Jim Stillman
Nevar
The Left's disappointment with the president
June 29th 2010 21:28
A while ago, speaking from the White House Oval Office, a locale reserved for the most important of addresses to the American public, President Obama spoke of the social and economic disaster that has been a consequence of the failure of BP’s Deepwater Horizon well. The investigations may continue beyond the eventual capping of the drilling rig, but regardless of the former’s duration, it is all but certain that the damages that have resulted may well continue and be felt for a generation or more.
In anticipation of the president’s address, I posted what I hoped he would state. I wanted President Obama to declare an all out determination to switch from the use of fossil fuels, primarily oil, within a ten year period just as John Kennedy set the goal of landing a man on the moon. I wanted him to explicitly demand that we develop alternative energy sources and cite chapter and verse on why we had to take this course and the costs of not doing so.
At a Congressional hearing last week, the top executives of BP’s competitors agreed on two facts. First, BP acted carelessly and irresponsibly, using materials and techniques that begged for an accident but would save the company time and money. Second, every oil executive testified under oath that neither his company nor the rest of the industry had the ability to seal any ruptured deep water well or to clean up the resulting damage! I wanted the President to name the people and individuals who allowed this to happen and demand accountability.
As soon as the president’s address concluded, I felt let down, disappointed in what Barack Obama failed to say. Gail Collins, writing in the New York Times, expressed her similar feeling:
I was hoping for a call to arms, a national mission as great as the environmental disaster that inspired it. After the terrorist attack, George W. Bush could have called the country to a grand, important new undertaking in which everyone sacrificed personal or regional advantage for the common good. The fact that he only told us to go shopping was the one unforgivable sin of his administration. [I could think of several more, invading Iraq, engaging in torture, among them.]
Almost immediately, liberal writers and publications intensified their criticism of their president. Because President Obama spoke in broad-sweeping generalities, Dan Froomkin, writing in the Huffington Post, addressed concerns of many liberals.
I have quoted from this article at such length because it summarizes well the recent verbal and written anguish of liberals.
I have given up any hope that responsible Republicans will, in the immediate future, reclaim that once-rational Party from the ideologues who want purity over governing. Moreover, much discussion from the GOP is filtered through a prism of actual hatred! Suddenly, much substantial criticism of this president is coming from liberals.
This criticism is over the top and excessive! Liberals and progressives, in my opinion, have a continuing need to re-examine positions and reassess values. Conservatives, in their present state at least, feel no need to challenge themselves and are content with slogans; lower taxes, eliminate government, the other guys are Nazis or Communists, and so forth. Even so, the current anguish over the Obama administration and president is disproportionate and wildly so.
This is the same Barack Obama, after all, who pushed and created a universal health care law which, while certainly not perfect or as far reaching as might have been desired, had been the dream of liberals since the days of Harry Truman if not Teddy Roosevelt. It was the same President Obama who staked the fate of the American economy on a $787 billion exercise in Keynesian pump-priming, an endeavor that is now being justified. It’s the same Obama who has done more to advance liberal priorities than any president since Lyndon Johnson.
If there is any doubt that this president must be given an obstruction-proof Legislature this year and be re-elected for a second term, all that is needed is to examine the GOP “leaders” who are waiting in the wings.
Many progressives are impatient with Barack Obama and wish that he could (or would) act more by edict rather than attempting to gain opposition consensus. But, for the most part and in the long run, he deserves more praise from those who know better.
In anticipation of the president’s address, I posted what I hoped he would state. I wanted President Obama to declare an all out determination to switch from the use of fossil fuels, primarily oil, within a ten year period just as John Kennedy set the goal of landing a man on the moon. I wanted him to explicitly demand that we develop alternative energy sources and cite chapter and verse on why we had to take this course and the costs of not doing so.
At a Congressional hearing last week, the top executives of BP’s competitors agreed on two facts. First, BP acted carelessly and irresponsibly, using materials and techniques that begged for an accident but would save the company time and money. Second, every oil executive testified under oath that neither his company nor the rest of the industry had the ability to seal any ruptured deep water well or to clean up the resulting damage! I wanted the President to name the people and individuals who allowed this to happen and demand accountability.
