Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

President Obama's Oval Office address on the BP disaster

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-16-10 06:14 AM
Original message
President Obama's Oval Office address on the BP disaster
Edited on Wed Jun-16-10 06:24 AM by babylonsister
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/6/15/876268/-President-Obamas-Oval-Office-address-on-the-BP-disaster

President Obama's Oval Office address on the BP disaster
by Jed Lewison
Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 05:37:45 PM PDT


President Obama's address tonight addressed two different topics related to BP's oil spill. First, he focused on what the Federal government is doing to respond to the immediate crisis in the Gulf Coast and how it is preparing for the region's recovery. Second, he focused on the the implications of this spill for national energy policy.

If you've been following the crisis, you already know much of what he said in the first part of the speech. I thought it was important that he said 90% of the spill would soon be contained and also that he implicitly pushed back on Bobby Jindal's withering attacks on the Federal government, pointing out (but not by name) that Jindal has actually failed to use all of the resources made available to him.

My sense is that President Obama showed the most passion in the second part of the speech, in which he urged passage of legislation that would end our dependence on fossil fuels. He didn't go into detail on specific provisions, but he made the case for the urgency of acting now. Here's a couple of passages worth noting:

For decades, we have known the days of cheap and easily accessible oil were numbered. For decades, we have talked and talked about the need to end America’s century-long addiction to fossil fuels. And for decades, we have failed to act with the sense of urgency that this challenge requires. Time and again, the path forward has been blocked – not only by oil industry lobbyists, but also by a lack of political courage and candor.

The consequences of our inaction are now in plain sight. Countries like China are investing in clean energy jobs and industries that should be here in America. Each day, we send nearly $1 billion of our wealth to foreign countries for their oil. And today, as we look to the Gulf, we see an entire way of life being threatened by a menacing cloud of black crude.

We cannot consign our children to this future. The tragedy unfolding on our coast is the most painful and powerful reminder yet that the time to embrace a clean energy future is now. Now is the moment for this generation to embark on a national mission to unleash American innovation and seize control of our own destiny.

Now, there are costs associated with this transition. And some believe we can’t afford those costs right now. I say we can’t afford not to change how we produce and use energy – because the long-term costs to our economy, our national security, and our environment are far greater.

So I am happy to look at other ideas and approaches from either party – as long they seriously tackle our addiction to fossil fuels. Some have suggested raising efficiency standards in our buildings like we did in our cars and trucks. Some believe we should set standards to ensure that more of our electricity comes from wind and solar power. Others wonder why the energy industry only spends a fraction of what the high-tech industry does on research and development – and want to rapidly boost our investments in such research and development.

All of these approaches have merit, and deserve a fair hearing in the months ahead. But the one approach I will not accept is inaction. The one answer I will not settle for is the idea that this challenge is too big and too difficult to meet.


It would have been very hard in this speech for President Obama to go into great detail on energy policy, and as a result, some will dismiss this as fluffy rhetoric. But I think he's serious, and is setting the stage for a major push on energy reform. What are your thoughts?

Update 1 -- I'd also add that addressing energy policy even as the crisis continues to unfold took some political courage. Obama started talking about the implications of the spill on energy policy two weeks ago at Carnegie Mellon, and while I personally would have liked to have seen him start even earlier, there's definitely some political risk to talking about broader policy issues while he is simultaneously battling the well (and BP). But it's a risk worth taking, not for political reasons, but because getting energy policy right is such an important thing to our future. Just focusing on the immediate aftermath of this spill would leave us vulnerable to a repeat disaster -- one that could quite easily be even worse. So as important as it is to effectively respond to the spill, it would be a dereliction of duty to not start a national conversation on energy reform. Of course, the real test will be whether he is able to get the Senate to take action. But now more than ever, action is vital.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
vaberella Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-16-10 06:18 AM
Response to Original message
1. Could you believe that a caller on C-Span pointed this out. No one on DU has.
That Jindal had a lot of resources and disaster relief ability and he didn't use any of it. The federal government had to come in and do it all. I was a bit surprised by that.

AS for the rest of the article. Good stuff. I think this is the platform he needed to get a lot of energy bills and new regulations in place in order to mitigate a future similar situation from happening.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-16-10 06:28 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. If Obama has addressed everyone's concerns, that would have
taken hours. How many people would complain about that? Lots, I'd wager. 'He's too professorial, he's too wonky, he's too angry, he's not angry enough', blah blah blah.

I think the President was addressing people who haven't been paying as much attention as DUers or talking heads.

And this a.m. I'm hearing quite a few people who think this was a good speech, even morning schmo and mika. Too bad there is the herd mentality prevalent; a few pundits weigh in, and everyone falls in line. Go figure.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vaberella Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-16-10 07:07 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. Most would never have made it past the first 5 minutes of it.
This is really the problem. I was listening to KO just after the speech and I was disgusted. Why? Because I was under the impression that KO did not hear a word the president said. Every question he had the President had addressed and yet he's demanding specifics when Obama said they're trying everything in their power but so far nothings worked but we're going to keep trying. KO seems to want a timeline and charts and graphs. What a joke. Majority of Americans can't last more than 2 minutes for focused attention and KO totally showed that. I love the guy normally but he was being utterly pompous last night and totally did not grasp the views of the masses who Obama was addressing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
disillusioned73 Donating Member (963 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-16-10 07:43 AM
Response to Reply #2
4. My thoughts exactly..
"I think the President was addressing people who haven't been paying as much attention as DUers or talking heads. "

I was slightly diappointed, but not disgusted like others
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu May 02nd 2024, 01:55 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC