- Joined
- Jan 8, 2010
- Messages
- 72,126
- Reaction score
- 58,861
- Location
- NE Ohio
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
President Barack Obama won a defense of his handling of the Gulf of Mexico oil spill from one GOP congressman on Thursday.
Rep. Ron Paul, the libertarian Republican lawmaker from Texas, said that people were expecting too much from the president in his ability to react to the ongoing spill into the Gulf.
"I'm a pretty big critic of the president," Paul said during an appearance on "Imus in the Morning" on the Fox Business Network, "but I just don't see the justification for coming down hard on the president."
"I think it represents the idea that the American people think the president is everything to everybody that he should fix an oil leak," Paul added.
Some lawmakers, including many Republicans, have questioned the administration's responsiveness to the spill, as well as whether the administration has been aggressive enough in pushing BP, the oil company that leases the leaking pipeline, to end the flow gushing into the Gulf.
But Paul suggested that there was little the president could do personally to end the spill, arguing that Obama could do more to help out with the spill and the cleanup by clearing out and waiving federal regulations so that governors of the states affected by the spill have more leeway in addressing cleanup efforts.
Of course he is not responsible for the Oil spill and subsequent pollution of the Gulf and where it makes landfall, neither is he responsible for stopping the leak.
But he is very much responsible for overseeing the efforts to clear up the mess that has been created and he is very much responsible for enforcement of any and all regulations regarding fossil fuel production within the US.
I don't normally agree with Ron Paul on much, but I think he is right on the money with this one.
People try and equate this as being similar to Katrina, but I do not see many similarities at all.
1. There is no humanitarian crises (yet). People are not in jeopardy of dying if help is not immediately rendered. Timeliness is important, but not to the point that it is measured in hours like it was in Katrina.
2. The nature of the problem is different. With Katrina, you had flooding, which is a problem that required a well understood response. With this oil spill, it is largely an engineering problem. Being a person in a technical profession myself, I understand that sometimes difficult problems simply take time and work. Especially if it is a new problem.
3. Personally, I am glad that Obama is not getting too involved. If he were to go down there, than resources would have to be diverted away from the problem and towards his protection or other needs. I felt the same way about Bush and Katrina. The main focus should be the problem, not the appearance of leadership, which can be done in Washington due to the wonderful invention that is the telephone system and internet.
4. One similarity is that ultimately the problem was caused by lack of government effort. In the case of Katrina, the levees should have been reinforced a long time ago. In the case of the oil spill, we should have had more effective regulation.
It's hillarious to watch the Obama-apologists come out in force with all these reasons why Obama should just sit on his ass and let things go to ****.
Obama didn't do anything because he wanted this to grow into a full blown disaster, so he can push his green agenda, which he's already doing with his, "see? I told'ya so", speeches.
He couldn't sit back and allow a Republican governer and potential presidential nominee be the hero of the Gulf Coast.
Obama didn't carry any of the Gulf states, anyway, so what does he care? He's not losing any votes.
He sure as hell couldn't accept help from 17 countries and 4 international orginizations, making him look like a complete incompetent. I guess he figgered it was better to look partially incompetent than completely incompetent.
Apologize for PBO all you want, but he ****ed the dog on this one.
So what did Obama do incorrectly?
Actually whats "hilarious," is hearing those that offer zero solutions to problems themselves, pretend to have the cred to critisize those that actually doing something about them in the real world. But keep on screaming for that which you couldn't do for yourself if your life depended on it. It SO very productive.
:roll:
I like Ron Paul a lot, but this is one of those instances where I have to disagree with him. It IS Obama's fault, since he chose not to restore the regulation that Bush gutted, in regard to the oil companies.
I like Ron Paul a lot, but this is one of those instances where I have to disagree with him. It IS Obama's fault, since he chose not to restore the regulation that Bush gutted, in regard to the oil companies.
Actually whats "hilarious," is hearing those that offer zero solutions to problems themselves, pretend to have the cred to critisize those that actually doing something about them in the real world. But keep on screaming for that which you couldn't do for yourself if your life depended on it. It SO very productive.
:roll:
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?