The level of political discourse never ceases to amaze me. What pains me the most is that these people like Mr Will know better. The notion that since government can't solve every problem (can you point me to the person who ever espouses such) means that government can not solve any problems or at least be part of the solution only works until you need government. Makes you want to scream!!

Will's point is, as always, to crush anything and anyone that lie outside of the ever-narrowing realm of conservatism. No Democrat can ever be allowed enough legitimacy to govern, and no liberal notion is worth anyone ever considering. Have a nice Sunday.

I didn't see the piece but I read the quotes you gave to mean that Will is trying to say that this just illustrates in general that the criticism we liberals make of Republicans, that government can solve problems, is just a bunch of hot air. And sometimes it is. I'm not saying Will is right in this case and that government should step aside, but I see his point as one that sometimes out criticism of Bush for doing nothing was similarly unfair. For the record, I disagree with Will.

There are two choices here: Will believes what he's saying, in which case he's stupid; or Will doesn't believe it, in which case he's lying.

Will and others should be careful what they wish for. It's perfectly within President Obama's capabilities to shut off the leak - there are plenty of good ideas out there, and just because BP claims to be the onsite experts is no reason to believe them; they've lied about everything else. The big mistake thus far has been to allow BP to keep running the show, mostly because they have nearly all the specialized equipment. At some point it'll be taken out of their hands.

At that point, the practice of oil-company executives and bigshots swaggering around like little tin gods should be over. The government should assume a much greater role in domestic oil production and regulation. The dictator-like power the Big-Oil maharajahs have become used to wielding over decades should be gone forever.

You can't have it both ways, Conservatives. Either say goodbye to blaming the president and trying to make this "Obama's Katrina" (and while we're on that subject, every time that's mentioned and the media cites opinion polls that show a majority disapproving of Obama's "handling" of the situation, it should be followed by the figures Bush got for his handling of the Katrina disaster) and pitch in to help, or say goodbye to the Conservative version of the American Dream - which is to position yourself so that you can do big business some good, and then fill your pockets with corporate cash in exchange for your orchestration.

I think Obama opened himself up to rightly take a lot of blame on this issue by three actions/inactions:

1) Endorsing offshore drilling and the safety of it right before the disaster.
2) Failing to clean up the MMS fast enough after Bush.

These both stem from his "centrism" and the fact that currently being a centrist means mixing a bit of total insanity from the right into your policies. Insane policies lead to bad results and bad results are bad politics. (like the 2/3 tax cuts and too small overall stimulus, or the insurance companies must be completely protected health reform).

Obama didn't want to purge or investigate after taking over but more of both were and are needed.

He then opened himself up in the political media by not being visible enough during the first weeks of the disaster and continuing business as usual (eg fundraisers).

However the complaints of the right are deeply hypocritical given that the roots of the problem are "drill baby drill", weakened regulation, the federal government not maintaining an expensive mega-spill response apparatus, energy policy, corporate liability protection, and the lack of large scale firing and jailing of Bush administration officials every one of which they are vociferously on the wrong side of for the disaster.

Yes, let's talk about competence, Will. The difference between Obama's BP disaster response and Bush's Katrina disaster responsewas is that Obama wasn't busy stuffing his pie hole with birthday cake, then jetting off for a fly-over only photo op, then patting his incompetent FEMA appointee on the back saying heckuva job all while rotting bodies were floating around a cess pool where a major U.S. city had once stood.

Look, FEMA had lots of hurricane,flood,natural disaster experience prior to 2005. Bush's "man" just wasn't up to the task of coordinating an effective rescue effort. Sorry, Will, but a man made disaster from a highly specialized industrial deep water drilling technique doesn't qualify as government incompetence. Nobody was complaining that Bush couldn't shut off a huricane. People complained that he just didn't prioritize the disaster aftermath. Now if Obama drops the ball on coastal clean-up, then we can start the equivalencies, but until then STFU.

Some of us *like* having a President who resembles Mr. Spock more than Dr. Phil.

The media talking heads are simply 'talking turkey', in the "gobble, gobble, gobble" sense. They have no idea what to do or what to say-- the limited repertoire of conservative commentators includes, of course, "blame Obama". Liberal (so called) commentators are mostly even worse; they don't even have the excuse that seeking political advantage in an ecological catastrophe is just part of the job.

I don't think people grasp how long it Will take to restore the Gulf.

Way beyond Obama's presidency.

decades.

The scope of this disaster requires us all to

rethink oil only.

Privatization of oil wells is probably not a good

thing.

In fact, I'm for 100% government owned offshore industry.

Will just keep it in the Gulf.

Oil's not oil well in the oil well.

I put up a post just today noting how the media can't forgive Obama for not being Aquaman, here.

Also, too. I put one up the other day that conclusively proves that Sarah Palin is Greg Stillson, the evil candidate in Stephen King's The Dead Zone.

Love the comment RD - if you don't mind I'm going to clip it (with attribution of course) for this week's comments out of context.

What, George Will talking out of both sides of his mouth? Who would have believed it.

It sounds like essentially the "solution" to this problem is a relief/kill well. But that is going to take time... and the longer it takes the worse everyone looks- and you know what happens when politicians think they are going to look bad.

The president/our government needs to be finding out why this did happen and work to ensure that the odds of this happening again are low- that means investigation & regulation- two functions that government is supposed to do and can do well, when not sabotaged by radical Republican bomb throwers (who want to destroy government) or neo-liberal stooges (who want to cover for their beloved corporations while pretending to be angry).

