I don’t have time to expand on this right now, but I assume the point is obvious to intelligent readers (as opposed to Obama koolaid drinkers).
Why is it that the president would talk to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad without preconditions, but he thinks that, in the middle of arguably the biggest domestic crisis of his presidency, it’s a waste of his time to have a conversation with the head of British Petroleum?
I give up, Rand. I voted for the guy, and even today after all of the fuck ups, missed opportunities, and inelegant phrasing (moon, been there) I would still vote for him over anyone who had Palin as the VP candidate.
Also, the thing about talking with Ahmadinejad was campaign rhetoric, but the BP well leak is actually happening on his watch? Not that it makes his decision the correct thing to do, but it does make the comparison less compelling.
Because talking to Iran strokes his ego with significant photo ops and talking to BP is boring “details” talk.
I smell something fishy. Perhaps he HAS talked to him but he has political reason to keep some distance.
Or perhaps Obama doesn’t do *anything* unless it has been setup by his stage hands for maximum positive media exposure. .
….I would still vote for him over anyone who had Palin…
Yeah, we sure wouldn’t want anyone who actually believes in the US Constitution in power huh?
Oh, and someone who chooses Joe Frickin Biden as his VP is showing good judgment? Really?? WTF????
The answer is that people like Bennett are allowed to vote.
@Cecil Troter
Knowing that ExGovernor Palin “actually believes in the US Constitution” doesn’t keep me from thinking that it would be a bad idea to have her next in line for the US Presidency.
I’m sure she’s a nice lady and all, but her candidacy didn’t satisfy my minimum standard. But that’s just me.
Calm down man. I’m not a fan of Joe Biden either. I’m sorry if my opinion upsets you.
I’m sure she’s a nice lady and all, but her candidacy didn’t satisfy my minimum standard.
But Obama obviously did meet your minimum standard. For President. It boggles the mind.
Is the CEO of BP answerable to the President of the US or the the laws of the United States of America on this matter?
Has BP been nationalized like everything else?
Are there not appropriate laws for dealing with oil “spills”? If not – should not Obama be ensuring that there are?
Steve-O wrote: It boggles the mind.
Granted.
Hey, you don’t want to live in an echo chamber, do you?
Respectfully,
Simple answer, Rand… Because he likes being the smartest guy in the room. Problem is, he’s holding a low pair to the BP guy’s full house. Better to hold ’em and keep bluffing until this thing goes away.
“Plug the damn hole” is about as deep as it gets with this guy.
Leverage — carrots and sticks. The government already does lots of nice things for big business, so Obama talking tough about ass kicking, etc gets BP thinking about the disadvantages of not changing their behavior . The government does nothing nice for Iran, so Obama saying that he’d at least to talk to the Iranian leadership holds out the promise of a carrot and gets them thinking about the advantages of changing their behavior.
I suppose it’s beating a dead horse to point out that Palin was the most qualified of the four.
For President, that is, not Vice President.
Bennett: But that’s just me.
It’s either you or me, dude.
I think you should read Palin’s latest column on Obama’s oil problem. She argues that Obama’s executive experience is negligible, and that argument is compelling. I think in the present situation, especially, it would have been helpful to have a chief executive — or even a vice-president — who was used to holding oil companies accountable and making them responsible to the public trust.
BBB
I think in the present situation, especially, it would have been helpful to have a chief executive — or even a vice-president — who was used to holding oil companies accountable and making them responsible to the public trust.
While recognizing that there are lots of different kinds of libertarians, I wonder if libertarians believe the above.
I’m a libertarian on most domestic issues, so here’s my take on the BP issue:
BP is under investigation for criminal offenses. Yet, the Obama administration leaves them in absolute command (and even act as their enforcer) of the crime scene?
They’ve been caught lying about the amount of the flow, and have neglected simple things like properly manning and controlling the oil booms near the well site (leaving them unattended and basically useless much of the time).
The notion that BP has to be in charge is preposterous. Yes, they have a responsibility to fix this, and the tech, but that does not equate to being in command.
I can’t help but wonder of its just a coincidence that the largest recipient of BP political donation is Obama?
I was repulsed by Obama’s willingness to talk to the Iranian dictator, and his refusal to speak with BP comes as no surprise. Heck, he wouldn’t speak with the governor of Arizona, either.
that Palin was the most qualified of the four
What? Just because she was the only one with actual executive experience?
Just because she actually was responsible for a budget?
Just because she’d actually fought and won negotiations with oil companies?
Just because she’d actually worked with a foreign country to implement a major oil pipeline project?
Just because she actually did have to deal with a belligerent foreign country, which you actually can see from Alaska if not Tina Feys front porch, buzzing our airspace with possible nukes?
Just because she actually got things done and had an astronomical approval rating as governor?
But rickl, she’s a girl!
the president would talk to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
…because they’re soul mates.
wait, there’s people on this site that actually think Palin is, well, sane? Wow, Rand, you’ve managed to attract some real wackos. In regards to the constitution, I thought the whole separation of church and state thing had clearly shown what Palin thinks of the constitution.
