I was listening to Obama tonight. He said, “Because there’s never been a leak this size at this depth, stopping it has tested the limits of human technology.” I thought, What about alien technology? He continued: “That’s why, just after the rig sank ...” You contacted aliens? “... I assembled a team of ...” Aliens?! “... our nation’s ...” Secret alien contacts?!? “... best scientists and engineers. ...” Dang.
Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.
Posted by pudge at June 15, 2010 06:02 PM | Email ThisYou know when Chrissy "Tingles" Matthews and Keith "Bathtub Boy" Olberman rip him a new one he's epically failed.
Guess they've figured out what we've know for six years, the guy's an empty suit with no experience, no leadership skills, no executive ability.
God help us.
Posted by: Obi-Wan on June 16, 2010 12:34 AMIt's President Obama's fault for the damage to the coastline, slow deployment of booms, slow approval to build protective dikes, and waiting 50 days to approve use of National Guard troops. He claimed this disaster right here - he's been in charge since the very beginning.
When Ken Salazar became my Secretary of the Interior, one of his very first acts was to clean up the worst of the corruption at this agency. But it's now clear that the problem there ran much deeper, and the pace of reform was just too slow. And so Secretary Salazar and I are bringing in new leadership at the agency -- Michael Bromwich, who was a tough federal prosecutor and Inspector General.
Who replaces the previous OBAMA appointed leader, who was put in over a year ago. A full 8 months before Deepwater Horizon started drilling. He last pick was apparently a bust, this new one won't be?
Tomorrow, I will meet with the chairman of BP and inform him that he is to set aside whatever resources are required to compensate the workers and business owners who have been harmed as a result of his company's recklessness. And this fund will not be controlled by BP. In order to ensure that all legitimate claims are paid out in a fair and timely manner, the account must and will be administered by an independent third party.
Perhaps the "constitutional professor" can explain where in the Constitution we can find such power given to the Executive, or how BP is now exempt from the protections afforded by the Constitution?
And I'm surprised our President has not returned the hundreds of thousands of dollars he received from BP, ExxonMobil, and Chevron. You know, those huge political donations which made him the politician with the highest recipient of oil money in all of 2008.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on June 16, 2010 04:26 AMAt times like this, I tell myself that if it weren't for the absolute disaster of Carter, we never would have gotten the Reagan into the Whitehouse.
Posted by: johnny on June 16, 2010 06:42 AM
With that said, the states need to be more proactive earlier and if necessary, defy the Fed Guvmint if they stand in the way for obtaining permits for building berms as in this case (States rights - and cite the US Constitution). Gov. Jindal should have ordered the berms built several weeks ago, when it was apparent that the EPA was stalling for these emergency permits. Gov. Riley of Alabama ordered these berms installed w/o EPA because time was of the essence - good move. I'd rather have seen the States stand up to the Federal Gov't when they become the problem in fixing the problems in both natural disasters. However, the States need to take the lead from the get-go and
Posted by: KDS on June 16, 2010 07:50 AMTo quote BB King, I guess The Thrill (going up my leg) Is Gone for the Kool-Aid Kids.
Posted by: James on June 16, 2010 08:25 AMTo quote BB King, I guess "The Thrill (going up my leg) Is Gone" for the Kool-Aid Kids.
Posted by: James on June 16, 2010 08:27 AMYes. A crisis is a terrible thing to waste. Obama has stated publicly that he intends to shut down our coal industry, so the timing of this spill seems to fit right into Obama's agenda.
He's just making this up as he goes.
Why? I mean, really. Why?
Like he's going to say something worth hearing? Like he's going to propose some sort of solution?
I can list at least a thousand things I'd rather be doing than listening to Obama run his mouth.
Posted by: jimg on June 16, 2010 10:21 AMThe Dutch first made this offer three days after the spill and were refused by the EPA. Now, 54 days after the refusal, we have reconsidered.
But he has a very nice crease in his pants.