As soon as the president’s address concluded, I felt let down, disappointed in what Barack Obama failed to say. Gail Collins, writing in the New York Times, expressed her similar feeling:
I was hoping for a call to arms, a national mission as great as the environmental disaster that inspired it. After the terrorist attack, George W. Bush could have called the country to a grand, important new undertaking in which everyone sacrificed personal or regional advantage for the common good. The fact that he only told us to go shopping was the one unforgivable sin of his administration. [I could think of several more, invading Iraq, engaging in torture, among them.]
Almost immediately, liberal writers and publications intensified their criticism of their president. Because President Obama spoke in broad-sweeping generalities, Dan Froomkin, writing in the Huffington Post, addressed concerns of many liberals.
But vague generalities and empty, convictionless rhetoric just doesn’t have that effect [of changing the country’s direction] -- certainly not in the midst of a real, concrete national emergency. ***
[Did President Obama] and his top advisers think that some pretty words with so little substance could accomplish so much? ***
Eight weeks into an ongoing environmental disaster the likes of which this country has never seen, it was incumbent upon Obama to directly and specifically address some tough issues. ***
Does he believe the government response to this disaster has been good? If so, he should have defended it, in detail, against the ever-growing critiques. Instead, we got this: "If there are problems in the operation, we will fix them." ***
Does he recognize the response has been sluggish and flawed? I suspect that's more likely, in which case he should have said: Here is what we are going to fix, starting now. ****
Does he now recognize that approving more offshore drilling was a mistake? If so, he should have said so, rather than weakly blaming "assurances" he was given. If he doesn't, then he should have explained why (or at least tried to).
Does he think BP has acted responsibly and in a way deserving of trust since the spill? That would be a hard argument to make, but if he feels that way, he should have made it. If he doesn't, he should have explained exactly what BP has done wrong and how he intends to respond.
If he is really proposing to "restore the unique beauty and bounty" of the Gulf region, he should have provided a clear direction, some unambiguous rubrics, and a budget, rather than just appointing a commission.
And if he wants to use this disaster to get the nation -- and Congress -- to rethink issues of energy dependence and climate change, then it was incumbent upon him to lead. Instead, he punted.
On clean energy, the one area where he can already claim significant accomplishments, he set out some broad goals -- then urged the public to "seize the moment" and "rally together." He . . . encouraged the Senate to pass his energy and climate bill, as the House already has, but then said: "I'm happy to look at other ideas and approaches from either party."
That, as we learned from the health care debate, simply invites the Republicans -- and pusillanimous Democrats -- to stall and obstruct. Saying "the one approach I will not accept is inaction," as he did, is more a relinquishing of power than an application of it.
And though it was the strongest part of his speech, his disquisition on weaning the nation from fossil fuels still wasn't even as strong as George W. Bush's patently insincere but rhetorically effective assertion that "America is addicted to oil." ***
And there was no direct mention of climate change, or of the only measure knowledgeable people recognize stands a serious chance of addressing it, namely putting a price on carbon.
Talking about energy and not addressing climate change and the need to limit carbon is fundamentally dishonest -- and condescending. Obama knows better. He acknowledged as much in the presidential campaign. But apparently even the Oval Office backdrop didn't give him the guts to call it like he sees it.
[Did President Obama] and his top advisers think that some pretty words with so little substance could accomplish so much? ***
Eight weeks into an ongoing environmental disaster the likes of which this country has never seen, it was incumbent upon Obama to directly and specifically address some tough issues. ***
Does he believe the government response to this disaster has been good? If so, he should have defended it, in detail, against the ever-growing critiques. Instead, we got this: "If there are problems in the operation, we will fix them." ***
Does he recognize the response has been sluggish and flawed? I suspect that's more likely, in which case he should have said: Here is what we are going to fix, starting now. ****
Does he now recognize that approving more offshore drilling was a mistake? If so, he should have said so, rather than weakly blaming "assurances" he was given. If he doesn't, then he should have explained why (or at least tried to).
Does he think BP has acted responsibly and in a way deserving of trust since the spill? That would be a hard argument to make, but if he feels that way, he should have made it. If he doesn't, he should have explained exactly what BP has done wrong and how he intends to respond.
If he is really proposing to "restore the unique beauty and bounty" of the Gulf region, he should have provided a clear direction, some unambiguous rubrics, and a budget, rather than just appointing a commission.
