E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSThe New York Times: “Obama Cancels Asia Trip as Concern on Spill Mounts.”
The Washington Post: "President Obama has once again postponed his trip to Indonesia and Australia, telephoning the leaders of the two countries late Thursday night, the White House said. It is the second time the trip has been canceled. It was originally planned for March but was put off because the president wanted to be in Washington for a critical health-care vote in Congress. Now, the president needs to stay in Washington to oversee the worsening environmental crisis from the oil spill off the Gulf Coast.
On Larry King Live last night, the president “said he is ‘furious at [the] entire situation’ surrounding the BP oil spill but that his anger will not stop the leak,” The Hill writes.
“U.S. officials took a hopeful and cautious outlook late Thursday after BP robotic craft wrestled a cap onto the jagged end of a blown-out oil well in the Gulf of Mexico in the latest attempt to stop the worst oil spill in U.S. history,” msnbc.com writes. “Live video provided by BP showed dramatic scenes of the cap being lifted into place and dark clouds of oil billowing out from between it and the sawed-off pipe, 5,000 feet below the Gulf's surface. The gushing oil made it very difficult to tell if the cap was fitting well. BP officials did not immediately return requests for comment.”
The New York Times: “White House Talk Lightens Tone of Dispute on Immigration Law.”
Remember health care? The New York Times: “Health Insurers and the Administration Find They Need Each Other.”
The Washington Post: “Beneath its commitment to soft-spoken diplomacy and beyond the combat zones of Afghanistan and Iraq, the Obama administration has significantly expanded a largely secret U.S. war against al-Qaeda and other radical groups, according to senior military and administration officials.”
“Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates has ordered the military and the Pentagon’s civilian bureaucracy to find tens of billions of dollars in annual savings to pay for war-fighting operations, senior officials said Thursday,” the New York Times reports. “His goal is $7 billion in spending cuts and efficiencies for 2012, growing to $37 billion annually by 2016.”
AP: “Secret Service officers have subdued two men who refused to get out of the street as President Barack Obama's motorcade was returning to the White House. Secret Service spokesman Ed Donovan says Obama was returning Thursday night from a school event for one of his daughters when the men refused to move out of the way of the presidential motorcade. A uniformed Secret Service officer was seen lying on top of one man and another officer wrestled with the second man. Donovan says the men, who were using profanity, were charged with assaulting a police officer and failure to obey a lawful order. He didn't have their identities. Donovan says the incident appeared to be a random event and not an organized attempt to block the president's motorcade.”
Leave a Comment:
Well of course you aren't going to make huge outward expressions of anger like yelling or cursing but, damn, Mr President! Bomb something, for chryst sake so people will feel better! What's the matter with you Obama admin. people? Don't you know the way the game is played??
The only real way for any executive to express his anger in no uncertain terms is to take steps that are harshly punitive and leave no illusions about what they are. If the president set a June 30 deadline for BP to stop the leak and informed them that they would be fined $1 billion for every day they missed the deadline, I imagine that people would get the idea that he was angry about it.
However doing that would probably be counterproductive. Unless he made it an executive order, (and I am not even sure about this because I am not sure how far the power of an executive order extends), BP could fight that in court. The company would then view the situation, (rightly), as an existential crisis. I am not sure what they have as far as liquid assets go, but I doubt there is any company on earth that could withstand even a month of getting fined $1 billion a day.
But let's assume the president did this, okay? I imagine the initial reaction from a lot of people would be in favor of it, because, let's face it, right now BP is about as popular as having radioactive waste in your backyard. And let's assume that the president took it a step further and allocated this $1 billion a day for no other purpose than hiring an army of people to do nothing other than clean up the effects of the spill and keep the people on the gulf coast afloat during all of this.
All of this would be well and good and the administration would probably get a temporary bump from doing it, but the end result would probably not be what anyone would want.
They would still have no way to cap the spill. The technology for keeping the toxic sludge from reaching the shore line will still be over 30 years old and it takes time to hire the army of coast defenders and train them to do what they need to do. So what happens? Not much of anything except that people would get the temporary thrill of seeing the president stick it to BP and fine them out of existence.
Unfortunately, this chain of events was pretty much locked into place as soon as BP made the decision not to buy that $500,000 device that would have prevented all of this from happening presumably. The technology to stop the sludge does not exist. The technology to clean it up doesn't really exist either. All we can really do is sit around for a few years and hope that the damage won't be as bad as the ecologists believe it will be. I am not particularly hopeful for that.
So that leaves me with one last thing to explore. Whether it will accomplish anything or not, does BP deserve to survive? Do they deserve to be fined out of existence? A lot of people would say that this is just an accident and accidents happen. But here's my thing. If you destroy our coastline... whether you do it on purpose or whether you do it out of negligence or whether you do it out of nothing than just sheer bad luck... no.
You don't deserve to survive.
Emotion is not the prescription. Obama ran on a POST-PARTISAN platform. This is the time!!! I want to see Obama and Bobby Jindal on the same stage. I want to hear and see that Obama is calling these Republican governors often and getting their input and establishing cooperative relationships. It is unforgivable if this does not happen. And why is nobody talking about this? Please, news media, talk about this issue. This is a non-partisan problem! It's an opportunity for Obama to put his words into action and demonstrate that Republicans and Democrats can come together for the good of the American people.
