I wonder what's in the FBI files of those GOP House leaders. That's probably how Obama and company got them to dance to the HopeyChangey tune.

Yes, circular firing squads are the preferred methods in these matters.

Hey, what ever happened to the NC Congressman who assaulted the student on camara last week?

Rep. Rangel and his tax fraud?

B. Frank and his conflict of interest (boyfriend) with Fannie or Freddie?

I know--words REALLY do matter.  Actions mean nothing!!

I would prefer the leadership to stand-up and condemn these actions instead of getting their panties in a wad for what Rep. Barton said.

The BOP is Transocean's property...and responsibility.

Why would it matter if Republicans gained a majority in the House in November? What prize is there?   Who seriously believes now that this crew will dismatle Obamacare?

Peace out, and thanks for the braaaaaaaains!

"So will someone please tell me what we/they gained by playing into the Democrat's/media's hand and humiliating Barton and the entire Republican party?"

Some "GOP House leader" didn't get the contents of his FBI file spilled across the MFM.

Posted by: Dang Straights at June 17, 2010 05:28 PM (tPnVB)

Posted by: Schwalbe at June 17, 2010 05:07 PM (UU0OF)

yeah, that sounds about right

Posted by: Tommy V

Headlines beginning Jan 2011:

Republicans gain the House

election of speaker is overshadowed by a lack of minority candidates

Suggestion to set priorities that would entail avoiding 'divisive social issues' causes stir. Are Republicans descending into civil war?

President Obama asks Republicans to act swftly to aid doctors by passing a temporary 'doc fix' bill. GOP leadership agrees.

Will GOP led House ever compose a budget?

partisan control of House agenda will likely harm minorities, uninsured and middle class workers.

and so it goes.

This guy is just full of sorry.

He is a sorry motherfucker. I'm sorry he's so sorry about everything.

Apologizing is a sign of weakness. Grow some balls sally.

This guy is just full of sorry.

He is a sorry motherfucker. I'm sorry he's so sorry about everything.

Apologizing is a sign of weakness. Grow some balls sally.

Posted by: Entropy

I would like to apologize for the size and vigor of my balls.

I didn't really agree with him apologizing in the first place and tellign BP he's sorry... I'm not entirely sure of a 'shakedown'.

But it's hardly the tempest some people reacting to it seem to see it as. Legislators say far, far, far wackier things and suffer no consequences.

47 Where's the fucking apology from James Carville?

Last night on CNN former Clinton Administration message man James Carville said: “It looks as if President Obama applied a little old-school Chicago persuasion to the oil executives.” Making “offers you can’t refuse” may be a great way to run the mob, but it is no way to run a country.

Posted by: Tom at June 17, 2010 05:33 PM (iu4CX) .

This.

But apparently being more squeamish in calling out Democrat perfidy then James freaking Carville is the "moderate Republican" and preferred AoSHQ moderator stance these days.

Republican platform: "I'm sorry! I really am! Please, I'm so sorry!"

Democrats are shameless nihilistic liars and the GOP is a bunch of confused, mewling masochistic debutantes.

"Shakedown
Breakdown
Takedown
Everybody wants into the crowded line
Breakdown
Takedown
You're busted!"

Upload into mental iPod initializing...25%...50%...75%...complete!

Sorry, the following settings cannot be changed:
Track Repeat - ON
Number Repeats - 9999

Posted by: a sign post up ahead

Wait it'll get better. Soon someone else will renew the call that pro-life people should shut up and learn their place while their betters drive the car. Our betters are the ones who engineered this. Does anyone here think that a priority list written by this cast of characters will ever be honored?

not saying a word..just sittin' here keeping my piehole shut....

I don't want to get grounded

Comment 71.

Exactly.  That is why we are having primaries across the country to get new blood and new leaders.

It took us 90 years to get this point, it will take us at least several decades to fix it.

What is encouraging is the number of folks on this string who want the Republicans to grow a pair.*

*No offense to Michele Bachmann who proves she has testicular fortitude without the testicles. 

The problem I see and that I think Drew sees that people are apparently willfully fucking blind about is that his "I apologize" whether it is to BP or not was going to be twisted as that.  That can then be painted as being a corporate whore to the public at large.  Truth of the matter doesn't matter.  We all know Obama is actually the corporate whore of BP but the average person is not going to hear that.  They would hear "GOP apologizes to BP"  And that is what would be heard.  Not what is actually true. 

There should be ways to criticize what Obama has done here and not need to say "I apologize" to do so.  Barton fucked up in his word choices.  And now he's walked back all of what he said it seems.  And that is another fuck up that maybe he wouldn't have done if he didn't say "I apologize" to begin with.

Why cant we talk about how the US government has declared american citizens can't go into large areas of a national park in AZ because we might disturb the mexican drug dealers --or get killed by them but we know the Dem's care mostly about us not disturbing the culturally superior drug lords.

Okay: Do you think that this same leadership will show one more iota of courage when faced with the images of millions upon millions of poor, innocnet 'undocumented' immigrants? The race card is one reason how Obama got where he is.

$20 billion isn't enough

Then let a court decide damages in a lawsuit.

That is the proper way.

It isn't Obama's place to be shaking companies down like some kind of taxpayer's Jessie Jackson.

Not that he DID that in the first place - BP is full of soggy british communists to begin with. My guess is they're totally complicit. Probably happy they got off with only $20B and the appearance of being made to pay. That still leaves them $2B in the budget to lobby for Cap & Tax with.

But even still, not Obama's buisiness to be demanding private companies put up slush funds for the government to manage.

Courts hand damages to victims.

20 minute closed-door meetings do not hand damages to an executive-branch czar or legislative committee.

If BP has caused $20B in damage, it should be given directly to those who suffered a loss, with due process. Not fuckin congress to spend on naming more shit after themselves. That is a travesty and a charade of justice.

Posted by: Alex at June 17, 2010 05:57 PM (3TjEK)

I hope soon, because we're bleeding profusely.

Posted by: Buy More Lace Wigs at June 17, 2010 05:53 PM (dUOK+)

Amen!

Okay: Do you think that this same leadership will show one more iota of courage when faced with the images of millions upon millions of poor, innocnet 'undocumented' immigrants? The race card is one reason how Obama got where he is.

Posted by: Blue Hen at June 17, 2010 05:54 PM (R2fpr)

I think the race card is the ONLY reason Obama got where he is. Did you see this quote from Ann Coulter? Refering to Al Greene in South Carolina.

"Obama senior adviser David Axelrod said Greene was not a "legitimate" candidate and called his victory "a mysterious deal." (Yes, how could a young African-American man with strange origins, suspicious funding, shady associations, no experience, no qualifications, and no demonstrable work history come out of nowhere and win an election?)"

"I said one person was acting as if BP were as innocent as puppies."

