Well, that’s nice, but I hardly think it was a huge revelation that the valves weren’t closed. If they were, then there wouldn’t be a leak.
Anyway, I’m sure he has something to contribute, but I don’t see him as the guy leading the charge here. What I see is an attempt to impress me with “Nobel Prize Winning Physicist…” I’m not impressed. Thad Allen seems to be doing an OK job, but he seems to be relying on BP for most of his information.
This speech as reactive, and I don’t think it’s going to do much good. There wasn’t enough specifics in there. People want to know how much oil has leaked out and when it’s going to stop. We still don’t know that.
You know, sometimes shit breaks, and there isn’t a good, quick solution. That’s hardly Obama’s fault, now is it John?
If you don’t like Chu, Brownie or Palin’s hubbie for chief fixer upper, how about Rand Paul, or Bobby Jindal? What are the criteria that would make you a happy man?
Personally, I’m satisfied with Steven Chu so far, but if you have someone you think would be better in mind, let’s hear it.
Maybe Romney 2012? Can the Gulf afford to wait that long?
Oh, please. My “suggestion” was that his speech is not worth much if he can’t tell us that. He can’t. So, he can speechify all he wants, but I don’t see it swaying public opinion much until he can tell us those things.
I don’t particularly blame him for making this speech-- he probably thought he had to. And like I said in my earlier post, this was a typical president’s speech. It’s a rare such speech that really does any good.
The article itself says that BP eventually used the technique and it worked. So there was obviously a question if they were open or closed. I doubt anyone’s coming up with techniques to solve imaginary problems, and if they are, *they are probably keeping them to themselves. *
I think it might well be his Iran hostage crisis. Running around the Rose Garden talking about how enraged you are over the oil spill while appearing totally impotent to do anything about it is more than a little Carteresque.
I’m thinking that a president with genuine charisma and inspirational ability would be exhorting people to get down to the gulf and help out in getting the spill diverted and/or cleaned up. I would think that a president with strong leadership ability would be pressing other oil companies into trying to come up with solutions, and perhaps coming up with a way to use their tankers to suck up as much of the spill as possible. I would think that a strong, decisive president would be gathering corrective scenarios from many sources, including other oil companies and even including James Cameron, who, due to his deep sea exploits, knows many very smart people who understand the engineering involved in working at that depth, but who was rebuffed by BP in his efforts to help, and then pushing BP out of the way and pursuing whichever of those approaches holds the most promise.
In other words, there are many things that someone with a genuine grip on the leadership role of the presidency could be doing to try to contain and/or stop the spill. Obama has chosen to leave it all up to BP and do little else but to verbalize his Barney Fife-like “rage” over the situation, make multiple trips to the area for photo ops that accomplished nothing else, and issuing lame proclamations about kicking someone’s ass (once the “experts” tell him which someone that is) and that, by golly, he’s gonna see to it that BP pays for all the damages. This is not effective presidential behavior, and like I said upthread it’s becoming more and more obvious that he’s in over his head and just doesn’t know what he should be doing or how to go about it.
I don’t know what people expected from the speech. He was taking a bit of a hit for the initial response. Add to that the frustration of people in the area who are actually caught up in the inevitable delays in the reimbursement process. It was a PR move on his part and he didn’t drag networks down with free airtime. Not only did he not take up an hour he kept it to a little over 15 minutes.
He reinforced the idea that people will get paid for their losses and all will be right with the world (eventually). He’s already in hot water with our cousins across the pond so he’s not going to go all cowboy on BP with more talk of kicking someone’s ass. It was a speech of reassurance that every President is expected to give in a time of crisis.
Yeah, these speeches are largely ceremonial. He checked it off his to-do list, and now let’s get back to actually trying to stop the leak and clean up the oil that has leaked. This speech will barely survive this 24-hr news cycle. It’s a fly on the elephant’s ass.
But he sure did get all Praisie Godie at the end, didn’t he?
