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 10:18:29 AM

Your right. I interpreted the conclusion of the article to be that regulations are useless. I thought TKE felt the same way, but instead he favors "proper regulation." whatever that means.

Then Shaggy said

Quote :

"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. "

I think I already said I thought the regulating agency was atleast partly to blame in this instance.


What's your point again?









Check out this article, Its probably the best case I've read for putting any blame on Obama. Heaps most of the blame on Salazar (and the Interior department in general).
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/17390/111965?RS_show_page=2

[Edited on June 10, 2010 at 12:06 PM. Reason : article]

6/10/2010 12:06:12 PM

I've heard that a lot of European ships with skimmers want to help with the clean up effort, but they can't come into the region until Obama suspends The Jones Act. I heard this on Fox News this morning so...

But if that's truly the case why's he dragging his feet on this? I could see that as something to blame him for.

6/11/2010 9:31:18 AM

I mean if you're literally digging for scraps for something to blame him for I guess you could use that...

6/11/2010 9:33:23 AM

don't be a prick, it was an honest question. I'm not an Obama fan but I'm pretty sure (even within this thread) that I've said I don't see how any of this can be put on him.

6/11/2010 10:22:59 AM

Well, the brits are now pissed at him for being so rough on BP.

6/11/2010 10:37:14 AM

So should the American people. 45% of BP's stock is owned by Americans.

6/11/2010 11:13:32 AM

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/2010-06-10-column10_ST_N.htm

Quote :

"Romney: We need a leader, not a politician By Mitt Romney Has it come to this again? The president is meeting with his oil spill experts, he crudely tells us, so that he knows "whose ass to kick." We have become accustomed to his management style — target a scapegoat, assign blame and go on the attack. To win health care legislation, he vilified insurance executives; to escape bankruptcy law for General Motors, he demonized senior lenders; to take the focus from the excesses of government, he castigated business meetings in Las Vegas; and to deflect responsibility for the deepening and lengthening downturn, he blames Wall Street and George W. Bush. But what may make good politics does not make good leadership. And when a crisis is upon us, America wants a leader, not a politician. We saw leadership on Sept. 11, 2001. Then as now, black billows seemed to come from the center of the earth. Lives had been lost. The environmental impact was immeasurable. The looming economic impact from lost tourism was incalculable. Into the crisis walked Rudy Giuliani. While that was an incomparable human tragedy, how the mayor led New York City to recover is a useful model for the president. Rudy camped out at Ground Zero — he didn't hole up in his office or retreat to his residence. His presence not only reassured the people of New York that someone was in charge, it also enabled the mayor to assess the situation firsthand, to take the measure of the people he had on the ground, and to understand the scope of the crisis. The president has many critical matters that demand his attention, but brief and tardy tours and being photographed with a smudge of oil on a sandy beach don't work on any level. There is no substitute for being there. In a crisis, the leader must gather the experts — federal, state, local, public and private — not to discover who is to blame but to secure their active and continuous involvement until the crisis is resolved. There is extraordinary power inherent in an assembly of brilliant people guided by an able leader. In virtually every historic national crisis, our most effective leaders gathered the best minds they could find — consider the Founders in Philadelphia, Lincoln with his "Team of Rivals," Roosevelt with scientists and generals seeking to end World War II, Kennedy with the "Best and Brightest" confronting the Cuban missile crisis. What happens when men and women of various backgrounds, fields of expertise, and unfettered intellectual freedom come together to tackle a problem often exceeds any reasonable expectation. Ideas from one may cross-fertilize the thinking of another, yielding breakthroughs. The president of MIT told me that the university spent millions of dollars to build a bridge connecting two engineering departments that had been separated by a road — the potential for shared thinking made it more than worth the cost. But even a gathering of experts won't accomplish much unless a skilled leader uses their perspective to guide the recovery. So far, it has been the CEO of BP who has been managing the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. The president surely can't rely on BP — its track record is suspect at best: Its management of this crisis has been characterized by obfuscation and lack of preparation. And BP's responsibilities to its shareholders conflict with the greater responsibility to the nation and to the planet. The president must personally lead the effort to solve the crisis. He cannot delegate this quintessential responsibility of his presidency in the way he delegated the stimulus bill, the cap-and-trade bill and the health care bill. It may be an instance of learning on the job, but it is a job only he can do. The first rule of turnarounds is to focus time, energy and resources on what matters most. The president simply cannot treat this crisis like another of his many problems. The oil disaster could hurt millions of families, slam the regional economy, kill untold numbers of non-human lives and irreparably damage the planet. Among other things, he must not hold more rock concerts at the White House — I understand James Carville's venting: His hero fiddled as oil churned. Finding fault is easier than finding answers. And worse, it paralyzes many of the very people who may be needed to solve a crisis. When Hurricane Katrina devastated the Gulf Coast states, Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Blanco went on the attack; Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour went to work. His state's recovery is textbook; hers is not. President Obama's instigation of criminal investigations of BP at this juncture is classic diversion politics — and worse, it will engender bunker mentality at a time when collaboration and openness are most critical. BP's actions and inactions are reprehensible; it must be made to pay the billions upon billions of dollars that this spill will ultimately cost. But call out the phalanx of lawyers later — solve the crisis today. The president can learn a good deal from the crisis leadership of men and women in government and in business. Giuliani is a notable example, but so too are Washington, Adams, Lincoln, Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Reagan and Kennedy. In a time of national crisis, we look to our president to acknowledge, as Harry Truman did, that it is at his desk where the buck stops. And even at Day 52, it's better late than never."