Er, the notion that the congressman's "apology to BP" was an intrinsic declaration that BP is "innocent as puppies" was pretty damn blatant in the original post.  Just because you apologize to someone for being shaken down by a bunch of thugs doesn't mean you've exonerated every other action they've ever taken, and even if the media will try to mischaracterize it that way, *you* didn't need to come around and explain to us in your anger and your pain about what a completely reasonable characterization that would be for them to make.

Except they rarely have to, cause the conservative "moderates" will beat the media to the punch when it comes to ridiculous mischaracterization on the blogs every time.

Posted by: Qwinn at June 17, 2010 06:03 PM (9zHDv)

Oh really?  So you're telling me that the second portion of Drews blog post which links to the white house's exploitation of the apology occured only after Drew went after Barton?  So that part came from the future and DrewM was able to see into the future to write about it.

Name-calling, passive-aggressive whining, and nanny-nanny-boo-boo gloating...the tip jar must be overflowing today after this classy display!

I haven;'t been keeping up on this, but has anybody made the point that we need to stop demonizing corporations if we want to have economic growth.  I certainly can understand the congressman's sentiment, even if his tactic and word choice was terrible. 

Capitalism is not evil.  America is not just like the rest. 

Enter Vice President Biden, the designated Bad Cop.

Sources told the Daily News that Biden leaned forward and bluntly informed the Blight Brigade they had no choice: If they didn't do the right thing and put the cash in escrow, it would be done to them.

That's not a shakedown?

Posted by: MikeTheMoose at June 17, 2010 06:06 PM (0q2P7)

However, IF the Gov did not use the law already in place, it blows a hole in the idea that they need MORE Regulation.

"Did Kevin Klein hold him out of a window upside-down?"

Don't call me stupid...

It's all about the cocktail parties!

Whatever happens, let's don't let any Republicans criticize anyone over this, OK?

They'd better not bring up the fact that Shell offered skimmers and other equipment three days after the initial the oil spill began...

....cuz that would be just awful

Tangentially related:  Back in April, here and here, I was going on about how the oil was going to have a hard time making it to the coast because of Ol' Man River.  I said it happened in the best place it could have--if it was going to happen.  Well, I told you so.  Remember how, early on, the news reports kept saying the oil was going to hit, that it was two miles out, etc., and it never quite came ashore like people feared?  This went on for a long time.

Kemp says the river is "the biggest tool in the toolbox" when it comes to keeping oil out Louisiana's swamps and marshes, which make up nearly 40 percent of the nation's wetlands.

For the most part, the winds have kept the oil plume from moving toward the Louisiana coast, Kemp says, instead pushing it toward Florida and Alabama. Last month, the winds shifted to the northwest. Even then, when the oil seemed as though it should have been blowing towards the mouth of the river, it didn't, says Denise Reed, a proponent of Kemp's plan and professor of earth and environmental sciences at the University of New Orleans. "That seems to be because there's been enough water coming out of the mouth of the river to have a little bit of a push out into the Gulf of Mexico," Reed says.

That's right.  Who da man now?

Posted by: DrewM. at June 17, 2010 06:12 PM (X/Lqh

Wow..Drew that's pretty out of line..

..I'll shut up now so Uncle Ace doesn't go off on me

That's the most frustrating part of blogging...people reading what they want not what's there.

The 'puppies' comment was #286,, well into the thread and directed at a commenter.

The rest is in your own mind.

Okay, so explain this to me.  When writing your original "Oh wow this congressman is an idiot for apologizing" rant, if you don't think the congressman's apology to BP is effectively equivalent to exonerating BP of all crimes (oratleastthemediawillspinitthatwayyawnsnore), then exactly what problem did you have with his apology?

I don't care what got posted 300 posts later.  The inherent assumption in your rant was "apology to BP" = "letting BP off the hook for everything", and that this wouldn't play well with the small people.  That's what I'm holding you accountable for, your original post, nothing to do with the comments that followed.

Again, there's plenty to attack in the Obama approach but calling it a 'tragedy' and apologizing for it is not the way to do it. It's stupid and bad politics.

You want to save off shore drilling and stop the spread of government thuggery? Great, do it by making the other side the bad guys. Shape the narrative to your advantage (prosperity, jobs, cheaper energy), don't reflexively defend the indefensible simply because Obama is on the other side. Barton could have been tough on BP and Obama but instead chose this tactic. It's mindless and self defeating.

*and by 'the top of my head' I mean the post I put up and that you read.

Actualy, after reading many of these posts... I think this shows that Washington has NO clue at how angry people are out here.

Barton was gettin a LOT of support from folks like me, yet the Profesional Pols made him cave...

They don't get it yet.

"Don't defend the indefensible".

Exactly.

Apologizing to BP for being raped by the government in a shakedown is not a defense of anything except their right not to be raped by the government in a shakedown.

Your argument is, essentially, calling that shakedown a tragedy is a defense of their actions leading to the oil spill.  This is exactly what I'm calling you out for.  You're actively promoting the idea that "Apology to BP for shakedown" = "exonerating BP for the oil spill".  It's nonsense.  It's illogical.  The media doesn't have to mischaracterize it as such - you're doing it for them.

What exactly did Barton say that wasn't true?

Boehner most likely made him apologize because he doesn't want the Republicans to be branded as the "Party of Big Business" (including "Big Oil" ) right now. Doesn't he realize the Dems & the MFM are going to do it anyway?

Posted by: DrewM. at June 17, 2010 06:20 PM (X/Lqh)

I don't think it's going to make any difference. It appears to me that this incident will very possibly be the end of BP.

Today, Admiral Allen announces that he needs all the skimmers he can get.  Today.

Its worse.  According to a gulf local that called into Rush today, Allen has shut down ALL skimmers for "inspection".  She told Rush it had been reported all over their local media when he said there was no national reporting about it.

"This kind of smackdown shows just how serious leadership is about enforcing message discipline. "

No, it shows how big a bunch of pussies they are. We need to replace Boner!

Boehner most likely made him apologize because he doesn't want the Republicans to be branded as the "Party of Big Business" (including "Big Oil" ) right now. Doesn't he realize the Dems & the MFM are going to do it anyway?

Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at June 17, 2010 06:27 PM (Yq+qN)

And there are quite a few commenters here with their heads stuck so far up their asses they can't figure that out.  Drew spotted and called it out as a dumb way to say it and they're basically accusing him of putting on kneepads for Obama.

Well, according to Barton's own words, he did apologize to BP this morning and he's now retracted it.

He apologized for the shakedown, which was deserved and appropriate.  Are you seriously saying that the fact that he apologized for and retracted the apology means you were right?  Yeah, he certainly did that because that's how he really felt, there's no *way* he did that because his committee membership was directly, explicitly, publicly threatened by the Republican party. 

