Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : President Barack Obama -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ChinuSFO who wrote (78464)	6/18/2010 2:29:00 AM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 149317

A Bad Day for BP and Mr. Barton _______________________________________________________________ Editorial The New York Times June 17, 2010 It’s hard to imagine anyone having a worse day than Tony Hayward, BP’s embattled chief executive, who spent Thursday in the cross hairs of an angry Congressional committee and turned in a mind-bogglingly vapid performance. But he got a run for his money from Representative Joe Barton, a Texas Republican, who inexplicably decided to call the escrow account agreed to by BP and the White House a “$20 billion shakedown.” If Mr. Barton was trying to be supportive of Mr. Hayward, who looked like he had not slept in weeks, he failed. Mr. Hayward delivered an opening statement full of contrition for the immense damage his company has done. He then faced Henry Waxman and other veteran interrogators armed with truckloads of documents suggesting that BP had behaved sloppily at best and at worst sidestepped safety precautions to save money. Mr. Hayward insisted that he had never heard of any problems in drilling and completing the well that is now spouting 60,000 barrels of oil a day. He further confessed that he did not even know his company was drilling the doomed well until the day it hit oil. “I had no prior knowledge of the drilling of this well, none whatsoever,” he told Representative Michael Burgess, a Texas Republican. “With respect, sir, we drill hundreds of wells a year around the world.” To which Mr. Burgess shot back: “That’s what’s scaring me now.” While the final verdict on this disaster is not in, BP’s boss should at least be prepared to concede what everyone else in the world knows: BP was utterly unprepared to handle a blowout at 5,000 feet below sea level. As Mr. Waxman put it, “There is not a single e-mail or document that shows you paid even the slightest attention to the dangers at the well.” BP’s cause was hardly helped by “Smoky Joe” Barton, a reliable friend of big coal and big oil and no stranger to rhetorical excess. His “shakedown” remark was too much for some of his Republican colleagues, especially those from other gulf states. Jeff Miller of Pensacola, Fla., said Mr. Barton was “out of touch.” Even John Boehner, the House minority leader, who normally cannot resist a partisan roundhouse, said “BP ought to be held responsible for every dime of this tragedy.” Apparently chastened by these and other reprimands, Mr. Barton later apologized for his apology to Mr. Hayward and said he regretted using the word “shakedown.” He was not entirely convincing.

To: ChinuSFO who wrote (78464)	6/18/2010 10:04:35 AM
From: Mac Con Ulaidh	Respond to of 149317

Language and the Presidency I am, as you might imagine, glad to see a bunch of posts recognizing the limits of the presidency from Jonathan Chait, Jamelle Bouie (both of whom have written on this before) and T.R. Donoghue. I especially thought that Bouie's comments were smart: I’d also add that the optics of President Bush may have changed liberals’ perception of what the president can do. At every turn, we either heard that President Bush was doing “X” thing, or claiming “X” power, and without the context of a unified Republican Congress or a pliant executive branch, it was easy to believe that Bush was accomplishing these things through sheer force of will, when he simply wasn’t. I think one of the issues here is just sloppiness of language, leading to sloppiness in thinking, and I'm hear to plead: Guilty! Earlier today, I said the following: "if Barack Obama actually managed to capture and/or kill Osama bin Laden" "By killing al-Qaeda leaders -- by possibly killing bin Laden -- Obama is..." "if by some chance Obama curtails the drone strikes, or is in any way defeated by bin Laden" Not good enough. I was sort of aware I was doing it, but it's hard to make the language work. I should have said: "if during the Obama presidency the United States actually managed." I should have said, "if...the United States is in any way defeated by bin Laden." I should have referred to Obama's policies, or even better policies Obama supported, rather than Obama himself killing al-Qaeda leaders. So, I'm going to recommit to trying to be careful about language and the presidency, just as I urge everyone to be careful about attributing to Obama only those things that he actually does. I have to say, though -- it's hard. plainblogaboutpolitics.blogspot.com