Instead of NEW!, Broadway gives us Oklahoma! once again- and My Fair Lady and South Pacific. . .

Ditto the motion picture industry, not to mention TeeVee.

Because re-makes are safe, and the reason for the existence of the "Entertainment Industry" is not to entertain, but to make money.

-And the MSM is part and parcel of the above.

This is what happens when you spend 30+ years defunding, delegitimizing and deregulating government oversight ... No one can 'fix' all that is wrong with our government overnight. The sad truth is - the right has for generations promoted self regulation by big business - and any commentator worth his/her weight in salt would be discussing the failures of the right/conservative view of government. Yeah , I wish the President could do more - but I am waiting for someone to show me what he can be doing that he isn't.

I don't think you're taking Obama's problem seriously enough. Right or wrong, he looks like he's leaving this up to BP to solve, and BP is screwing it up. This could be the issue that takes down his presidency and he'd better start looking like he's in charge.

And yet, shockingly, Frank Rich said almost the same thing in this morning's NYT. How in heaven's name both he and Will thought up this particular--and ridiculous--narrative, is beyond me. Consider these, along with George Lakoff's yelling that Obama is losing the message war and Maureen Dowd's yelling he's not emotional enough--it makes me feel like the corporate media are controlling this silliness down to the tiniest detail.

We can now attack Obama just for being who he is: smart, sane, rational and not prone to crying jags. Who would ever want someone like that for a president?

"BP is screwing it up."

So, Kansachusetts, Obama should take charge and have the Feds screw it up instead? Because, hello! There isn't a solution!!!!!

Requirement #1 for punditizing-- a complete lack of any sense of self-awareness or shame. On a daily basis, these people continually write/say stuff that would make any normal person want to crawl into a hole and stay there upon re-reading or re-watching and seeing how utterly vapid and puerile (not to mention factually WRONG) they were. Only narcissism so breathtaking as to be pathological could explain it. Well, that, and the fact that their editors pay them a lot of money to be regularly and idiotically vapid and wrong in public.

Among other things, I'm thinking how different this catastrophe might have been if the U.S., like Norway, mandated 1-2 relief wells to be ready to go in the event of the kind of blow-out we've seen here.

I don't expect Obama to be able to plug the damn well himself, cuz apparently the government doesn't have the proper kind of equipment to even take it out of the hands of BP or any other oil company. That probably needs to change as well. And this b.s. about "he needs to show more emotion," is ridiculous. I want a leader, not a hand-wringer. Something that I will fault Obama on, and upset me very much when he visited LA, was that he was there only a short time and I believe he should have spent 2-3 days down there. Also, he saw only one beach, did not see the marshes, did not do a flight survey of the surrounding waters and did not talk to any of the local fishermen, oystermen or shrimpers whose lives are being destroyed.

Another thing that bothered me last night was the co-interview with the COO of BP and Adm. Mary Landry of the Coast Guard. He said the usual corporate crap we expect, but she chimes in with "they are using cutting-edge technology here to stop the oil leak." RIGHT...it happens to be the EXACT technology and steps that were used in 1979 to deal with the Ixtoc oil spill (rig disaster) in the Mexico area of the Gulf of Mexico. Rachel Maddow covered this as well several days ago, showing that the only damn technology that has progressed is the ability to drill deeper -- not to deal with accidents that may occur as a result.

I don't know what planet these people live on but I sure as hell it weren't this one!

Specific steps the federal officials should have taken but haven't?

How about fines for every day the oil continues to flow (at least the $4k per barrel the EPA can already do under existing law)?

How about discretionary debarment (which the EPA can do under existing law) which, at a minimum, would prevent BP from getting new or renewing existing leases and, depending on how severe they want to be, could cancel existing leases and stop sales of BP products (including fuel) to the US government?

Those are specific steps already authorized under law that force a sense of urgency on BP. And they should be done immediately. Enough is enough.

Would you rather have Mr. Spock, or, as the Tea Party seem to be saying with Sarah Palin, Chrissy from Three's Company?

How about a junk shot utilizing pundits. They are so full of hot air they would shrivel to a pea at that depth and pressure but that way you could use a lot of them.
It names itself.

One of the things the President and his administration could do is to provide more information. A few serious suggestions Tweeted by satirist and part time New Orleans resident Harry Shearer: "[F]om a transparency standpoint, if the feds have examined the supertanker option & found it wanting, tell us, and tell us why. If Interior hasn't yet tested alternative dispersants, tell us & if they have, tell us, and tell us the supply info on them. Right now, more info cannot hurt." (several Tweets concatenated)

For an Administration which came to office partially on a platform of openness and transparency, they've been mighty stingy with information on what the government is doing in this tragedy.

I think you make a good point about private enterprise and the states as the alternative to having federal government solve problems, but I don't think you, or most people who talk about this, carry the argument far enough. The simple fact is that power, by which I mean the power to do stuff in societies, abhors a vaccuum. When you make an electoral government weak enough then other entities, like corporations, religious institutions, or the military, will take over power from that elected government. They may take it over in an overt fashion (such as a military coup) in a covert fashion (such as corporations acting as the power behind the throne by getting to write all the legislation), but either way, something will take over when you make a government too weak to effectively keep other forces in check.