Obama offered us non-partisanship, transparency, competency and a new energy future. This is the time.
1) Obama should be talking to these Republican governors, getting their input, and doing it publicly. This is a time when Republicans CANNOT refuse to cooperate. It is a golden opportunity of this disaster.
2) The administration has no high-profile point person on this issue. It needs one. Who is in charge? Obama obviously can't work on this 24/7; there needs to be one high profile, well-spoken, highly competent individual who clearly is in charge and talking with Obama daily, and who is constantly interacting with the various stakeholders in this situation, including BP, but not limited to BP! Sort of like when George Bush needed a point person for his agenda, he would call on Howard Baker. Obviously this is a different agenda and requires a different kind of point person, but with that kind of stature.
3) This person needs to head a bipartisan working group selected to SOLVE THIS PROBLEM. This group needs to include representatives of the victims of the problem - people from Louisiana, fishing groups, tourism groups, etc. And it needs to include representatives of those who could bring technical expertise to the problem, representatives of the oil industry, science groups and research groups. This group needs to be visibly working and coordinating to make sure input is gathered, sifted, prioritized and utilized. This group needs to demonstrate TRANSPARENCY in action.
4) This effort should also create JOBS to investigate and implement solutions. The displaced people of the Gulf Coast need work.
4) Finally, this is a major opportunity to move into a new energy future. As the problem-solving phase wind down, these same stakeholders should be directed to formulate and verbalize how this can turn into an economic and energy opportunity.
The United States is so into worshiping "anger," as if it is an indicator of ones sincerity and competence. The ability of the President or any leader to respond to a crisis in a rational and calm way, is to me the real test of taking "responsibility." What does it profit the USA to see the president yelling, and showing a lot of emotion. I worked as a Mental Health Nurse, and Chaplain for over forty years, and the ability to be calm, and approach problems in a calm rational manner, helped alleviate some potentially volatile situations. As an African American female, I was accused by some who had bought into the idea, that all black women were angry, and I wasn't being "real" if I didn't show anger, and be aggressive. I had to call on the ability to "detach," when I was attack, which was often, it kept me mentally healthy, and able to see situations more objectively. I understand the President, and appreciate his ability to respond to situations the way he does. To me, this is a sign of greatness. He has many situations he is dealing with simultaneously. The country is better served if he is able to be rational, be open to ideas and people, who can get the job done. His job is to solve problems, and be able to access those who have the expertise he doesn't. I hope he ignores the media's attempt to distract him and the public by focusing on whether he is "angry" enough. Him being angry will not solve the problem. The American people can help by supporting the President, and stop finding fault with everything he does, even how he expresses his feelings. Being a lawyer he is trained to be able detach, and get the facts. The American people are not accustom to real competency in a president.
Micheal I do agree with where your going here. I kind of put some thoughts up last week that were probably a little strong but as far I could see I think that maybe the President and the folks on the Gulf would be better served by rather than fining B.P. out of existance it would be better to treat it as more of an ongoing civil case where a certain % of assets and thier production were put in a pool for the folks down there on the Gulf and to reimburse the Fed for expenses.Kind of like a wrongful accident case where some of a companies assets are siezed in order to make the victim whole again and provide a income going forward. If it is pursued along these lines maybe it will keep B.P. from just throwing up thier hands and declaring bankrucy and Exxon picking up those assets at ten cents on the dolar with we the people being left holdin the bag.
Janna:
President Obama has offered the olive branch to Republicans on several occasions. This disaster has been politicized by Jindal and the Republican base. The Red state Governors (with the exception of Crist) haven't embraced ANY of this Administrations policies-- they even banned together to attempt to file frivolous lawsuits against HCR. In theory your posting sounds okay-- but the reality exist that it won't happen. They have already wasted too much of our time with their political posturing.
The people of the Gulf coastal states and particualy in Louisiana; doesn't want to discountinue off-shore drilling even with this disaster. They want the jobs-- if this administration try taking those jobs-- could you imagine the firestorm? Those people DO NOT WANT TO STOP OFF SHORE DRILLING-- PERIOD.
I think that the President staying calm and collected in his time of fury is commendable.
Regarding BP's ability to keep paying. I heard on NPR news yesterday that BP is self insured and will only be relying on their own coffers to pay what ever is needed. This puts them in a position that is precarious to say the least. Although their share values are bottoming out, and they will be in the position of a takeover... who in their right mind would want to take over a company that is self insured at any price.
Of course they are going to want to keep drilling that is what keeps filling the coffers. We don't want them to stop now.... where will they get the money to pay all that they need to pay if there is no insurance company backing this up.
Just a thought
Anita, I love your posts. In answering Janna, you invoked some of my 'darker' thoughts. What if President Obama - in a really shrewd way - is giving these SAME Red Gulf State Governors the payback they so rightly deserve? What if this is HIS way of holding back and letting these GOP Governors 'wriggle on the hook' for a bit BEFORE he goes in full bore to help?
