Is Obama Risking Everything By Going Along With BP?

[John317]

James Carville Takes On Obama On Oil Spill: He's 'Risking Everything' With 'Go Along With BP Strategy'

Democratic strategist James Carville and MSNBC anchor Chris Matthews, two reliable supporters of President Barack Obama, have issued withering critiques of the administration's handling of the Gulf oil spill.

Carville, the famously outspoken Louisianian who was a chief political aide to Bill and Hillary Clinton, told CNN's Anderson Cooper on Thursday that the administration's response to the spill has been "lackadaisical" and that Obama was "naive" to trust BP to manage the massive clean-up effort.

"I think they actually believe that BP has some kind of a good motivation here," he said. "They're naive! BP is trying to save money, save everything they can... They won't tell us anything, and oddly enough, the government seems to be going along with it! Somebody has got to, like shake them and say, 'These people don't wish you well! They're going to take you down!'"

Carville also accused the White House of going along with what he called the "let BP handle it" strategy.

"I'm as good a Democrat as most people, and I think this administration has done some good things. They are risking everything by this 'go along with BP' strategy they have that seems like, lackadaisical on this, and Doug is right, they seem like they're inconvenienced by this, this is some giant thing getting in their way and somehow or another, if you let BP handle it, it'll all go away. It's not going away. It's growing out there. It is a disaster of the first magnitude, and they've got to go to Plan B."

Likewise, Chris Matthews argued during a "Tonight Show" appearance that the President was "acting a little like a Vatican Observer."

"The President scares me," he said. "When is he actually going to do something? And I worry; I know he doesn't want to take ownership of it. I know politics. He said the minute he says, 'I'm in charge,' he takes the blame, but somebody has to. It's in our interest."

The Obama administration has thus far avoided the political backlash that President George W. Bush faced in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, in part by comprehensively documenting its actions in the Gulf and staying on message ("Fully engaged since Day One...").

But crude oil has now been erupting into the Gulf of Mexico for over a month, and the sense that the Obama administration is treating the spill as an urgent national emergency has diminished even as the impact of the disaster has magnified. Not until yesterday, critics note, a full 30 days after the oil rig explosion, did federal officials establish a technical team to measure the full extent of the spill.

Until now, the vast bulk of clean-up responsibilities have been left to BP, which isn't much closer to capping the oil leak now than it was weeks ago. The oil has already affected nearly 50 miles of sensitive marshlands on the Louisiana coastline, according to estimates by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association, and federal authorities have increased the no-fishing zone to 45,728 square miles in the Gulf of Mexico.

BP has consistently downplayed the severity of the spill despite growing evidence that suggests otherwise, and their strategy to clean up the spill has involved the use of a toxic chemical dispersant that EPA officials warn may cause lasting damage to coastal ecosystems.

The EPA has now given BP 24 hours to begin using a less toxic dispersant, but Carville says the government's primary failure was trusting BP to handle the clean-up in the first place.

"Right now I wouldn't trust BP to do anything," he said. "And nobody does."

[Guest]

Is he trusting BP, or is he directing BP? After his press conference, you have to ask yourself, which one is it?

[Neil D]

Is he trusting BP, or is he directing BP? After his press conference, you have to ask yourself, which one is it?

Yeah, I'd like to know too.....

But there is a third possiblity.....

I've always been told that it takes a massive amount of evergy to get goverment moving ...in any direction....and that it takes a massive amount of energy to stop what it has been doing....

It may be that you don't understand the internal workings of goverment, that you can't understand it.... teehe

[Bravus]

The assumption behind Carville's comments, of course, is that it's possible for *someone* to stop this leak. It just may not be. Anyone who thinks BP is *not* trying their absolute hardest, with the absolute best possible people, to get this stopped, knows nothing about business. What's happening to BP's share price and international reputation?

Ironically, it's those on the right who believe government can do nothing right and private enterprise is the answer to everything that are now demanding the government get involved. Why? Not to solve the problem, but to transfer the blame for a private company's shortcuts and lack of accountability onto the Obama administration in order to cause political damage.

