**Disclaimer - I'm not forgiving BP of any responsibility for this spill. I'm completely cool with BP paying every penny required to clean this thing up. But with that being said:
Oil has been gushing for about 60 days now. Jobs in the oil, seafood, and tourism industries have been devastated in the gulf. For most of those 60 days the administration has been trying to convince us (or themselves) that they have been on top of things "since day 1." But Obama doesn't lead. He reacts. That's why he didn't even visit the gulf coast until 45 days after the spill began; after the public uproar demanded he at least pay the place a visit. Now he's not yet met with either the CEO or the chairman of the board of BP since this whole thing started. Does that sound like a leader? In fact he recently said this about the CEO of BP when attempting to explain his reasons or having not spoken to him yet:
"When you talk to a guy like a BP CEO, he's going to say all the right things to me. I'm not interested in words. I'm interested in actions."
Now Obama is the guy who is all about sitting down and speaking to folks like Hugo Chavez and Ahmadinejad. Seriously? You don't think those guys are also going to "say all the right things?" What's the difference?
Well now that people are clamoring for some kind of action, ANY kind of action, Obama has decided to summon the chairman of BP to a meeting. 60 days later we're finally going to have a direct talk with BP executives. 60 DAYS LATER!! Again, Obama is not a leader. He has no idea how to handle this besides just reacting to criticisms laid against him.
"I'm not interested in words. I'm interested in actions." The irony of THAT statement coming from the mouth of THIS president, who has gotten to where he is based solely on empty words, is mind-blowing.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/2010-06-10-column10_ST_N.htm
ReplyDeleteThis is a good editorial on the topic in yesterday's USA Today.
Alright Troy, check this: (drum roll)...I agree with you. :) Almost completely. I think how Pres. Obama handled this whole situation is lame at best. I'm pretty disappointed. I think Bush did better with Katrina, and heaven knows he didn't handle that too awesomely. So, yeah.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I do think that talking with foreign political figures is different from talking to a CEO of a huge company. In this case, he actually can affect changes he wants without having to talk (or resort to a war). He can sue, he can change laws, he can enforce laws, he can regulate etc. So, why talk? It's also very clear who's responsible in this case, and it happened on US territory. So...it's kind of a clear cut case. With foreign politicians, you can't just get them to do what you want because there is zero jurisdiction. Sure, you can try and create sanctions, or refuse to trade, or export, or just bust into a country with your military. But, those things are little more drastic than the oil disaster we have at hand. So, I think it IS different...but, Obama still is handling this pretty crappily.
I see where there are differences between talking to BP and talking to Kim Jong-Il. However, I still think that you would want to talk to people who know more about oil spills than you do. Maybe I'm crazy but there might be a sliiiight chance that BP's executives might have a few suggestions. And it might facilitate stoppage of the leak and cleanup if BP's people and Obama's people are on the same page and are at least coordinating their efforts. I think it highlights Obama's arrogance that he isn't talking to these people.
ReplyDeleteYup, I agree with you. Once you've got a disaster like this, you very well may try and do whatever it takes to speedily sort things out (including communication). Maybe he meant that he's not interested in discussions with the CEO on who's at fault or stuff like that. Who knows...I do think Obama would be willing to take whatever effective help is out there. However, at this point he's already in it too deeply (meaning, he's already handled this so very crappily that I think he's just frantically trying to safe his butt with weird, dramatic, pointless efforts). I just read he's getting ready for another trip out there. Ridiculous in my book. They don't need him to visit every week. They needed him to come in the beginning, to assess things, and get the proper resources going. Who cares now. Bleh...Booh Obama on this one - big time!
ReplyDeleteExactly what I mean when I say he's reacting and not leading (and I think this applies to everything with him, not just the oil spill). He's addressing the nation from the Oval Office on Tuesday. That's great but that should have happened weeks ago. At this point he's screwed things up so badly that all of his efforts look contrived and forced. I'm trying really hard not to make this a political issue but it's hard to take his attempts to look like a real leader seriously at this point. But, hey, this is what happens when we elect a man who has no experience in the real world but rather is a political ideologue who knows how to read from a teleprompter really well. Of course there's a lack of leadership. We elected a tool rather than a leader.
ReplyDeleteWell, I don't think it's actually necessarily bad to elect someone who lacks experience. It's not like you're put into the white House with not a single person there to help you/aid you. Also, lack of experience could equate lack of political corruption. So, I don't know that his lack of experience is a good argument to decide that he can't be any good, or won't be a good leader. I think there are plenty of example in history of leaders who lacked experience, but rose to the occasion.
