A consensus has formed, on the left and the right, that Obama isn't getting the job done in the Gulf. Theories on why vary from the administration's healthcare monomania, to the president's love of leisure, remoteness from regular Americans, and weakness for the luxe life. Or perhaps he's so afraid of owning this disaster that he refuses to get near it. You choose.
Legal Insurrection: The first victims of Obamacare
From the day Barack Obama took office, the Obama administration and Democrats in Congress have been obsessed and possessed.Read the rest.
Everything took a back seat to passing Obamacare. [. . .]
The most historic administration "since the Great Depression" watched and waited and twiddled its thumbs and dawdled and ditherered and yawned and blamed others and did little when it counted most in the ongoing Gulf oil spill.
The psychological infirmity which gave rise to the obsession with transformation has left this nation weaker abroad, a laughingstock to every tinpot dictator with a Twitter account, a debt-engine heading for a cliff, in a jobless quagmire, and with its first victims.
Doug Ross: Now is the time on Sprockets vhen ve juxtapose headlines!
Just one question: During a time of severe economic dislocation, rampant unemployment, an oil spill in the gulf, an Iranian nuclear crisis and a Korean peninsula on the brink of war -- try to imagine a fawning media treating a Republican president's opulent, over-the-top party (hosted by Reagan or Bush, for example) like this.Good point. Don't miss Doug's brutal photo essay.
I can't.
Another Black Conservative: Welcome to Club 1600, the ultimate escape from reality
You know what this spectacle reminds me of, all those dime store dictators and despots who live high off the hog as their people suffer. Castro and Kim Jung Il readily come to mind. Perhaps this “let them eat cake” attitude really is part of the statist ideal.RTR.
It really chafes me when I think how this gaudy display was paid for with money stolen from our children’s future and for what? To celebrate a little lying hypocrite who comes over here to bad mouth one of our states? This is just too much to be believed.
If any of the GOP 2012 hopefuls are really smart, they will use these images for one hell of an attack ad.
Patterico: Obama golfs as oil gushes
Wow. Also critical of Obama, Chris Matthews and James Carville. Matthews, for once, seems to get it:The oil from the BP spill has arrived at Louisiana’s coast and President Obama rushed home to Washington … to go golfing.
Meanwhile, even Democrats are criticizing Obama for his handling of the crisis as the oil continues to gush in the Gulf:
“Is the Obama administration doing a good enough job responding to the BP oil spill?
No, said Cokie Roberts and Donna Brazile on the “This Week” roundtable. “The oil is gushing and we’re being lied to by how much oil is gushing…and the administration has now named a commission,” Cokie Roberts said derisively. “Now this is what you do when you really don’t have anything else to do: you name a commission,” she said. “That’s not going to stop the oil.”
“One of the problems I have with the [Obama] administration is that they’re not tough enough,” Brazile said. “They are waiting for BP to say, ‘oh we have a new plan to stop the oil leak.’ They need to stop it, contain it, clean it up and try and help us conserve our coastal wetlands,” Brazile said.”
“The President scares me,” he said. “When is he actually going to do something? And I worry; I know he doesn’t want to take ownership of it. I know politics. He said the minute he says, ‘I’m in charge,’ he takes the blame, but somebody has to. It’s in our interest.”Well, Matthews gets part of it. What evidence has been produced in the last year and a half that Obama is concerned about what's in our interest? Read the rest.
Then there's always corruption, and good old-fashioned incompetence.
What leadership looks like: Bobby Jindal takes charge.
Most recent posts here.
If, in all cases, it were a sitting Republican President, he would have already been raked over the coals ... numerous times! Obama sickens me. He does as little as possible, but just enough to get by. If he worked in my office, I would have fired him long ago!
ReplyDeleteWhat's the matter with a good old fashioned boycott of BP? It would be very easy to do.
ReplyDeleteQuestion: Did Obama order the Justice Dept to stand down on AIG criminal probe.
ReplyDeleteI dunno, Jill - maybe he listened to your earlier comments about how talking tough to BP was "thuggish" behavior.
ReplyDeleteAfter all, as you say this is a case where "BP, who, by all accounts, is taking responsibility for the disastrous accident and doing everything it can to fix it."