We need to make this argument much more forcefully and clearly. Once people have emotionally internalized that the alternative to a weak federal government isn't simply everyone getting to do what they like, but is, in fact, a government by some other entity which may well be far more restrictive and which people will probably like far less, then people may have less interest in drowning the government in the bathtub. Moreover, it's far easier to tear down something then to build it up. It's easy to show all the failings of our government and it is almost impossible to adequately defend these failings, but when the alternative is seen to be, say, corporations taking control of the country and you can argue that, although government may have many failings, our corporations would make far, far worse masters, more people will argue for more effective government, rather then arguing for less government.

Shutting down on "our discourse"

This last "national debate" has caused my brain to shut off and say: Go fuck yourself America.

I thought "Keep your government hands off my Medicare" was the apogee of our nation's stupidity.
Surely you couldn't orbit any closer to dog shit stupid than that.

But no. Now we have a new low...

Teabag nation a month ago: Big government needs to get out the way of the oil companies and let them drill baby drill. We'll all be richer for it...

Teabag nation now: Obama and the government are responsible and to blame for the leak. Why don't they do something?

That not discourse.
That's mewling puking infants befouling the environment.
To maintain sanity: I hit the off button...

Since the sissy George Will (tip o' the hat to the late Mike Royko) spent his entire career defending corporations against government encroachment, we'll just have to let the Invisible Hand stop the goddamn leak!

What, George Will talking out of both sides of his mouth? Who would have believed it.

Indeed. He continually surprises me; on the same Sunday talk show on which he voiced these views about the administration's response to the oil spill, he drily observed that Republicans "are not being very smart" with respect to repeal of DADT.

Right.

Will is at this point, I think, a maker of safe statements. The cautionary voice. Eh, it's a role. How many people are influenced by the Sunday talk shows? (Sincere question.)

Commentors and the author, Steve Benen, should pay more attention to Jeff's response to the author's basic point that there's nothing Obama could do more (giving three silly examples), therefore he's doing just fine.

"I think Obama opened himself up to rightly take a lot of blame on this issue by three actions/inactions:
1) Endorsing offshore drilling and the safety of it right before the disaster.
2) Failing to clean up the MMS fast enough after Bush.

These both stem from his "centrism" and the fact that currently being a centrist means mixing a bit of total insanity from the right into your policies. Insane policies lead to bad results and bad results are bad politics. (like the 2/3 tax cuts and too small overall stimulus, or the insurance companies must be completely protected health reform).

[3)] Obama didn't want to purge or investigate after taking over but more of both were and are needed"

To which can be added, (4) Insist on transparency from the start... no secret video's of the broken pipe, no independent assessments of the volume of the leak. BP has much at stake in insisting that the leak is smaller than it has turned out to be.

(5) Create a top-level oversight group of scientists and engineers to oversee and approve of BP's stop-leak efforts.

(6) Submit legislation to congress for immediate passage that indeed puts all costs of the leak to be paid by BP.

None of the above would have stopped the lead, except maybe #5. It would certainly have made it clear that BHO WAS on top of the situation. BHO does not, and probably never will, connect well emotionally. It would have reduced most of the criticism from the left. It would not from the right. The best response to such criticism is a sharp partisan attack (of which Obama in not really capable) AND strong leadership that connects with the public--- which Obama has not really done on most issues (including health care and financial reform).

Talk shows go on and newspapers publish even when the pundits have nothing to say. Maybe this is why few watch and less read.

His narrative: This is a tough, unprecedented situation, but I'm I'm in charge, and I've been very busy in the Situation Room where I belong, not on TV. I'm fully competent. I'm a good policy wonk -- ask me any question about details. I'm honest. I admit my few policy mistakes. I think about the details day and night. Don't think I'm oblivious.
It's defensive, trying to overcome criticism that should never have been allowed to accumulate. But worse, it's weak when it needs to be strong.
The president did the required minimum. Excellent response for the Secretary of the Interior. Not for the President.

I think it's odd to bitch about people like Will when the self-proclaimed "true progressives" have been doing nothing but whining about Obama as well, with their incessant "DADDY!! FIX IT NOWNOWNOW!!!" emo rants.

They are all happily feeding the anti-Obama fire, and for no good reason.

Obama is an intelligent and articulate man. It should therefore be a piece of cake for him to explain "See, this is what happens when you dismantle the gvt's regulatory apparatus. This is what happens when you trust 'the magic of the marketplace' to take care of everything and let corporations engaged in very dangerous activities 'regulate' themselves. This is the perfect argument for why we need GOVERNMENT to set the rules for and oversee this industry (and others). This is the same thing we just saw with the financial industry: Corporations left to run wild, unregulated until shit blows up and harms all the innocent bystanders." He doesn't say that, I've concluded, because he doesn't believe it. Obama is a "socialist"? What a joke; he's barely a liberal.

Here's an idea for assignment editors: publish a piece with specific steps federal officials should take but haven't.

Yeah, like anyone would ever read that kind of newspaper! That requires concern for policy details rather than just being satisfied with platitudes. Perhaps Benen really thinks that highly of the mass media's consumership, but I don't.

(All the people concerned with policy details are getting their news from blogs rather than mainstream commentary anyway.)

Steve Benen and the lefty commenters on this site, which is it: A). You have very poor listening skills?; B). You're all stupid; C). You're deliberately misconstruing Will's comments while partaking in one of your Dear Leader's favorite hobbies - building strawmen arguments?

