President Obama Gets Ripped For Oval Office Speech

[Conan71]

Looks like he's getting cannibalized by his media minions:

Chris Matthews compared his speech on energy to one by President Carter 33 years ago and accused him of no direction.  It's ludicrous that he keeps saying [Secretary of Energy] Chu has a Nobel prize. "I'll barf if he does it one more time."
(Guess the honeymoon is over there, I wonder if Matthews has taken down the Obama poster over his bed?)

Olbermann: "I don't think he aimed low, I don't think he aimed at all. It's startling."  "It was a great speech if you were on another planet for the last 57 days."

Mo Dowd seems to have woken up from hopenosis:

From this past Sunday:  "In her New York Times column Sunday, Maureen Dowd blasted President Obama's attitude towards the press, which she said has "self-pitying echoes of Nixon":

Like many Democrats, he thinks the press is supposed to be on his side...the former constitutional lawyer now in the White House understands that the press has a role in the democracy. But he is an elitist, too, as well as thin-skinned and controlling."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/14/obama-vs-the-press-mauree_n_611387.html

After the speech:

"How can a man who was a dazzling enough politician to become the first black president at age 47 suddenly become so obdurately self-destructive about politics?

President Obama's bloodless quality about people and events, the emotional detachment that his aides said allowed him to see things more clearly, has instead obscured his vision. It has made him unable to understand things quickly on a visceral level and put him on the defensive in this spring of our discontent, failing to understand that Americans are upset that a series of greedy corporations have screwed over the little guy without enough fierce and immediate pushback from the president.

"Even though I'm president of the United States, my power is not limitless," Obama, who has forced himself to ingest a load of gulf crab cakes, shrimp and crawfish tails, whinged to Grand Isle, La., residents on Friday. "So I can't dive down there and plug the hole. I can't suck it up with a straw."

Once more on Tuesday night, we were back to back-against-the-wall time. The president went for his fourth-quarter, Michael Jordan, down-to-the-wire, thrill shot in the Oval Office, his first such dramatic address to a nation sick about the slick.

You know the president is drowning — in oil this time — when he uses the Oval Office. And do words really matter when the picture of oil gushing out of the well continues to fill the screen?"

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/16/opinion/16dowd.html?ref=columnists

So, this I ask:

Were these (and other) pundits wrong to expect this speech to be telling of all future U.S. energy policy?  Is the media giving him fair treatment?  I think he seems oddly detached through all this, I really do.

[guido911]

Well obviously conman they are all racists.

[Townsend]

I wasn't impressed.

He told alot of the same things earlier yesterday while in the region.

I'm not sure what all he can promise to do.

I guess he could invade something.

[Hoss]

You know, I sit here and I read all the crap one way or the other being spewed regarding 'the president should have done this' or 'the president should have done that'.

Let's harken (no pun intended there) back to the Exxon Valdez oil spill...

I want to know if Bush Sr was as excoriated by the opposition party as Obama has been today?  I'm not saying Obama is doing all the right things, because obviously he needs to communicate what needs to be done better , but honestly...what more can we expect him to do?  Take over BP?  He has dispatched the CG, which is SOP for this type of disaster.  But aside from that, really, what else is there to do?  If he does nothing, he gets excoriated because of it.  If he tries to 'kick some donkey, he's painted as being too confrontational and anti-big-company.  It's a no-win situation for him.

Seriously...I've been digging to see if Bush was ever raked over the coals the way this president has been for the EV disaster.  So far I can't find anything that resembles it.  If others can, please point me in that direction.

[Conan71]

You know, I sit here and I read all the crap one way or the other being spewed regarding 'the president should have done this' or 'the president should have done that'.

Let's harken (no pun intended there) back to the Exxon Valdez oil spill...

I want to know if Bush Sr was as excoriated by the opposition party as Obama has been today?  I'm not saying Obama is doing all the right things, because obviously he needs to communicate what needs to be done better , but honestly...what more can we expect him to do?  Take over BP?  He has dispatched the CG, which is SOP for this type of disaster.  But aside from that, really, what else is there to do?  If he does nothing, he gets excoriated because of it.  If he tries to 'kick some donkey, he's painted as being too confrontational and anti-big-company.  It's a no-win situation for him.

