Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

June 13, 2010

THE NEXT STEP IN THE FEDERAL RESPONSE.... The White House announced last week that President Obama will tomorrow make his fourth trip to the Gulf coast since the BP oil spill crisis began, and we learned this morning that the two-day visit will culminate in a prime-time address to the nation. It will be the president's first Oval Office address.

Apparently, the remarks will be more than just a status check.

President Obama for the first time will address the nation about the ongoing oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico on Tuesday night and outline his plans to legally force BP executives to create an escrow account reserving billions of dollars to compensate businesses and individuals if the company does not do so on its own, a senior administration official said on Sunday.

"The president will use his legal authority to compel them," said Robert Gibbs, the White House spokesman.

Mr. Gibbs did not elaborate on the legal basis for such a move but said that White House lawyers have been researching the matter for days. The president is seizing the initiative after reports on Friday from London that BP would voluntarily establish an escrow account -- either for compensating victims or for delaying a planned dividend for BP shareholders -- turned out to be less certain than the White House initially thought.

The escrow account that the White House envisions would be roughly modeled after the fund established for victims of the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, and it would be administered by a third party to provide greater independence and transparency and to guard against the company too narrowly defining who is entitled to payments and how much.

I guess there's no real mystery as to whose ass is getting kicked.

Thad Allen, meanwhile, is demanding BP officials craft "a faster plan" to collect gushing oil, with "greater redundancy and reliability." A response from the company is expected later today.

Steve Benen 12:10 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (41)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

I can hear the gnashing of teeth and the rending of garments from the right wing babblers about Obama's tyrannical destruction of capitalism and the free market system. And then I can hear the Blue Dogs agreeing..

Posted by: martin on June 13, 2010 at 12:46 PM | PERMALINK

George Will was certainly gnashing his teeth over this on Stephanopoulos today.

Posted by: ceenik on June 13, 2010 at 1:18 PM | PERMALINK

Rock and a Hard Place. Damned if he do, damned if he don't.

BP is dithering, incompetent, criminal.

However, if Obama gets too close to this tar baby, he owns it.

Joe Biden said the president would be tested, but this gettin' outta hand!

Posted by: DAY on June 13, 2010 at 1:19 PM | PERMALINK

Thad Allen is "demanding" nothing. Thad Allen is a complete tool. Thad Allen has no imperium, no auctoritas, no dignitas.

It's clear that he is incapable of acting independently. If he were, there would not be continuing reports of journalists being harassed by BP cleanup personnel.

Almost two full months after this disaster started pouring thousand and thousands of gallons a day and the president is going to call a press conference so we can discuss a compensation fund?

If the relief well had been started the day after. or even a week after this started, it would be complete or nearly so.

Instead BP and the government waited until after they had dicked around with techniques that everyone knew had a small likelihood of success.

Great leadership.

Posted by: karen marie on June 13, 2010 at 1:19 PM | PERMALINK

What happened to all the "What do you expect the president to do?!" comments eh, Steve?

Posted by: mnpundit on June 13, 2010 at 1:34 PM | PERMALINK

This just gets more and more worrisome as Obama makes plays that seem designed for perceived action and not real action.

He's got a Coast Guard dude named "Thad" who's a BP lap fog writin' sternly worded letters, and Obama's gonna go on the teevee to talk about kickin' BP ass into escrow accounts...

This is all telegraphed to make the corporations rest easy I'm sure. Lots of "blocking out" the scenes... behind the scenes.

Obama might do better to take a card from Hugo Chavez rather than fuck around with this neo-Clintonista bull shit. it will turn out bad. It might look good for 24 hour news cycles, but it will turn out bad.

At least with a Chavez move, he can send heating oil to the poor this winter -- free from the government's new oil company...

Posted by: neill on June 13, 2010 at 1:35 PM | PERMALINK

First of all, forget the escrow account -- put BP America into immediate receivership so we control those funds and don't leave it up to the discretion of BP.

Secondly allievate BP of any authority to direct the protection of the coastlines. Their only responsibility should be stopping that leak (or leaks).If they can't do it, bring in a consortium of other oil companies who might be able to be more effectively.

