Mexico, there is of course a signficant environmental impact to such a large endeavor, although there exist zero large-scale projects of any sort, oil or not, that don't have significant environmental impact.
Building a pipeline isn't exactly Gingrich's moonbase either, as to understanding the technical issues, like moving well away from the Ogallala Aquifer, the latter being the one concern one can understand, just in case, as that's a major national asset that if someone hurt from another country, we'd have to burn down one third of their cities to retaliate in kind, since the aquifer is one third of our water supply, or go North like in that wire shore, and grab some Cannook water.
Other than that, Keystone as a pipeline per se is not so much a big deal really, as the U.S. is criss-crossed by pipelines already, so, who exactly are we kidding?
Does a certain actor known to protests things actually walk everywhere? Does the Little Mermaid not use some sort of petroleum in her existence, somewhere, somehow, like plastic of some form or another?
Possibly, some of the objections to the Keystone Pipeline are not actually about the pipeline per se, but about the source of the oil: both Canadian, and especially tar sands.
As to the latter, oil from tar sands is not pretty to extract, as it effaces the landscape, if not on Cape Cod or in California, but where even polar bears prefer zoos to live in, and involves all sorts of cooking of the sand to extract the oil before shipment, and even then, the oil isn't as nice as Libyan crude, Libyan crude being the best in the world to refine.
That was the argument some people made to delete Qadhafi, to have that in an Army sack, so to speak, just in case things got nasty with Iran, in which seizing the Free Arab Republic of Khuzistan could be done, but would take a lot more effort, and of course be more of a risk with WWIII with China and Russia, as to alternate possibilities out there.
Of course, Libya is a lot farther away from American military forces than our rivals in the War of 1812 and hockey, should oil need to be secured in wartime too, not a trivial argument as to sources of oil supply; just in case.
Moreover, we can see in the CPI data today and the uptick in inflation that gasoline prices pretty quickly start to make the "headline news" in a bad way, not good economically for the country, or politically for the President, at least in the latter case past a certain point.
Certainly, the President has a large environmental constituency to please, and that's reasonable to seriously consider as to the objections voiced over the Keystone Project, especially the Aquifer.
That Aquifer issue is a real one, although just moving the stupid thing over isn't that big a deal, and won't cost the Canucks very much money, and of course, in wartime contingencies, we have to grab what oil we can anyway, and so, its really no big deal for them to move the pipeline a little bit, and build some of the steel in Canada for that move, and of course, all this talk about higher gas prices in the Midwest as a reason could backfire too, and who really knows who pays Dr. V's bills at the end of the day.
But, if the President gets to make the Keystone Project happen, and moves the Pipeline to address a real concern, somewhat, although Alaska seems to do o.k., and its more vulnerable to "terrorists" disguised as Spetznatz, like in the movie, except that was a military concern, and still is, then its like the whole contraception flair-up for the President: a total win.
He gets to save the environment, throw a little hint out to people that gas will be cheaper, run steel mills in Midwestern states harder, which also is by definition anti-inflationary, and, best of all, maybe even throws in his own idea about more of that oil being stored near the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.