I'll preface this by saying that I didn't even vote for Obama. I agree with him on some things and disagree with him on a lot of others. I am not affiliated with a party.

But to all the critics of his handling of the oil spill crisis: what the hell do you want him to do? What this comes down to is the fact that BP engineers and workers haven't been able to stop the leak. Nobody in the government can directly change that. BP has every incentive to fix the problem ASAP. How exactly could Obama "do" anything different that would have fixed the leak? If BP had plugged it in a couple days, that would have been it.

I just don't understand why people blame him and the administration for it besides the fact that it happened to occur on Obama's watch. It's not like Katrina. The government is still practically powerless to stop this thing.

6/8/2010 12:40:56 PM

its just convenient

[Edited on June 8, 2010 at 12:44 PM. Reason : I pretty much agree with you tho]

6/8/2010 12:44:20 PM

Why did it take over a month for Obama to authorize the sand berms

similar stories

etc

/thread

6/8/2010 12:54:43 PM

Why did it take over a month for Obama to authorize the sand berms

similar stories

etc

/thread

6/8/2010 12:55:14 PM

*engage Solinari nitpicking to shift the blame mode*

Look, either you want the government involved or not. Make up your damn free-market-principles mind.

6/8/2010 12:58:41 PM

We have to work in the system we have. Work on berms was illegal until permitted

6/8/2010 1:01:39 PM

Yeah, I don't think there's anything else for the President to do

and I think that there was even less for the President to do regarding Katrina

6/8/2010 1:16:48 PM

I can see how they could fault him, but it's sort of like faulting the CEO of Starbucks for the decisions of a district manager in Wake County.

The big problem with the BP spill was the cozy relationship between the MMS and the oil companies, something that has been brewing for a LONG time, way before Obama. BP had numerous safety violations, and there have been reports coming out now of MMS inspectors who were offered golf trips, jobs, etc (not specifically for BP, but in general).

The MMS is a part of the Dept. of Interior, which is a part of the Executive branch. Therefore, you could argue that Obama should have been aware of what was going on.

However with all of the different departments and groups within those departments, do you really think the MMS occupied a large part of his day? He probably has a file ten feet thick on WAR IN AFGHANISTAN and HEALTHCARE, so the actions of MMS inspectors or BP safety violations are most likely expected to be handled by the MMS, maybe by the Secretary of the Interior if necessary, but there should be no reason for anything to reach the President's desk unless absolutely necessary.

Like I said, it's like faulting the CEO for not noticing the actions of a small time district manager in a multinational corporation. There's no reason he should have to care about it.

6/8/2010 1:26:11 PM

I just think it's hilarious that Spike Lee came out and said that Obama just needs to "go off".

Obama responded several days later by saying "ass" on tv.

6/8/2010 1:37:12 PM

because blaming the President for every problem our country has is the easy, small-minded thing to do.

6/8/2010 1:59:50 PM

The government has access to, ability to mobilize, and the ability to engage several parties to contain the oil leak, including military, reserves, army corps, and even private industries. While the actual spill is somewhat more difficult for the government to act on, the spill containment and protection from oil damage is certainly within the realm of the government to control. The government failed to act fast enough to limit damage. That is where the blame comes from. Furthermore, if the claims of negligence and hundreds of violations on the part of BP are true, then the government failed even before this spill.

Just like Bush and Katrina - the government didn't act fast enough.

[Edited on June 8, 2010 at 2:05 PM. Reason : .]

6/8/2010 2:03:28 PM

Well, yeah. I can see that.

But I am guessing that the conversation went like this:

White House: Yo BP, that spill looks pretty bad. You need help?
BP: We got it, man. No sweat.

*five days later*

White House: Yo, BP, that spill is really getting bad. You need help?
BP: We got it nigga, DAMN! Calm down.

*five days later*

White House: Fuck it *sends cavalry*

6/8/2010 2:06:52 PM

^lol, probably so.

which is why the government, during any large disaster, should be on the ground, ready to roll, and confirming details.

[Edited on June 8, 2010 at 2:08 PM. Reason : .]