Thirdly, engage the locals in tackling the coastal and marsh innundation. They know those waters and neither the feds nor BP do. Both BP and the feds have interfered with the locals' ability to cope with this problems.

Posted by: winddancer on June 13, 2010 at 1:38 PM | PERMALINK

Thank you, karen marie, neill and winddancer. The PB disaster shows us once again that the guy we (at least, I) campaigned for, donated to and placed our hopes in . . . that guy is not there for us but for his corporate pals--the Jamie Dimons and Bob Rubins of Wall Street, the boys at BP who gave more to Obama than anyone in the Senate when he was there.

He talks tough. He talks about reforming Wall Street (but says we don't want to stifle "innovation"). BTW, the Casino is still open. He campaigns for single payer health care but, once in office, treats it like a red-headed stepchild. Now, he's talking tough and doing nothing substantive about BP and its gusher of black poison.

Was it Bush or Obama or both that are culpable for what happened in the Gulf? Read a good piece of investigatve journalism and decide for yourself: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/17390/111965?RS_show_page=0

Posted by: DevilDog on June 13, 2010 at 2:04 PM | PERMALINK

The implications of the US government taking over a foreign company as large as BP and putting it into receivership will pretty much tank the economy. There would be a massive flight of international capital from the US which is the last thing the economy needs. It’s also pretty clear the leak is not going to stop until the relief well comes online in August or September. Obama should start putting all his eggs into containment and keeping the oil out of the marshes and off the coast. An oil executive recommended weeks ago that we have a supply of supertanker in the gulf vacuuming up oil. Why stop at a supertanker. How about old aircraft carriers. An Thad Allen should be directing the clean up, and not dealing with claim’s processing. We have an agency that has massive experience in processing claims its called FEMA. Work out a deal with BP so that they can process the claims. He should also say to the government scientist, while BP works on the leak you should look for a way to disperse the oil as quickly as possible.

Posted by: aline on June 13, 2010 at 2:10 PM | PERMALINK

aline, The implications of the US government taking over a foreign company as large as BP and putting it into receivership will pretty much tank the economy. There would be a massive flight of international capital from the US. . .

I would say just the opposite. We should prevent BP from ever again being able to do business in the US and we should prevent any US company from doing business with BP or with any company that does do business with BP.

We should utterly burn them.

Restoring consumer confidence with their head on a pike.

And never mind an escrow account. We should simply seize their entire US operation and use it to fund the gulf recovery.

And when that's done we can use it to fund universal health care.

It's a win for everyone.

Posted by: cld on June 13, 2010 at 2:20 PM | PERMALINK

Karen Marie, you are wrong about the relief well. Work on the relief well has been proceeding simultaneously with all of those other techniques.

As you say, everyone knew the the techniques being tried were unlikely to succeed or were would only slow, not stop, the flow of oil. They knew that the only sure way to stop the spill was to drill a relief well.

They also knew that delivering the drilling equipment, drilling deep enough to safely plug the original well bore and possibly back out and trying again a couple times before they hit a very narrow target, will take months. Therefore, they have pursued all the other, temporary and/or low-probability options simultaneously with the relief wells.

BP has a lot to answer for, particularly the decisions they made leading up to the explosion. But also including very dishonest reporting designed to downplay the scope of the disaster afterward. And there are signs that despite boasting about hundreds of miles of containment booms and other supplies, that they needed to be even more aggressive about getting cleanup equipment in place quickly and in enough quantities.

However, they have not been deliberately allowing oil to flow so that they could find a way to "save" the well as some people have claimed and they have not been delaying work on the relief wells in the hopes that something else would work.

Posted by: tanstaafl on June 13, 2010 at 2:26 PM | PERMALINK

As for the escrow account, I am waiting for the President's address on Tuesday. IF it is large enough (and that means billions) and IF it is managed by a 3rd party and depending on the precise guidelines it is given for what to spend the money on and who to compensate THEN maybe it will work as well as putting BP America into receivership.

If the President's authority to dictate the escrow account is solid enough, then that move would certainly give less ammo to right-wing claims that the President is a socialist/fascist/whatever-other-bad-name-they-can-think-of than taking over the company.