Seriously...I've been digging to see if Bush was ever raked over the coals the way this president has been for the EV disaster.  So far I can't find anything that resembles it.  If others can, please point me in that direction.

You really can't compare it because Presidents don't seem to have been so harshly scruitinized over natural and man-made disasters until Bush 43.  This also garners more relevance as the theater is the same: The Gulf Coast.  That and Bush was under fire after four days and labelled a racist which angered a lot of people.  Unfortunately, this is partisan politics at it's worst but both Presidents have shown lameness or detachment from reality in these crises: "Great job, Brownie!"  As far as President Obama, he was slow to adress the problem and it's seemed more like an annoyance to him rather than something he's interested in showing true leadership over.  This is what happens when you take a good orator with limited leadership skills and put him in high office.  Bush was a relatively good leader, he was not a great speaker. JMO.

[Hoss]

You really can't compare it because Presidents don't seem to have been so harshly scruitinized over natural and man-made disasters until Bush 43.  This also garners more relevance as the theater is the same: The Gulf Coast.  That and Bush was under fire after four days and labelled a racist which angered a lot of people.  Unfortunately, this is partisan politics at it's worst but both Presidents have shown lameness or detachment from reality in these crises: "Great job, Brownie!"  As far as President Obama, he was slow to adress the problem and it's seemed more like an annoyance to him rather than something he's interested in showing true leadership over.  This is what happens when you take a good orator with limited leadership skills and put him in high office.  Bush was a relatively good leader, he was not a great speaker. JMO.

But Co, I don't buy that.

With Bush Jr, it was the lack of FEMA response (because it was a natural disaster and the response to it was equal of one) and co-ordination between the agencies.  Now, people will come down on the side of 'local should have responded to the people's needs' but it's still about government and the natural progression up the chain.  With BP it was a company disaster.  With FEMA, it was a federal disaster.

You can't compare Katrina to the EV.  The BP disaster and the EV disaster are better compared because they were both caused by man-made disasters tied to corporations.

I just feel like a double-standard is being set here.  I'm sure I'm not the only one, but I'm equally sure that people say I'm going to be an 'apologist', when it's further from the truth.  The Pres has dropped the ball on this one as far as the communication goes.  I think the right will try to make this his 'Katrina', which is really not surprising given the state of political discourse in the country these days.

[Gaspar]

It seems that President Obama is more concerned with turning this crisis into another tool to push policy, and there's this awkward drive within his administration to somehow force this square peg into a round hole (no pun intended).

I just watched the speech.  It followed the same pattern as all of his other speeches.  This address should have been about PLANS and STRATEGIES.  It should have spelled out a course of action.  Instead, it played lip-service to the crisis with mock concern, and then turned to CAMPAIGNING for policy.  It was a presidential fail on all counts, but it was no different in structure from any of his other addresses.  He campaigns. It's all he knows, and he's good at it, it just is not applicable here.

Heaven forbid we have a massive earthquake, or meteor strike.  There simply won't be enough Nobel Prize winners to head up all of the Blue-Ribbon Committees.

Also. . .Word has it that Jimmy Carter is just giddy today.

[we vs us]

I've been unhappy with Obama's response to this overall.  He's limited in what he CAN do, but the pieces of the puzzle he and federal government are responsible for should work like clockwork and everyone should know everything he's doing all the time.  That's the only way this catastrophe doesn't sink his presidency.  IMO, the leak is going to be bigger in scope monetarily and in number of people affected than Katrina ever was, but the hellish thing about it is it's unfolding over a period of months.  We're all going to get ample time to pick apart every inch of the response, and every in and out of BPs attempts to skate.  

