Republicans killed the pipeline

As I looked through few newspapers’ editorials to analyze, I found a notable article that has the title “Republicans killed the pipeline”. When I saw the title, it was hard to guess what contents or opinions that article may have. However, after I started to read, it was not that hard to understand what the author says because purpose and style of his writing is clear.

In the article, it mentioned about the Republicans’ proposal that set a 60-day deadline for deciding the fate of the Keystone XL pipeline. The administration insisted the Republicans’ proposal would prevent officials from reviewing a full and necessary consideration of the pipeline’s impact especially as it related to the health and safety of millions of Americans. Therefore, on Wednesday as a result of that deadline, the president agreed to deny that proposal based on the State Department’s recommendation that the proposal must be denied. By showing this dispute about the pipeline issue, the author shows his political view and tries to make people recognizable about the backgrounds under the Republicans’ disagreements.

Author did not clearly show why the Republicans opposed several policies which could bring good impacts such as improving energy security creating jobs, improving economy or etc. He showed that those Republicans’ disagreements are focused to voting down the administration and the ruling party’s proposals rather than focusing to Americans’ benefits.

In his article, he used some strategies to let people know about his opinion. He used lots of facts that support his idea. For example, he showed the U.S.’s oil and gas production and foreign imports figures during Obama’s period to support that the administration’s movements improved the U.S. a lot better. By doing this, he emphasized that the Republicans’ unreasonable disagreements, though the administration’s proposals could bring many benefits for the U.S.

While I read this, I could not totally agree with his opinion. Although, the author used many facts to support his idea, as I learned the facts could be different what angle, in other words, the ideology that facts may have. I could have confidence about my thought in the end after I saw that the author is an energy adviser to President Obama. Therefore, I think this article could be different, if other person who may not have same political view and ideology write about this topic.