Posted by: tanstaafl on June 13, 2010 at 2:39 PM | PERMALINK

Agree wholeheartedly with cld. tanstaafi, you say, ". . . they have pursued all the other, temporary and/or low-probability options simultaneously with the relief wells." Really? How do you know? Do you work for BP? Before they even started drilling they signed an agreement with MMS saying they had made preparations for a 250K/per day disaster. Oops.

They have lied about everything since the get go. Why give them the benefit of the doubt now? Nothing they say can be verified because they block press access. Aside from meaningless bluster, this administration, through the Coast Guard and NOAA, supports BP and follows their script.

Posted by: DevilDog on June 13, 2010 at 2:42 PM | PERMALINK

Before demanding we put BP into receivership, take over that “foreign” corporation, or “prevent BP from ever again being able to do business in the US “, we need to look at the history of British Petroleum itself.

In 1951 Iran’s parliament nationalized the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company.

In 1953 President Eisenhower’s CIA backed a coup that put the shah in power, and the A.I.O.C. got back 40% of its concession, which then became an INTERNATIONALLY owned consortium, named British Petroleum.

Through mergers and aquisitions over the years it swallowed Standard Oil of Ohio, Amoco, and Arco.

-A foreign corporation? I think not. Not when it's stock is owned by American pension funds, Wall Street hedge funds, and little old ladies in Dubuque. . .

Posted by: DAY on June 13, 2010 at 2:47 PM | PERMALINK

DAY, thanks for the history lesson. You're making the same argument made for TBTF: the little guy will get hurt if the big banks get what they deserve. Maybe American pension funds, Wall Street hedge funds, and little old ladies in Dubuque shouldn'have put their money in a company with BP's track record for environmental degradation and a propensity for disasters because they don't follow safety regulations (or even their own rules).

Again, tell me if you feel the same way after reading this: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/17390/111965?RS_show_page=0

Posted by: DevilDog on June 13, 2010 at 3:05 PM | PERMALINK

tanstaafl: you said "Karen Marie, you are wrong about the relief well. Work on the relief well has been proceeding simultaneously with all of those other techniques."

Actually, the relief drilling didn't begin until May 4, according to BP's own website. Two weeks after the initial explosion.

http://www.bp.com/genericarticle.do?categoryId=2012968&contentId=7061778

Posted by: winddancer on June 13, 2010 at 3:08 PM | PERMALINK

D'Dog, I'm aware of the Rolling Stone piece, and wish we had more investigative reporting like that!

But you miss the point of my 'history' lesson (that BP is NOT a 'foreign corporation), if you think I'm saying hands off anyone TBTF. Before that, I'd champion a Hugo Chavez move (or Harry Truman!), and nationalize BP.

We were quick to freeze the U.S. held assets of Iraq- why not BP? Or Halliburton?

-And, while we're on a roll, frog march Dick Cheney out of his undisclosed location. . .

Posted by: DAY on June 13, 2010 at 3:16 PM | PERMALINK

winddancer, given that the drilling platform sank and the equipment for the relief wells can't exactly be loaded on a plane and flown to the site, 2 weeks does not seem like an excessive time to start the drilling. I am not an expert, and it is possible it could have been done even faster but I doubt you could shave more than a few days off no matter how urgently you acted.

Meanwhile, karen marie said that if they hadn't wasted time with all the other methods of dealing with the spill (most of which were attempted after May 4), the relief wells could already be done or almost done.

Given that every single news story I have read, including some that were pretty critical of BP overall, has put the completion time for the relief wells at early-mid August at the earliest, then even if they somehow started drilling the day after the explosion, the relief wells would still be several weeks away from completion now.

Posted by: tanstaafl on June 13, 2010 at 3:53 PM | PERMALINK

As a typical retarded American I want to hear about how hydrogen fuel cell technology and infrastructure costs are too "cost prohibitve"... again... I can't get enough of that story Mr. Preznit. Time to lead.. Jackass!

Posted by: Trollop on June 13, 2010 at 3:58 PM | PERMALINK

DAY, My apologies. You are correct that BP is almost as much a U.S. as a British corporation in many ways (about one-third of its workers are Americans).