I'd be more than willing to give him the benefit of the doubt if he actually held himself accountable. Last night's speech about replacing the MMS head made it sound like it was a bunch of "Bush cronies" screwing things up, when in fact it was HIS OWN PEOPLE in place running the MMS.
How about focusing on solving problems rather than creating new ones? Why the insistence on Obamacare (when his own internal documents state that his claim you can keep what you have was a lie), cap-and-trade, increased taxes, etc., all of which HURT the economy?
This is a man who had zero private-industry experience, who has surrounded himself with lifetime Government people, and refuses to own up to his own errors. He wants to claim that the "Government's been on the case since day one" but that every problem since then is purely the blame of BP - not the Government.
Basically, if you want to be treated like an adult and given the deference and respect of an adult, then ACT like an adult. Pointing fingers and saying "he did it!" and then trying to grab any positive news as your own (whether or not you deserve it) is simply childish.
There's a reason he's called a man-child, and there's a reason he's the poster-boy that education does not equal intelligence.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on June 16, 2010 10:41 AMPotentially. Also accepting help is feared as showing "weakness" for those who really are insecure. Who don't want to admit they really ARE weak.
Clearly Obama would be smart to call the socialist Dutch and Norwegians because "They are known for - for dikes and for cleaning up water and for dealing with spills."
If he would have just answered Jindal and Barbour 45 days ago when they wanted to create dikes in the first place (but could not because of Federal control of the coastline) the damage would have been a LOT less.
But again, that would have been accepting someone else's suggestion, and the implicit admission that someone else knew better. And for a man with an ego the size of his, and with so little wisdom and intelligence that is a fearful prospect.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on June 16, 2010 10:46 AMThat's how stupid central government can be, and why it's so idiotic to keep giving them more power. I am so happy that they are in charge of our health care now.
Posted by: Gary on June 16, 2010 11:07 AMI am not sure what the local pundits here want done. You complain when the government takes over a company (e.g., GM). You complain about over regulation. You complain about government interference, but the minute an avoidable catastrophe occurs, you want the government, especially the President to step in. You think the President is some sort of expert on capping the well (more so than the experts at BP and the other oil companies whose job it is to know this stuff)? He is spending a large amount of his time down on the coast talking to people. He got a multinational company agree to put aside $20B, even though the out-dated liability cap is only $75M. What the hell do you want?????
Posted by: tc on June 16, 2010 12:25 PMYou are just completely full of it here, tc. You are spouting the moronic Democratic talking points that just because someone is against TOO MUCH regulation, that therefore they are against ALL or even, depending on the circumstances, INCREASED regulation.
This is anti-intellectual gibberish.
He got a multinational company agree to put aside $20B, even though the out-dated liability cap is only $75M.
BP most likely violated the law. The cap won't apply. It's irrelevant. He strongarmed them into putting up this money (make no mistake on this ... he even said in his speech last night that they would be forced to). He didn't "get" them to do it, he made them do it.
And are you opposed to the skimmers collecting as much oil as possible? So what if it's only the surface oil?
Obama himself said that the day he is elected, the earth would heal and the waters would recede.
I think it's your guy who has claimed to be all-powerful.
What exactly, Pudge, has Obama not done so far that you view he should have done? Should he have micromanaged the agency in charge from the start (and manage the war, the economy, etc.)?
Also, the setup of having a multinational corporation outsourcing to another multinational (foreign?) outfit to drill and allowing the drilling rig to be flagged under a country with lax maritime regulations(Marshall Is Flag), is exactly what Republicans (Bush/Cheney and other southern governors) approve of. Do you have a different model? They so state. Don't take pot shots without stepping up to the plate and going on record. What regulations should be in place that weren't, and what is the likelihood that the Republicans from the south (oil region) would go along with such regulations. You can state all you want that what I am stating is intellectual gibberish, but it is empty talk. Go on record. Put some skin in the game. What regulations need to be updated/revised? I am waiting for the Republican talking points on this and all I hear is birds chirping.
Posted by: tc on June 16, 2010 01:21 PMActually pathetic. Obama can't do anything, can he?