6/11/2010 12:15:57 PM

^ While I agree with the general sentiment that assigning blame, ass kicking and asset seizing (as some are calling for) are counterproductive at this time, I don't agree that the president needs to be in the thick of it. One very significant difference between Gulliani and 9/11 and Obama and the Gulf is that when Guliani drives down the street, they don't shut the entire route down and post secret service every 10 feet. The president would be a distraction and an interference I think. That's not his fault, it's the nature of the office.

6/11/2010 1:39:42 PM

6/13/2010 2:27:48 PM

So when does BP get some TARP money to pay for cleanup?

6/14/2010 9:22:25 PM

Quote :

"I've heard that a lot of European ships with skimmers want to help with the clean up effort, but they can't come into the region until Obama suspends The Jones Act. I heard this on Fox News this morning so... But if that's truly the case why's he dragging his feet on this? I could see that as something to blame him for."

He won't waive the Jones Act because he won't do anything that offends the unions. The unions hate when the Jones Act gets waived. There are Belgian, Norwegian, and other european firms offering to help with the clean up, but Obama won't let them. That's definitely something to blame him for.

6/15/2010 1:55:17 PM

holy shit

did mitt romney just compare the oil spill to 9/11?

6/15/2010 4:31:50 PM

good to hear obama is taking a hard line against BP. not sure how effective it'll be, but nice to hear regardless

6/15/2010 8:08:29 PM

So I'm a bit confused about BP's media blackout attempts on this. It would seem to me that since the area in question is US property, leased to BP (at least I assume BP doesn't have private property rights to the area), then it's a simple matter of the federal government telling BP to fuck off. If the federal government is complicit in BP's blackout attempts, it makes me wonder why. Short of the usual government in bed with the evil corporations conspiracy, I wonder if perhaps this indicates that BP and the fed really do know much more than they're letting on, and the unfortunate truth is this is a whole hell of a lot bigger and worse than anything anyone has dealt with before.

6/15/2010 8:14:18 PM

With Goldman Sachs, you had the Obama administration coming down in them in a highly public manner. That was all for show, they're still make billions on the back of regular citizens. Obama received millions in campaign contributions from GS, and GS employees are scattered over many high level government positions.