I also agree with your other suggestions, regarding their assets and Cheney. If only this administration would follow them. I won't be holding my breath.

Posted by: DevilDog on June 13, 2010 at 4:11 PM | PERMALINK

Tanstaafl is one of the few reasonable voices I think I've heard. It simply doesn't make any sense to me at all that BP or the Administration could see any possible upside out of fiddling while Rome burned here. As far as it taking two weeks before relief wells were drilled, given the logistics and conditions involved, it doesn't seem excessive -- of course, all of us would like to have seen the RIGHT solution hit on immediately -- but reality just doesn't often work that way.

It seems to me that some folks wouldn't have been satisfied by much less than Obama diving into the gulf and actually eating oil plumes on day one.

We were fucked by deregulation and greed on this one long before the rig blew up. BP needs to pay and pay, but it's simply not going to be an easy fix. Sometimes you're fucked, and unfortunately, this is one of those times.

Posted by: mercury on June 13, 2010 at 4:11 PM | PERMALINK

mercury, read Tim Dickinson's piece, then tell me if you still believe what you said in your post. Here it is:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/17390/111965?RS_show_page=0

It's not about Obama fixing the leak, just the agencies he is responsible for, such as the Interior Dept., MMS, NOAA, the Coast Guard. And believe me, there's plenty of upside for BP if the cleanup gets too big for them to pay for and FEMA and the government (taxpayers) have to pick up more of the tab.

What's in it for Obama? He will continue to receive BP's corporate donations of which he was the biggest recipient during his term in the Senate.

Posted by: DevilDog on June 13, 2010 at 4:24 PM | PERMALINK

tanstaafl , the biggest problem with the delay for the relief wells is that they weren't drilled or mostly already. Many countries, including Canada, make sure this happens...we don't. As I've said, both political parties are responsible for this wreck, as well as BP being what all for-profit companies are. A corporation whose responsibility is to their shareholders...period. The safety and well-being of their workers is secondary as is the environment in which they are working. This is how capitalism works, especially capitalism on steroids with enormous influence over politicians. And it demonstrates very well why Marx said capitalism would fall under its own weight. Unfortunately, it takes the environment and human beings down with it.

Posted by: winddancer on June 13, 2010 at 5:00 PM | PERMALINK

Re all this talk of taking BP into receivership etc: is it really doable? A lot of you think a US President can do as he wishes, and I don't think so. Same for firing all the old MMS moles (how about civil service rules? That's why burrowing was so pernicious, the moles knew their privileges ....)
Now if you really know the score, let us know. But don't just go bloviating like lefty Limbaughs.

Posted by: Neil B on June 13, 2010 at 5:54 PM | PERMALINK

I am hopeful that what Obama says and does on Tuesday is substantive. What we really need is a strong and definite commitment to channel billions, if not trillions, into sustainable, renewable energy generation. Not next week, or next year or after the November midterms: NOW. As a writer on www.opednews.com wrote, this is really about our lifestyle and our addiction to that lifestyle. It is not just an oil addiction; it is our insatiable need for goods and services that separate us from each other. Competition for the higher ground, better car, exclusive club membership.

We will not solve our current problem with the thinking that got us here (Einstein paraphrase). A new paradigm is absolutely necessary. This is not a preference, but a demand. If we want a different world, we have to live a different life.

Radical solutions are the only ones that will work.

I am committed to Oneness through Justice and Transformation
peace,
st john

Posted by: st john on June 13, 2010 at 5:58 PM | PERMALINK

BTW, if you want more about Palin's phoniness over oil safety issues:
http://www.themudflats.net/2010/06/09/palins-phoney-call-me-offer/

Posted by: neil b on June 13, 2010 at 6:09 PM | PERMALINK

Its pretty troubling where some here go in their logic and the deep cynicism that must live there.