That’s the problem. I’m fine with the president making a nice speech. But this is neither the first one he’s delivered, when he has also failed to deliver any action at all. Either shut up about it and admit you’re not going to do anything, or do something and shut up thereafter.
I don’t think it’s fair to hold any president to that standard. He was stuck between a rock and a hard place. It was “don’t give a speech and lose or give a speech and lose”. There was no win here. At least not at this point in time.
Not sure when this became a requirement for every presidential speech, I’ll applaud the first guy that drops it. I guarantee the last line of every speech from the Oval Office is going to be “and may God bless the United States of America”. It’s probably got its own template in Word.
Why? I definitely don’t recall asking him to give one. In fact, I can’t think of anyone who did. He had nothing to say, so why not avoid trying to say it?
And yes, he can win (or could). All he has to do is actually make progress, but I’m seeing a constant stream fo stories condemning him for ignoring considerable help or solutions. He doesn’t have to whip up a magic solution out of thin air: he does have to work day-by-day on the problem. He’s not. Making speeches, however plain or grandiose, does not actually do anything.
No, that would be an idiot. Maybe an idiot with all kinds of inspirational mojo and charisma, but still an idiot.
How many people do we have trained in this sort of thing? The oil itself is toxic enough, the dispersant added to the soup just adds to the fun. We got haz-mat suits for everybody? How about respirators? By the way, have you ever worn a respirator when its inching up towards one hundred degrees and the humidity is Calcutta-esque?
Scooping tar balls out of sand or washing off animals doesn’t require any skill and is labor intensive. Given the length of shoreline involved there can’t be too many volunteers for these jobs.
Tar balls in sand is likely going to be the very least of our problems. But I’m pleased to hear that if you were handed an oiled brown pelican and a bottle of Dawn you’re ready to go. Where you will you stay, once you get there? Got your meal vouchers? Got your respirators? Ever worn a respirator in June, July, and August on the Gulf Coast?
I’ve worn a respirator for a very mildly toxic situation, in temperatures up to about 85. Its a bitch. A dust respirator isn’t going to cut it, you need one for toxic fumes, basically, a gas mask.
You’re just like Clinton, and, apparently, Obama. Nothing can be done because if you try to do something, there will be problems. And difficulty!
(And possibly even worse - discomfort!) :rolleyes:
Kennedy had people joining the Peace Corp and wearing their feet to bloody, blister-laden nubs attempting to walk fifty miles in a day for fitness.
I’m confident that some types of Peace Corp duty was both more uncomfortable and long-lasting than whatever difficulty volunteers might face in trying to clean up damage from the oil spill.
But yeah, if you want to waffle and whinge and do nothing because doing something might be dangerous or uncomfortable, then pull up a chair and two-finger a beer with Barry and commiserate with each other over how evil oil companies are and how much this situation “enrages” you.
But good grief, this is the most powerful, resource-laden country on the face of the earth! Do you honestly mean to tell me we lack the resources, financing and organization ability to marshall sufficient forces and equipment to work to stop this leak and get the mess it’s causing cleaned up?
“Paralyzation by analyzation.” It defined Carter and Clinton, and now it’s apparently found an even more comfortable home in Barack Obama.
Oh…this just in. Now we can’t even protect 80 miles of our border from Mexican drug gangs. Cite
Cripes, I want my country back! :mad:
(And the first person who claims I want a return to racism can kiss…well, you get the idea!) :rolleyes:
And yet it needs to be done and using volunteers is the best way to do it.
I’m not sure you’re grasping the concept of volunteering. A volunteer is someone who gives of their free time. Schools are out so it’s a great time to tap into college kids looking to do a good deed. If this was closer to home I would drive down on the weekends which is something people in the area are certainly doing now.
I have no idea where you get the idea that washing a bird requires a gas mask.
My apologies, elucidator. Your posts really didn’t justify that kind of response. I think psychiatrists call what I just did “transference”. Again, my apologies.