ReplyDeleteOn top of that, if it's the lack of experience that makes a politician bad, then I hope you were just as annoyed with the election of Bush, whose only political experience prior to presidency was being a governor. Same goes for Palin (even though of course her and McCain never made it), and probably a bunch of other politicians who don't pop into my head right now.
With all that said though, I'm still with you on how Obama handled this - awful.
OK, I just read a really funny, and blatantly true, article about this whole situation. Here is the best part:
ReplyDelete"And, why is Obama still dragging his sizeable feet in allowing Louisiana and the other Gulf Coast states to begin cleanup on their own? Governor Bobby Jindal (R-LA) begged Obama for weeks to allow the placement of berms (raised barrier separating two areas). Obama ignored the Governor. Even leftist James Carville—a resident of the State—begged his leader to assist with: “We’re dyin’ down here!“ Finally, on 3 June, Obama relented and said he would allow the placements to begin. But, even this has not happened yet. But, it now appears it may be too late as the famously beautiful and pristine Louisiana marshlands have already been glutted with oil. Native birds are now covered with the deadly blend, while Obama fiddled, golfed, went on vacation and attended a Paul McCartney concert. Nero would be proud."
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/23949
I especially love the comparison back to Rome's Nero. Perhaps the worst emperor that the world has EVER seen.
Anyway, My personal take is how utterly disappointed I am with how the country has or hasn't reacted.
First, I think it is a terrible idea to boycott BP. Boycotting them is only going to drive them into bankruptcy. Then who is going to pay all the bills. PRETTY STUPID idea. However, I don't think that we should all start going to BP. I just think that things should stay consistent.
Second, Why have we as a Nation not stood up and showed how angry we are about this situation to the white house. 52 days is WAY, WAY, WAY... too long to get a reaction. Then our president makes a bunch of stupid, high-School-esk comments about running down and firing the CEO and wanting to know who's "ass to kick?" I mean, what kind of reaction is that? For a president? (intentionally not capped:)
Animals are dying, the oil is being carried out in underwater currents, People are getting sick, etc. And our president is golfing, vacationing and going to concerts?
Lastly, why in the blessed world would Obama leave BP in charge of the clean up. It should be run by the Government, or by an assigned third-party. We need this done right. BP should just pay the bills.
Oh, and why have we not gotten this shut down yet? Obama should have sent out a call to pay anyone who thinks they can get this fixed. ANYONE. We cannot wait until the other wells are drilled in August. By then the damage will be astronomical!
Anyway, THANK-YOU to every dolt who elected what is looking to be one of the worst presidents in history. He has personally multiplied our national debt astronomically with his healthcare bill, completely ignored what the majority of the population really wants, and now ignored what can potentially be one of the worst man-made natural disasters in history. *clapping* THANKS "For Change!"
BTW, Troy, The article that Mitt Romney wrote that you noted was great. Arguably the best overall analysis of the way this current president works that I have read.
ReplyDeleteTalk about pulling the sheet down and exposing the man behind the mask. It is kind of shocking to have all of his deflection lined up like that. WOW.
Well I think we're pretty much all in agreement on this one. This is going to be the worst environmental disaster in our country's history and Obama seems more interested in avoiding any blame for this than in actually fixing it.
ReplyDeleteFran, when I mention experience I'm not talking about Obama's political experience (or lack thereof). I'm talking about ANY experience that puts him in charge of something. He's never been an executive of anything. Now, you're right. Having been in charge of something doesn't automatically make one a great leader. Nor does the lack of such leadership mean you can't be a great leader (Abraham Lincoln was the least experienced President we've ever had but arguably our greatest leader). Obama clearly isn't a natural leader so it may have helped him to have gained some experience before coming into the White House. I don't expect Obama to be perfect on this. Nothing can prepare you fully to take on this kind of task. That's why I've waited this long to comment on his handling of the situation. I've tried to be fair to him but I find here that my pattern of not trusting government to take care of things is being justified. Here's a bold and harsh statement but it's my opinion: I think Obama doesn't care about the oil spill per se except that it's a distraction to his ambitious plans to "fundamentally transform America." I think he's bothered by this only because it is taking time away from his agenda. If he really cared it would show in his face and in his voice. Say what you want about George Bush but in the days following 9/11 you KNEW that he cared. His emotions were raw and he spoke boldly. And he didn't have to say scripted swear words to try to make his anger seem real the way Obama has done.