And if he wants to use this disaster to get the nation -- and Congress -- to rethink issues of energy dependence and climate change, then it was incumbent upon him to lead. Instead, he punted.
On clean energy, the one area where he can already claim significant accomplishments, he set out some broad goals -- then urged the public to "seize the moment" and "rally together." He . . . encouraged the Senate to pass his energy and climate bill, as the House already has, but then said: "I'm happy to look at other ideas and approaches from either party."
That, as we learned from the health care debate, simply invites the Republicans -- and pusillanimous Democrats -- to stall and obstruct. Saying "the one approach I will not accept is inaction," as he did, is more a relinquishing of power than an application of it.
And though it was the strongest part of his speech, his disquisition on weaning the nation from fossil fuels still wasn't even as strong as George W. Bush's patently insincere but rhetorically effective assertion that "America is addicted to oil." ***
And there was no direct mention of climate change, or of the only measure knowledgeable people recognize stands a serious chance of addressing it, namely putting a price on carbon.
Talking about energy and not addressing climate change and the need to limit carbon is fundamentally dishonest -- and condescending. Obama knows better. He acknowledged as much in the presidential campaign. But apparently even the Oval Office backdrop didn't give him the guts to call it like he sees it.
I have quoted from this article at such length because it summarizes well the recent verbal and written anguish of liberals.
I have given up any hope that responsible Republicans will, in the immediate future, reclaim that once-rational Party from the ideologues who want purity over governing. Moreover, much discussion from the GOP is filtered through a prism of actual hatred! Suddenly, much substantial criticism of this president is coming from liberals.
This criticism is over the top and excessive! Liberals and progressives, in my opinion, have a continuing need to re-examine positions and reassess values. Conservatives, in their present state at least, feel no need to challenge themselves and are content with slogans; lower taxes, eliminate government, the other guys are Nazis or Communists, and so forth. Even so, the current anguish over the Obama administration and president is disproportionate and wildly so.
This is the same Barack Obama, after all, who pushed and created a universal health care law which, while certainly not perfect or as far reaching as might have been desired, had been the dream of liberals since the days of Harry Truman if not Teddy Roosevelt. It was the same President Obama who staked the fate of the American economy on a $787 billion exercise in Keynesian pump-priming, an endeavor that is now being justified. It’s the same Obama who has done more to advance liberal priorities than any president since Lyndon Johnson.
If there is any doubt that this president must be given an obstruction-proof Legislature this year and be re-elected for a second term, all that is needed is to examine the GOP “leaders” who are waiting in the wings.
Many progressives are impatient with Barack Obama and wish that he could (or would) act more by edict rather than attempting to gain opposition consensus. But, for the most part and in the long run, he deserves more praise from those who know better.
| 109 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
subscribe to this blog
Comment by Lester Caudill
Round Politics
He, the vice president, and his whole administration are sick jokes that no one is laughing at, because we are hurting to much.
Where are the jobs, why hasn't the economy improved? The answer is they screwed it up more than it already was.
I do think we need to find other means of energy, but we must use all the above until we find it. Wind is not going to do it, solar panels aren't going to do it.
We can't just go back to the stone age like these miserable liberals want us to do. Al Gore has gotten rich off the Global warming scam.
To find the answers we need, we must have creditable people leading the way, and the nut jobs we have are the problem, and they can't see the solution.
Jim if you want to do America a favor vote Republican this November. Good to see you writing again.
Comment by S.L.
The Political Brief
He's offered plenty of cash (that we can't afford, thanks to his frantic wasting of our money) to "help" with the potential hurricane damage. And forced BP into a huge payoff that will be administered by one of his own lackeys, so it won't go to those who need it, when they need it.
And as for all his "successes"... are you kidding? A "healthcare plan" that will create a dismal mess and fail as completely as it has everywhere else? A "stimulus" that has accomplished nothing? Unemployment at almost 10%? Even the "brilliant VP" says millions of the lost jobs will never return! How about the southern border? Suing Arizona for wanting to follow federal law and stop the tide of illegals, drug dealers and killers?
I could go on and on, but you can't possibly have missed all the other idiotic things he's done. It's just so much easier to hang onto the bandwagon and pretend everything will be wonderful if he just gets crazier and more liberal, right?
Follow Lester's advice, Jim, and vote Republican. It's the only hope we have for keeping this country alive in the wake of all these disasters, especially this presidency.