George Will was deftly making the point that progressives have long promoted the idea that government experts can fix ALL of the world's bewilderingly complex problems, if only they are given more, more power, control, revenue, etc. (How many times do you geniuses have to be reminded that classical liberals like WIll have NEVER argued on behalf of NO government, rather they would like to free government to concentrate on what it does best). When the progressive "fixes" only make things worse, well, how can you prove it, with all these hundreds of variables coming into play, what we really need is new fixes and more experts!

No, Benen: Will was not criticing Obama for suggesting that his administration would be able to "solve problems" generically, but that it would be able to solve the unsolvable problems, such as lowering sea levels, or lowering health care costs by expanding health care entitlements. Will is saying, in essence, don't promise what you can't deliver. He's also saying, live by the sword, die by the sword.

I believe Greg is right on point; let's see the Administration really do something. If BP has other drilling rigs or any other potentially hazardous operations going, shut them down especially if there is any question about their safety. For that matter, have any of the other oil companies gotten a free pass from those who should have been regulating them? Maybe their operations should be suspended pending review as well. Does the federal government have this power? I don't know but I would hope so. I can already hear the weeping and crying about higher prices at the gas pumps this summer. Gut check time- higher gas prices (and petrol company windfall profits taxes) pave the road toward a sane energy policy. Before it's over with - and there is a lot of IT- someone is going to have to show some political courage even if it means falling on one's sword.

Obama is mishandling the crisis. That Will is an asshole is beside the point.

Obama is mishandling the crisis for reasons described in the comments. At the core he is mishandling the crisis because he has yet to realize that he is not president and mediator of the Village. He is the president of the United States of America. There is no new way to be president.

Voters are seeing what the see and reaching the conclusions they reach. The Obama WH has proven incompetent at realizing the voters are the real base of political power. My opinion is irrelevant. Read the damned polls.

And once again this blog tries to evade the diagnosis of presidential malpractice with some inside baseball Village bullshit. Stop it. Unless the real agenda is to preserve village control even at the expense of a successful administration. Realize those now giving up on Obama are those who prayed for his success but have realized they have no power to make him choose a competent administration. The bizarre fact is the faithful have even less influence now than they did during the Bush catastrophe because the criticism could lay the foundation for change. Now we are told to shut up and misrepresented by administration appartchiks. And we are left with the almost useless protest against democrat appartchiks that Stewart offered to fox: go fuck yourselves.

I agree with Greg. The Feds need to be more aggressive about responding.

Plus, Obama can have the Feds take over the effort to keep the oil off the beaches. Everyone has seen the booming YouTube by nowand can easily understand what a pathetic job BP is doing with regard to booming:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i6ZN6r5-1QE

This is not rocket science, this is an effort that requires a massive, coordinated, long term response. This is what our government does best.

Couldn't agree more Steve.

Benen: You're obviously well connected to the democratic party establishment. Why not track down Gray Davis, and write a letter congratulating him for keeping his cool during Enron's rape of California? I'm sure he could use a good laugh.

Patrick Glenn,

Wow, talk about building strawman arguments. So you've just gained victory over all the stupid progressives who believe "government experts can fix ALL of the world's bewilderinly complex problems." Funny, I've never heard ANYONE make such a claim. That would be particularly stupid, were it true. Why don't you give us just one example of a progressive stating what you've claimed we believe. And not some garbage like "You believe we can reduce global warming [since we're causing it] so you MUST believe government experts can solve any problem." Just one link to a progressive saying that. You can't do it and that's what is referred to as a "strawman argument."

Dowd is a disgrace to the NYT. Seriously. She's got the maturity of 12 years old.

PRKL8R: you must be unfamiliar with the unwritten rule that it is perfectly reasonable to use a strawman argument against a previously erected strawman argument, for purposes of dismantling the original strawman. If Steve Benen et al will take down his/theirs, I'll take down mine.

You're right that progressives don't really think they can solve ALL of the world's complex problems. Rather, they too often promote the idea that certain types of problems can be solved by government which are not really solvable. For example, it is feasible for the U.S. government to send a man to Mars, given enough resources committed, etc., although it might not be good policy. Conversely, it is fallacious to assume that government can revitalize Detroit. The city of Detroit might make comeback someday - very unlikely under current conditions - but "fixing" Detroit is not something that policy can realistic achieve. And, yet, progressives believe that it is possible for government to reverse Detroit's fortunes.

The point Will was making was that progressives have long promoted the idea that government experts could fix problems that are beyond the grasp of policy. That's not so say that government should make no effort to respond to such problems, but that, if you attempt to convince the people that you can do the impossible, don't be surprised when they expect you to do so.

Steve, I'm surprised you have not added Arianna Huffington to those who are critical of the Administration in this disaster. Read her latest column over at HuffPo.

Patrick Glenn

There are a few problems with Will's comments. First, Will asserts aggregation of power in the executive is a progressive problem. All presidents at least since George Washington have tried to concentrate power in the executive. Second, there is no evidence that the current technology exists to solve the problem at hand in any kind of timely fashion. Third, the government problem in this case derives directly from the relaxation of regulation during the last several Republican administrations. Other countries have done a far better job policing off shore drilling. Had there been better safety oversight in the design phase of the well and drilling rig it is possible that this would not have occured. It is clear that as long as they control the American government, oil companies have no incentive to develop and deploy appropriate safety equipment. Liability caps, too big to fail, and tort reform release oil companies from any pressure to develop and deploy necessary safety equipment.