Well, Wad, not only do I think Sarah Palin is sane, I think she’s one of the most interesting political leaders in this generation, and she may yet be President if she wants to be (the latter is not entirely clear). I would certainly vote for her over any of the four running for the top two offices in 2008.
And I do not think you will find many people, even among those who disagree violently with me, who think I’m a wacko.
Carl, I’m pretty sure I can find a few hundred people who not only think you’re a wacko but who would happily tell you so to your face. Palin is your Pauline Hanson, except that I think our nut job has a much bigger backing than yours. And, frankly, it’s people like you who put Hitler into power. And with that, I declare this thread Godwined.
Guess what Waddington, many of us think YOU are wacko.
But rickl, she’s a girl!
And even more important, she didn’t go to an Ivy League school! How dare her for having aspirations above her place? Down right uppity!
And Wad, I use Palin as a litmus test. You failed.
I admit I stopped reading Wad’s post at “tell you so to your face” the first time around so I missed the Hitler reference. Yes Wad, you are definitely a wacko. Not only that Wad, you are intellectually challenged if you think Palin has more in common with Hitler and National Socialism / Fascism than does your boy Barrack. Or the vast majority of the Democrat party for that matter.
Yes, Waddington, after your comments, this thread is worthless. Feel like a man now?
“Carl, I’m pretty sure I can find a few hundred people who not only think you’re a wacko but who would happily tell you so to your face.”
As a group, yes. Not one at a time.
I find it poetically fascinating that in this situation, Palin as VP would have been vastly more qualified to handle it than Obama is as President.
But having her as second banana on the ticket was just too much for some people.
“I would still vote for him [Obama]over anyone who had Palin as the VP candidate.”
Well, granted Palin lacks the towering intellect of Joe Biden ); and she’s certainly not in the same iintellectual galaxy with the administrative genius that is Dear Leader (just compare their academic records);* but isn’t the real problem with Palin (for the State-humpers) is that’s she’s just too darn pro-liberty for them?
Obviously “Il Dufe,” the guy they support for president, presents no such problem.
*Oh, wait. You can’t–literally. Never mind.
‘I’m sure she’s a nice lady and all, but her candidacy didn’t satisfy my minimum standard. But that’s just me.’
Because she has executive experience, loyalty to the U.S., has handled oil companies, been a mayor and Governor, an Author, has confidence in the American citizernry, and believes in letting infants in the womb live…how does that not meet a ‘minimum standard’? Obama is anti all of that, and he met your ‘minimum standard’.
Hmmmm.
Well Obama sure has shown some serious executive ability. Why look at how he managed the disaster in Nashville ….
Hmmmm.
All snarking aside let’s face the simple fact that we have all faced situations where we personally did not have the expertise or experience on our own to deal with the situation.
So what to do in such a scenario?
You find someone who *does* and put them in charge.
Whether it is an issue of taxes, managing the finances for a corporation, implementing technology or an oil spill disaster. If you don’t have the expertise and experience, you find someone who does. And in this oil spill situation what any good executive or manager would, should, have done is asked the people in Alaska for that expertise. Particularly since there have been so many references comparing the two major oil spills.
Does anyone right now know who is ramrodding this thing? Who specifically is in charge? Is it DHS? EPA? US Army Corps of Engineers? Someone in the White House? Rahm?
Is there any specific one person who is in charge? If not … why not?
You bring up the Church state thing with Palin, actually read the entire set of remarks Palin made that was taken out of context to make it look like she wanted schools to teach creationism, not the news media version do a little bit of searching and find the actual transcript of the the discussion. Its important that you find the version of the transcript that includes the question she was answering. Palin was responding to a question from someone asking about the case where a kids parents want creationism taught should their kid be taught evolution against their desires. Palin then talked about how we need to give significant weight to the parents wishes. Then she made the often quoted statement about teach both and let the kids debate.
I can’t imagine how ANY thing she has ever said is dumber than Mr53 States remarks when not on a teleprompter.
Someone that is pro liberty, pro 2nd amendment, had people in her own party convicted of corruption, actively pushed for a Jury Nullification Law, balanced a budget? Its a win. I realize that she did not have the polished Harvard speaking presence of the typical politician, in my mind that’s also a win.
I will agree that she was too religious for my taste,but if I had to choose some one from Reverend Wright’s Church or Some one from an Evangelical christian Church, it would be a toss up. I’d personally prefer a 100% non religious candidate, but I’m also realistic enough to realize the vast Majority of Americans are not yet ready to elect someone that does not at least pretend to be a Christian.
@Bennet – If Palin doesn’t meet your mimimum standards how does bambi?
Carl,
Welcome back to the debate I haven’t seen your input in a while.
You’re all a bunch of statists! Private industry should be left to deal with the spill and the market will respond accordingly. No?