Apparently, "taken to the woodshed" now means "gently persuaded to see the error of his ways".

Posted by: lincolntf at June 17, 2010 06:30 PM (TPEo9)

Its not about chasing media acceptance.  Its about trying to find the statement to use that they can not exploit for their own purposes.   Saying "I apologize" to BP is feeding them a line that allows them to paint Barton as nothing other than a corporate whore.  Obama may be the one actually in bed with BP but that is not going to get any major coverage.  And when BP is basically in cahoots with Obama on a whole bunch of stuff, apologizing isn't the way to go.

Posted by: maverick muse at June 17, 2010 06:31 PM (H+LJc)

This was exactly the point I made earlier. Apparently the Republicans have no qualms about using thuggish tactics.

I think Obama and company threatened BP with dire consequences if they didn't cough up the money. It is extortion, and it should be shouted out!

Apparently, "taken to the woodshed" now means "gently persuaded to see the error of his ways".--Posted by: Qwinn

Progressive revisionist neoconservatism

"Obama may be the one actually in bed with BP but that is not going to get any major coverage."

So instead of putting up a thread defeinding Barton and explaining about how Obama is the real BP corporate whore, let's put up a thread attacking Barton and not mentioning Obama's links to BP at all.

Your strategery is flawless.

Think about it... Drew's advice was "do it by making the other side the bad guys."  And he did this in a post that did nothing but point out what a jerk *our* guy is.  Am I the only one seeing the irony in that?

Maybe it's time for DrewM. to take a short break from the blog.

Posted by: Barry, Harry and Nancy at June 17, 2010 06:13 PM (7ZyYf)

You betcha !

And there are quite a few commenters here with their heads stuck so far up their asses they can't figure that out.  Drew spotted and called it out as a dumb way to say it and they're basically accusing him of putting on kneepads for Obama.

Posted by: buzzion at June 17, 2010 06:33 PM (oVQFe)

This is like Dan Quayle comparing himself to John F Kennedy. There IS no way of saying it without the other side making their comeback.

How do you bring up the fact that a company was just wrongfully extorted without expressing some sort of regret? 

There is simply no way to say "You guys were wronged" without it sounding like an apology. Just Admitting they were wronged makes it look like you are sympathetic.

199 I see the Dems are still beating us on playing politics. But our side will be damned no matter what they do with this administration. Barton may have made it easier, but I still can't disagree with what he said. BP is not a victim, but I don't like them being taken to the WH & being forced to make a deal. That's extremely shady to me, especially since Obama brought a majority of the cabinet & other individuals. 

/The irony is that BP was hoist by its own petard, but that doesn't mean that this money situation was handled the right way. 

Posted by: Bill at June 17, 2010 06:39 PM (tk1mw)

Had the BOP worked immediately at the time of the explosion, the pressure ought to have been contained within the well bore.  By the time they tried the top kill, the oil had been spewing uncontrolled for a full month -- it was most likely during that interval that the damage below the seafloor occured.

Of course his statement was news.  It *should* have been news.  Of course you were right to post about it.  And your post should have drawn attention to A) the massive extortion the government just directed against a private corporation, with absolutely zero constitutional authority to do so, and B) the fact that if anyone was previously a corporate whore for BP, it's Obama. 

A news post about his statement truly dedicated to the strategy of "make the other guy the bad guy" would have focused on that, rather than on what an idiot you think *our* guy is.

Posted by: DrewM. at June 17, 2010 06:38 PM (X/Lqh)

Except that your example would imply that both the cops and the terrorist interrogators are still acting in a crude form of good faith.

Oliar's shakedown is political posturing for the benefit of "the small people"

while controlling a slush fund for the admin's own benefit - bad faith.

Wow, nice to see that *this* is where the GOP decides to threaten its own.    Not for any of the myriad fuckups over the past decade or so, but this.

And November is only the prize because it gets them money and power. They won't be repealing anything.

How do you bring up the fact that a company was just wrongfully extorted without expressing some sort of regret? 

There is simply no way to say "You guys were wronged" without it sounding like an apology. Just Admitting they were wronged makes it look like you are sympathetic.

Posted by: Diogenes at June 17, 2010 06:46 PM (eVJ7T)

I think quite a few people here who have been attmempting to defend Barton here have managed to attack Obama and his shakedown without it coming across as an apology to BP.  "America should be better than this.  We shouldn't hold closed door talks to get $20 billion from a corporation."  I really think it can be done.  And the starting point for it doesn't involve saying "I apologize"

This was exactly the point I made earlier. Apparently the Republicans have no qualms about using thuggish tactics. Posted by: Diogenes

Again, wrong. Not tactics, principle. Accepting a shakedown would be arguing principles, as if the Republicans in your nightmare either accept the role of government as mafia or lack all principle.

Whereas Drew and others are arguing tactics; don't be seen sucking guilty, corporate dick.

AGAIN ladies and jackasses; you are arguing pass one another.

Let's put it this way, Drew.

100% of the media thinks the story should be about the style of Barton's comments, rather than their substance.

95% of your commenters think the story should be about the substance of Barton's comments, rather than their style.

You, yourself, seem to believe the story is about the style, with very little consideration of the substance.

If people are associating your post with what they expect from the MSM, it's not exactly completely baseless.  You're absolutely granting them the priviledge of framing the story in the way they prefer (forget the substance of what he said, he was so gauche!), and worse, you're pretty much justifying it.

Perhaps a comparison/contrast piece with the statement by James Carville (Dem wheeler and dealer) might have been an option. I will note that that path wasn't taken here, by either you, or the GOP leadership. Since Carvilles' statement occurred last night, the timing was there.
An update might have juxtaposed the WH reaction to both statements.

Headline: Dems and Republicans finally agree on something: Obama is a Chicago thug

Posted by: Blue Hen at June 17, 2010 06:54 PM (1O93r)

Did Carville apologize to BP?

"It's not the job of conservative bloggers to spin for congressmen who say dumb things. "

Who said you had to spin for the congressman?  You could've ignored the style parts you didn't like and focused on what we hopefully all agree were the extremely important facts he was raising.  Look, if you insist that everyone focus "on what a bad guy the other guy is" rather than defending your own side, well, *attacking your own side* is *worse* than either of those.  I think that's pretty obvious!

There is simply no way to say "You guys were wronged" without it sounding like an apology. Just Admitting they were wronged makes it look like you are sympathetic.

Posted by: Diogenes at June 17, 2010 06:46 PM (eVJ7T)

Yes, but the proper statement was not "You were wronged," but "Every member of this panel wants to see that your company meets all of its obligations to the full extent of its liability, but it was disturbing to see the President act in the manner he did, as if he had to make up for 57 days of inaction and indecision by forcing you to comply with a jerry-rigged proposal of dubious Constitutionality.  Even in the face of this catastrophe, we still have such a thing in this country as due process, something which your company seems to have been denied."