This is why-
ReplyDeletehttp://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9FTDV7O1&show_article=1
It is always been about the money and will always be about the money.
Ask yourself an honest question. The governments across the world are broke, scared and some are on the brink of collapse. The people in charge, our "leaders" will have to do something.
What direction do you think they will go in? Do you think they will justify seizing private assets (401K's/healthcare) and increasing control over their citizens vs. saying to anyone who is listening- "Guys we screwed up. We are stepping down in order to let someone else take a shot at it."
Which one.
Elites and the governments they have created believe their survival is more important than anything else. Notice no government, so far, as volunteered to cut back or admit it has gone beyond its usefulness.
I still believe that BP is doing everything they can to fix it. It's in their interest. If your idea leadership is Obama's putting his "boot to the throat" and fingerpointing, then ok, he's leading here.
ReplyDeleteBut the gov't does have a role in facilitating ways to stop the spread of the oil, giving the ok to Jindal to go ahead with the dredging, etc. There's more to leadership than threatening and golfing.
Even Donna Brazile finds his response deficient.
Well, the president is clearly no George W. Bush who after a briefing about the potential of levee failure went off to lead by playing the guitar, but it's unclear what standard you are holding him to.
ReplyDeleteThere is no federal fleet of oil recovery vehicles - and aside from goading BP to work faster, there's not a lot of presidential actions that are going to make the oil go away.
Jindal seems to think his dredging is going to make a difference - but he's hardly an expert, and there are plenty of reasons to doubt his plan.
(Although it is nice to see a man who refused federal stimulus aid now demand federal assistance.)
I have big problems with the way NOAA and the administration have somehow managed to use the lowest number of a wide range estimate to describe the oil flow (even to this day). That smacks of charity towards a company who has given us very little reason to trust them.
I'm sure BP is trying hard to fix this mess - but I'm just as sure they did precious little to prevent this mess.
Folks, just vote them in and out on a regular two term basis. Always. Never allow pickpockets to work the same street too long.
ReplyDeletemurph...murph...MURPH!
ReplyDeleteNo federal fleet of oil recovery vehicles? Okay, well, I guess that's it for old Barry. Back to the links and tell Bobby G. to keep talking about having their boot on the neck of BP. That's what they really are a whole lot more comfortable doing. Threatening, penalizing, extorting...it's a testament to their commitment to our American traditions. These guys are posers, with no clue about what to do except make a show of being really mad. All we need is for Salazar to start stomping his foot, or bang his shoe against the podium, for that matter. "We will bury you.. we will bury you.." Well thanks Bare, but I don't want you burying anybody, certainly not another private industry, especially one dedicated to providing this country with the life blood that fuels our economy. Where is the evidence that the Administration is attempting to address the issue. Where are they working with BP, or if you like, any other firm with extensive experience in deep sea oil drilling? Speak up? ..... crickets.
But as to our gal Jill:
"Well, Matthews gets part of it. What evidence has been produced in the last year and a half that Obama is concerned about what's in our interest?"
That's a good one. What a clueless tool this guy Matthews is. 'He has to take charge...it's in our interest?' As if! Listen Chris, I'm sorry to spill the sad news to you, but this guy is not working in our national interest. He never has been. Barry O works for his political interest and the political interest of his party. Fini. You can see it over and over again in all he does. The auto takeover, the health care takeover, his stance on immigration, and now the oil leak.
Barry O is a kamikaze pilot, and he has himself seated behind the joy stick of the world's economy. What's his plan?
Down...down...down...down.....boom!
nicholas -
ReplyDeleteActually, it's not it.
I'm sure it's fun to have your little rant, but the facts are the federal government is doing a great many things. The fact that you were unaware of them doesn't validate your viewpoint.
1) The Federal government supplied technical expertise and equipment to allow for a gamma ray scan of the BOP - to get a clearer picture of what its status is.
2) The DOD agreed to send military aircraft to drop chemical dispersant on the spill the week after the accident.
3) The Coast Guard has been on scene and working with BP since the beginning of the accident. They are currently working with spill containment crews and have been for weeks.