Why did he want to be President, if he wasn't going to change any Bush policies? So, Salazar was appointed by Bush?
Pathetic.
Posted by: Gary on June 16, 2010 01:31 PMAnyway, nice to see liberals admit that Obama can't actually do anything.
Not true. This platform was put in place under Obama, and got exemptions from Obama.
Anyway, so what? What regulations were not in place, that should have been in place? And why didn't Obama put them in place? Why are you asking only about Bush? I never asked about Obama.
The actual oversight people in place that weren't doing their job were put in place by Bush.
Did they do something wrong? What?
Even if Obama had wanted to replace them at the start of his term, the jobs would have probably been empty, since Congress won't get off the dime and approve his appointees (both sides at fault here).
Nonsense. The "oversight people" are low-level and don't require congressional approval.
Take a look at Cheney's 2001 energy report (i.e., commission run by Cheney). This is the model the was put in place. The report stated that oil blowouts, like what occurred, are a thing of the past.
Obama said essentially the same thing when, weeks before the explosion, he lifted the moratorium.
The current technology was more than sufficient to handle the situation.
So? What does that prove?
What a bunch of BS.
What "BS" are you referring to?
What exactly, Pudge, has Obama not done so far that you view he should have done?
Whatever you think Bush should have done that he didn't do, I guess.
Should he have micromanaged the agency in charge from the start (and manage the war, the economy, etc.)?
If Bush should have, then yes, Obama should have.
Also, the setup of having a multinational corporation outsourcing to another multinational (foreign?) outfit to drill and allowing the drilling rig to be flagged under a country with lax maritime regulations(Marshall Is Flag), is exactly what Republicans (Bush/Cheney and other southern governors) approve of.
Also what Obama approves of, obviously.
Do you have a different model?
Does Obama? Did he, before the explosion?
Don't take pot shots
What pot shot did I take? What are you babbling about?
What regulations should be in place that weren't
Yes, what? Since you're blaming Bush ...
You can state all you want that what I am stating is intellectual gibberish, but it is empty talk.
No, it's not. I backed it up, quite well, and you completely ignored it. Shall I restate? You are attacking Republicans for being against regulation, and then saying government should get involved. But those are not contradictory positions: you're full of crap when you say they are.
You would have to point out specific regulations, or types of regulation, that Republicans were against, and are now asking for. Just saying "you are against regulation, but now you're for it" is meaningless, unless someone is actually against ALL regulation, and Republicans are not.
What regulations need to be updated/revised?
I couldn't care less. I am not the one blaming or attacking anyone ... except attacking you for, first, your unintellectual hogwash that being against some regulations means you can't be for other regulations, and, second, your insipid post where you attack me for things I never said or implied.
I have never accused Obama of any wrongdoing in this. I've defended him, in fact, on multiple occasions. I can see nothing he's done that's significantly wrong (except for, perhaps, dictating to a private company that it has to set up a escrow fund ... I don't think he has the legal authority to do that, but I've not looked into it).
Posted by: pudge on June 16, 2010 01:55 PMGary,
Easy. The answer is on January 20, 2009. Yes the event occurred on his watch, but the regulations are a carry over from Bush-Cheney administration, specifically they are a result of the 2001 energy task force chaired by Cheney. So are you saying in addition to dealing with the economy, managing two major wars, etc., Obama should have also overhauled the 2001 task force recommendations in this time? Further, what is the likelihood that the Republicans would have went along with any changes. Even now, they are clammering for opening back up deep-water drilling w/o even understanding the issues that led to the current event. Then you have the idiotic "berm" idea from Jindahl being an example of the few ideas the Republicans have come up with. Does he not understand tidal effects? Maybe he should visit Grayland WA to see how they work.
Except you later in your post admitted I did defend him. So stop lying, please.
You have a funny way of defending him given the post this thread is associated with.
Yes, this perfectly innocuous post, that was not in any way negative, that only described the -- to me -- humorous thoughts in my head as I listened to the beginning of the speech, thoughts that were, in substance, obviously unrelated to anything Obama said.
You are making fun of his speech.