Barton more complained about Obama's tactics & the precedent that would set than he actually apologized to BP. He also said those were his words, & not those of the GOP.

[Barton] complained that "the attorney general of the United States, who is legitimately conducting a criminal investigation and has every right to do so to protect the interests of the American people, [is] participating in what amounts to a $20 billion slush fund that's unprecedented in our nation's history, that's got no legal standing, and which sets, I think, a terrible precedent for the future."

"I apologize," Barton added. "I do not want to live in a country where any time a citizen or a corporation does something that is legitimately wrong is subject to some sort of political pressure that is -- again, in my words, amounts to a shakedown. So I apologize."

"I'm speaking now totally for myself," he noted. "I'm not speaking for the Republican Party."

So, he did indeed say BP was wrong, but that the Obama Administration used it for their own political gain.

Boehner and Cantor need to have their head examined. Barton was speaking the plain truth. For a leadership style this imperious, this deceitful, and this counter-productive, Boehner and Cantor need to go. Neither one of them should be near the Speakership. Out, in November, both you dogs.

Posted by: DrewM. at June 17, 2010 06:38 PM (X/Lqh)

Probably a bad analogy there, since the mugger or the terrorist might well find a sympathetic judge to throw out his confession based on the "coercion" of his interrogators.

Barton more complained about Obama's tactics & the precedent that would set than he actually apologized to BP. He also said those were his words, & not those of the GOP...

Posted by: Miss'80sBaby, Houstonian at June 17, 2010 07:01 PM (Yq+qN)

Thank you very much for posting that.

Boehner also had some harsh words for Obama after the speech the other day, so I'm wondering if it's the words "I apologize" that made him antsy. Otherwise, he's a hypocrite for saying this:

“President Obama should not exploit this crisis to impose a job-killing national energy tax on struggling families and small businesses.”

...then condemning Barton, who likewise accused the WH of exploitation. 

100% of the media thinks the story should be about the style of Barton's comments, rather than their substance.

I realize it's easier to couch it in terms of 'style' and 'substance' ; one obviously derogatory and the other self-signifying. However, this is a case of arguing tactics versus arguing principle.

Drew's only saying the apology is bad tactics, and yes, tactics count in politics.

If they don't, one would have to argue that Obama was the candidate of 'substance.'

You're arguing that this is a matter of principle; the O'ministration should be held to account for their overreach, therefore Barton was only exercising the proper position of a conservative who believes in the rule of law, etc.

Again, arguing tactics versus arguing principle.

Haven't read any of the comments yet, but I initially read that as "Barton taken to the Wodeshed"--heh!  I thought DrewM was giving a shout out to one of my favorite morons!

But read what Barton actually said instead of what has been purported to have been said, & see the difference. Perhaps he could have phrased it better, but he clearly said BP was still in the wrong.

"I apologize," Barton added. "I do not want to live in a country where any time a citizen or a corporation does something that is legitimately wrong is subject to some sort of political pressure that is -- again, in my words, amounts to a shakedown. So I apologize."

Shakedown
Breakdown
Takedown
Everybody wants into the crowded line
Breakdown
Takedown
You're busted!

That song had been going through my head all day.  I finally got rid of it until I started reading the comments.  Yeesh!  (Oh, and I left my sock on my earlier comment--d'oh!)

Hey, what ever happened to the NC Congressman who assaulted the student on camara last week?

He went down in recent polling.  Don't know if anyone's mentioned this.  (whispering) _{I saw it on Hotair}.

"If the blowout preventer is found to be defective, that $20 billion, shakedown or not, is going to be a drop in the bucket of what it's going to cost BP."

I don't think there is any question that the BOP was inoperable due to bad decisions and poor maintenance by BP.

From the Wall Street Journal, May 13, 2010.

Congress Homes In on Rig's Blowout Preventer

Investigators Find 'Failsafe' Had Dead Battery and Was Leaking Fluid

The emergency valves that were the last chance of preventing last month's catastrophic explosion aboard the Deepwater Horizon oil rig had several major problems that could have kept them from working, congressional investigators said Wednesday.

BP PLC, the British energy company that owns the Gulf of Mexico well that exploded on April 20, has repeatedly pointed to the failure of the 450-ton set of valves, called the blowout preventer, as a cause of the disaster. "That was to be the failsafe in case of an accident," Lamar McKay, chairman and president of BP America, said in a Senate committee hearing Tuesday.

According to a congressional investigation, the Deepwater Horizon's blowout preventer had a dead battery, was leaking hydraulic fluid and in any case was too weak to shut down the well in certain circumstances.

In addition, even before the explosion and fire that sank the rig, industry experts—including one at BP—knew that blowout preventers are designed to work only in certain circumstances, and even then are susceptible to failure, according to interviews with The Wall Street Journal and reviews of industry literature.

"They're not failsafe," said Per Holand, a Norwegian engineer who was hired a decade ago by regulators in the U.S. to study blowout preventers' reliability. "There are some limitations."

In a second day of hearings held jointly by the U.S. Coast Guard and the U.S. Minerals Management Service, a supervisor for the MMS testified that although the industry has standards for blowout preventers, he isn't aware that anyone in the U.S. government checks to see if those standards are met.

The blowout preventers used in deepwater drilling are complex devices meant to shut off a well in different ways. The last line of defense on the preventers is a set of so-called blind shear rams, which cut the pipe and then seal off the well. But multiple industry studies in recent years have called into question whether blind shear rams could cut through the thick, high-strength steel pipe used in deepwater drilling.

One 2007 paper presented at a Society of Petroleum Engineers conference in Bahrain that was co-written by a BP engineer said new drill pipe "has in some cases exceeded the capacity of some [blowout preventer] shear rams to successfully or reliably shear drill pipe." The BP engineer couldn't be reached. BP spokesman Andrew Gowers said that while stronger pipe is harder to cut, "that is taken into account in manufacturers' specifications."

In testimony before a congressional committee on Wednesday, Steven Newman, chief executive of Transocean Ltd., the Deepwater rig's owner, said the devices may not work in a catastrophic blowout, when pipes, cement, rocks and other debris may be shooting up through the well into the valves.

"A blowout preventer is not designed to close around significant debris," Mr. Newman said.

Yea! a victory for the hand wringers. you guys are always concerned that everything can be washed away with one mistatement by any Republican, we must walk on eggshells so as not to offend the overlords. good god man grow a pair. this whole flap is nothing.

Posted by: David M. Axelrod at June 17, 2010 07:09 PM (mAm+G)

He wouldn't have.  She would've.

Posted by: sifty johnson at June 17, 2010 07:11 PM (JR2D9)

"What did Gabby Johnson say?"

"He said, 'The President is NEAR!'"

[too close to the edge?]