[Gaspar]

I think this story headline from the LA Times says it all:
There's a pipe spewing a gazillion gobs of oil into the gulf, so let's build more windmills

[nathanm]

This address should have been about PLANS and STRATEGIES. 

I don't know what speech you watched, but there were definitely plans and strategies discussed. For the plugging of the well (drill relief wells, duh!), for ensuring BP pays for the damages it caused, for finally getting on the never-done Bush project of restoring the Mississippi delta, for the reform of MMS, and for reducing the need for deep water drilling. Granted, he didn't go into great depth on any of these topics, but I don't really expect that in a prime time speech.

The broad outlines are appropriate for that forum, and that's what we got.

Gaspar, are you seriously saying that it's a bad thing to get the experts together to formulate a plan? I don't remember if it was you, but someone expressed a desire for an Apollo 13 style problem solving. Seems to me that's what you get when you put a bunch of experts in a room and assign them a task. Would you rather Obama ask the day traders how best to contain the gusher?

And doesn't it make sense to use less oil so we don't have to drill for it in areas where the risk is higher?

[Conan71]

Of course Republicans are going to turn this into President Obama's Katrina.  Hell, the media is even playing along now, take a look at this shameless sell of a headline posing as news:

"Federal Regulator Repeatedly Failed to Inspect Deepwater Horizon – Including for One-Quarter of Obama Presidency"

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/05/federal-regulator-repeatedly-failed-to-inspect-deepwater-horizon-including-for-onequarter-of-obama-p.html

Democrats seem to want to turn catastrophe into an excuse for policy change.  Patrick Kennedy was blathering like an idiot after Katrina pointing to our dependence on fossil fuels as being responsible for the hurricane. (Ironically, RFK Jr. represents Louisiana fishermen in a class action lawsuit over the spill).

Republicans use catastrophe to point to weakness in leadership ("Bill Clinton didn't have the balls or interest in going after Bin Laden when he had the chance").

Here is what is decidedly different between EV and DH: Exxon Valdez happened in a more remote area of the world, the spill was limited to 11 million gallons and had a finite potential for damage as the ship had a total of 55 million gallons of oil on board.  The spill in the Gulf could spew how much oil for who knows how long? 

Not to diminish the fishing or tourist trade of Prince William Sound, but the Gulf has a much higher population depending on fishing, tourism, import/export trade which uses ports in New Orleans, Mobile, Gulfport, & Pennsacola as well as the ICW.  Should this go on un-abated for much longer, oil will start arriving on beaches on the west coast of Florida and could end up in the Gulf Stream and pull it through The Keys and around the east coast of Florida.

Here's another difference in 1989, how many homes had the internet?  The 24 hour news cycle still had another year or so to go before it's potential was realized with wall-to-wall unprecidented live coverage from the Iraq war.  Talk radio still wasn't in full vogue yet and really didn't gain in popularity until after President Clinton was elected.  We live in a 24/7 information environment now that we didn't live in back in 1989.  Back then I got my news from the World and Trib and the evening news or morning news on KRMG.  Now I get online and can get fresh news at the touch of a finger.  Many more people are plying the trade of journalism now than there were 21 years ago and it creates a need for more news to report and more opinions to be cast.  It's an entirely different world of communication and blame seems more important as part of a story now than it did before.

Can anyone else point to a President ever being criticized over a hurricane, earthquake or tornado before Katrina?  Can anyone point to another President who has been so beleagured over an environmental disaster?  This is a far different political climate which dates back to Watergate and has gotten progressively worse, especially in our day and age of instant media gratification.

/wandering rant

[Conan71]

I don't know what speech you watched, but there were definitely plans and strategies discussed. For the plugging of the well (drill relief wells, duh!), for ensuring BP pays for the damages it caused, for finally getting on the never-done Bush project of restoring the Mississippi delta, for the reform of MMS, and for reducing the need for deep water drilling. Granted, he didn't go into great depth on any of these topics, but I don't really expect that in a prime time speech.

The broad outlines are appropriate for that forum, and that's what we got.