Ok. From what I read up string, Obama and his administration are so corrupt and in the thrall of campaign contributions from BP that they purposely are not doing what needs to be done And that is making everything fixed, right?). They like looking like incompetents and receiving the possible contempt of the American people so that they can get campaign contributions from BP. End of story. That obviously means that there must have been a HUGE cover up to make sure that everyone was directed that everything was to be done more slowly and half assed to keep that goal in mind. Everyone associated with the government response is uniformly a shill and beneath contempt and conspiring with no other aim but to save BPs bacon. Every one of the federal agencies responsible for any part of this response are filled with incompetents and did not suffer from years of being stripped down and deregulated from the last two or three administrations. But Obama had a year to detect the needs and fix them, even as we know that many of his appointments havent even been filled yet -- hung up by the Republicans... (He actually selected a head for MMS, who was made to resign recently, who was selected because she had no ties to the industry and she was STILL made to resign)No matter...this man and his administration is so venal that the lack of a solution to this is strictly because of his being beholden to the industry and no other reason.

Many of you have never been supporters of this administration... but its a good lie that covers other axes to grind.

You are not for real...Your opinions are mostly without merit. If you actually do want to learn a little about the catastrophe and what is and cannot be done, there are plenty of true sources of information. The Oil Drum (theoildrum.com) is excellent with a variety of technical and policy discussions. Just saying, if you were interested in facts, you could go there.

Posted by: Elie on June 13, 2010 at 6:15 PM | PERMALINK

The escrow account that the White House envisions[...] would be administered by a third party to provide greater independence and transparency [...]

Administered by Goldman Sucks and insured by AIG, by any chance? Both of which will be -- again - to big to fail once they've played at ducks and drakes with the money and it's all gone?

Posted by: exlibra on June 13, 2010 at 6:31 PM | PERMALINK

@karen marie
If the relief well had been started the day after. or even a week after this started, it would be complete or nearly so. Instead BP and the government waited until after they had dicked around with techniques that everyone knew had a small likelihood of success.

In fact, the first relief well was started May 2, eight days after the leak was discovered, and five days before the first "technique"--the big containment dome--was even attempted.

Nor would it have been "complete or nearly so" by now, even if they'd started the day after the leak was discovered (which they couldn't have done in any case--it takes at least several days of preparation to begin drilling any well).

@DevilDog
[BP's] only responsibility should be stopping that leak (or leaks).If they can't do it, bring in a consortium of other oil companies who might be able to be more effectively.

At this point, with what is now known about the condition of the well, the leak cannot be stopped without risking an undersea blowout, which would be vastly more serious. The best anybody can do is some form of containment until the relief well can take a crack at a "bottom kill."

tanstaafi, you say, ". . . they have pursued all the other, temporary and/or low-probability options simultaneously with the relief wells." Really? How do you know?

Common sense, if nothing else, should tell you that nobody wants to get this leak stopped more than BP. There are some things it makes corporate sense for BP to lie about or conceal; what it's doing to stop the leak isn't among them.

@aline
An oil executive recommended weeks ago that we have a supply of supertanker in the gulf vacuuming up oil.

Not feasible in this situation; the oil is too widely dispersed and patchy. It would only work if the oil were coming up in a fairly circumscribed location and the tankers could sit right over it. As it is, the area right above the spill where some of the oil is concentrated is crowded with other vessels currently engaged in containing the flow and monitoring the condition of the BOP and the well; there's no room for tankers.

(That's not to say BP's efforts to clean up the oil have been optimal, not by a long shot.)

@windancer
Actually, the relief drilling didn't begin until May 4, according to BP's own website. Two weeks after the initial explosion.

From your own link:

"Release date: 04 May 2010
"BP today announced that work has begun to drill a relief well to intercept and isolate the oil well that is spilling oil in the US Gulf of Mexico. The drilling began at 15:00CDT (21:00BST) on Sunday May 2."

That's eight days after the leak was discovered on April 24. The decision to drill a relief well must have been made and preparations begun within a day or two. You just don't start a well overnight, especially a deep-water well.

Man, there are so many legitimate reasons to criticize BP. It's a shame so few people go to the trouble to inform themselves that they just end up uselessly fulminating.

Posted by: Swift Loris on June 13, 2010 at 6:33 PM | PERMALINK

@Elie
If you actually do want to learn a little about the catastrophe and what is and cannot be done, there are plenty of true sources of information. The Oil Drum (theoildrum.com) is excellent with a variety of technical and policy discussions.