6/8/2010 2:08:11 PM

Quote :

"Just like Bush and Katrina - the government didn't act fast enough."

In the case of the hurricane, well it's a hurricane. It's pretty obvious what happened. When the oil rig exploded there was a lot of confusion and possible misinformation from BP as to what was going on. How is the government supposed to "act fast" when they still needed to get information?

This isn't a season of 24. This is real life.

6/8/2010 2:13:24 PM

Quote :

"The big problem with the BP spill 9/11 was the cozy relationship between the MMS and the oil companies casual attitude of government agencies towards terror, something that has had been brewing for a LONG time, way before Obama Bush."

It's amazing how a reversal of parties causes people to exhibit the same type of excuses.

6/8/2010 2:53:36 PM

Show me a report from the MMS that landed on Obama's desk a few months before the explosion that read "Deepwater Horizon rig determined to attack Atlantic Ocean" and I'll agree with you.

6/8/2010 2:56:00 PM

Quote :

"The big problem with the BP spill 9/11 TSB was the cozy relationship between the MMS and the oil companies casual attitude of government agencies towards terror, something that lazy attitude of some posters who just quote something else, cross out some words, and then write in something completely different that has nothing to do with anything and think that they've made some sort of point, something that has had been brewing for a LONG time, way before Obama Bush Solinari."

6/8/2010 3:00:19 PM

George Bush doesn't care about black people

Barack Obama doesn't care about anyone living on the Gulf Coast or east coast

He's all like "as long as there isn't an oil spill on Lake Michigan..."

6/8/2010 3:11:51 PM

[Edited on June 8, 2010 at 3:19 PM. Reason : pic makes me LOL everytime]

6/8/2010 3:19:00 PM

just to keep it non-partisan

6/8/2010 4:07:28 PM

Hahahaha

6/8/2010 4:11:32 PM

Quote :

"It's not like Katrina. The government is still practically powerless to stop this thing."

IIRC, I think it's harder to stop a hurricane than an oil spill...


... besides, it will always fall back on the current administration when it comes to natural disasters. It's the proper thing to do. Obama was just as slow to react as Bush was during Katrina. Apparently, vacations rank higher on the list to these presidents than natural disasters.

6/8/2010 4:22:22 PM

And IIRC, no one blamed bush for not stopping a tropical depression arising over the warm waters off the coast of Africa and then slowly moving west toward the gulf all the while becoming stronger and stronger. They blamed him for being aloof to its consequences and the relief effort.

And Obama is being criticized for the government respnse this time around, although he certainly hasn't been as aloof. There have been no Brownie moments. And there isn't much the government can do to alleviate the situation.

[Edited on June 8, 2010 at 4:30 PM. Reason : .]

6/8/2010 4:29:38 PM

^ Excuses, excuses ... Blow the thing up and get it over with.

But, we all know the truth. Corporate America Britain pulls the strings around here. Even the all mighty Obama has to submit to their will.

[Edited on June 8, 2010 at 4:49 PM. Reason : edit]

6/8/2010 4:49:26 PM

Quote :

"when it comes to natural disasters"

Someone has yet to explain to me how an oil rig explosion and discharge of obscene amounts of oil constitutes a natural disaster.


The right seems to conveniently forget the misinformation that was coming out of BP from the start. We were all told that at first there was no leak, and then a very small leak that was easily controlled by their safety measures all of which was a lie because they had no such safety measures in place. Now imagine if the president had landed there the next day only to find that it was, in fact, a small leak to no leak. Then he would get raked over the coals for being too reactionary and seeking to control (and subsequently destroy) the oil industry. There is just no winning with these people.

6/8/2010 5:02:51 PM

^
I agree that the oil spill is not a natural disaster. Why are people calling it that?

Quote :

"just to keep it non bi-partisan"

fixed it

6/8/2010 5:08:46 PM

Quote :

"And Obama is being criticized for the government respnse this time around, although he certainly hasn't been as aloof. There have been no Brownie moments. And there isn't much the government can do to alleviate the situation. "

Its not Obama's fault that the spill happened, but there is plenty he could do. Read about the Persian Gulf oil spill when they had tankers that would drive around gulf and filter the water to separate the oil, and over several days made a noticeable difference. Just having the president be present on a site, more than one time over a six week period can make a huge difference. They need a leader down there to head up the cleanup. Yes there isnt much he can do about stopping the leak, but there sure as shit is things he can do to help with cleanup, unemployed fisherman, etc.