Drew, the story's only about Barton cause the media wants it to be about Barton.  Period.  And by following along, by letting the MSM establish the ground rules and letting them frame the debate to their liking, what are you adding to the conversation?

I'm *really* glad Miss80'sBaby posted what the congressman actually said, and bolded the words she did.  That part didn't register with me before.  I see *absolutely nothing wrong* with the way he phrased it - in fact, I can't think of a way he could've phrased it better.  He called out BP for their mistakes.  He said he spoke for himself, not the party.  What the hell more do you want?

Trailing 39-38.

"I can't suck it out with a straw."

-Barack Obama

You don't need no stinking straw...

All I did was copy+paste the words that Drew selected in his original post.

Oh, this is intersting:

Rep. Tom Price of Georgia, who chairs the Republican Study Committee, used similar terminology yesterday when he described the process the White House used to get the fund as "Chicago-style shakedown politics."

“BPÂ’s reported willingness to go along with the White HouseÂ’s new fund suggests that the Obama Administration is hard at work exerting its brand of Chicago-style shakedown politics," said Price in a statement. "These actions are emblematic of a politicization of our economy that has been borne out of this AdministrationÂ’s drive for greater power and control.  It is the same mentality that believes an economic crisis or an environmental disaster is the best opportunity to pursue a failed liberal agenda.  The American people know much better."

But Price didn't apologize to BP.

So, Price said it & got away with it because he didn't apologize. That also seems to be Boehner's problem, if the quotes are correct. 

He raises a good point: [No company answerable to their shareholders or investors will risk capital in a country which has brutally abandoned the rule of law.].

It does make me wonder if any foreign companies will pick up stakes and hightail it out of here.  What Obama is doing is a precursor to what  Chavez and Ogabe have done to foreign businesses.  Will they high tail it out of here just like they did out of Zimbabwe and Venezuela?  I can't believe what is going on with our country!

Daniel Heninger has a good piece on the WSJ's op-ed page.  This bit at the beginning caught my eye:

The oil company formerly known as British Petroleum is starting to look kind of beaten up. So it goes when a business finds itself tossed into the ring with the current president of the United States.

"We will make BP pay," Mr. Obama said Tuesday night.

"We will make BP pay."  Not, "We will make BP stop the leak and clean up the oil."

And in addition to the $20 billion, Obama asked BP to put an additional $100 million into a foundation to help the oil industry workers that will be idled by Obama's decision to put a moratorium on offshore drilling.  Not to put those workers back to work, but just to pay them off.

I think Rush Limbaugh pointed out that Obama treats every problem like a civil tort case, where a big enough cash payoff makes the problem go away.

That is if you believe that telling the truth includes appearing to absolve BP of guilt.

Yes, that's exactly what Barton did when he said:  ""I do not want to live in a country where any time a citizen or a corporation does something that is legitimately wrong "

That is clearly absolving them of all guilt.  It's the "does something that is legitimately wrong" that clinches it, I think.  But since he didn't say "BP fuck the pooch", so he obviously absolved them completely.

This is ridiculous.  The only reason he's "appearing to absolve BP of guilt" is because *you* and the MSM keep repeating that he did, when his actual words clearly meant no such thing.

@217: "Someone explain to me what the GOP House will be doing if I again work hard for them to get to a majority? "

Fucking you just as hard as the Democrats would.  But they'll tell you look pretty, and they'll promise to respect you in the morning.

What Barton actually said was not an aplogy to BP.  It was an expressiona of regret that the President had chosen to use Chicago-style tactics to try to boost his ratings, at the potential expense of the reuptation of the US as a nation of laws.

Of course, since the President's supporters control most of the major networks, and Barton spoke the word "apology", it was easy to spin a valid criticism of Obama into an apology to BP.

It is very simple: no Republican politician should speak to the media without their own recording devices and multiple witnesses present, and they should make it clear throughout any answers or statements, weaving it into the narrative so it cannot be removed without leaving obvious signs of editing, that they are doing so because the media is not a trustworthy institution through which anyone but people they agree with can reliably communicate to the American people.

We are going to have to destroy the media to save it, and the only legal way to do that is to make it clear every chance we get that if you are sellling a product or service, and you adverise on network X, you have just self-selected to be boycotted by the majority of Americans.  Mainstream Americans are sick of watching the media select their candidates, turn filthy liars into heros, and good people into the subject of the media's jokes.

Damn, I hate the media.

283 Read the original quote. Barton clearly said BP was wrong. Again:

"I apologize," Barton added. "I do not want to live in a country where any time a citizen or a corporation does something that is legitimately wrong is subject to some sort of political pressure that is -- again, in my words, amounts to a shakedown. So I apologize."

If you read the rest, he was clearly apologizing for the shakedown & questioning Obama, not absolving BP of guilt.

Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at June 17, 2010 07:35 PM (Yq+qN)

Did Price's statement get as much media attention?  I think that's part of it.  Boehner and others are getting asked about Barton and his use of apology and shakedown.  So they're doing the facepalm about that.  Price didn't get any real coverage so their ears didn't perk up.  I don't think Barton's would have either if he hadn't said "I apologize"

Posted by: William Teach at June 17, 2010 07:36 PM (TFSHk)

I will tell you EXACTLY what's wrong with this picture.

If you focus on being perceived as the good guy, on following the rules to the letter and never saying anything offensive, you run the risk of looking weak and wishy-washy.  And your enemies will exploit that.  I saw a quote from Dean Acheson: "No people in history have ever survived who thought they could protect their freedom by making themselves inoffensive to their enemies.”

If you "circle the wagons," then at best the enemy will tire of its attack and at worst you will have to sacrifice the offending member of your party if the attacks don't cease -- but you'll have kept the focus of the attacks on that one member rather than your entire party, and rather than being condemned for trying to defend the indefensible, people will praise your loyalty and determination.  After all, the voters kind of expect that part of a party's job is to spin things in the most favorable light for its members.

There is little practical value in being perceived as the good guy in the white hat while you go down to electoral defeat.  I would suggest that the main reason the GOP nominated Dole in 1996 and McCain in 2008 was that it was the polite thing to do to give these party stalwarts their fair turn that they'd waited for so long.  It was the "right" thing to do, but it was massively stupid.

298 286 Did Price's statement get as much media attention?  I think that's part of it.  Boehner and others are getting asked about Barton and his use of apology and shakedown.  So they're doing the facepalm about that.  Price didn't get any real coverage so their ears didn't perk up.  I don't think Barton's would have either if he hadn't said "I apologize".

It apparently did, from what I'm reading. Price didn't say it to Hayward, but he did say that Obama was using Chicago-style tactics in a shakedown of BP, & that this was just another example of Obama seizing control. ABC also highlights that Price didn't apologize, though.