I mean, these Governors ridiculed him pretty harshly when things were going well. Now that these Governors are Bent over by BP and their pants are around their ankles, they are BEGGING for 'Big Gubmint' to step in and make the pain stop.
In respect to Janna's comment (and it was very nicely done, by the way), I agree with all of your points. However, we see Gov. Jindal STILL play the 'stupid' card by writing a letter asking for the drilling permits so there can be MORE drilling. Is it just me, but if you are in a hole, why to you go into overdrive to dig harder? Is this just plain pandering?
Janna, I would think that all of these GOP Governors in the Gulf would have banded together to form a coalition by now and then as a united front approach President Obama. Remember - the GOP Governors are the ones in the hurt locker, not the President. The GOP governors will have to explain to their constituents why there are no jobs or food on the table. The GOP Governors will have to explain why they are not able to do anything about it.
Drill, Baby, Drill. You gotta love it. You REALLY cannot fix stupid.
Pietro:
Excellent observation-- you and I are on the same page in thought. I live here right? Now every state that has off-shore drilling is a Red Sate controlled by the Republican Party. Now let's not forget about Texas (off-shore drilling). Riley got elected in Alabama because Siegelman (D) was rail road-ed into jail (if you recall)-- Haley Barbour is in Mississippi and the Republican Party is trying to force Crist out and Palin got out herself before she was forced out (Alaska wasn't about to be allowed any new leases); she wasn't of any significant value once she couldn't get McCain elected.
Now here is the scenerio that I've been paying close attention to. The Republicans don't want Democrats to control those Red Off-shore drilling states and had it not been for this disaster they would be still chanting "drill baby drill" and fighting the President tooth and nail.
Pat Buchanan attempted to talk Jindal up as showing strength in the midst of this disaster; when in fact he IS pandering. Jindal's response to this disaster was poor. Riley had booms placed in the Gulf in Alabama during the week of 5/13 (I was there then). There were over 13,000 workers stationed in Mobile then.
If Jindal had the tenacity to govern; he would have done the same as opposed to looking for the federal government to be the care taker. I recently found out that those people fought with Congress to get 50% of the money off those leases. They get 13 billion dollars-- where is that money going?
Did you check out Mary Landurie (D-Blue Dog)? She defended BP early on then attempted to turn on the President. In my opinion...it's time for Jindal to put up or shut up and it's time for them all to get those butts spanked...pants are already around their ankles...because Pietro-- those Governors knew that regulations didn't exist for those oil companies and they also knew that Halliburton stunk because Cheney orchestrated that (he was their Party V.P.) and I feel certain that President Obama is really showing them the error of their ways...
Anita, is it COINCIDENCE that we have the Red Gulf States - controlled by GOP and/or Blue Dog Governors - experience the WORST ecological disaster in United States history? Is it coincidence that all of these states will be facing DEVISTATING economic issues for years to come? Is it coincidence that some of the Governors STILL want to drill even though it has been proven that there is NO CONTINGENCY if something goes horribly wrong?
Who says there is no such thing as KARMA?
The FUNNY thing about ALL of this is that President Obama CONTROLS the drilling leases. These same Red State Governors have to go through HIM to get what they want. All the while, they were relying on the reveunues from the drilling to fund their campaigns and their agenda. Now, all of that is pretty much gone.
I would laugh if this wasn't so pathetic.
Although President Obama is getting pilloried for NOT doing anything, these same Governors are pocketing huge amounts of cash from their cronies in the oil business. In the meantime, it doesn't seem like the constituents are ANY better off.
Fascinating.
I just had it out with one of our right-wingers on here about how the GOP brand is not palatable for the rest of America right now. All I have to say is I am SO glad we have President Obama in office right now.
Boy, do we have crooks and liars in office right now. As my friends would say - You ain't NEVER lie!
Pietro:
You definitely hit pay dirt with that analysis. That money is going to fund campaigns and sadly-- yes states like mine will feel the economic impact in several was-- tourism and seafood. I'll say it as well-- it IS Karma. I find it all very fascinating....I slammed New Orleans last week and have been hammering away at Jindal...I just heard MSNBC reporter ask twitter followers to follow with an opinion about Jindal not wanting to stop off-shore drilling LOL!!! we know why.
Lots of good thoughts here. Although, it is a soothing thought for a bit of revenge that Pres Obama would let the GOP Governors wriggle, it is not in his nature to let the other people suffer. Just as I never believed former Pres Bush ignored New Orleans because most of the suffering people were black, I do not believe Pres Obama would hurt the people regardless of the politicians who represent them (poorly I might add). He's just not a vindictive person.
I just watched Pres Obama seated at a table with Jindal, Crist and some others discussing what and why, mentioning there would be glitches, mistakes in handling but that IF they work together and that when things don't work, they must do something else. He also replied indirectly to Jindal's letter asking that the moratorium on drilling be lifting by stating that IF we cannot be certain that such drilling would lead to another disaster, then it is counterproductive to lift the ban; that even though it impacts jobs, another disaster would impact even more. How good it is to have a smart, pragmatic president who is unwilling to let politics and economics drive the decisions!