6/8/2010 7:52:14 PM

A tanker spill is a measureable/predictable amount of oil. There are only x amount of gallons that could have spilled in any one disaster. It's not the same as an uncontrollable leak from an underwater oil well.

6/8/2010 9:28:58 PM

he should deploy our fleet of vacuum cleaner supertankers

[Edited on June 8, 2010 at 9:30 PM. Reason : .]

6/8/2010 9:29:27 PM

^^ What is that in response to?

Because the Persian Gulf spill was about 10 times bigger than this one, and it sure as hell wasn't a tanker spill...

6/8/2010 9:35:07 PM

Quote :

"BP has every incentive to fix the problem ASAP."

wrong

They could simply blow up the area near the leak, cave it in and stop the flow of oil. But they won't do that because they could lose access to the well if they close it. Then, someone else could start drilling and tap into that supply before BP could do it again.

They have every incentive to try and retain control of the well they dug that accidentally blew up. They have every incentive to try and minimize the oil flow so they have time to drill 2 or 3 relief wells to sustain control of the oil coming out of the well. They have no incentive of prevent the oil from polluting the gulf and probably the Atlantic.

6/8/2010 9:47:32 PM

I mean, guys, we have lots of underwater volcanoes and shit in the oceans

Oil is really bad but is it going to kill the atlantic??

6/8/2010 10:00:30 PM

of course not. but it will do more damage in the gulf, where the effects will be felt on shore more acutely.

6/8/2010 10:11:57 PM

guys guys guys

lets be honest here

DaBird already won this thread

Quote :

"Oil Spill: Why blame Obama?"

Quote :

"DaBird: because blaming the President for every problem our country has is the easy, small-minded thing to do."

6/8/2010 10:18:21 PM

^ the thread isn't over until Solinari has told everyone why they're wrong, and delivered at least half a dozen 's.

6/8/2010 10:19:07 PM

Remember when oil tankers used to flush their bilges and ballasts back in the 80s and tarballs would wash up on beaches?

Of course you don't (none of you)

6/8/2010 10:20:01 PM

Obama will be blamed for the same reason Clinton was blamed for the real estate bubble and financial bust.

6/8/2010 10:58:03 PM

I blame Clinton for failing MA141 the first time I took it (I took comp sci in HS instead of precalc) and I blame Bush for my DWI (no conviction) because they were in office when those specific incidences occurred

DWI was actually in early September 01...my appointment with my lawyer was scheduled for 9/11/2001...crazy that day how my SUPER SERIOUS DWI was put in minuscule perspective after the 9/11 attacks

[Edited on June 9, 2010 at 12:06 AM. Reason : .]

6/9/2010 12:05:04 AM

Oil is black and Barack Obama is black (enough), therefore, it is Barack Obama's fault.

6/9/2010 7:43:59 AM

Quote :