Nonsense. How did I do that? Did I point out, in any way, a single part of his speech that was wrong, silly, or worthy of derision in any way? No. You just assumed I had negative motivations because you know I disagree with Obama on many things, and have often criticized him in the past.
Nowhere in this post have you stated, other than in @44 that you think he hasn't done anything wrong.
And here's where you admit I defended him, proving you're a liar for saying I didn't.
There have been plenty of comments left blasting Obama on his inaction, and you remained silent.
Yes. And you're a liar for implying that this means I agree with those comments.
How exactly are you defending Obama? Inquiring minds would like to know.
You already explained how I defended him. Please stop lying by saying you don't know.
I don't know why you crawled out of the wrong side of the bed today, tc, but you need to check yourself.
Yes the event occurred on [Obama's] watch, but the regulations are a carry over from Bush-Cheney administration, specifically they are a result of the 2001 energy task force chaired by Cheney.
Which regulations, that pertain to what happened? If you cannot identify them, then you're spouting irrelevant nonsense. Simply whining about "ZOMG TASK FORCE" is meaningless and fallacious. Be specific or shut up and go away.
Okay. You have confirmed yet again that Obama can't govern. You're confirming that since everything is Bush's fault, Obama hasn't changed anything. Therefore he can perpetually blame Bush.
You have not identified the regulations that caused this disaster, but even you could, that doesn't absolve the current President, who kept them in place for Deepwater Horizon.
Yet it's not Obama's fault. It's the regulations that were in place for a decade, never mind not a single accident during that decade. Nope, can't be the Administration and it's political appointees are incompetent, it's gotta be the evil BusHitlerburtonMcChimpyCheney's worthless regulations!
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on June 17, 2010 04:08 PMSo you are basically stating that it is all the government officials fault that they followed the rules in place that didn't cause a single accident for a decade. You are smoking something Dan, along with the rest of the pundit crowd here. You will blaim Obama for anything. It was BP's fault plain and simple and it was aided by an era of deregulation and let industry do what ever the hell it wants attitude that is put forth by the Republicans, especially Southern Republicans. It is the Haley Barbours that proclaim that Mississippi beaches are just fine and the oil sheen is similar to what one gets from normal boat traffic. To him, a tarball here and a tarball there is just fine. Tell that to the shrimp fleet and other fisherman that make their living off the sea, where the underneath ecosystem will be destroyed for decades, probably centuries. Tell that to Louisiana folks who will have their marshes destroyed and lose what little buffer they have from hurricanes. Yet, we the tax payer will end up footing the bill for this lax regulation, just like we have done with Wall Street, whose fall was also caused by the free-market free-for-all. To assume, that free-markets can be self-governing is to assume that all the actors will play by the rules and seek the common good. No, greed by a few ruins the market (whether financial or oil) for all. This is why we have laws, and this is why we have regulations. This is why we have a government. When the Republicans want to strip away all protections so that their big business cronies can make enormous profits at tax payers expense, then enough is enough. This is the change Barack was talking about. It isn't some wet dream of the Beck's about some socialist takeover. It is simply putting back in place the safeguards that will lower the chance of this catastrophe or the deep recession that we have been going through that is due to Wall Street greed.
Further, you have individual here that try to claim the easy road and say they are for some regulation, yet can't name a single change they would like to see and castigate those who disagree with them. Dan, you seem like a reasonable person and a solid businessman. I am sure in your business there are regulations that you agree to need to be in place and others that you wish were removed. Why is it however, that the oil execs and their Republican puppets can't seem to have the same frank discussion? I sure if you were in the oil business, you could state some ideas.
Posted by: tc on June 18, 2010 08:01 AMAnd they could have been replaced at any time, without any input from the Senate.
The regulations were fine enough for the Republicans that voted them in and they seem fine enough now for the Republicans because there is no call for change of regulations.
Do you have any SPECIFIC problems with those regulations? So far, you've not stated any, which means you're full of crap for suggestion there's a problem with them.
Obama has replaced the head of the agency.
