The Very Angry President

The Very Angry President

Jun 24 2010, 12:08 AM ET |

While means of plugging the oil gusher in the Gulf of Mexico remain murky, one thing is clear: Barack Obama has taken about as forceful a stand against BP as any president reasonably could. He may have been slow to visit the Gulf coast, and his administration may have low-balled its estimates of the leakage. But from the outset, Obama has made clear, with uncharacteristically populist anger, that BP is at fault -- and in addition to the cleanup, will pay out claims to the tune of $20 billion. This frontal assault on a major corporation is what drove Joe Barton, the top Republican on the Energy and Commerce Committee, to complain last week about a "shakedown'' and issue his infamous apology to BP.

.....................................

The lesson appears to have registered. Where BP is concerned, Obama is the one wielding a pitchfork. He has done two things differently. He has directly blamed the company for the disaster in stark language that he avoided using toward banks. "It's an assault on our shores, on our people, on the regional economy, and on communities like this one,'' he said while visiting Louisiana in May. He has also taken pains to emphasize that taxpayers won't bail out BP, first bullying the company into waiving a $75 million statutory cap on liability and then into pledging $20 billion to cover claims, neither of which he had direct authority to do.

...................

But ordinary voters have given him a more favorable reception. The public overwhelmingly blames BP for the spill. More than three-quarters of respondents to the latest Gallup poll disapproved of the company's performance; and while they split about evenly on the president's handling, this was an improvement in the wake of his address.

Perhaps the clearest indicator that Obama isn't about to put down the pitchfork is how well he has weathered the last two months. His approval rating dropped steadily across his first year as the financial crisis dominated headlines. It's held firm since the oil rig exploded in April. Given the bold policy he undertook to save the financial system, that is hardly just. But Obama would be the last to point out that he's faring much better in the crisis for which he has no solution than in the one for which he had a pretty good one.

Joshua Green writes a weekly column for the Boston Globe.

more:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/06/the-very-angry-president/58637/

:thumbsup:

I think he's doing about everything he possibly can.

Didn't you read Skinner's thread?

And yes, I did read the thread, left several comments and was happy it was being implimented.

Or maybe they're looking at hundreds of miles of spoiled beaches and a company doing its level best to avoid cleaning them up or paying for anything and wondering why more isn't being done. Well beyond PR damage control, that is.

The fact that the popularity rating of a politician is the primary concern of some people in the middle of this is telling. I invite anyone that thinks the reaction is just about right to come take a walk down our oily beach and see how long it takes you to find any attempts to clean up anything.

It's only going to get worse.

I don't know about a "very angry President", but I know a lot of very angry people.

Lot of dead whales, dolphins, sea turtles, birds, crabs, fish of every stripe.

from Obama's firing of McChrystal because voters in those states are strong supporters of the military and we Dems have a real fight on our hands.

The Gulf States need more good news like Toyota restarting construction on its new plant in Blue Springs, Mississippi.

Tough that comes after Toyota closed its old plant in Fremont California.

At least jobs remain in the US and not outsourced. :shrug:

How to separate that from the oil spill (for which, as conservatives, they really should not need Obama to solve it, in conservative terms, just pull up your bootstraps and deal with it).

This is getting surreal.

So voters in those states are supporters of insubordination?

And willing to work for Toyota for half of what they had to pay union workers in CA?

If they keep siding with the people who are constantly screwing them, it's pretty hard to feel real sorry for them.

I fell bad for Dems like you who have to make a case for sanity in government, but nothing will be accomplished by trying to act as nutty as republicans.

Most Americans are overjoyed Obama has dealt fairly harshly with BP. A lot of us wish he would be even tougher.

month's vacation.

As goes CA goes other states and I hope CA finds a way to deal with deficits that threaten state, county, and local governments.

Peace tularetom :hi: from jody

If you can extend your trip, you're welcome to come by the place here and join us for the opening of dove season on Sept 1. I don't know if you're a bird hunter, but we usually have a pretty good crowd out here for opening day, including the game warden. At the end of the day we have a barbecue, beer and wine courtesy of the entire tularetom clan.

And you are spot on about the deficits. I'm a retired local government bureaucrat, and my brother is a retired law enforcement officer. My son and son in law are both ex cops. All of us are horrified at the state of government finance here in the golden state and especially at the abuses of public pensions that have helped fuel the deficits.

CAVUTO: So this $20 billion that the company set aside — and I believe it’s $5 billion per year, Mr. Feinberg — what if your damages or your payouts are exceeding that every year?

What if they are exceeding $5 billion every year?

Are there — are there allowances for that?

FEINBERG: My understanding — my understanding is that BP will replenish the fund to make sure that there’s sufficient liquidity in the — in the independent claims facility to pay claims at any time during any course of the year, once those claims are deemed valid.

CAVUTO: So even if they were to eclipse $20 billion in the first year?

FEINBERG: That is my understanding.

CAVUTO: OK. You know, there have been many Democrats in Congress, Mr. Feinberg, who said the $20 billion isn’t enough. I know you’ve just started this, so I apologize in advance for maybe the simplistic nature of this question.

But is it your gut that the $20 billion will be enough to cover it?

FEINBERG: I don’t have the slightest idea yet, as I get into this project, whether or not — 20 — $20 billion is a lot of money. I mean, BP, to its credit, has already paid out $100 million. That’s not part of the $20 billion. But it’s put up $20 billion. And I have no reason to doubt that if I need more than $20 billion, it will be there. Whether I will need it or not is very premature.

CAVUTO: But is it your understanding, sir, that if it is not enough, that BP will keep paying out more?

FEINBERG: That is correct.


more at http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,595089,00.html

The damages from this disaster are beyond any pricetag. We are only starting to see what's going to happen. Hundreds of thousands of people are going to have to be evacuated from coastal communities, perhaps permanently.

BP should not be allowed to make a single penny in profits while this is going on. their assets, all of them, should be seized from this point forward until all those effected are compensated. At that point 20B will look like cheap change.

if Obama is doing what he can here, there shouldn't be all these stories of the coast guard and the local police helping BP coverup their horrible relief efforts and bullying people who try to photograph what's happening.

you would no doubt see, beyond any shadow of doubt, that the 'response' is pathetic and impotent.

I've said it many times: The fact that the main concern a lot of people have is how this will work out for popularity numbers for a politician is telling.

It doesn't matter if they burn it all and asphyxiate everyone in 3 states, as long as no one blames the president for it, that's perfectly ok.

:applause:

That's what matters most for me. You can have a big a perp walk as keeps you happy, but the important thing going forward is to stop doing what we are doing. We should not drill because we do not know how to drill and extract oil from miles below the surface of the ocean safely, and we don't know how to stop or contain blowouts when they occur. We have now proven this. And we now have first hand evidence that the effect of a blowout to everything on, in or around an ocean can be outrageous, heartbreaking, and deadening.

I'm starting to worry that a general deadening and containment of public outrage that may be the lasting consequence of this blowout. It turns out you CAN destroy an enormous ocean ecosystem right on the shores of America, and no-one will do much of anything, let alone take to the streets.

Hell, if I was the oil industry, I'd be ready to help people think this all happened because of bad people and bad PR at BP. People who industry will sadly agree should, if the evidence warrants, be criminally prosecuted, the goal being their trial and incarceration, should they have broken any laws, which isn't likely. And I'd just keep drilling, baby, drilling.

an angry President would have fired BP long ago.

of the highly toxic Corexit.

Yes, the "spill" is BP's fault, but recovery, cleanup efforts etc. are nowhere near enough, being bungled in bureaucratic bullshit.