Will is full of shit. He is smart enough to know it.

Ron, I think you're reading Will's comments differently than I did. Will would not necessarily disagree with your first two points about expansion of the executive being bi/multi-partisan and in re: technological limitations. In fact, the latter item was his initial point.

On the former point, though, classical liberals like Will would argue that "progressives" have favored expansion of the executive (and federal government in general) to a greater extent than other ideological "schools" and that - again, his point in this case - progressives have promoted the idea that experts in the expansionary state (federal and other levels) could fix all sorts of problems that are not really solvable.

On your third point, I could argue that other factors were just, if not more important. For example, environmentalists and NIMBYism have pushed offshore drilling to areas that are less safe, and which present cleanup/fix it problems much more difficult than closer to shore, etc. Even if I were to grant your point, though, for sake of argument: maybe part of the reason why regulators are failing to perform basic responsibilties is that they're being asked to do too much? Again, Will's argument would suggest: let's have the administration focus on the basics, instead of lowerig sea levels . . .

As a metaphor of, and a monument to the mess the Bushies left, the TransHaliBrit oil spill is unfortunately, a perfect one.

We are in true crisis, let's give the powers that be enough space to work. Watch, critique, by all means but right now Obama is the only real hope, as he is the only person powerful enough to call this nation to unite against big oil and force them to behave responsibly now and in the future.

You don’t expect Congress to, do you? Really. Do you? Bobby Jendil? BP? God comming down with a sponge?

There is no one on this earth who knows how to fix this problem quickly. Blaiming people who did not cause the spill because we are angry, is pretty damn usless, isn't it?

Patrick Glenn, I was indeed unfamiliar with the unwritten rule you referenced. How could it be otherwise, since you just made it up? You don't need to take down your strawman unless you're interested in appearing to have some kind of valid argument, so suit yourself. At least you admit it, so we agree on one thing. But you're still engaged in an exercise in mind-reading and not doing a very good job of it. Wow, fixing Detroit, I hadn't thought about accomplishing that since well, never.

Does this not illustrate that it is time for the Government to take the same level of oversite of the oil industry as it does of the nuclear power industry?

PRKL8R: hmm . . . you have no sense of humor and only argue through deflection/redirection . . . wonder where I've seen that before?

For your information, "fixing" cities like Detroit was a major progressive post-1950s project, but since PRKL8R hadn't thought about it, therefore no other progressive ever did, either.

Your example #134,629 of why it's pointless to argue with a "progressive." Good riddance.

"There is no one on this earth who knows how to fix this problem quickly. Blaiming people who did not cause the spill because we are angry, is pretty damn usless, isn't it?"

Not to blow the narrative, but there are people who know how to fix the problem quickly - they are currently being ignored.

There were people who knew that Wall St banksters were going to screw up the world before the crash - they were ignored.

There were people who know how to fix health care - they were ignored.

See a pattern?

Nonsense!

Shorter Patrick Glenn: Some progressives 50 years ago believed that gvt. action could "fix" Detroit. This is just one example of progressives too often promoting the idea that certain types of problems can be solved by government which are not really solvable. Everyone knows that progressives have promoted this idea and believe it, so no wonder people are disappointed that Obama can't magically stop the oil spill. Did I miss something?

Your premise is WEAK. And the best example you can conjure up to support it is some crap about fixing Detroit from half a century ago. You have your OPINION, not a thesis based on fact, so just hold on tight to it.

Will makes perfect sense. Anything that weakens Obama and his socialist Islamophile agenda is good for the rest of the country. We can all get back to conventional discourse after Obama leaves office in 2013, and we can get a jump on that day in a few months.

Will (and by extension Patrick Glenn) are completely backasswards on this situation, which isn't (yet) a matter of the government solving the problem.

Quite the opposite. Through infiltration and corruption by the oil industry, the MMS has been rendered completely incapable of dealing with this situation and has been reduced to acting as the oil industry's lackey.

As a result of this complete dismantling of regulatory oversight, this spill has really become a test of the oil industry's ability to self-regulate and quickly fix its own problems through the ingenuity of private enterprise and the free market. Left to their own devices, it's pretty clear that the oil industry has failed at every single conceivable level. Thus far, the failure is completely on the shoulders of the oil industry, not government.

That's because the oil industry will never act on its own to protect the public interest because it violates their primary goal of making as much money as they possibly can. So its a BIG problem when republican administrations appoint industry insiders to regulatory positions and then proceed to short-circuit the agencies ability to function. That's been happening since Reagan (James Watt, anyone?).

By deferring to BP, Obama has shown that he's a moderate conservative, not a progressive. A truly progressive executive would have appointed a real regulator (not an industry toad like Salazar) who would have immediately conducted a critical review of MMS operations and started with those projects most likely to pose a threat to the public. I think Deepwater Horizon probably would have been pretty high on the list. Decisions concerning these operations would not have the prioritized on maximizing profits to the industry, but to insure the public safety and welfare. I think BP would have had a lot of explaining to do if such a review had been implemented and they probably would not have been authorized to cap the well using the risky procedure that was ultimately used and directly resulted in the failure. A real regulator would have required input and approval on critical operations, especially on projects in untested condition as was the case with the Deepwater Horizon.

