Obama brings Nixonian twist to oil spill
Nothing more fully reveals the essential character of a person or group than a crisis. Thus, the ecological and political catastrophe of the Gulf oil spill has exposed a breathtaking level of incompetence, political opportunism and mendacity at the heart of the Obama administration. Documents obtained by the Center for Public Integrity make clear that the White House was told by the Coast Guard within 24 hours of the April 20 explosion on BP's Deepwater Horizon platform that the equivalent of 8,000 barrels a day could escape into the ocean. Within three days, Obama and his senior aides were warned that the spill could exceed the in environmental damage caused by the Exxon Valdez wreck in 1989.

Despite these warnings, over the next two months Obama attended Democratic fundraisers, played golf, hosted basketball and football teams at the White House and delivered commencement speeches. Two weeks passed before he could be bothered to go to Louisiana. On April 29, Louisiana Republican Gov. Bobby Jindahl declared a state of emergency as the oil spill covered 600 square miles and was only 16 miles from the coast. Jindahl begged federal officials for permission to build a massive network of sand berms to contain damage to beaches. Washington responded a month later but permission was only granted to build 2 percent of the berms requested.

Meanwhile, as Obama dawdled and oil appeared off Florida's beaches, the president delivered a strident speech in Pittsburgh with a decidedly Nixonian twist. He should have been summoning political leaders across the spectrum to lay aside partisan concerns for the moment, but instead Obama asserted that Republicans believe that "If you're a Wall Street bank or an insurance company or an oil company, you pretty much get to play by your own rules, regardless of the consequences for everybody else." This libelous mischaracterization marks a new low even for a man so highly practiced in the ugly art of political demagoguery.

Finally, as the thick black crude and natural gas continued to erupt into the Gulf waters and public exasperation with BP's futile attempts to stop it piled up one after another, Obama dispatched Attorney General Eric Holder to Louisiana to proclaim that "we will prosecute to the fullest extent of the law anyone who has violated the law. We will not rest until justice is done." Shortly afterward, Obama blasted BP for "lawyering up" in response to the government's threats. As ill-timed as it was, Holder's announcement nevertheless clearly confirmed what was plainly suggested by Obama's Pittsburgh speech: His top priority is not to stop the spill, but to shift blame away from himself and to forever tar his opponents with responsibility for a catastrophe made far worse by his own spectacular mismanagement.

Joxur, that random shot about the stimulus is so ridiculous it's hilarious. Keep trying, troll!

Orme, I wasn't "supporting" anyone. I just asked an honest question. I had to ask it 4-5 times, and finally you gave me an answer that wasn't bullshit. Thank you for that! That's all I wanted.

Joxur, that random shot about the stimulus is so ridiculous it's hilarious. Keep trying, troll!

Orme, I'm about to teach some more kids about the utopia of the Communist regime! I'll be thinking of you.

To a conspiracy nut you could almost think that the response was done on purpose so that this could become the oil companies Three Mile Island. But that would mean conceding that the Obama Administration is orchestrated and has an effective plan for governing the country, reducing our nation's debt, and restoring the luster on that shining city on the hill, but I don't.

Good to hear. Can't wait for you to get back and lament your horrible salary, how you're unappreciated, and the sad state of teaching in America.

But the Coast Guard ordered the stoppage because of reasons that Jindal found frustrating. The Coast Guard needed to confirm that there were fire extinguishers and life vests on board, and then it had trouble contacting the people who built the barges.

That's not true. There are plenty of things I am critical of w/ the administration. Since I'm one person and the POTUS represents 300 million people, the odds that I (or any one person) agree with the Administration 100% of the time is 0%.

You can't hide behind "lesser of two evils logic" on this one. I'm not saying you should have voted for someone else. I'm saying that you're not holding the person you voted for accountable for sticking to the issues he promised. Period.

And yeah, what people post here is irrelevant. But none of you are doing anything about it, here or elsewhere. It's an assumption on my part that I am 100% confident in.

What are you pleased with, specifically?

This video is from the Viking Poseidon, one of the remotes monitoring the area around the leaking oil well in the Gulf. According to the GPS information on the screen, the remote is about 70 feet away from the well-head.

Yes, folks: that is oil oozing -- and then gushing -- out of the sea floor itself. There has been speculation that the rapid outflow of oil from the underground reservoir is setting things up for a sinkhole. If that happens, it is almost certain that tens of millions of gallons of petroleum and tons of natural gas will be released all at once.

With this new evidence, the estimated amount of the spill has been upped to as much as 70,000 barrels a day. That is almost 3 million gallons every 24 hours.

Outside of potentially not giving him our vote, what should people do? Post irately on message boards?

Personally, I just don't see the point in lamenting the response to the oil spill yet. Barges designed to suck up oil were held for a day for safety reasons...Good! It's been over 50 days, we could wait one more if it means that the boats will not be on the water without proper safety equipment, especially fire extinguishers.

The recovery mission doesn't have a figurehead who calls the shots. Not good. Numerous departments are effected by this, and each has their own priority that may not be in the best interest of the others.

Beings you brought it up, what are you doing to hold him accountable aside from posting links from obviously biased sources (such as articles that refer to the healthcare reform bill as ObamaCare...you didn't even try on that one) and mocking the hope/change campaign theme (as corny as it was) just like every anti-Obama pundit out there?

He authorized shooting American citizens in the face...

- I've switched parties.
- I've donated to opposing candidates to try to influence my goal of a split government.
- I plan to vote for whichever candidate in 2012 represents a split government. If it means I vote for a Dem with a GOP congress, that's what I'll do.

yep. I vote based on issues. That's it.

Am I going to vote for the person that says he is not for the things I believe in?

Rugen: I've said this before, and maybe people think I'm being an asshole when I say it, but....welcome to politics. =(

You can vote for whoever you want, but government is such a big, sprawling, complex monster made up of tons of people wanting to make different groups happy - especially if there's money involved - all at the same time.

At best - even if you DO find a politician that isn't lying and has your best interests at heart - you're just putting a drop in a bucket.

That's why I really do just vote on a "lesser of two evils" system now. It sounds apathetic and sad, but it's the only way that makes sense to me anymore. I can't trust them on the issues, I can't judge them based on party, I can't go by labels that are slapped on them, I certainly can't trust what other politicians, pundits or media outlets say about one candidate or another.

So what can I do? Pretty much just do a little digging, see what real facts I can come up with and then just go with my gut. =/

Rugen: I've said this before, and maybe people think I'm being an asshole when I say it, but....welcome to politics. =(

That's why I really do just vote on a "lesser of two evils" system now.