Pres Obama's anger was in the form of a bill given to BP for $61 (or 64) million to cover the cost so far. How many times have We posters commented that the President getting angry, yelling, pounding his fists won't fix the problem but still, the critics keep at it. How ridiculous that the Pres has to go on television and tell people that getting angry won't fix it.
Jody:
President Obama isn't hurting the people in our region-- what their hate, greed and lack of foresight has done to them is show them the error of their way's. President Obama will help them; because he is the President; but this should be a teachable experience but many will NOT learn from this disaster Jody.
Those same Conservative Republicans are the very people that have been calling him Hitler, The Joker and sending all of those subtle statements and actions about "watering the tree of Liberty" and taking guns to Washington and such...I say...God is able. Imagine...they've GOT to respect the President as the CIC now-- they have no choice. I'm reminded of a verse out of the Bible-- He will make your enemies your footstool...
I'm glad that President Obama has finally said he's furious about the oil spill, like that would ever have been in doubt. I also like that he said his anger, especially shown publicly, won't solve the problem. I hope now the idiot media hypes will stop whining about Obama needing to get angry in public about BP Oil's big screwup in the Gulf. That was always so immature, but that's media hypes for you.
We can only hope that the Three Stooges oil companies can get that cap to fit well on the gushing oil well, now with 20% more gushing oil, and suck up most of the oil gushing out and transfer it safely to a transfer ship. Now if BP Oil can stopper their other gushing spout, Tony Baloney Wayward Hayward.
You're right President Obama; your fury will not stop the leak and MSM parsing, trying to blame and screaming about it won't stop the leak-- they should have been doing that when Bush repealed the law that his Deddy put in place following the Exxon Valdez spill. But new laws going forward will ensure that this doesn't happen again.
I can appreciate your sentiment, Anita, and new laws will help but unfortunately no law can ensure this will never happen again unless that law is no more drilling. Period. So, until oil is replaced we will always have this dark (oil) cloud hovering over our heads, our oceans, our wetlands, etc.
M. Fisher:
I understand what you're saying and I was on board with the idea of no more drilling until I read the amount of fuel that we consume as a nation. I didn't think about the overall impact and the addiction until I read the reports.
The danger's of unregulated drilling laws by past administrations caused this disaster. Instead of them having laws in place demanding technology from companies drilling off our coastal shores, they were only high-fiving the fact that they could drill deeper. Well drilling deeper has it's dangers-- they are called oil volcano's.
It has been 31 years since we had a spill in the Gulf of Mexico (that we know of) and the drilling hasn't stopped and no technology has been invented by oil companies or our government for that matter; because we've had Republicans in the White House that relinquished that authority to oil companies.
I want to see new auto's produced that will transition us off of oil immediately...
I actually watched about 30 minutes of this last night and I couldn't help the feeling that I was watching the human race fight against some crazy extra-terrestrial creature that was trying to take over the planet...Those oil clouds billowing around that cap were freaky looking.
OK- time to fess up. Buzz and Drive-By-Observer are one and the same. Not sure how this new format figured me out, but what the hey?
I tried to use DBO for the more serious posts, and Buzz for the snarky/silly stuff.
Now, time to fess up to something else, First Read crew- I'm an older person, and think it would be nice if you ran a black font instead of this pale grey stuff. It's a lot harder to read.
And to the rest of you, I know, I know- "tough noogies, old timer".
All is forgiven DBO. I like this new format too, except for the gray font, it is hard on the eyes. The format, so far seems to be cutting down on the number of nutty and nasty comments and that is good. We have many problems in our world and we all need to be on the same page at times.
Glad you are here.
I think that all of us "experienced" people would like to have the font in a different color. When I type it is in black and easy to see....then goes to the gray/blue which my eyes also do not like. DBO I will read you if snarky or not :)
I really don't understand BP's negelence or lack of intelligence regarding this mess - they seem to be rather pompus. I'm glad the President is angry, I'm so angry i would run out of gas on an unfamiliar dirt road before I'd buy BP ever again. Now maybe folks will understand how dangerous this is. Kind of funny in one way, those folks in Lousianna have always courted the oil companies, now they are shunning them like the plague - good, about time. Unfortunately they had to experience the disaster first hand to understand how evil the oil companies are (probably a family member of the health insurance industry). There has to be some way to stop that oil - they used something to go down deep enough to drill it in the first place, so where is the original equipment? Take it back down with a plug and shut that thing up for good. Then get on with clean and renewable energy. Make all transportation run on clean and renewable energy, make all new appliances more energy efficient, build every house with wind, solar, or water power. Well past time for all this oil dependency to stop, and the added bonus (besides a clean earth) will be that we can finally stop being the pawns to oil producing countries. We won't care what they do in the middle east anymore because we won't need their oil and that would be a wonderful thing.
As far as BP goes - fine the heck out of them right now, don't wait til they are all out of money (or claim to be), they are responsible for this mess, they should clean every drop of it up and compensate everyone affected by it.
glad I don't own any oil company stock.
Yes, the President needs to cancel this trip and focus on the Gulf oil spill. The Administration is leaking credibility as fast as oil has been gushing into the Gulf.