The sad fact is, there is no great plan B for this situation. The oil was always going to hit the shoreline - anyone talking up containment was just posturing. Spills this big have no history of getting skimmed up with minimal impact.
I do believe that BP is going to try like mad to stop the leak. That has to be a priority - and the Fed can shoulder surf and berate, but there's one effort and its underway.
Cleanup and containment efforts are the next thing and they are underway as well.
I'd love to see what would constitute a success in the context of a massive environmental disaster. The oil is onshore, across beaches more than 300 miles apart. There was never any possibiity that there would be enough booms deployed to shield the shoreline - and that's assuming they'd even work if there were. Anyone who says different has no sense of the complexity of the problem.
What needs to be done that isn't being done? Do you even understand the problem enough to make a recommendation?
Somehow I doubt it.
Because, Jill, my dear woman, the President is in way over his head - beyond his ken.
ReplyDeleteHad spent more than but a few semesters in eleced office or management anywhere, he might be up to any and all tasks; as it is . . .there it is.
Chesty Puller, a dead white man and heroic American, always said that leadership meant placing the CP ( command post) up close to the action. President Obama, sadly, commands from behind an electronic communicator, Gibbs, and Comb Over Dave Axelrod.
"Actually, it's not it."
ReplyDeleteNice lead off, Murph. 'It's not it.' Sets the tone. And the ranting comment fits more your line. I offered a few comments spiced with humor, which most everyone enjoyed, with the possible exception of one.
"I do believe that BP is going to try like mad to stop the leak."
Ya think?
"Do you even understand the problem enough to make a recommendation?"
Geez. So Murph's a deep sea oil expert? Who knew?
Save me the hollow pedantry. I'd be willing to bet you are no more an expert on deep sea oil drilling or capping deep sea leaks than anyone else here, and all that would be beside the point anyway. The post topic wasn't "How the president should cap a deep sea oil rig." You may want to make that the topic, but your wanting it so doesn't make it so.
I'm willing to talk to you, but read through it again. Then we'll talk.
nicholas,
ReplyDeleteWhere is the evidence that the Administration is attempting to address the issue. Where are they working with BP, or if you like, any other firm with extensive experience in deep sea oil drilling?
Asked and answered.
What I asked you was to provide a scenario that you would call a success in this situation. What would a true leader be doing differently?
And if you're still suggesting that the administration is not working with BP - please show why you think that is the case.
And for the sake of saving time, spare us all opinions about photo ops and looking like a leader. I'm talking about what steps should be taken that are being left undone in your eyes.
Or do you prefer to make like a cricket?
An answer that lists the Coast Guard responding to an oil rig explosion (routine and standard response) and sites a May 12th article about the intention to use Federal resources in response to the April 20th explosion as supposed examples of the high degree of investment the administration has placed in addressing the oil leak problem essentially makes my point:
ReplyDeleteChristian Science Monitor, May 12th:
"The hope is that federal resources can act as reinforcements.
Salazar is also bringing in federal experts and equipment to monitor the situation and to come up with solutions for both minimizing the oil’s impact and stopping the spill. His first appointment was Marcia McNutt, the director of the US Geological Survey, who will coordinate efforts between BP engineers and federal scientists.
Scientists from the Department of Energy's national laboratories will be using supercomputers to help give BP engineers a better handle on the situation."
Are you reading these articles you're citing, or just throwing it out there and hoping for the best? Anyways, thanks Murph.
What about the other source linked to, an April 30th article from the Gray Lady, no less:
"The federal government also had opportunities to move more quickly, but did not do so while it waited for a resolution to the spreading spill from BP, which was leasing the drilling rig that exploded in flames on April 20 and sank two days later.
The Department of Homeland Security waited until Thursday to declare that the incident was “a spill of national significance,” and then set up a second command center in Mobile. The actions came only after the estimate of the size of the spill was increased fivefold to 5,000 barrels a day.
The delay meant that the Homeland Security Department waited until late this week to formally request a more robust response from the Department of Defense, with Ms. Napolitano acknowledging even as late as Thursday afternoon that she did not know if the Defense Department even had equipment that might be helpful."
Nice.
Looks to me like you still need to read the post.
nicholas,
ReplyDeleteLooks like you need to read your own post.