"Feel the Rage Liberals discover the right's critique of regulation We don't expect miracles from Presidents, even from those who pretend they can perform them, so we haven't been among those blaming Barack Obama for running a government that can't plug a well a mile under the sea. We've left that outrage to his one-time cheering section on the left, which has been begging Mr. Obama, imploring him, berating him, to locate and unleash his inner demagogue in reaction to the Gulf disaster. What a spectacle this has been, with the anchors from MSNBC, the various columnists and his Newsweek Boswells furious and frustrated that the President hasn't demanded the heads of BP executives on pikes. All he's done so far is allow his Attorney General to loudly announce a criminal investigation of the spill—nothing demagogic about that—in mid-crisis and without any apparent criminal behavior on the public record. The liberals' fury at the President is almost as astounding as their outrage over the discovery that oil companies and their regulators might have grown too cozy. In economic literature, this behavior is known as "regulatory capture," and the current political irony is that this is a long-time conservative critique of the regulatory state. The Nobel economist George Stigler of the University of Chicago was one of the concept's main developers, and it is a seminal plank of the "public choice" school of economics for which James Buchanan won the economics Nobel in 1986. Ronald Reagan warned about this in different words in one of his farewell speeches. In the better economic textbooks, regulatory capture is described as a "government failure," as opposed to a market failure. It refers to the fact that individuals or companies with the highest interest or stake in a policy outcome will be able to focus their energies on politicians and bureaucracies to get the outcome they prefer. Perhaps if liberals read more conservative economists, they might understand that this is a common consequence of the regulatory state that they have so diligently constructed over the decades. It is also a main reason that many of us are skeptical of the regulatory solutions routinely offered in response to every accident or business failure. We should add that so far, based on the available evidence, we don't know if this spill really was a regulatory failure. But no matter, the same liberals who made oil drilling one of the most regulated activities on Earth are now busy deploring the energy bureaucracy and rearranging it so that (they promise) this will never happen again. Sound at all like the financial panic and the new re-regulatory remedy? How remarkable it is to see a President who has put such exorbitant faith in the power of government being excoriated by his allies for a government failure. It's almost as astonishing as seeing Carol Browner, the White House green czar and long-time scourge of fossil fuels, being interrogated on NBC for excessive deference to Big Oil. Sometimes life really is fair. As for the President, he seems to be taking the liberal advice to rage against the ocean and BP. Yesterday, in addition to his "kick-ass" vulgarity, he told NBC's Today show that while he hadn't talked to Tony Hayward during the crisis, he would have fired Mr. Hayward by now if the BP CEO worked for him. The President also hinted that BP should reduce its dividend. BP shares fell 5.7% Tuesday. No doubt this will plug the leak."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703302604575295051484827946.html?mod=WSJ_article_MoreIn

6/9/2010 9:50:44 AM

so you think we should deregulate the oil industry?

6/9/2010 10:12:08 AM

clearly that's what I intended with the above opinion piece...

6/9/2010 11:38:01 AM

The article makes the case that government regulations are useless because of regulatory capture. If the regulations are useless then we should just do away with all of them.

6/9/2010 11:55:53 AM

regulations of the sort that were in effect are completely useless. Same as the regulators managing the lending industry, same as the regulators managing the mining industry.

Right now the regulations say, "well, do a few things i guess, but you dont [i]really[/] need to do them. And if you fuck up dont worry we'll prevent you from having to pay the full cost to fix it and give you money for a new rig"

Remove the subsidies and limits on liability and those guys will make damned sure their shit is working because they know fuck ups will cost them.

6/9/2010 12:04:27 PM

^^I'm in favor of proper regulation.

6/9/2010 12:19:24 PM

I totally agree on removing all liability caps and similar subsidies


but I don't think I can agree that all regulations are useless. They can be preemptive in stopping catastrophes (admittedly not the case for the oil spill) and they can be used to differentiate between criminal negligence and just pure accidents.


I admit regulatory capture is a BIG problem in our government, I just don't think that getting rid of all regulations is the solution.

6/9/2010 12:22:04 PM

Quote :

"They can are intented to be preemptive in stopping catastrophes (admittedly not the case for the oil spill) and they can be used to differentiate between criminal negligence and just pure accidents."

6/9/2010 12:25:51 PM

The problem is you are never going to hear about the regulation that helped avoid an accident in the news.

6/9/2010 12:42:49 PM

Quote :

"because blaming the President for every problem our country has is the easy, small-minded thing to do."

6/10/2010 9:02:00 AM

Quote :

"but I don't think I can agree that all regulations are useless. "

Agree with who?
You are the only one that suggested that.

Quote :

"I admit regulatory capture is a BIG problem in our government, I just don't think that getting rid of all regulations is the solution."

Again no one suggested this except you and your interpretation of that opinion article.

Obama promised us transparency - maybe we need to be pointing fingers at regulatory agencies instead of the corporations - you might find some more of your criminal negligence there.

6/10/2010 10:16:25 AM