Gaspar, are you seriously saying that it's a bad thing to get the experts together to formulate a plan? I don't remember if it was you, but someone expressed a desire for an Apollo 13 style problem solving. Seems to me that's what you get when you put a bunch of experts in a room and assign them a task. Would you rather Obama ask the day traders how best to contain the gusher?

And doesn't it make sense to use less oil so we don't have to drill for it in areas where the risk is higher?

Granted, President Obama is taking a beating over specific things which are not within his pervue like actually plugging the well or dragging oil booms.  However, he has shown only tepid leadership and the media is seeing this as a weakness now and turning on him.  Everyone is also frustrated with the slow response at all levels of the Federal Government in getting needed permits and approvals to try and mitigate damage.  Much as President Obama isn't the director of the EPA or the MMS, President Bush wasn't the director of FEMA either but he gets to take the blame as the ultimate boss.

I haven't found a pundit yet who lauded this as being long on strategy and plans, that's the main reason they've panned it so hard.  Sure we should use less oil, but which is a more practical approach?  Trying to tell 6 billion people around the globe to start walking more and driving less or allowing companies to drill in less difficult and dangerous areas so that they aren't pushed out to having to drill in 5000 feet of water?

Developing green jobs is the mantra coming out of this, that's been a mantra for 20 years and over-hyped the last 18 months.  There was a huge push toward biodiesel and ethanol (still doesn't solve the problem for someone who doesn't drive a diesel or have a flex-fuel vehicle which can handle more than 10% eth) with many plants coming on line 5 years ago.  The government has failed to support them.  Case in point, and it's one of many: There's a huge Prairie Pride bio-d plant sitting in western Mo. just waiting for Congress to re-up tax credits so it can resume operations, this plant was completed in 2008 and operated until earlier this year when tax credits petered out.  That's the only way bio-fuels and green energy are viable, is via subsidies which makes them unpractical at the moment when we still have God only knows how much in oil and gas reserves.  So long as oil and gas stays priced comparatively low, alternative fuels aren't practical.

Ironically, it's actually alternative methods to raise previously un-recoverable petroleum reserves out of the ground which is making financial sense right now so long as oil remains at over $60 per bbl. without any subsidies or tax breaks.  Figure out how to make alternative energy stand on it's own two feet without raiding the treasury, there's your solution. 

[Conan71]

Someone at the AP still loves him apparently:

"After intense negotiations, BP on Thursday bowed to President Barack Obama's demand for a $20 billion fund to compensate victims of the disastrous oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. The humbled chairman of the giant British company apologized to the American people for the horrendous accident.

BP is suspending its dividends to shareholders for the rest of this year to help pay for the costs, said chairman Carl-Henric Svanberg.

Obama announced the agreement after a four-hour meeting between White House and BP officials, with the president participating for various portions.

He also announced the company had agreed to set up a separate $100 million fund to compensate oil rig workers laid off as a result of his six-month moratorium on deepwater drilling.

"The structure we are establishing today is an important step toward making the people of the Gulf Coast whole again, but it will not turn things around overnight," Obama said. He said the vulnerable fishermen, restaurant workers and other people of the Gulf "are uppermost in the minds of all concerned. That's who we're doing this work for."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100616/ap_on_bi_ge/us_gulf_oil_spill

Hey, he participated in parts of the meeting.  I'm sure there must have been more pressing matters at hand.

[Gaspar]

Nate,

You may be the only person in the country who appreciated that speech.  I think most people were insulted by it.

I admire your loyalty though.

I do think it's funny though that when things began to go South, the president brought in Thad Allen to take the reigns.  I also like how the media has brushed over that one. 

In case people don't remember, Adml. Allen was installed by Bush to head up the Katrina response when Brown was found to be ineffective.  There is no one more effective, even though the Katrina response is not popular.  I hope they don't plan to scapegoat him.

 

[nathanm]

You may be the only person in the country who appreciated that speech.  I think most people were insulted by it.

I may be the only person in the country who watched the entirety of the speech, rather than just seeing the sound bites played on TV news.