I wouldn't be surprised to learn that the same thing is going on with BP. The American people are dumb as shit, and if Obama makes a speech saying he's going to punish the big bad corporation, most people will fall for it hook line and sinker. Behind the scenes, I'm sure BP is being told "we're going to beat you up on stage, but we'll make sure you get out of this intact - you're way too big to fail."

^There's a chance that, in reality, we can't fix this problem, and oil will be gushing into the ocean for years. They're sure as hell not going to let that news get out, if it turns out to be the case.

[Edited on June 15, 2010 at 9:09 PM. Reason : ]

6/15/2010 9:07:18 PM

^yeah. Today was the first time I had heard that the relief well may not actually work. We've definetely put all of our eggs into that basket. If that fails we're screwed.

6/15/2010 9:17:06 PM

^ lol we've been screwed.

We can put a man on the moon, but we can't cap a well a mile deep...

6/15/2010 9:20:55 PM

Sorry. I didn't mean to say we haven't already been screwed.

To be fair though, it took most of a decade to get a man on the moon. The problem I have with obama is there is never any specifics. JFK put out a very specific goal. I want a president who can stir the nation. Obama invoked the space race and WWII but said nothing about our common goal.

Quote :

"We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too."

6/15/2010 9:42:30 PM

Yeah, he basically said nothing. Even MSNBC was ripping him. Its getting pretty bad when you start to lose those guys.

6/15/2010 10:34:24 PM

Where are the conspiricy theorists who think Obama was behind it all to begin with to push his energy agenda? You know, the same folks who think Bush was behind 9/11....that are on this site......

6/16/2010 9:47:15 AM

Quote :

"Where are the conspiricy theorists who think Obama was behind it all to begin with to push his energy agenda? You know, the same folks who think Bush was behind 9/11....that are on this site......"

http://www.brentroad.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=593952



[Edited on June 16, 2010 at 9:50 AM. Reason : .]

6/16/2010 9:50:08 AM

Heard this morning on NPR en route to work that it's Obama's supporters that appear to be angriest about his "lack of performance" regarding the BP disaster whereas those who were neutral or against him seem to think that there wasn't much he could really do about it. Then again, the same crowd also tended to throw in "kind of like Bush and Katrina" which makes you think that its more to save the latter's legacy.

6/16/2010 1:05:15 PM

Or it just demonstrates that people who were deep in Obama's camp really do want the Federal government to have a shit ton of control over everything and be Mother to us all. They honestly believe that the government can and should be able to control this whole thing and ride in on a white horse to clean it all up.

Whereas people who generally believe in limited government understand that even with all the recent expansions in government power there are some things the government just can't do. Even if Obama did have a white horse to ride in on, it's likely Obama and most of his staff know about as much about plugging leaking wells a mile underwater as you or I do.

6/16/2010 2:54:11 PM

Quote :

"Back in 1979, a Mexican oil well blew out, causing what was then the worst oil disaster in North America. Reason Contributing Editor Glenn Garvin, writing in The Miami Herald, recalls a spill that went uncapped for 10 months and spewed oil 15 inches thick over 150 miles of Texas beaches. Most amazing was the aftermath: "The environment is amazingly resilient, more so than most people understand," says Luis A. Soto, a deep-sea biologist with advanced degrees from Florida State University and the University of Miami who teaches at the National Autonomous University of Mexico. "To be honest, considering the magnitude of the spill, we thought the Ixtoc spill was going to have catastrophic effects for decades. ... But within a couple of years, almost everything was close to 100 percent normal again." That kind of optimism was unthinkable at the time of the spill, which took nearly 10 months to cap. The 30,000 barrels of oil a day it spewed into the ocean obliterated practically every living thing in its path. As it washed ashore, in some zones marine life was reduced by 50 percent; in others, 80 percent. The female population of an already-endangered species of sea turtles known as Kemp's Ridley shrank to 300, perilously close to extinction."

http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/06/12/v-fullstory/1677370/ixtoc-offshore-well-gulfs-other.html#ixzz0r33SN9oe

6/16/2010 10:34:30 PM

Quote :