Bottom line: real regulators aren't "friends" of the industry. They're fair, but the public interest should always come first. That hasn't happened in a long, long while. When knowledgeable, impartial persons are in charge, that's when government has the ability to prevent these types of catastrophes from ever happening.

Oh, and Pat, you didn't have to dig so deep in the list. #1 reason not to argue with a progressive: Lose less arguments.

For example, environmentalists and NIMBYism have pushed offshore drilling to areas that are less safe, and which present cleanup/fix it problems much more difficult than closer to shore, etc. Even if I were to grant your point, though, for sake of argument: maybe part of the reason why regulators are failing to perform basic responsibilties is that they're being asked to do too much? Patrick Glenn

Ever heard of "peak oil?" We are drilling in deeper and deeper water and ever more remote places because that is where the oil is.

As to the NIMBYs ever have an oil company tell you that they want to put a well in your back yard? Do you really blame people who bought a home with a view to not want to see their view spoiled with oil soaked seagulls? Me neither.

As for asking MMS regulators to do their jobs, well I do ask a lot, like don't take bribes from the oil industry. At least they should share the sex and drugs with the rest of us. That last sentence is snark.

Conservatives don't expect anything from government. When they are elected they spend their time proving their expectations are justified.

There are no specific steps because now it's too late. The bipartisan kleptocracy will now undergo its Chernobyl.

If McCain and Palin had been elected, this never would have happened. Don't try to deny it, libtards. Obama's lack of military experience leaves him unable to stop oil well blowouts. Know this, moonbats: This is terrorism. Only a true patriot can save us, not a Muslim oil sympathizer.

I'm voting for the time reverser temporarily. Carville was bitching this am about all the shoddy work big guv had done in NOLA since the 1950's and how they had destroyed their land. Also, too, we need Shrink Obama because I think he may need a little Shock Therapy. They seem to have Stepchild State Syndrome. "The other states would NEVER be treated this badly!"

Ron, you're right that energy developers have had to look for new, often less easily accessible places (therefore more expensive to drill) for oil & gas, but there are good zones that are either highly restricted or off limits (e.g., U.S. east coast, ANWR). The deep water offshore wells have the advantage of being out of sight from beachfront property, but they pose higher risks.

I'm not blaming NIMBYs, by themselves, as many are trying to protect their families and properties (and I'd probably do the same in their shoes), but it is part of the picture.

Conservatives and classical liberals expect certain things from government, including a streamlined but consistent, unwavering approach to regulation that is primarily rooted in rules of law, rather than attempts at economic planning (e.g. cap & trade). I think you're confusing classical liberalism with the unfortunate trend of corporatism, which "progressives" have played a leading part in promoting throughout the 20th and now early 21st century. For example, Obama is the biggest recipient of BP political money in the U.S.

There is a tendency on this site to ascribe very high levels of competency to federal regulatory bodies. Trust me, if there had been a clear consensus among federal regulators about how the oil spill could have been plugged, the idea would have been given a lot of attention. When reporters asked Thad Allen why the BP folks weren't pushed aside, he basically replied, "and replace 'em with whom?"

Btw, it's easy to find people, after a big disaster happens, who knew that it was coming (9/11, this oil spill, etc.). It's a lot harder to rely on them BEFORE the events, because a bunch of other "experts" are saying something else.

This whole episode - as per George Wills comments - should be an opportunity to seriously reflect on the weaknesses of government by expertism, but on this site I see more doubling down.

Patrick your logic is as sound as the logic of the Republicans who, when faced with the fact that 19 Saudis had blown up the World Trade Center, decided to invade Iraq. I think this episode should force us to question the "unfortunate trend of corporatism." Far more logical problem to consider in the circumstances. The problem with the corporation as a business model is the unending ethical demand that ever greater profits be generated to pay shareholder. In this context the demand for profits means doing all in BPs power to go cheap on the environmental and safety protections. It was cheaper for big oil to corrupt the MMS and the congress, hell it was cheaper for big oil to elect two oil men to lead the administration, than it would have been to spend money on safety. Do I have answers to this problem. Not really, except at some point we should realize that corporations exist to make profits and safety doesn't ordinarily translate to the bottom line.

Over the last 40 years we have moved to a corporate pirate model. We have dismantled unions and both parties have been bought off.

This time instead invading Iraq, why don't you conservatives confront Saudi Arabia?

Basically, our attitude along the gulf coast is this: No one blames Obama for this, but he is the face of the federal government and they failed us. So fuck him.

As for the BP execs, we are praying that they contract a disease like nechritising fascicia, which is a flesh-eating virus.

Fact is that Obama can't do jack shit about the situation, and he knows it. The oil companies are the ones with the know-how (or not-know-how), period. All Obama can do is strike a pose.

If he had pounded the podium, they'd be lampooning him for being hysterical and impotent. Since he didn't pound the podium, they are lampooning him for being too much of a cool cat.

But no one is saying what the federal government can, or should, actually do about the situation.

Patrick, you're simply talking out your ass. The funny thing is that you *know* you're talking out your ass, but like a good little Republican robot, you try to do it in a nuanced manner that makes it seem like you know what you're talking about.

"Conservatives and classical liberals expect certain things from government, including a streamlined but consistent, unwavering approach to regulation that is primarily rooted in rules of law, rather than attempts at economic planning (e.g. cap & trade).""

Cap and trade is a conservative idea. A conservative idea that came about in an effort to avoid direct regulations.