When the Deepwater Horizon rig first exploded and sank, the White House released figures suggesting that the flow rate from the blown-out well was about 1000 barrels per day. Then, when it became obvious that the estimate was ridiculously low, the spin-masters of the Administration blamed misinformation by BP for their inaccurate figures.
Now we learn that in the first 24 hours after the spill began, the U.S. Coast Guard informed the White House that the flow rate could be as high as 8000 barrels per day. Whatever the actual flow rate was or is, the Administration chose to release the lower flow rate number...they're no more to be trusted than Tony Hayward and BP, really.
That's exactly the kind of transparency we've come to expect from the Obama Administration.
Okay.
You're seriously blaming the White House for BP's lie?
Seriously?
You've missed the point completely. They had far more trustworthy flow rate figures from the Coast Guard, didn't they?
They did not have to release BP's numbers, did they? They could have released the Coast Guard's estimate instead, or both estimates.
Their choice speaks volumes.
Hmmm...1000 barrels a day pouring into the Gulf vs 8000 barrels a day.
Utterly predictable behavior from the most transparent Administration ever!
Boy what an Idiot....What difference would THAT have made? Nobody to this day knows the TRUE amount being leaked/leaking !!!
So basically you're saying that:
1.) The White House employs psychics who told them within the first day of the the rig blowing up that this was going to be the worst natural disaster in U.S. history.
2.) By virtue of that, despite the fact that BP was the company who had been working directly at the site and that the Coast Guard in general probably has LESS knowledge about the flow of an oil spill than, say, an oil company, the White House KNEW that BP's estimate was low.
3.) And despite the fact that they knew that BP was lying, they intentionally, because, you know, they're evil like that, they went with BP's numbers because... well... what the hell? In 45 days, it'll be hilarious to see the looks on the American people's faces when they realize how badly they were hoodwinked?
Garf! Har! Har! Har!
There sure was a lot more oil than we told you guys! Guess you're screwed, huh?
Seriously? Have you been smoking crack?
Mixed Bag you are looking and grasping at reason to blame the WH (Obama) for anything you can and thats the point!
Initially the Gov had only BP information to report they reported it to the Coast Guard who was in charge, and by the way the Coast Guard is still part of the administration. The rightwing spin is to look for things that really doesn't matter to create controvesy and make this into a political arguement. This morning on Morning Joe a statement was made by one of the pundits that Bobby Jindal is handling this much better than the President. I thought it was ridiculous to even compare the two. What the Gov Jindal has to handle is nothing compared to the problem that are on President Obama's shoulders he should be able to do more because its the only thing that he has to deal with he can drop and clear his agenda to handle nothing but the spill. The president isnt afforded the luxury of dealing with one issue at a time.
Oh come on yall... I like and voted for Obama but he hasn't operated with perfection in this event. I would like to see the sources for this post but I do know that the numbers have changed all over the place and I think the Obama admin. could well have chosen the low ball estimate in hopes that the leak would be stopped sooner rather than later.
The problem is that the leak has proven to be smarter than the BP bozos and has continued. Pressure on BP and the admin from outside sources has increased as time has passed and as a result the numbers have moved steadily upward.
I feel the president, with all of the government resources at his disposal, has tried to take care of this problem to the best of his ability and with the least political fallout. His success rate is still in contention on that.
Having said all of that, I don't feel this is a Katrina moment for the president but I have my own disappointment in how things have been handled and, as I said, I like our president. So, I know that many other people are even more unhappy with him about this.
The news media and the many pundits have yet to grasp or figure out that President Obama is different from all the other presidents before him and I think that is why there's so much over-the-top criticism.
President Obama shouldn't have to go out there everyday and tell us how furious he is. The calm, cool, nuts and bolts guy is what voters wanted and liked--no drama Obama. We had 16 years of constant political drama. After two years on the campaign trails and 16 months as CIC, isn't it time the reporters realize they just aren't going to get drama even when they try to stir it up by forcing their storyline onto viewers. I say, thank goodness for no drama.
I may not always agree with everything the Pres decides but I do trust that even when he's not front and center, he is working hard behind the scenes, that he genuinely is frustrated and cares about the people on the Gulf Coast. You have only to see how much he treasures his wife and daughters to realize that under the cool exterior is a warm and caring heart. The media just can't quite understand that making the story about how unemotional he is instead of about what he is doing is not journalism.
I think all the soap opera drama of the Clinton and the Bush years of ineptness have muddled their thinking. Instead of discussing how much he "feels their pain", how about telling us what the WH daily releases say is happening, what they're doing. That's what Americans deserve, the story behind the story.
Today on Morning Joe even Newsweek's Jon Meacham echoed the media chant that Obama hasn't shown his emotions, and that the public is looking for this. Although at least Joe asked everyone to tell him one specific action that the WH has failed to do substantively that would have made a difference, and no one had one actual substantive compliant.
Until I hear friends or acquaintances complain that Obama isn't showing he cares through his emotions, or hasn't publicly displayed anger I will continue to believe as Andrew Ross Sorkin said yesterday this is a pundit problem, not a real public problem.