Those articles were linked to to rebut your (unfounded) suggestion that the government wasn't working with BP.
Apparently two articles illustrating that the government is doing exactly that aren't enough for you.
Okay, there's CNN's account of being herded off a coastal island by BP employees working with the Coast Guard.
There's the Energy Secretary appearing on TV to discuss federal efforts to get BP better scans of what is going on at the wellhead. They DID use the gamma ray scan. That wasn't just a hope.
You think the government wasn't fast enough? Get in line, pal.
But don't pretend that this mess would have been any different with McCain or some other hero at the helm.
McCain at the helm?! That is about as thorough a retreat and slide off as we'll ever see. At this point we're watching a guy swinging blindly at the pinata. Look, Murph, when you start out responding to a post on President Obama's handling of an oil leak with a reference and link to President Bush, you've just telegraphed that you're a political hack and placed in doubt your credibility and ability to engage the issue at hand honestly. Everyone in the room sees what you apparently are stubbornly trying to ignore, and the articles you use to support your position in fact utterly undermine it, as I pointed out to devastating effect.
ReplyDeleteThe president's response to this disaster is the same he has consistently taken throughout his presidency - he looks to take advantage of a crisis to advance his political agenda. He advances the agenda by demonizing a certain segment of the private sector, he then imposes expansion of the government as the so-called fix, regardless of whether or not the measures taken have any impact at the problem at hand. See the TARP bailout, the Jobs Bill, the government takeover of Chrysler and GM, the government involvement in the sub-prime mortgage industry and subsequent world-wide financial collapse, and the government insertion into the health care industry - none of these modern uses of government will fix the problem they are sold as addressing, and the truth be known, he is interested in expanding his political power and the power of his party, not governing the nation and certainly not fixing the problem.
Rahm Emanual summed up the opportunistic frame of mind during the financial crisis of 2008
“You never want a serious crisis to go to waste — and what I mean by that is an opportunity to do things that you didn’t think you could do before.”
Yes indeed, Rahm. The delay and ineffectual response to the gulf oil leak is so obvious even The New York Times can't avoid commenting on it in their regular articles, as you have so cleverly directed to our attention. He was not in a hurry to respond to the leak, Murph. He is far more interested in shouting out to the world that he will keep his boot on the throat of BP. Nothing you have said is in the least bit compelling as a rebuttal to Jill's underlying point. In fact,where it is substantive it is to the contrary, and where it is not it looks to muddy the waters and distract, rather than engage the issue at hand. Anyways, it is all getting a tad boring, if you will pardon the pun. I will leave you with the last word.
Oh, and by the way, I'm not posting here Murph. I'm commenting. So are you. Jill wrote the post, and a damn good one at that.
You want to damn the administration for their response - damn them for what is actually true.
ReplyDeleteWhich is why I called you on your utterly wrong assertion that the government wasn't working with BP. You pointedly ignore that and start talking about Rahm Emmanuel. Yes, the articles I cited are critical of the response - but I cited them to illustrate the fact that the federal government was working with BP.
You don't like the articles I cited? Fine- Read the Wall Street Journal to find out how completely wrong you were on that score.
"The Navy sent 66,000 feet of inflatable oil booms to the Gulf to help contain the spill, as well as seven towable skimming systems and 50 contractors with experience operating the equipment, according to military officials at the Pentagon.
The Navy is also making two large facilities available to the Coast Guard personnel and contractors employed by BP who are currently taking the lead in fighting the spill." That'd be from April 30th.
If you think I'm defending the government response in totality, you obviously are responding to some comment that exists in your own head. Everything I've posted here was in response to statements that were either nakedly hypocritical or easily disproven political hackery.
There may be people who think the administration's response has been picture perfect - but I am not among them.
Despite what you say - there's plenty of evidence that the federal response amounts to more than threatening and golfing. You can obviously say otherwise - but it would be little more than the kind of political posturing that you claim to be against.
I'm all for criticism of poor performance in government, but you gotta show your work to be credible. You don't like their timeline - fair criticism, and shared by many. But limited to fingerpointing and threatening? You know better - but you chose to speak political bunk for effect.