"I think you're confusing classical liberalism with the unfortunate trend of corporatism, which "progressives" have played a leading part in promoting throughout the 20th and now early 21st century. For example, Obama is the biggest recipient of BP political money in the U.S."

Really ? After all of the *documented* issues with the MMS under Bush, and all of the *documented* cases of cronyism under Bush, including Cheney's energy task force, and you're trying to tie this problem to Obama, because he received political donations from BP ? I thought you conservatives were in favor of unlimited money in politics because it's "free speech" ?

"Btw, it's easy to find people, after a big disaster happens, who knew that it was coming (9/11, this oil spill, etc.). It's a lot harder to rely on them BEFORE the events, because a bunch of other "experts" are saying something else."

So, the alternative is to curl up in the fetal position and suck our collective thumbs ? This is how conservatives argue for dismnantling government regulatory bodies - they use the asinine arguments that "science is hard" and "there's no way anyone can know anything, for sure" to promote the idea that we should just trust the good 'ole corporations to do the right thing. That worked really well this time, huh ?

Geez, only some kind of insufferable prick would come here and argue that a disaster of this proportion is the result of too much government intervention and regulation in the oil industry.

"This whole episode - as per George Wills comments - should be an opportunity to seriously reflect on the weaknesses of government by expertism, but on this site I see more doubling down."

Who do you want residing in your government ? Dumb-asses ? I want the most highly-qualified experts, as would most people that don't have their head up their ass.

Isn't G. Will an Israeli spy?

It's hard to believe. Mr.Will used to be an intelligent news commentator.

"(Thanks, Maureen Dowd, for comparing Obama to Spock again. That never gets old.)"

Long weekend, so I bought a Sunday NYT for the first time in a couple of months, and who's there to f*ck it up?
OTOH, it's good to know she could confess to murder midway through the column and remain a free woman indefinitely.

Umm, so according to George Will, it's a good thing if:
1. A corporation can cause a disaster so mind-bogglingly horrendous...
AND
2. The government can't fix it...
BECAUSE
3. It lets him blame a Democrat for something.

George will is an intellectual terrorist.

Will cant say that bp is experts after the disaster. bp also doesnt make the bop, the rig, the drilling equipment, the generators on the rig or much of anything else. to say thar only bp can operate the equipment, which they sent quite a bit of the cold murky depths doesnt make them exactly experts. its a privare failure. of course Will is happy about the criticism. its all he has got.

I agree with Will. His point is, as Charles Krauthammer pointed out, that we shouldn't be drilling for oil under 5,000 feet of water. We have lots of oil reachable from the surface. Government policies have placed most of them off limits, and diverted trillions of dollars to OPEC and indirectly to terrorist organizations.

We can't continue to raise entitlement spending and still do the other jobs government has promised it would do or only it can do. Just as the major disaster for New Orleans was the disrepair of its levees and canal walls, this one is the lack of preparations on the Gulf Coast for this kind of situation. Is that Obama's fault? Not especially. It's the failure of the oil companies which are a major industry on the Gulf Coast, but it's also a failure of local and state governments and people who have complacently assumed that if anything bad happens the federal government will be on the spot to make it all better.

It's time for all of us to grow up and admit that progressive dreams are going to continue to disappoint us, and bankrupt us in the end.

George Will is a bitter, twisted old man who has seen conservatism fail repeatedly in his lifetime. The only consolation he has left is for all others to fail. There is nothing left of his integrity.

Regarding the oil spill, the government needs to try this:

http://tinyurl.com/29gvxm8

Here's the complete URL:

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Plugging-the-Gulf-oil-leak-with-the-works-of-Ayn-Rand/125031037519289

Nobody should expect anything different from an adult male who insists on wearing a bow tie in public. It's an obvious sign of mental disease or defect.

George who?

We can't continue to raise entitlement spending and still do the other jobs government has promised it would do or only it can do.

Sure we can.

All we need to do is to restore taxes on the well-to-do (including me) to their levels in the Reagan administration (or Bush 41, or Clinton, take your pick), and to discard the false and discredited supply-side economics implanted in the national discourse by 40 years of unrelenting Republican propaganda.

George Will is a lying dishonest ass-hole. This is the guy who stole Jimmy Carter's debate notes, gave them to Reagan, and then gushed to the American public on TV what a "thoroughbred" Reagan was, without disclosing his special role in the whole dirty little enterprise.

It really boggles the mind, “private enterprise” in the guise of big oil connives to get fast track drilling permits, cuts corners & takes chances, and generates history’s largest oil spill. And the right wing brainiacs such as Krauthammer and Will: “It’s the president’s and big government’s fault”. What a bunch of intellectually corrupt sacks of shit.

Everything Jeff said, post number six:

I think Obama opened himself up to rightly take a lot of blame on this issue by three actions/inactions:

1) Endorsing offshore drilling and the safety of it right before the disaster.
2) Failing to clean up the MMS fast enough after Bush.