Ignoring the fact that Obama is an intellectual who has a calm demeanor and reacts with cool detachment, as opposed to reacting emotionally first and thinking later (if at all), one thing none of these pundits clamoring to see Obama blow a gasket have mentioned is the long term effect a display of outrage or anger would have. Obama, unlike any prior president has to deal with the racial perception of any display of anger. Who has ever truly seen any actual evidence that Michelle Obama is an angry radical? And yet she was painted, rather successfully by the far right as an "angry black women", people who actually saw her for the first time in her DNC speech were surprised. They saw the women I saw campaigning for her husband in Iowa, not the caricature of an angry radical black radical women that the public should fear.
Think about how Obama's insensitive "Hillary you're likable enough" comment in response to Hillary's debate comment that she lacked Obama's popularity (but implied she alone had substance) was played in the media as an enormously rude comment., providing insight into the "real Obama". His retort was far less rude than John Edwards comment in the Youtube debate that he didn't like Hillary's outfit (when candidates were asked to say something they liked and didn't like about the candidate to their left) Unlike Edward's wardrobe criticism Obama's insensitive comment was at least in response to Hillary's slam that Obama was an idol without substance. Edward's could have found a substantive criticism, or did what only Joe Biden did, and said the question was stupid and didn't merit a serious response. The media portrayal of Obama's retort, especially compared to Edwards wardrobe slam, provides insight into how any display of anger, no matter how justified would be played out.
Had Obama shown anger on the campaign it would not have been treated in context. Other male candidates could show anger, and it would be seen as passion, but if Obama showed outward signs of anger it would have been seen as proof not only by the far right that Obama really is an angry black man, but by MSM. I can see it a minor display at anger would be shown next to his "mentor" Rev. Wright.
Not only is it not in Obama's make up to blow up in public, but the reality is if he did what so many pundits say the public wants, despite the lack of a single poll, from our poll obsessed media, to support the claim the public wants Obama to show outrage, as opposed to merely the WH to do all that is technologically possible to minimize the disaster's impact, such a display of outrage would not be treated the same as it would if it came from Clinton, W, or any other prior President.
Anger by Obama no matter how justified, and no matter how controlled compared to past presidents would be twisted to prove Obama really is an "angry black man" who fooled the voters!
Did you hear the ludicrous comparison of Bobby Jindal to the President this morning. That made me angry. The responsibilities of the two are nowhere near compariable. I think they just run their mouths to take up time and fill the show. I turned the channel and watched Mike and Mike instead maybe I'll try Fox and Friends when I want stupidity although Morning Joe and Mica can fill that need for brain deadening entertainment.
I believe Chris Matthews and Chuckie T have pretty much jumped the shark. Why? What I normally hear is "speculation", not news, not even opinions, just speculating how bad this will be for Obama, how bad that will be for Obama. I think they're just trying to keep it as manic and crazy as Fox and Freaks just to keep the motors running. Everything has to be a big hullaballoo. Every remark, every little movement President Obama makes is food for their gristmill. I really believe that because we have become a society of Jerry Springer watchers, or whoever happens to be on the reality tube, that the media feels they must keep us "pumped" up on adrenalin or something. You know they say if you watch enough violence or vitriol that you become inured to it - I believe that. Look at these idiots in the tea party saying the most awful things about their President, wanting to take their country back (from whom), yet wanting everyone to believe what great patriotic christian people they are. It's really mind-numbing and mind-blowing.
hawkeye democrat. Good points all. I had not thought of the angry, black man/woman angle probably because I never saw that in him or his wife.
Good Morning Friends!
I am glad President Obama is in the White House to handle this dreadful disaster. His calm and measured demeanor is driving the MSM nuts, as they look to goose up their ratings. This is a man who will not be pushed into making rash statements and judgements. It may make good YouTube material to do so, but it wont solve the problem.
Every day the damage to the area grows worse, the devastating pictures of the wildlife are heartwrenching. It is crimnal that no one person, not one agency ever foresaw that this explosion and its resulting destruction could be possible. As Pogo once said, "I have met the enemy and it is us".
I give the President a lot of credit, he has my respect, and I feel sorry for him in as much as he is dealing with a huge recession, (due to a banking crisis that was inherited), two wars, crap going down in Korea, crap going down in Israel, Iran's BS, Boehnner and McConnell's BS, floods in Nashville, the worst oil spill in history, and the media is bashing him because he is not out in public giving the American people reassuring hugs. He should get on TV and tell them "hey bite me! I'm kinda busy!"
you are on point! I agree wholeheartedly. Run Forrest Run!
Right on!!!!
I don't care that the President is angry! I don't care that he's not down in the bayou kissing shrimpers butts. What I do care about is that he has the best team available working to get this spill stopped! I care about us not going to war in the Korea's, I care about us not have to go defend Israel over some careless incident. Mr President stay diplomatic and never stoop the wishes of a society that votes against their own best interest. We need somebody to keep their wits, decisions based out of anger will almost always be wrong. That is exactly what was wrong with the previous administration. Just going with their GUT! Stay aloof and detached make your decisions based on reasoned thought and sound judgement. being furious is all right but never act furious. Mr President thanks for being a true leader.