Yes, after the spill. And I note that you are admitting you were wrong when you said "Even if Obama had wanted to replace them at the start of his term, the jobs would have probably been empty, since Congress won't get off the dime and approve his appointees." No Congressional action was required to replace the head of MMS.
Yet, the pundit crowd, especially from the Republican's side say he isn't doing enough.
And yet you accused ME of this, and have still not retracted your lie. If you post again without retracting your lies against me, you will be banned.
Then, when he stands up for the fisherman and other small businesses on the coast that are most effected by them, you have Republicans calling the voluntary agreement reached with BP yesterday a Shakedown.
It wasn't voluntary ... unless you're calling Obama a liar:
I refuse to let that happen. Tomorrow, I will meet with the chairman of BP and inform him that he is to set aside whatever resources are required to compensate the workers and business owners who have been harmed as a result of his company’s recklessness. And this fund will not be controlled by BP. In order to ensure that all legitimate claims are paid out in a fair and timely manner, the account must and will be administered by an independent third party.
BP was, according to Obama, literally forced into it.
You are smoking something Dan, along with the rest of the pundit crowd here. You will blaim Obama for anything.
You are again lying about me.
It was BP's fault plain and simple and it was aided by an era of deregulation and let industry do what ever the hell it wants attitude that is put forth by the Republicans, especially Southern Republicans.
You're lying. You have not identified a single removed regulation, or missing regulation, that contributed to this.
Yet, we the tax payer will end up footing the bill for this lax regulation
You're a liar. You have not identified a single removed regulation, or missing regulation, that contributed to this.
To assume, that free-markets can be self-governing is to assume that all the actors will play by the rules and seek the common good.
No. You completely misunderstand how the free market works. It works by people NOT seeking common good, but seeking "enightened self-interest," and far from assuming people will play by the rules, we expect law enforcement to ensure that.
When the Republicans want to strip away all protections so that their big business cronies can make enormous profits at tax payers expense, then enough is enough.
You're a liar. NO ONE is asking for stripping away all protections.
This is the change Barack was talking about.
And yet, nothing has changed. Funny that.
It is simply putting back in place the safeguards that will lower the chance of this catastrophe
You're a liar. You have not identified a single removed safeguard, or missing safeguard, that contributed to this.
Further, you have individual here that try to claim the easy road and say they are for some regulation, yet can't name a single change they would like to see
You're a liar. You have not identified a single regulation that was MISSING, but still attack Republicans for being anti-regulation and therefore contributing to the spill.
tc: bottom line, you have to do two things to not be banned: you have to apologize for your lies about me (saying I was attacking Obama for doing something wrong leading to this spill); and you have to either give specific regulations that SHOULD HAVE existed, that didn't, that contributed to this spill, or admit you were lying when you repeatedly said there were such regulations that should have existed.
If you remain silent, or post again without doing both of those things, you will be banned. I'm sick of your lies.
Was Obama wrong when he said that offshore drilling was "absolutely safe"?
Interesting how you tie big oil to the Republicans. Who received the most money in the last Presidential election? From BP, ExxonMobil, and Chevron?
The reality is that apparently the Obama Administration was fine with the people and regulations in place. Those can be changed by executive action - no need for the Senate or House (both of which are under the firm control of the President's party, mind you). Everything was OK until the disaster hit.
And then, rather than taking the blame ("We've been in control since day one"), they fall back to the knee-jerk response of "EVIL RETHUGLICANS TO BLAME!" Except it's not flying. The public has rejected that line. The Republicans haven't controlled Congress for over 3 years, and the White House for nearly 2 years.
This Administration simply does not have the integrity to stand up and say "it was our fault, we'll fix it". And it does not have the experience or intellectual capacity to accept help from real-world experts from around the world (witness the Dutch, Norwegians, and hundreds of American oil men who could help).
This Administration is about one thing, and one thing only: political games. It's patently obvious, with the way this oil leak is being handled. And as we see with new NPR, Gallup, and Rassmussen polls, the American public sees that clearly, too.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on June 18, 2010 11:43 AM