Hi,Patrick jones here,first is everyone STOP BUYING GAS DAYS A WEEK[ 1st thing ]And please send this on to President Oboma. I got thinking after BPs BS.enginers etc was going to pour a house of concrete, when they know that it taks years to CURE-Even some parts of 50 to 60 year old DAMS are not CURED. SO WHY COULD NOT BP SEW SOME KIND OF FABRIC TO LET WATER PASS BUT NOT OIL -OIL-------TUG BOATS etc COULD PULL IT AROUND AND BRING IT BACK TO BOAT TO BOAT AS MOST OF OIL IS BELOW-----JUST AS THEY DUE IN ALASKA TO FISH FOR ROUGH IN FISH NETS AND JUST LIKE LARGE SHIP PUMP 10 TO 20 TONS OF FISH OUT OF NETS BUT USE A CLOTH FABRIC TO LET MOST WATER OUT AND OIL IN.AND YOU ALSO KEEP OIL OUT WITH FLOATATIONS AND WEIGHTS TO SEA BOTTOM.YOU ALSO COULD DROP THE CLOTH TO ANY DEPTH TO DREADGE IT OUT-THEN PUMP IT OUT, SO THE CLOTH COULD BE ANCARDGE TO THE BOTTOM AND LARGE FLOATS ON TOP.
I was thinking of tyevette the old cloth that wraped houses as could sew it to peices as long and deep as you wanted.Bub not shure if it will let water thru ,I know it would stop oil.
In thick areas use cloth maid out of some MATERIAL,man maid or fabricated material and the fisherman know how as you have 2 lines 1 on top and 1 on bottom and you pull bottom in till it CLOSES THEN PUMP IT OUT WHEN IT CLOSES----NO ROUG FOR FISHERIES BUT OIL PUMP.first due coast line---?10 to20 ft out---, then use the tugs to start to pulling of top escaping.
AND I KNOW THIS WILL WORK---------BP OR NO ONE HAS INVESTED MONEY INTO THIS PROBLEM OF OIL LEAKAGE 20years SENCE VALDEZ THEY Have the money and power I still say people have to start acting
on issuse PEOPLE DUE NOTHING TAXES GAS INS FOOD ETC

Please get back to me
Patrick Jones
1 Juniper ST.
Eastampton NJ
08060
609-702-7847 H
609-968-8063 c

BP-people should stop buying gas for our cars
2 days a week,to start.
All nationalallties get their voice hearsd axept WHITE PEOPLE as they just sit back and let gov, twp, state as in NJ are great gov. elects to not tax rich people take away social security no raise for elederly ETC ETC ETC on on and on-----------New Jersey is the worst plase to live,in regard to everything, 48000.00 Dollars for a 600 hundered sq. FT. HOUSE that needs work

How many other disasters are looming because of held up appointments of this administration? Could this disaster in the Gulf of Mexico been prevented if Obama's team had been in place and getting the inspection reports we now know were being fudged?

For those who keep buying into the idea of "how can we blame Obama" they need to work more on how can Obama get all of his team into place before we start blaming his administration for boobytraps left over from the last administration.

This is not hard to understand, Mr. Benin.

The President is not to blame for the disaster, because he can do nothing about it.

The President DESERVES to be blamed somewhat, however, because he PRETENDED he could do something about it.

Get it?

"There is a tendency on this site to ascribe very high levels of competency to federal regulatory bodies." - Patrick Glenn

That's because we can remember the days prior to Reagan when regulatory agencies actually acted for the public welfare and not to promote the industry they're supposed to be regulating.

You point to government regulatory incompetence. I got news for you, dude. For the last 30 years, they've mostly been operating under republican administrations. Reagan + Bushco = 5 Terms. Clinton + Obama = 2.5 Terms.

Right now, I'll put Carter up against any of them. If people had listened to him, we'de be in a much better place today.

Republicans: the party of bad government.

"but it's also a failure of local and state governments and people who have complacently assumed that if anything bad happens the federal government will be on the spot to make it all better."

No, it's the fault of the Bush administration, which complacently spent all of the money that would easily be available for this type of disaster, and entitlements, on tax cuts and two wars that they didn't feel like paying for. Just like Reagan raised SS taxes, and then turned around and cut the taxes of the very wealthy. As long as the entitlement money is in the general fund, Republican administrations are going to find a way to transfer it to the wealthy.

We're a very wealthy country, and it's a BS scam job for people to pretend otherwise only when it comes to entitlements. If you think that people shouldn't receive entitlements that they pay for, then stop being a lying asshole and just say so. Instead, you bring this phoney-baloney story about how we can't "afford" them.

This oil geyser has released Pandora's Box.

At this point in time, why the fuck are we blaming the president?

He didn't drill the well.

He didn't decide to replace mud with seawater.

He didn't ....

How are we supposed to recover from this hell if we can't have the decency to stop sniping and switch to ways to heal the GOM?

apropos of nothing, but 'serve him right':

Arthur Weekes, commonly known as Lord Finchley, Eldest Son and Heir of Charles, first Baron Hendon

Lord Finchley tried to mend the Electric Light
Himself. It struck him dead: And serve him right!
It is the business of the wealthy man
To give employment to the artisan.
-Belloc, Some Peers

For assignment editors, indeed. They should reflect on the below, and why not done (if claims are valid):

http://www.truthout.org/ex-epa-officials-why-isnt-bp-under-criminal-investigation59936
I thought criminal charges were being considered, but take a look. Obama is being too nice and his enemies on the Right won't like him anyway, so might as well do justice to his base and the environment.

BBC radio 4 did a piece on the US peoples response to the Government response. Apparently one 'Merkin said he didn't understand what was stopping Obama because "The US Coastguard has guns, BP doesn't". Not quite sure what he thought military intervention would achieve.