Second that motion. A lot of the discussion is pretty technical, but enough of it is within the grasp of the layperson to make reading the discussions there highly worthwhile. And the experienced, knowledgeable folks who participate are more than willing to answer questions from the rest of us.

Posted by: Swift Loris on June 13, 2010 at 6:40 PM | PERMALINK

Nothing is going to change. There will be speeches, meetings, committees, slaps on the wrist and then laws passed, written by big business, with loopholes so big you could drive a hummer through them.
Congress is in bed with big business and until the bitches wake up and kick the bums out of their bed, they will keep their bed warm for big business and nothing will change.
I still think that Obama was and is the better choice for president, I just wish the whole party would stand behind him so things could get done. I'm more disappointed with the party than I am with Obama.

Posted by: Schtick on June 13, 2010 at 6:49 PM | PERMALINK

@Elie
The Oil Drum is an excellent site. I go there all of the time to read West Texas, Gail the Actuary, Robert Rapier, Heading Out, et al. There's a lot of useful information about oil exploration technology, peak oil, alternative energy, sustainability, etc.

Many of the regulars there are from the oil industry, hence their expertise and also their defensiveness about the collateral damage from oil and gas production. I'm talking about some of the pieces by Heading Out and others downplaying the dangers of hydraulic fragmentation in gas exploration. You would do well to read other sources, like Pro Publica, to get both sides of the story, or accounts like this one posted on Daily Kos: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/6/7/873718/-Major-drilling-accident-in-NW-PA.Media-banned-from-site.-Threats-of-shooting,-arrest

In the case of this thread, it's about the response of the Obama administration to the BP disaster. Politicians apply for a job. It's called a campaign. The public hires them, in effect, when the majority vote for one candidate. Once I hire somebody, I don't blindly support them. I want to see how they are doing on the job. Are they doing what they led us to believe they would do?

I don't believe just because I'm a Democrat I have to blindly support the guy I voted for/hired. Looking at what Obama's done versus what he led us to believe during the campaign, makes me want to fire the guy. Now, all I can do is publicize his performance and hold him accountable. If he does the right thing, I support him. If not, Democrats need to let him know they are disappointed. And based on his performance thus far in financial reform, health care, response to BP, I'm seeing more allegiance to the corporations than the rank and file Democrats.

I'll defend him against mindless attacks from the right, but I won't let bad behavior go unchallenged. If you think Tim Dickinson's article in Rolling Stone is unfair, please read it and then point out the inaccuracies.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/17390/111965?RS_show_page=0

Posted by: DevilDog on June 13, 2010 at 6:57 PM | PERMALINK

Way too many people of all political persuasions are running in circles, with their hair on fire.

Spindletop. Oil City, PA. There is an operating oil well beneath the capitol in Oklahoma. Henry Ford ran his Model T on ethanol- until the "waste product" (gasoline) that was being dumped into rivers (it was lamp oil that first attracted wildcatters- and decimated the whale oil industry) was found to be a cheap fuel for the Infernal Combustion Engine. ( Sorry about that run-on sentence!).

My point is, we have been a long time agittin' here, ( the auto cartel buying up the Los Angeles street car lines, Ike's American version of Hitler's Autobahn, the destruction [via tax incentives] of the railroads), and we are going to be a loooong time returning to sanity.

Thank (insert the deity of your choice) that we have so many smart, argumentative folks here on WaMo!

-Tha, tha, that's all, folks. . .

Posted by: DAY on June 13, 2010 at 7:50 PM | PERMALINK

Anyone who thinks Obama or anyone else can undo decades of "government is the problem" in two short years is naive.

Obama's mistake was claiming that he was in charge in an attempt to reassure an enraged public -- when he knew that BP was and would remain in control.

The ugly truth is that ours is a government of, by and for the corporations, not the people. It's been in the works at least since the end of WWII, and that's the environment Obama has to work in.

Sure, there are a host of liberal agendas I support and would like to see realized immediately, but it ain't gonna happen Undoing the disastrous legacy of conservatism will take decades, if indeed it is possible at all.

Posted by: beep52 on June 13, 2010 at 8:46 PM | PERMALINK

" but I won't let bad behavior go unchallenged."