Well Said...
Excellent posting! voted
All this media criticism of the President is quite puzzling. Granted, the spill is a big crisis. But for the media to act like the president should move the White House down to the gulf, not to help stop the spill but just to show people that he cares is quite silly. I can understand emotional but unreasoned outbursts from a James Carville or sensantional tabloid journalism from Morning Joe and Mica. But when even respected serious columnists like Maureen Dowd join the chant, that's a bit too much to stomach! Come to think of it, does Maureen like anyone? She didn't like Bill Clinton, despised GW Bush and apparently she is not too happy with Barack Obama! But I digress. If the media were to be taken seriously, do they realize that by their reasoning the President needs to be stationed near every US crisis location?! I mean why isn't the media calling for the President to stay at the US embassies in Kabul and Baghdad until the 2 wars are completed. Isn't that a big enough crisis? Aren't we losing men and women in battle everyday over there? Does that sound like a ridiculous expectation? Well, that's my point!
Republicans are doing everything they can to paint this as the president's Katrina which is weird considering that the government had all the necessary tools and logistics to help the victims of the hurricane. Not so in this case, except for experimental theories some of which border on ludicrous - like the nuclear option! I mean, seriously?!
Talking about government resources and capabilities, why are we spending billions of $$ on NASA and space exploration when we don't have all the technology we need to live and operate in deep waters which are located right here on earth! Doesn't this prove that going to space is more for bragging rights than for practical reasons that improve human life? If we spent even 1B on supporting human existance at the bottom of the sea, I'm sure we would have the technology or high-tech submarine or equipment that would come in handy to help us stop this spill.
Very interesting point. Like voyage to the bottom of the sea. An undersea community I guess we'd need oil to run it though.
I saw Carville on CNN last night, he was calm and said he disagreed with those calling for Obama to show emotion. He said no anger will plug the hole, andhe didn't think there was anything different from a technical stand point that Clinton would or could have done to stop the leak, or prevent the ecological damage that the WH isn't already doing. I have never seen James so calm.
Hawkeye:
I guess behind all of the criticism he received from us bloggers he had no choice but to be calm. I post on Huffington Post as well and I'll tell you this-- he got really skewered for that rant. It was a lie to begin with-- there were no people dieing as a result of this oil spill and Louisianans don't want to stop off-shore drilling. I even posted an e-mail that I received from him asking for a campaign donation. They sought to politicized this disaster.
His actions have left a bad taste in my mouth-- after all...he started this crap.
Agreed and voted!
I don't think Carville started the BS, but his rant gave credence to the unfounded criticism, and was used by the GOP in a web ad. It's also true no humans, other than the 11 who died in the explosion were "dying down here". But I took the dying to be a metaphor, "we are hurting", "we need help". I cut Carvell more slack than say Rendell, because Carville lives in NO and loves the gulf. Rendell who was Clinton's biggest backer, and was still pissed the WH didn't do more in the weeks prior to the election to help his buddy Specter actually said if Bill Clinton were still president he would be doing more, as in his substantive reaction would have been superior to Obama's. Clearly Rendell's claim Clinton would get a wet suit on and go fix the leak himself was hyperbolebut he did clearly criticize the WH's actual substantive actions, and unlike Carville Rendell didn't lack prespective because he doesn't lives in NO.
I just wish Chuck Todd, Chris Matthews, Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin and all the other so called experts would shut up. I have no idea why these people think having the President shout through a bull horn, wring his hands, cry, or scream would do any good or help to solve any of these problems. This man is actually trying to work on these problems. He can't afford to waste his time "emoting" for the benefit of a bunch of idiot reporters so they have something "interesting" to show on TV. I am happy this President is a serious man who actually seeks advice from intelligent people and listens to that advice before he acts. With the problems he has to handle he does not have the luxury of "emoting". Otherwise he would be a basket case with nothing left to actually do any work. Please shut up about "emoting" and let this President work in the way his personality leads him to behave. I, for one, am glad he doesn't take advice from talking heads. I am sure Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck would be "emoting" all over the place but does anyone really think they would solve any of these problems? Neither can Chuck Todd or Chris Matthews. So shut up already.
Here..Here.good points
Once again, thank you. I am tired of these so-called experts saying what the President should be doing. When people act from anger, there is never a good outcome. His calm and reassuring presence is exactly what we need. I even heard Savannah Guthrie say the folks are not mad at the President. These pundits are doing what they do best - try to make the President look bad. Well it ain't working.
Oh crazy! You've gotta be kidding me.. You're "M.Fihser"? Well, nice to meet you, I'm M.Fisher. Ha! That's too much.
Well, at least it appears we are operating with some level of agreement otherwise it could be very confusing to the bloggers here. :-)
He is the President of the USA not Doctor Phil.
Thank you!
It's just the truth.
I drove out to Indy last weekend for the '500'. I usualy go 8 to 10 over the limit- it's a long drive and I'm most comfortable at that speed. Couldn't believe how many barges...uhhh, SUVs...passed me like I was broken down. Drill-Baby-Drill, indeed.
I'm a wee bit late with this...so I hope you see it!
