• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Ron Paul: Obama facing too much blame on oil spill

Slartibartfast

Jesus loves you.
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
71,655
Reaction score
58,021
Location
NE Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Ron Paul: Obama facing too much blame on oil spill - The Hill's Blog Briefing Room

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.
 
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.

Why? Why is that his personal responsibility? Should he also sit in during police investigations into a burglary?
 
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.
 
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?
 
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.

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:
 
So what did Obama do incorrectly?

Nothing. Nothing at all...LOL!!!

17 countries and 4 international orginizations offered assistance. Wanna guess how many of those offers were accepted.
 
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:

Why did Obama allow burning, starting day 1? Why didn't Obama allow sand berms to be built 3 weeks ago? Did Obama use all his new international credibility to lease super tanker vaccum ships from overseas, like what was used in the Persian Gulf a few years back? No, he didn't do any of that. Is it because he couldn't allow a Republican governer to be the hero, or because he just a ****ing idiot?
 
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 don't think Ron Paul said President Obama doesn't deserve any blame, but rather all the blame he is getting is unjustified. Paul said that the President could have done more after the spill happened, but the idea the American people have that the President can do everything is why he doesn't deserve all the blame.
 
My garbage can is getting full, needs to be taken to the dumpster. WHY WONT OBAMA DO ANYTHING?
 
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.

Which regulations would those be?
 
Paul is right here. Blaming Obama for something that is clearly BP's responsibility (and BP's responsibility to fix) is just another instance of government-worship. People are so obsessed with the idea that the president can fix anything and that the government should handle everything, that even when an issue clearly is the complete and total responsibility of the private sector, they bash the president. Maybe instead of bashing Obama for "doing nothing" we should be grateful that the man has decided not to overstep his bounds and place the responsibility and cost of the leak on the tax payer.
 
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:

In all fairness, BP itself is having trouble coming up with ways to seal the leak so saying to someone else that they have no right to criticize because they have no solution is what's "hilarious". I don't think anyone blames Obama for the actual spill, but he can certainly cut through the red tape!! Speaking of solutions, you offered none either. What would be yours???
 
I do think Obama is getting too much criticism. Not that he doesn't deserve a fair amount, but I think it is a bit over blown how much criticism he's getting, primarily from those on the right and right wing political outlets.

That said, I thought Bush got far too much of the criticism and blame for Katrina as well even though he did deserve a fair amount. It too was massively overblown primarily by those on the left and by most of the left leaning media outlets.

While I would say Bush was a bit bigger of an issues than Obama's, I also think there were far more guilty government parties in Bush's case then there are in Obama's. In both cases I think they reacted a bit poorly in their public presentation of it, both with Obama manipulating it to take even more political shots and jabs at the Bush Administration and trying to play the blame game as he's been doing for his entire Presidency and Bush with his "Browne" comments and unintelligent public presentation by remaining at his ranch.
 
Back
Top Bottom