Rep. Tom Price of Georgia, who chairs the Republican Study Committee, used similar terminology yesterday when he described the process the White House used to get the fund as "Chicago-style shakedown politics."

“BPÂ’s reported willingness to go along with the White HouseÂ’s new fund suggests that the Obama Administration is hard at work exerting its brand of Chicago-style shakedown politics," said Price in a statement. "These actions are emblematic of a politicization of our economy that has been borne out of this AdministrationÂ’s drive for greater power and control.  

Fucking shit..I hate the poseurs in Congress

...where were they when the federal govenrment shut off the water to the San Jaoquin Valley in CA??

.. tens of thosuands lost their income....who is "making them whole"???

@300: "Somebody tell me why Boehner is perfectly fine with what Rep. Price said but he's someone furious with Rep. Barton. 2 men say the same thing, only 1 uses the words I apologize, & Boehner gets upset about the word shakedown. Both men said it, yet Boehner is angry with Barton. Why?"

It depended on how many cocktails he'd had.  Barton harshed his buzz, I guess, or maybe he was too shitfaced to remember what Price said.

And in your opinion the story is really about how horrible it is the President succeeded in getting money to effected Americans sooner than they otherwise would have if they had to spend years in court.

You *seriously* think the $20 billion is going to go to "effected" Americans, Drew?

Really?

Really?

Posted by: DrewM. at June 17, 2010 07:50 PM (X/Lqh)

Are you really this dense?  I mean, really.

Do you understand how American governance works?  Not so much, I see.  And you're proud to crow about your ignorance.

Posted by: Bugler at June 17, 2010 07:49 PM (VXBR1)

"Apologize" and "BP" don't really belong in the same sentence.  Unless you're able to frame it correctly so that the apology isn't an apology: "I apologize that the President jumped the gun in forcing BP into this arrangement, because it unjustifiably gives the appearance that without it, you were somehow going to get away without paying for the lives you disrupted, the wildlife you killed, the ecosystems you upended and the lands and waters you desecrated.  The President seems to have forgotten the role of the legislative and judiciary branches in seeing that BP does right by the American people."

His language is clear. He apologized for the government's behavior in fleecing $20B from BP. I cannot understand why some commenters are having difficulty with that.

Posted by: Bugler at June 17, 2010 07:49 PM (VXBR1)

There is no difficulty. I don't think anyone critical of Barton believes his statement is some blanket apology to BP for everything.  I think many recognize that it was going to be exploited into that.  No amount of clarification would fix that exploitation either.  Because going "I apologize" to BP fits the MFM narrative of GOP = Corporate whore.

because it unjustifiably gives the appearance that without it, you were somehow going to get away without paying for the lives you disrupted, the wildlife you killed, the ecosystems you upended and the lands and waters you desecrated. 

Erm, why is this so bad?  The entire American Left was absolutely positively enthusiastic about letting Saddam Hussein get away with creating the biggest oil spill in WORLD history, including the lives disrupted, wildlife killed, upended ecosystems and desecrated waters and lands.

And that's just the massive intentional oil spill he created, never mind the deliberate oil well fires and the intentional destruction of the homeland of the Marsh Arabs?

Where was all the outrage at him for those things from the Greens in the run up to the war, hmmmm?  Oh wait, they only matter if the guy responsible didn't do it intentionally and he's white and owns a corporation.

@325: "Why the fuck is everyone's head exploding over what some dumbshit politician said at a show trial?"

We tha GOP! This what we do!

@326: "Because going "I apologize" to BP fits the MFM narrative of GOP = Corporate whore."

That narrative has been well-established for decades, so much so that it is already basically accepted "fact".  I suppose there might be one or two potential voters out there for whom this would be a EUREKA! moment, but otherwise, pretty much the entire country already got the message.

Posted by: DrewM. at June 17, 2010 07:50 PM (X/Lqh)

It's not clear that the mechanism the President set up will actually succeed in doing that.  One reason it's not clear is that it doesn't seem to be documented anywhere how the fund will be administered and how claims will be adjudicated.  And another reason is that the Federal government has a bad track record of handling claims, whether FEMA claims after disasters or Cash for Clunker rebate claims.

And another reason is that there's no guarantee that the Obama Administration will set up the program in such a way that attorneys don't take a 35 to 50 percent cut of each claim for assisting claimants with their paperwork and such.

335 The escrow fund and how it came about is not popular on in conservative blog comment sections. It will be also overwhelmingly popular with the general public.

Alas the latter is several time larger than the former.

So we're just supposed to let the President act in an unethical manner because confronting him looks bad on TV?

Posted by: stuiec at June 17, 2010 08:03 PM (7AOgy)

I'll translate this to moron:  We don't trust the cocksucker.

Posted by: DrewM. at June 17, 2010 08:01 PM (X/Lqh)

Yes.  Fuck the Constitution.  It's all about what's popular.
 Who cares about law or any of that stupid stuff?

WTF?

Posted by: DrewM. at June 17, 2010 07:50 PM (X/Lqh)

That's a BS statement Drew, BP already was paying claims and last week they started paying them 1 month in advance instead of in arrears. If you believe the government is going to somehow make that process faster I think you're wrong.

BP sucks, they're a left wing company that was pushing cap and trade in 2006. My problem is that the government jumped in for political reasons and will be handing out this money to their fucking friends like they always due.

@335: "The escrow fund and how it came about is not popular on in conservative blog comment sections. It will be also overwhelmingly popular with the general public.

Alas the latter is several time larger than the former."

Socialism is pretty darned popular with the general public.  So we should all just get with the program on that one, too?

Posted by: Garbonzo the Garrulous at June 17, 2010 08:02 PM (zgd5N)

What do you think this means:

And in your opinion the story is really about how horrible it is the President succeeded in getting money to effected Americans sooner than they otherwise would have if they had to spend years in court.

Posted by: DrewM. at June 17, 2010 07:50 PM (X/Lqh)

That sounds like he's happy about how The Precedent extorted cash out of BP.  Does it sound different to you?

Then, just after, Drew went on about how shaking down BP is more popular ...

Posted by: DrewM. at June 17, 2010 08:01 PM (X/Lqh)

You think? Google the 911 fund sometime, the same guy is running it. It took families over 2 years to get their money.

Way O/T and stolen from Hotair, but kind of funny:

PPPÂ’s most recent national survey found that while Obama had a positive approval rating at 48/47, only 33% of voters were more likely to vote for a candidate endorsed by him while 48% said support from Obama would make them less likely to vote for someone. ThatÂ’s because only 64% of voters who approve of the President say his endorsement would make them more inclined to vote for a candidate, but 91% who disapprove say ObamaÂ’s support makes it less likely they would vote for one of his preferred candidates.