"Crude Politics The drilling experts speak out on the Obama deepwater moratorium. Before the Obama Administration sweeps under the carpet the controversy over the drilling experts it falsely used to justify its moratorium, the incident bears another look. Not least because it underlines the purely political nature of a drilling ban that now threatens the Gulf Coast economy and drilling safety. When President Obama last month announced his six-month deepwater moratorium, he pointed to an Interior Department report of new "safety" recommendations. That report prominently noted that the recommendations it contained—including the six-month drilling ban—had been "peer-reviewed" by "experts identified by the National Academy of Engineering." It also boasted that Interior "consulted with a wide range" of other experts. The clear implication was that the nation's drilling brain trust agreed a moratorium was necessary. As these columns reported last week, the opposite is true. In a scathing document, eight of the "experts" the Administration listed in its report said their names had been "used" to "justify" a "political decision." The draft they reviewed had not included a six-month drilling moratorium. The Administration added that provision only after it had secured sign-off. In their document, the eight forcefully rejected a moratorium, which they argued could prove more economically devastating than the oil spill itself and "counterproductive" to "safety." ... A big reason why those experts would have balked is because they recognize that the moratorium is indeed a threat to safety. Mr. Arnold offers at least four reasons why. The ban requires oil companies to abandon uncompleted wells. The process of discontinuing a well, and then later re-entering it, introduces unnecessary risk. He notes BP was in the process of abandoning its well when the blowout happened. The ban is going to push drilling rigs to take jobs in other countries. "The ones that go first will be the newest, biggest, safest rigs, because they are most in demand. The ones that go last and come back first are the ones that aren't as modern," says Mr. Arnold. The indeterminate nature of this ban will encourage experienced crew members to seek other lines of work—perhaps permanently. Restarting after a ban will bring with it a "greater mix of new people who will need to be trained." The BP event is already pointing, in part, to human error, and the risk of that will increase with a less experienced crew base. Finally, a ban will result in more oil being imported on tankers, which are "more likely" to spill oil than local production. All this is even before raising ban's economic consequences, which already threaten tens of thousands of jobs. This is why Louisiana politicians are now pleading with the Administration to back off a ban that is sending the Gulf's biggest industry to its grave. "Mr. President, you were looking for someone's butt to kick," said Lafourche Parish President Charlotte Randolph, recently. "You're kicking ours." The sooner the Administration climbs down from this pointless exercise, the better for a Gulf that needs real help. "

Gotta love that. Full article here:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704198004575311033371466938.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

6/17/2010 12:59:53 PM

Yeah, I read that. It's a very dishonest move by the administration. It sounds like what happened was the Interior got these experts, and said "look, we need to go over our drilling safety regulations, so let's not let anyone start a new deep sea drilling operation for the next six months until we figure this out." The experts probably said that was a good idea, and it is a good idea. Then, after they'd gotten the signatures, they went back and extended the moratorium to existing drilling rigs.

It'll be interesting to see if the administration admits they're in the wrong, or if they'll play it off as if nothing happened.

6/17/2010 1:26:20 PM

Business operates at the pleasure of the king.

6/17/2010 2:04:15 PM

The blame lies with BP. They covered up known problems and cut corners and lied like many large corporations do in the name of the mighty dollar. As much as conservatives want this to be Obama's Katrina it isn't. They won't be pleased unless he is down there himself in a submersible with a wrench.

6/17/2010 2:11:22 PM

Obama's Katrina

6/17/2010 2:13:09 PM

^^I forgot that Bush created Katrina with his hurricane engineering machine. Yes its BP's fault it happened. However, the administrations response was fumbled as bad as Katrina.

6/18/2010 2:23:43 PM

^^the fumble in katrina is a direct cause of the administrations appointments and reorganizations of FEMA

6/18/2010 6:03:57 PM

No, the fumbling of Katrina killed people and worsened human misery. Fumbling of this oil spill did what? Cost BP a few billion more in damages? Kill a bunch more animals? Close a few beaches for a little while?