It's been my observation that not only are these gas guzzling SUV's doing 20-30 mph over the speed limit... they're usually towing a boat or trailer as well...
I agree that the president is taking hits he doesn't deserve. To stay calm in a crisis like this is a testament to how a sitting president should act. If this was George W's problem, he would have a bunch of his idiots down there screwing everything up. The government is not set up to handle things like this. If we can't bomb it or throw money at it, we have to step back. The oil people are the experts on these matters. They have to fix it. We can't interfere, lest we slow things up. Let BP do its job, then go after them. Also, thank you Mr. president for being here for us all.
I'm sorry but I don't want anyone to tell me anything about their feelings. We can all make up our own minds. If someone tells me how honest they are I get a tighter grip on my wallet. If they feel the need to tell me how christian they are I will not trust them any further than I can throw them. Does anyone over the age of two not have the capacity to tell if someone is furious?
I think the pundits are expecting anger from out President is because in his so many of his speeches he can become very passionate. However, he has always shown a calm demeanor - but sometimes you can see is teeth clenching inside his jaw.
Well I am really disappointed in most of the MSNBC's pundits except for Rachael. After seeing the real photos of the oil spill and all of those poor birds completely covered with oil - it just breaks your heart.
By the way, did anyone else see that DIRECTOR's credentials? For all of those that have made so many snarky jokes about calling in Hollywood - google it - has quite a bit of experience in submersibles, underwater robots, etc..
Yeah, and like I said yesterday, if we ever want BP to stop being our sole source of firsthand information about the spill, James Cameron could come up with a plan for getting a set of deep sea film cameras down around the wellhead better than anyone else. I am not sure why people didn't make that connection right away.
The President is been mocked for saying he's furious, by the pundits the same pundits that were complaining that he that he wasn't showing enough anger like bobby Jindal the governor of Louisiana (I'm still waiting to see what he's theatrics has accomplished thus far).
Until the well is capped there's nothing any one can do except,if any of you armchair critics want make a name for your selves and volunteer to dive a mile below the ocean bed and cap the well. Any one?
Faulting Obama seems to be the easy thing to do today but the reality is that in no way is he to blame for ANY of the problems which he is aggressively trying to fix, also none of his critics have any REAL solutions/answers, only criticisms, and then going back to 'more of the same', which got us where we are, would be more costly and would just deepen the pits we have sunken into. So why beat up on Obama? Because there are those who will again gain great benefit by returning to 'more of the same', who are stubbornly and arrogantly using scare tactics and deceptive appeals to self-interests and then there is a segment of the public who feed their biases, prejudices and self-interest concerns on the subterfuge to rationalize their predetermined positions instead of being objective and rational to see the reality. Personally I don't care if Republican, Democrat, Independent, Libertarian or whatever has the power as long as they honestly, conscientiously and responsibly do the job for the majority - but after the last nine years I fully recognize the obvious and understand that the Republicans stubbornly and arrogantly only have their political ambitions in mind as they have become just 'puppets' for Special Interests and the select few (less than 5%), their strong supporters, and boldly offer everyone else (greater than 90%) only apathy, the costs and an abundance of subterfuge to rationalize and manipulate. To not see the self-serving deception is to ask for 'more of the same' and is to condone the irresponsibility that costs all of us so much.
Rachel made a point last night of how little R & D has been done on spill response in the last 30 years compared to the amount of development of drilling technology. I think if the oil companies can't be relied on to voluntarily devote some of their vast profits to safety and fail safe technology and mitigation and remediation of spill damage, then laws should be made requiring them to use a percentage of their profits for that purpose. It is ridiculous to see the mostly ineffective use of 30 year old boom technology to try to keep the oil off the shore. They need to be developing microbes, booms that actually work, and any other technology they can think of, and train an army of workers poised to mobilize instantly to manage disasters should they occur. If oil companies are allowed to continue business as usual then we deserve what we get.
As an example of government and more precisely political corruption the Gulf oil spill is prominent. For sure it should neither be considered a spontaneous nor an unexpected disaster as it was precipitated by a mentality and by actions that predestined it. As with so much else that we have seen lately, government again was lax in both its oversight and in failing to demand adherence to a responsible standard. New stricter regulations and stronger enforcement may help but again, as with everything else, only if there is a real divorce between Special Interests and the politicians to end the relationship that encourages the problems. There has been an obvious long running symbiotic relationship between Halliburton, the oil companies, others and the powers in Washington that simply predestined this catastrophe. Government/politicians have to be diligently held to a much higher standard of concern for responsibly representing their constituents and for not being ‘puppets’ for Special Interests and for not just pursuing their political ambitions above all else. Currently we are seeing the combined aggressive efforts of Special Interests and those politicians interested in maintaining their mutually beneficial status and to literally preventing any needed reform. Together they are stopping at nothing in trying to use scare tactics, appeals to biases, prejudices and self-interests in order to sway and manipulate public opinion to deceptively support a return to ‘more of the same’ that facilitated all of our problems. If the voters should now fail to be objective and rational and instead are taken in by the subterfuge, then we are very apt to see ‘more of the same’ and a further decline into the abyss of problems.