To put into perspective the perils of having Obama out on the campaign trail, consider the numbers in his home state of Illinois. Even there just 26% of voters say theyÂ’d be more inclined to back an Obama endorsed candidate while 40% say his support would be more likely to turn them against a candidate. ItÂ’s another example where the intensity of feeling about Obama is much stronger on the GOP side- 80% of Republicans say theyÂ’re less likely to vote for someone with the PresidentÂ’s support while only 49% of Democrats say theyÂ’re more likely to. If ObamaÂ’s support isnÂ’t a net positive in Illinois itÂ’s hard to know where he should be deployed.

In Illinois, boys and girls!  That's his hometown!  It reminds me of Gore being unable to win his own state in the 2000 election.

Phooey!  Sock!

Posted by: Bugler at June 17, 2010 08:03 PM (VXBR1)

Re-read what I wrote.  Yes, you can offer an apology or expression of regret for denial of due process, and you can do so while couching it in language that makes it clear that you're not apologizing for holding them accountable for their actions.  Barton in fact tried to do exactly that, but he was clumsy.

Posted by: Kemp at June 17, 2010 08:09 PM (2+9Yx)

Well, I can kind of understand why the party there is focusing on the local.  I mean Etheridge is like a gift from God!  If he wins, there is something really screwed up about your state. 

And if you don't believe me, I've got 3600 acres in Arizona I'll sell you on the cheap.

I'll take it!  But only if there are some illegal Mexicans still there to mow my grass and trim my hedges.

 If he wins, there is something really screwed up about your state. 

Hey, I resent that!

@355: "My position then was, there's not a lot a President can do"

Except he didn't run for President; he ran for Messiah.  Hell, he himself declared his nomination was the moment the planet began to heal and the oceans would recede.

There should be a commercial with that soundbite being shown side-by-side with a feed from the leak.  And it should be running constantly.

That sounds like he's happy about how The Precedent extorted cash out of BP.  Does it sound different to you? Posted by: progressoverpeace

Posted by: curious at June 17, 2010 08:11 PM (p302b)

Good Grief!  Do you guys remember shootings on military bases before this year?  WTF?

Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at June 17, 2010 07:45 PM (Yq+qN)

How about everything Bugsy Oubme has said in the last month Boehner?

Boehner seems to be more interested in keeping his leadership position than exposing this Third World Tinhorn fascist for a lying incompetent scumbag that is dismantling America.

When are the GOP gonna stand toe to toe and scrap for their country instead of employing the "smart,  disciplined politics" of a permanent minority?OOOh,  I hope the media doesn't spin this.

Just fucking awe inspiring.   What a bunch of pathetic dinks .

PPPÂ’s most recent national survey found that while Obama had a positive approval rating at 48/47, only 33% of voters were more likely to vote for a candidate endorsed by him while 48% said support from Obama would make them less likely to vote for someone. ThatÂ’s because only 64% of voters who approve of the President say his endorsement would make them more inclined to vote for a candidate, but 91% who disapprove say ObamaÂ’s support makes it less likely they would vote for one of his preferred candidates.

Posted by: runningrn at June 17, 2010 08:09 PM (CfmlF)

That tells you that one-third of the people who say he's doing a okay or good job are lying to themselves.  They don't want to admit they made a mistake in voting for him or they don't want to criticize such a "historical" figure.  But when you ask a question that de-couples Obama from his judgment (in endorsing candidates), they are freer to tell the truth.

There should be a commercial with that soundbite being shown side-by-side with a feed from the leak.  And it should be running constantly.

Preach it, Brother!

Posted by: Garbonzo the Garrulous at June 17, 2010 08:12 PM (zgd5N)

You can ask him. Drew won't respond to any comments of mine.  To Drew, I'm one of the small people, evidently.

I think my interpretation of his post was pretty accurate.  Look at what he said just after, along the same lines.

Uh oh. Now you've done it!  Drew and the GOP will be demanding that you retract that comment.

There should be a commercial with that soundbite being shown side-by-side with a feed from the leak.  And it should be running constantly.

Preach it, Brother!

Posted by: Teh Amen Choir at June 17, 2010 08:15 PM (CfmlF)

You betcha!

From Curious's link (comment #329):

The governor said the problem is there's still no single person giving a "yes" or "no." While the Gulf Coast governors have developed plans with the Coast Guard's command center in the Gulf, things begin to shift when other agencies start weighing in, like the Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

"It's like this huge committee down there," Riley said, "and every decision that we try to implement, any one person on that committee has absolute veto power."

There was a woman who called Rush today and wanted to know his opinion of the skimmers being idled by the Coast Guard.  He didn't know about it.  Apparently, this abc news item must be what she was talking about.

It makes me really confident that the gubamint is going to totally screw up our health care, beyond what you can even imagine.

You think? Google the 911 fund sometime, the same guy is running it. It took families over 2 years to get their money.

Posted by: robtr at June 17, 2010 08:09 PM (fwSHf)

The judge only just this month finally settled the claim for medical treatment for the 9/11 first responders.  Ten years.

Uh oh. Now you've done it!  Drew and the GOP will be demanding that you retract that comment.

Posted by: mpfs at June 17, 2010 08:23 PM (QuP9W)

You've got my vote.

The judge only just this month finally settled the claim for medical treatment for the 9/11 first responders.  Ten years.

I wonder how many of them are already dead.  Yup, the gubamint is a sleek, responsive, productive model of efficiency.  Unbelievable.  We are so f*&%ed! 

Posted by: FUBAR at June 17, 2010 08:12 PM (J5Srq)

That's Hentai.  A sub-section of anime.

Hayward did seem rather skittish during the hearing, but I have always heard him described as soft-spoken. Regardless, I don't like these panels where the pols feign outrage & grand-stand instead of asking real questions. The people being grilled always respond with what the pols want to hear.

E.g., when Hayward was asked about a shakedown, he said no but you could see he thought it was. The rep asking the questions then mocked his answer, because British English is so difficult to understand.  

There was a woman who called Rush today and wanted to know his opinion of the skimmers being idled by the Coast Guard.  He didn't know about it.  Apparently, this abc news item must be what she was talking about.

It makes me really confident that the gubamint is going to totally screw up our health care, beyond what you can even imagine.

Posted by: Teh Amen Choir at June 17, 2010 08:21 PM (CfmlF)

The reason the Obama Administration rejected the initial offer of skimmers from the Dutch three days after the explosion was due to EPA regulations.  You see, the skimmers collect the oil-water mix out of the ocean and pump it into tankers.  After a number of hours, most of the oil floats to the top inside the tanker and the water settles to the bottom -- at which point you pump out the water back into the ocean and pump the oil onto other ships for removal.

Only the EPA wouldn't allow the tankers to pump out the water because it wouldn't be clean enough -- there would still be some oil in it.  And if you don't pump out the water, then the tanker fills up and you can't collect any more oil.