What? Do you think that you are house breaking your dog?

sigh. truly.

We have a very complex system and a very very difficult and complex problem that you want obviously fixed or you are "firing" Obama. You are naive and unprepared for civics 101. Instead of reading the Oil Drum, maybe you should go back and read how government works in THIS country -- not the ideal one in your head.

One and a half years after being elected (not appointed King), the man who you say you voted for has to work and coordinate a number of agencies and other entities to get things done. He can command nothing be fixed overnight, including the many agencies that were screwed up over the last thirty years of so. But so never mind.

You are ignorant of what it takes to run anything with more than one person (yourself). Yes, please either stay home and don't vote at all or vote for the person who you think can do this better from their command post on the planet of Dicentra...their maxons are better prepared

Posted by: Elie on June 13, 2010 at 9:21 PM | PERMALINK

And devildog, you did not support Obama.

Nice try though... makes for a good story.

you guys never quit trying -- LIAR

Posted by: Elie on June 13, 2010 at 9:24 PM | PERMALINK

@Elie, Can you marshal any facts to support your case, or do you only have unsubstantiated opinions and unwavering loyalty to the president? If you can read the Tim Dickinson article in Rolling Stone and show that it's inaccurate, then I'll be impressed.

Posted by: DevilDog on June 14, 2010 at 2:30 AM | PERMALINK

Here's an excellent suggestion for the Gulf states BP Oil fiasco from: http//horse-you-rode-in-on.com/2010/05/31/needed-now-%e2%80%93-a-gulf-states-bailout/#comments

TO SAVE OUR SOUTH COAST

To save our south coast — and his own presidency — what Barack Obama should be launching right now is a regional WPA project, Roosevelt style.

Call it Gulf States Recovery, or Gulf States of America.

Hundreds of restoration and public works projects, large and small, are needed. And displaced fishermen, beachfront tourism employees, and many others will need the work.

Congress need not disgrace itself again, wasting precious weeks preening, posing, and logrolling the details. Just appropriate $20 billion dollars - NOW.

The states and cities can work out the details about where the money is most needed and best used.

The cost would be a minor fraction of what we paid to bail out AIG — and BP, Halliburton, et al can be assessed (or sued, or nationalized) to recover much of the money instead of adding it to the deficit.

In the meantime, what the Federal government can do is to provide a Peace Corps type of organizational structure to enlist volunteers from across the country. Volunteers and workers can stay in the hotel rooms left vacant by tourists.

People need help. Not eventually - right now. And others would love to help if there were a way to do it.

All they need is a mobilization vehicle and (just keep Rahm Emanuel out of it) some real leadership."
http://horse-you-rode-in-on.com/2010/05/31/needed-now-%e2%80%93-a-gulf-states-bailout/#comments

Posted by: MrsD on June 14, 2010 at 7:39 AM | PERMALINK

It's become clear after the recent BP oil disaster that the time to rethink energy resources has certainly arrived.

Posted by: m3 zero on June 14, 2010 at 9:25 AM | PERMALINK

I just don't buy into this argument that Salazar (and by extension, the Obama administration) just isn't able to quickly change the corrupt practices of the "Bush moles" that inhabit the MMS. I have to call bullshit on that.

No, they can't just fire these people for their political ideologies. But they can promulgate a set of new rules that demand strict oversight and regulation of offshore drilling projects and require MMS employees to strictly abide by them. If the bush moles won't do the work, then the MMS/DoE has every right to fire them.

They can also assign more reliable persons to oversee the higher risk projects. They can also hire additional personnel and relegate the obvious moles to basement desk jobs where they can't do any harm.

Bottom line, there are many ways to effectively change the MMS IF there is the will to do it. I just don't think Salazar (and possibly Obama) had the stomach to do the hard work to quickly remediate the corruption in MMS. The most costly mistake Obama made was his first one: choosing industry-friendly Salazar to run the DoE.

Posted by: bdop4 on June 14, 2010 at 11:58 AM | PERMALINK

True! bush administration was facing challenge those day.

Posted by: bad credit loan on October 4, 2010 at 9:04 AM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly