Finally last night I was able to take a breather to watch some of the pundit shows. As I watched the various pundits' shows it dawned on me that we have not seen President Obama on television, in front of a teleprompter, holding a press conference or taking questions from any of the media lately. Why might this be? We all know that oil is spewing into the Gulf, Super Tuesday Primary voters sent a message that those in office beware, and rumors are swirling around a job offer to Rep. Joe Sestak to drop out of the primary race in Pennsylvania. Where is President Obama?
Rep. Joe Sestak contends that he was offered a high-ranking position within the Obama Administration if he were to drop out of the 2010 Democratic Senate primary. The New York Times reported that Republican Senators sent Attorney General Eric Holder a letter asserting that the issue is "very serious and, if true, suggest a possible violation of various federal criminal laws intended to safeguard our political process from the taint of bribes and political machine manipulation." Ironically, last year Rob Blagojevich was run out of town because of his alleged selling of President Obama's Senate seat. Is President Obama avoiding the media so he does not have to go on record about the Sestak deal? Where is the special investigation into the alleged deal making? What is Obama hiding? If a deal was not offered, why would Sestak assert one was made? Where are Woodward and Bernstein?
Sen. Obama ran on the platform of bring transparency to Washington, so why is he so quiet now?
Are you contending that the White House was using political appointments to accomplish a political goal?
ReplyDeleteThe horror...
It's probably one of the most common things and has been used several times by several different administrations. Obama can't seem to walk out of step before the Congressional Republicans jump on him. It's kind of a slimy move...but it is not illegal nor is it unethical. Is your claim that he didn't get up to the podium to tell you this just because FoxNews has treated this like the next Watergate?
Please...media-driven scandal. Next topic.
Anon
ReplyDeleteSorry to say, it is not just FoxNews treating this as Watergate or the Republicans pushing for a hearing. I will admit that it did shock me that I heard Ed Schultz and Chris Matthews both wanting to know more about the potential deal making that was done to get Sestak out of the race. Let's face it, Specter is the whipping boy of the Administration and Sestak does not fit the mold.
If an offer was made to Sestak for a position in the Administration in exchange for dropping out of the Democrat Primary race in Pennslyvania then that does violate Federal Law and is considered a felony. Why are you so quick to dismiss something that Sestak himself admits took place? Do you really think the Right Wing media and Republicans conspired with Sestak to break this story? If the allegations and assertions made by Sestak are not true then say it as it will damage Sestak's chances and then the Democrats can replace him on the ballot with Specter but that is not happening, why? Perhaps there is more truth to be known.
Or perhaps it's meaningless. Why are you always looking for some grand conspiracy? Politicians suck. Media outlets suck. Washingtonian behavior sucks. Why are you expecting something more?
ReplyDeleteIt almost feels like you're searching for places to find indignation and outrage.
Here's something to ponder, those of us who have held the belief that washington has been broken for 30+ years were outraged long before Jan 21st of 2009 and we didn't need Fox news or CNN to tell us of the problem or moreover to make one up to garner ratings.
Welcome to the party. How about we talk about something worthwhile and not fake news?
Here's an interesting take on the GOP outrage: http://blogs.ajc.com/jay-bookman-blog/2010/05/27/joe-sestak-lets-loose-gop-impeachment-fantasies/?cxntfid=blogs_jay_bookman_blog
ReplyDeleteWhen the Chief Ethics Officer under Bush says it's nothing, we might want to move on.
But we know they won't, because people watch TV when they get upset about something and that earns the news networks money.
ReplyDeleteThis isn't news. This is fake news parading as news to generate faux outrage in the hopes of boosting ratings.
Chris, the news sells fear, and you seem to be buying it in buckets.
I am not looking for a grand conspiracy with Sestak. I am wondering why the media continues to give Obama a pass. BTW...he just said that the Government has been in charge and directing BP throughout the spill. Just because the behavior "sucks" does not mean accountability needs to be shelved.
ReplyDeleteI understand that sensationalism and fear are great ratings boosters for news outlets.
Anon..I could get your link to open for some reason.
What more do you want him to do with the oil spill?
ReplyDeleteHe's addressing the corruption in the Interior Department. He's holding BP financial responsible. He's put a hold on new drilling. He's investigating the safety issues. He ordered a safety review that is about to wrap up and will proceed from there.
If he went down there and helped clean up rocks and birds, people would call it a media stunt.
All of this 30 days after it took place. Bush was lambasted for Katrina. Where were are the rigs designed to clean the water? Why didn't a control burn took place prior? If he was informed and in charge the entire time then the amount of oil being spewed had to have been known.
ReplyDeleteYou make it seem like they haven't been doing anything, which is BS.
ReplyDeleteThe amount of oil had to have been known? Really? Have you seen the video? How would anyone, ANYONE, know how much oil is be spewed out? Go turn your hose on and know exactly how much water is coming out without looking at the meter. It's impossible to know.
Actually, fill your bathtub up, put the hose under the water and turn it on, hook up a video feed, and tell me how much water is coming out.
ReplyDeleteHere is a timeline of the response: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/05/05/ongoing-administration-wide-response-deepwater-bp-oil-spill
ReplyDeleteThey did do control burns. They had dozens of ships in the area. They set up those boom things. They used the dispersent stuff. And conducted a search and rescue.
All within the first week. All far earlier than waiting the 30 days you seem to indicate above.
Chris, what different would you have Obama do? You're the expert here, what response can the government provide that BP cannot?
ReplyDeleteMoreover, you rail against government meddling in private business then rail agianst the president for not doing enough.
How can you on one hand, say one thing and with the other say the exact opposite and then think you make any rational sense whatsoever?
Oh, and the true flow of oil wasn't known because BP refused to share the live video feed that they were receiving. It took public pressure and threats of congressional supeona to get the video released. And without the video you can't make assumption about flow rate, pipe diameter, etc that are required to calculate leak volume.
ReplyDeleteCome on Chris, think logically instead of letting Fox spoon feed you BS. The difference between this and Katrina is that this was avoidable and Katrina was not. One is a man-made disaster and one is not. One requires immediate corporate response with government oversight and one requires immediate government response with corporate contributions as possible.
So how are these comparable and why are you buying the hype?
Anon
ReplyDeleteI did not say the Administration is not doing anything. All I bring to light is the slow response they had and the free pass they are getting. Delays and missed opportunities plague the clean up.
1.A burn should have been done for longer than 28 minutes early on but Eco-Green people were too worried about air pollution.
2.Gov. Jyndal has wanted to build dykes to prevent the oil sludge from getting to the marsh land but a enviromental impact study was required.
3. After Valdez a pre-authority to use tankers to seperate water from oil was established, as of yet they have not been deployed.
Kevin asks how this compares to Katrina. Outside of the nature of the event, the similarities take root in the clean up efforts afterwards. President Obama stated today that the US Government, his office, had been in control of the situation since day 1. If that is the case, why did he not approve the dykes sooner, pre-approve the junk shot in the event the dome idea didn't work, allow eco-green to stop the burn, and the delay in sending the tankers?
When an oil spill takes place, a fire starts in town, or other similar events it is the reason we pay taxes to ensure safety is brought in order. The safety of the shore line is job #1 here and Obama's administration is failing through delays and mismanagement of automatic responses. I do not disagree that had failsafes worked and regulators not given exceptions the explosion could have been avoided.
It's nice to play Monday morning QB, isn't it.
ReplyDeleteDid you even look at the timeline? It's obvious you've decided who you want to blame.
I did look at the timeline. I actually was aware of the timeline added to the White House site. It is unfortunate that the timeline was added just recently and not as things were going on.
ReplyDeletePresident Obama said, yesterday, that he has been on point since day one. If that is true, then he is to blame for the lack of response and allowing the spill to get closer and closer to the mainland.
"President Obama stated today that the US Government, his office, had been in control of the situation since day 1."
ReplyDeleteChris, the president is not King, he can't just order things to be done all the time without congressional approval since he has NO budgetary authority. That resides with congress.
Second, here's the differences between Katrina and oil spill.
A) We saw Katrina coming 5+ days prior and no preparations were made by the US gov. This disaster was not predicted by anyone as far as I know.
B) The US government has agencies designed and prepared for Katrina-like events. There are no agencies within the government with the expertise or preparations necessary to stem the flow of an oil spill 5000+ feet down.
C) Private industry caused this issue with a highly laxed regulatory system as a secondary causation. Katrina was caused by mother nature.
While it is Obama's role to lead and I admit he hasn't been as vocal as he should have been, he also didn't have any tools to fix it so his incentive to take responsibility is not very high because there's very little political upside.
I find it incredibly ironic here Chris that you feel that the free-markets should be at work and regulation is "heavy handed" yet if something goes wrong the federal government is responsible. So with one hand you tie their hands and with the other hand you hand over ultimate responsibility.
That's comparable to you saying, "Chris, you aren't allowed to discipline your kids, but if they do ANYTHING wrong we're going to hold you criminally liable."
I know that I, as a parent, would be pissed as hell if someone said that to me. But that's what you're doing.
Since you are the resident expert on oil-spill response here, please tell me all the things you would have done if you were president? And put them in order and how you would have achieved them.
I didn't blame Bush as much as most did for the Katrina disaster, simply because I don't think he could have foreseen it. But I wasn't happy with it either. I don't blame Obama for the disaster response here either, but I'm not happy with it either. That's because while I want the government to be capable of fixing things, I am reasonable enough to know that they aren't in many cases.
But you seem intent on a witch hunt. Did you respond this way to Bush during Katrina? I question the likelihood of that having occurred.
Kevin
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that differences do exist between Katrina and the explosin in the Gulf. I recognize that our President is not a king although he does direct the regulatoring and military agencies. President Obama caved to special interests by stopping the burn because of potential air pollution.
There are procedures put in place after Valdez spill and most of those procedures require the green light from the White House. I do think we need certain OSHA regulation and other similar regulation to ensure that proper safety precautions are taken to ensure oil spills don't happen.
My response after Katrina was twofold. A) FEMA dropped the ball even though they were told by local officials - Mayor of New Orleans - that help was not required. B) Although people could not have foretold the dykee giving way, they all knew the potential disaster Katrina was able to unleash by her size. When I was in Grand Forks in 1997 and was told that the river is rising and the dykes may not hold, I left. When Iowans, last year, were told that the dykes may not hold, they left.
If I were the President at the time of the explosion, I would have green lit all options. I would not have caved to the green police over keeping the burn going past 28 minutes because the benefits of the burn outweighed the potential air pollution. Every tanker that can seperate the oil and water would be in the Gulf. When Gov. Jyndal asked for the earthern dykes to protect the marsh lands, I would have great lit it as well. I would have had the VP in the area until the situation was complete. Daily briefings would have been done. I would have personally held weekly press conferences. I would not have gone on vacation or participated in fund raisers.