If you guys were at all consistent to principle, you'd be calling on the government to stay out of the way and let private enterprise do its job.

(I don't care that James Carville used to be a Democrat, what he mainly is now is a media shill. He is also one of the very many people who are flailing around, seeking a solution that may not exist.)

The best way to avert this disaster was (a) avoid offshore drilling, particularly deep offshore drilling and ( shore up and enforce safety regulations and oversight. And, again, it has been those on the right who have been the biggest cheerleaders for offshore drilling and for deregulation.

Nice attempt to score political points, boys, but those of us with longer memories and our eyes open aren't buying.

[John317]

Bravus, I agree with most of your post. I believe BP is really trying to stop the oil leak. And I favor the government staying out, although of course it should be watching the situation carefully, as it should anything important to the nation. But I don't believe the Federal government should take over the management of the situation, which is how President Obama expressed it.

[Bravus]

I definitely agree that that was a silly thing to say. As I may have said here before, I've been disappointed with Obama in a number of ways and for a number of reasons.

I think he's in that political bind of needing to be seen to be doing something...

[John317]

I think Obama realizes he has to deal with the American people, and that means not always doing what he would like to do if he was completely free to do those things. So in a way, he is just having to contend with the political and social realities. A first-time presidential candidate doesn't have to do that.

Unless things turn around big time-- especially the economy-- I don't see President Obama as having a second term.

He got elected because of the Indepenents and Republicans who voted for him, but I can't see him getting those behind him this next time.

When he was elected, I hoped he would do well, because his failing to make good decisions can only be bad for the US and ultimately for the world.

[phkrause]

I do have to agree with you and Bravus government should not be involed but they should be monitering the situation. Which as far as I have observed they have been. And I know I've mentioned it before, like Bravus said most don't want the government involved but as soon as it benefits them they are crying why is government not involved.

pk

[Bravus]

Maybe. I'm still not convinced. I think that (a) who do the Republicans have to run against him? None of the front-runners are remotely inspiring, and the Tea Party is already splitting the vote on the right and ( I'm not convinced that people who elected him to do certain things, while frustrated that he hasn't done them quickly enough, are willing to turn around and vote for people who'd do exactly the opposite things. (The same thing pertains to Prime Minister Rudd in Australia, where we have an election coming up later this year.)

I'm happy to be proved wrong by the facts, but personally I'd be surprised if President Obama *doesn't* get a second term.

[bonnie]

I do have to agree with you and Bravus government should not be involed but they should be monitering the situation. Which as far as I have observed they have been. And I know I've mentioned it before, like Bravus said most don't want the government involved but as soon as it benefits them they are crying why is government not involved.

pk

Not entirely true. The dislike of government involvement is the intrusion into our lives and private businessess.

The government has no right owning 60% of the auto industry,wanting to control 100% of our health care,monitoring the salt we eat etc.

The founding of this country was based on limited government,not all intrusive government.

No one has said the government has no role. That is a extreme some use to try to prove a point.

The government does not need to be "involved" to give the requesting states what they need to proceed to protect their marshlands and beaches.

Obama can do nothing about the leak,that is fairly obvious. Even when he "misleads" and says they are.

His chest thumping bully boy statements as "we are keeping our boot on the throat of BP" makes him look less than presidential to many people.

Are we to be foolish enough to believe without tough guy Obama BP would be sitting there playing cards?

Regardless if it was carelessness or simply a mistake Obama is not the one that forced BP to already payout millions and millions in damages to businesses etc.They will pay a lot more without Obama's boot on their throat.That will be up to the courts and the damages caused.

[bonnie]

The assumption behind Carville's comments, of course, is that it's possible for *someone* to stop this leak. It just may not be. Anyone who thinks BP is *not* trying their absolute hardest, with the absolute best possible people, to get this stopped, knows nothing about business. What's happening to BP's share price and international reputation?

[Guest]

Yep