Maybe the two scenarios demonstrate both presidents ineptitude, but only Bush's bumbling rose to the level of manslaughter.

6/19/2010 9:37:24 AM

Obama had one year and a half to increase regulations on the oil industy. He did not. According to you he could be charged with manslaughter for 11 men

6/19/2010 10:02:00 AM

^ That's idiotic. By that measure, Obama should have revised thousands of regulations all across the spectrum, regardless of any particular need, and heedless of the political risk. You're just saying shit to be stupid.

6/19/2010 10:04:33 AM

oh yea kind of like how Bush had 9 months to prevent 9/11

6/19/2010 10:07:08 AM

^ you, too.

6/19/2010 10:23:10 AM

sucks for obama that his katrina hit in his first term, rather than second.

but that's just how it goes.

He should have taken a page from Bush's playbook, gone down to the gulf with a megaphone, and demanded the heads of BP execs dead or alive.

6/19/2010 10:34:43 AM

next you'll be calling it Oilgate.

6/19/2010 10:37:01 AM

If you couldnt tell I was being sarcastic in my post.

6/19/2010 10:44:21 AM

nah its not oilgate. the *gate will come in 2011 once Issa gets his army of lawyers to start investigating shady happenings in the WH

6/19/2010 11:19:08 AM

Quote :

"Obama had one year and a half to increase regulations on the oil industy. He did not. According to you he could be charged with manslaughter for 11 men"

I disagree. The blowout prevent-er should have worked, it didn't. No regulation not already on the books would have helped prevent this accident, short of banning drilling. Bush, on the other hand, used the military to turn one disaster into a series of disasters.

6/19/2010 11:32:07 AM

^ if there was stricter enforcement by MMS then BP wouldn't have cut the corners that led to the blowout preventer failing

6/19/2010 11:38:38 AM

Quote :

"He should have taken a page from Bush's playbook, gone down to the gulf with a megaphone, and demanded the heads of BP execs dead or alive."

No no no no no no no no no. If there's nothing else he's gotten right in his presidency, Obama staying the fuck out of the way of people trying to do their jobs is the right thing to do. Calling for the heads of BP executives would have done jack shit to resolve this situation. The only thing you could criticize him for in his handling thus far is not cutting down the red tape that impedes cleanup and damage control and being complicit in the media blackout. THe president getting directly involved would just fuck things up worse, just like when your manager comes down from on high to micromanage your department.

Quote :

"if there was stricter enforcement by MMS then BP wouldn't have cut the corners that led to the blowout preventer failing"

And if BP hadn't cut corners there wouldn't have needed to be stricter enforcement of the regulations that prevent BP from cutting corners that led to the blowout preventer failing. There's more than enough blame to go around, and ultimately, it's when companies fuck up like this that lead to the shitty regulations that just lead to more shit like this.

6/19/2010 11:58:11 AM

I have seen no evidence that BP cut corners, much less that it cut corners leading to the blowout preventer failing. It is the same blowout preventer design everyone else uses, it's not like they bought the cheap version or anything.

6/19/2010 12:10:07 PM

... You might wanna go read up, then. There's a lot of evidence about just this very thing being disseminated in the press at this point.

6/19/2010 12:33:58 PM

http://www.nola.com/news/gulf-oil-spill/index.ssf/2010/05/federal_regulators_let_bp_avoi.html

6/19/2010 1:28:58 PM

I think the majority of the nation is still in the first stage of grieving the death of an entire ocean; denial.

I can't wait until the anger sets in.

6/19/2010 1:41:06 PM

The first West Wing Week to be so nearly singularly focused on one issue.

6/19/2010 2:54:34 PM

I guess devoting (most) of a <8 minute youtube video "singularly" to the oil spill two months after it started is supposed to be a good thing?

Like, "oh good, at least he's improving... at least he's now devoted some youtube minutes to the issue"


I mean seriously? wtf.

6/19/2010 2:57:38 PM