“You’re all a bunch of statists! Private industry should be left to deal with the spill and the market will respond accordingly. No?”
That would generally be my position. Since I don’t believe the State has any right to own the Gulf of Mexico or what’s under it, I don’t see what business the State has BP to do X or Y to solve the oil spill. It’s certainly hard to imagine Obama–genius that he is–being able to come up with any kind of specific, viable plan to solve the oil spill. The governing Troika of Reid, Pelosi and Il Dufe probably know as little about oil technology as they (and their supports, particularly those who post here) know about economics, history or logic.
The only business I can see the State has in this (unless there’s an aspect I’m overlooking) is when the oil spill causes damage to private property–say, on the shoreline. Then I assume the property owners would have the right to sue for damages.
Our government officials are supposed to protect and defend the United States, not huff and puff and blame everybody but themselves.
Obama is detached from problem-solving, so, of course he shouldn’t be troubled to talk to the players and experts. He is more comfortable doing problem creation and exacerbation.
The simple question aside, the most disheartening thing about the whole fiasco is the idiotic statements the media coaxes out of the ‘innocent bystanders’ in the Gulf States and our enlightened betters in the political arena about how we gotta stop drilling for oil.
Yes, well, give up your car then, and anything that was created with or from petroleum products.
Wait, what’s that? No you wont? Then shut the hell up.
——-
And the answer to the simple question is that Obama is an idiot that lives in a bubble of his own creation.
If Palin is so dumb and inadequate and inexperienced, how did she get elected to Governor of Alaska in the first place? I guess it was because she was purty and all the voters in Alaska are a bunch of horndogs.
By the way, I don’t get the whole thing about her being some sort of religious fanatic because she goes to church and occasionally mentions God. Believe it or not, that’s what most regular Americans still do. It doesn’t mean we’re about to instill a Theocracy (cue neighing horses and ominous organ music), and it never did.
You’re all a bunch of statists! Private industry should be left to deal with the spill and the market will respond accordingly. No?
Should private industry deal with the spill? They are. Should the market respond accordingly? It is. Should the President of the United States, particularly one elected for his community organizational skills, at least contact the industry and see if there is some assistance he could offer? Yes.
Is that Statism?
a concentration of economic controls and planning in the hands of a highly centralized government often extending to government ownership of industry.
If, bob, you think you are using the word correctly, then please explain how expecting Obama to talk to BP is a suggestion that the US government should own the oil industry?
Getting back to the subject — I’ll bet Obama would talk to the head of BP if that person were a Muslim.
I’ve checked — I don’t think Tony Hayward is a Muslim. Also he’s white. That puts him on the back burner as far as him being people Obama is now interested in talking to. All that money, donated for nothing. One thing about liberals is you can be sure of their ingratitude after you’ve helped them reach some goal. It’s about their only consistency so we should treasure it.
Wow!…a post on the alien in the Alien-in-Chief has somehow morphed into a referendum on the hottest woman in American politics today. For a guy who grew up thinking female politicians all looked like Bella Abzug, I think Palin is the best thing to happen to the body politic since Moses was a pup. Obama is a bust, but at least he can fall back on his…uh, personality?…his wit?…his unrelenting sense of entitlement? Even if Palin were to be a bust, at least we could claim the hottest leader since Cleopatra. Yes, I’m quite looking forward to her 2012 campaign…especially the possibility of her centerfold in The Weekly Standard…
Paul Breed – You might consider that a “100% non religious candidate” would be, in fact, a 100% politician…which is zactly what you have in the Big 0. Everybody worships something Paul. If it’s not the creator of the universe, it’s something much, much worse (for most Ayn Rand libertarians it’s typically their own ridiculously overblown egos). For me, I prefer politicians with a fixed moral compass with known reference points to those who blow with the wind.
I find the difference between Bilwick1’s position and Memomachine’s position to be interesting. I feel like there is an opportunity to actually learn something here.
—
Reason, if we wanted to keep using gas powered cars, plastics, etc without drilling for oil, couldn’t we use a variety of alternatives, including thermal depolymerization? Couldn’t the price eventually come down enough to make it reasonable?
Eventually perhaps, but that is not what the current admin wants.
Just for the record, I think that Sarah Palin is not only sane, but the most qualified candidate of the four on the ticket (in that she would have made the best president). That is, of course, damning her with faint praise.
I’m non-religious; and it’s interesting to me that people who mock her brand of Christianity (which seems very tolerant from what I can tell compared to other varieties of the Religious Right) are almost always lockstep devotees of the Cult of the State. At least Palin’s church doesn’t have one hand in my pocket while the other holds a gun to my head.
“You’re all a bunch of statists! Private industry should be left to deal with the spill and the market will respond accordingly. No?”
This is a situation for which governments exist. Not taking away your trans fats or soda or putting thousands out of work to save a fish or giving everyone “free health care” or supporting those not qualified to work…or too lazy to do so and the list goes on. The long list real statists like you carry every day and try to impose on the rest of us.