The U.S. Government has apparently reconsidered a Dutch offer to supply 4 oil skimmers. These are large arms that are attached to oil tankers that pump oil and water from the surface of the ocean into the tanker. Water pumped into the tanker will settle to the bottom of the tanker and is then pumped back into the ocean to make room for more oil. Each system will collect 5,000 tons of oil each day.

One ton of oil is about 7.3 barrels. 5,000 tons per day is 36,500 barrels per day. 4 skimmers have a capacity of 146,000 barrels per day. That is much greater than the high end estimate of the leak. The skimmers work best in calm water, which is the usual condition this time of year in the gulf.

These systems were developed by the Dutch as a safety system in case of oil spills from either wells or tankers. The Dutch have off shore oil development and also import oil in tankers. Their economy, just like ours, runs on oil. They understand that the production and use of oil has dangers and they wanted to be ready to cope with problems like spills. The Dutch system has been used successfully in Europe.

The Dutch offered to fly their skimmer arm systems to the Gulf 3 days after the oil spill started. The offer was apparently turned down because EPA regulations do not allow water with oil to be pumped back into the ocean. If all the oily water was retained in the tanker, the capacity of the system would be greatly diminished because most of what is pumped into the tanker is sea water.

As of June 8th, BP reported that they have collected 64,650 barrels of oil in the Gulf. That is only a fraction of the amount of oil spilled from the well. That is less than one dayÂ’s rated capacity of the Dutch oil skimmers.

This is exactly the kind of stupid regulatory red tape that Obama, as President, could have swept aside with an Executive Order on the proverbial Day One.

You can ask him. Drew won't respond to any comments of mine. Posted by: progressoverpeace

Hmm, good point. Perhaps you could accuse him of something again and he might respond.

Oh, I know, accuse him of being part of the 'Vichy GOP,' that's sure to solidify your bonhomie.

Or you could highlight that he is "worse than the brain-dead leftists." Not merely a poor advocate for conservatism, but a "worse than ... brain dead leftist[.]"

I know I love being told that I'm "worse than the brain-dead leftists." Warms the cockles of the heart, it does. ... Or maybe just the sub-cockle area.

At any rate, congrats on that winning attitude and metaphorical smile!

The British press finds itself increasingly defensive of BP. All the pics make it look like Hayward was in the lion's den.

In a dark blue suit and red tie, Mr Hayward sat it out, trying to cut a convincing figure. At just before 10am he entered the room, looking confident and rosy-cheeked.

But over the next few hours the colour drained from his face.

Clearly anxious, he constantly fiddled with a pencil as he sat alone in front of a team of advisers, his body hunched over the microphone.

And the voice, loud enough at first, increasingly faltered until, like a nervous best man, he was asked to speak up.

It was almost too painful to watch. His answers became shorter, his demeanour that of a man shattered and broken by the past 60 days until it got to the point at which you wondered if he would be able to summon enough strength to pull himself from the chair.

Not even profuse apologies could save him, nor the decision earlier this week to set up a £13.5billion fund to help those affected by the oil spill.

Some of the British papers are lauding Rep Barton, though for the wrong reasons. Also:

'There's nobody else in front of the firing squad,' Washington lawyer, Stan Brand, who specializes in criminal law and Congress, said. 'It's about as far from a legally recognizable proceeding as you're going to see. It will be a much more dramatic public execution' than the earlier congressional hearings.

Although one understands the hatred Americans are showing the Oil Industry and in this case BP, i cannot applaud the bully boy tactics of the so-called elected representatives mof the USA for their actions.

 
One may feel that BP have been dragging their feet or been tardy in their safety but in order to get BP to work well personnal attacks get nothing achieved. I feel sorry for Tony and hope that Congressmen and senators feel righly ashamed of their so-called righteous indignation.

- Paul Knight, Ipswich, 17/6/2010 19:12, ^ 18

Posted by: Trinity at June 17, 2010 08:48 PM (IHAOQ)

This is why I've been saying that this country is going to split apart.  That is the only way that the American creed and the vision of our Founders have a chance of surviving.  They're dead in the US, now, and even the GOP don't have the guts or integrity to fight for them.  It's sad, but there will be a light.

Posted by: Blue Hen at June 17, 2010 06:54 PM (1O93r)

Did Carville apologize to BP?

Posted by: buzzion

No. Was he sitting in a committee room facing BP execs? No. Did anyone in the GOP leadership note that what Barton said was identical to Carville and then corroborated by Biden's boasting? No. Did anyone remark that trashing the rule of law might move someone to say what Barton said, which is mild compared to the tears said for terrorists held in Guantanamo? Did anyone respond to the "some have said that this proves that the GOP is beholden to corporations like BP" by saying, " BP donated far more to Dems last cycle than to the GOP. Wall Street gave more to Obama than to McCain. The people saying this must be the same people who have dithered, delayed and placed blame rather than bringing the talents and skills of this great nation to bear on this formidable problem".

But no. Are we letting the media get away with calling an assault a hug? Some are, some aren't. Are we letting vermin get away with smearing Nikki Haley? Some are and some aren't. Are we letting the media get away with hiding behind a clumsy word construction? Yes.

Posted by: The Great Satan's Ghost at June 17, 2010 09:31 PM (1hfVU)

If an R President extorted money from a private corporation like the Indonesian Imbecile did, that President would be impeached, removed from office, and tried in criminal court.

Bart Stupak says the escrow fund may go to paying for healthcare, instead of damages.

Funding pet projects, perhaps? Or maybe I'm just cynical.

The company I work for does contracting work for BP. In fact they are our biggest customer. Now admittedly, we're talking onshore here not to mention that we deal with  a very small sliver of the BP empire, but their safety and enviornmental practices are extreme. They waste a whole lot of time and money making damned sure that every t is crossed and every i is dotted  in terms of safety and enviornment before they allow us to begin a job. I really don't think it's just a Permian Basin thing......it's company wide policy. It is inconcievable to me that they would drill offshore w/o testing the BOP to see if it was operable. With that much on the line......totally fucking inconcievable.

Yes, but the proper statement was not "You were wronged," but "Every member of this panel wants to see that your company meets all of its obligations to the full extent of its liability, but it was disturbing to see the President act in the manner he did, as if he had to make up for 57 days of inaction and indecision by forcing you to comply with a jerry-rigged proposal of dubious Constitutionality.  Even in the face of this catastrophe, we still have such a thing in this country as due process, something which your company seems to have been denied."

Posted by: stuiec at June 17, 2010 07:00 PM (7AOgy)

MFM spin:  Rep Barton (R-EVIL) defends BP and Large Corporations by saying that President Setting Aside Funds for Repairing Gulf Damage is "Dubious" and "Disturbing."

Seriously, you don't think the media rats would spin anything said against the Pres and his money-grubbing slush fund into a "Rethuglicans are for Big Business!!!!11!!" headline???