Grade Barack Obama on his handling to-date of the Gulf Gusher.

[branders seine]

[stray cat]

1. the person doing the grading is usually the one with the correct answer

so how will you the teacher fix the problem besides yelling you won't take it anymore.

[branders seine]

2. 'A'?

Really?

I doubt even Obama would give himself more than a "C."

[gateley]

3. C -- I think he's done way more than we're aware of, but he needs to keep us

better apprised. I know there's info on the WH site, but since we're all chomping at the bit, I think there would be less criticism if he would have called a press conference and laid it out for us.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

6. That's my assertion as well.

[mvd]

44. My thoughts, too

President Obama has at least been on top of this unlike Bush with Katrina.

[DrDan]

4. are we still bleeding oil? Good grades are rarely a result of "trying really hard"

usually more a matter of "succeeding"

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Omar4Dems]

5. Wow, he scores lower here than on Free Republic

nt

[branders seine]

9. That's because a few people here still have standards.

[William Z. Foster]

27. I would certainly hope so

I would certainly hope that there were far more support here for federalizing this operation and far more opposition to it being privatized than there would be at Free Republic.

And this surprises you? Why is that?

[mzteris]

31. that's cause so many of "them"

are over "here" :(

[Cant trust em]

7. This grading sucks, because there's not much Obama can do.

It's really frustrating, but the government has practically no technical ability to stop the gusher.

That being said, I can't really say that their "response" has been good.

This whole situation totally, completely, abhorrently sucks.

[Bluebear]

10. How about stopping BP from using toxic dispersants?

The EPA told them to stop, BP said "piss off" and that was the end of that.

[quaker bill]

40. They are all toxic

some perhaps less than others.

[Bluebear]

48. I still would favor less toxicity

[William Z. Foster]

21. such an anti-government position

Why do we keep hearing that "the government has practically no technical ability." That is not a legitimate argument against the government being involved. That is not what we have government for.

How did such an extreme right wing libertarian anti-government talking point get such popularity here among Democrats?

The government - and only the government - has the power and authority, and I believe the duty and responsibility, to locate and assemble and deploy any and all expertise and equipment, no matter where or who it is, and to see to it that public welfare is protected.

Were that not true, there would be no point in even having any government at all.

This talking point is simply false, obviously false - that we must choose between using available expertise and equipment OR having the government in control.

Why is such an obviously illogical and false talking point being posted hundreds of times here?

People cannot defend or support this talking point, they merely repeat it, get angry, or try to attack or undermine the credibility of anyone challenging it.

[Cant trust em]

22. There's a lot of vague talk about what the government's response should look like

"The president should mobilize all available resources to solve the problem."

Such as?

I see your point from a philosophical stand point, but based on what the government currently does, they are unable to stop the gusher. They do not have the technology to do it. If you know specifically other things that they could be doing, please let me know. Please let the President know. This could be a valuable lesson moving forward, but I'm not sure what we could be doing in the short term.

[William Z. Foster]

24. no vague talk here

The government does not need to "stop the gusher." That is not the role of the government.

Why can we not nationalize the response immediately? What would be the harm? What would be lost? I believe - I know, and ALL Democrats should now that there would be great gains - but what are these great dangers people imagine, what are they afraid of?

Any equipment or personnel now being used will continue to be used - and more. Any efforts now going on will continue - and more.

Of course I don't know what specifically can be done. I didn't have to know specifically how to get to the moon to support NASA, and nor did anyone in the government.

Are people really this ignorant of and antagonistic to the very concept of government?

[Cant trust em]

25. I was really hoping you would give me an article you read or something.

About a tactic that could be used that would actually solve the problem. What you're talking about is who is running the show. I want to hear about some kind of technology that could be used that if the government were more heavily involved could be put into use.

What is really missing here? I have a tough time believing that this disaster has been going on for over a month and the only piece to the puzzle was that government should be managing a normally private operation

[William Z. Foster]

26. thanks

I really appreciate the exchange. Thank you.

Of course the missing piece is the government aggressively protecting the public interest, and using its power and authority to assemble the resources and personnel needed, to get the help from other countries needed, to set priorities and enforce compliance and accountability, to coordinate and organize, control and direct the project. The government can do this, and has done this many times. I am amazed that the right wing propaganda has so weakened people's faith in government, to the point that I am not sure they know what government even is, what the point of having a government might be.

That is the same missing piece everywhere we look, and is the root cause of all of the problems we are facing, by the way.

I am surprised that the examples of NASA, the USRA, the WPB, the CCC, the responses to emergencies from the past, the New Deal, the TVA, the Hoover dam, and on and on and on do not mean anything to people.

[Cant trust em]

28. I also appreciate the exchange. I like discussion.

Like I said, I agree with you on a philosophical level of government being more involved in the private sector's business. I'm just thinking about solutions that could be done in the immediate future. The examples you gave about NASA, CCC, Hoover Dam, etc. were all long-term projects that took years of planning and engineering. Under extreme emergency circumstances that we're in, how are we going to plug this well? BTW, I'm referring most specifically to the deep-water well that keeps spewing. I'm not talking about the clean-up, which I do believe we have the capability to solve.

I don't know if you're watching Olbermann right now, but he has on the former president of Shell Oil and they're talking about the technical stuff that I'm thinking about.

[William Z. Foster]

30. no

It did not take years to start those projects. They all moved along much faster once they were nationalized than they would have if left to private hands. Nothing that was already happening came to a screeching halt.

The FIRST thing government can do is to move things along faster, to find out who needs what and to get it to them, to coordinate and expedite things.

The idea that if the government took over everything else would stop, and that is would take a long time is yet another right wing anti-government idea.

I am not talking philosophy, I am talking action, and this is an emergency. The fact that it is an emergency is an argument FOR government control over the operation, not against government control over the operation.

I will give you but one small example, of hundreds and hundreds, from history. During the Civil War, there were difficulties supplying the two Union armies in Chattanooga and Knoxville from the supply bases in Nashville. A triangular one track rail line connected the three locations. Grant took charge, and immediately decreed that all trains would run counter-clockwise and one direction only. The bottleneck was immediately relieved, and supply deliveries increased dramatically on the first day. Left to the private companies running the railroads - who had no incentive to worry about anything other than themselves, it would not have happened. Did Grant have any expertise about railroading? No. Did Grant have any equipment? No. What Grant did have was the power and authority of the federal government, and a responsibility to the public welfare rather than to share holders.

[Cant trust em]

32. Your example doesn't quite fit the situation we're in right now.

The sense I get is not that we need to improve coordination, or to even marshal resources. It's that we don't know exactly what to do about the leaking well.

If the problem were that corporations were competing to solve it and messing up each other's efforts, then nationalizing the situation would make perfect sense. If we have a problem that we don't know how to solve, putting someone else in charge of the problem doesn't solve it.

[William Z. Foster]

33. of course

No situation exactly fits this one. But of course the same was true of the various projects I have described at the time they were undertaken.

No argument for government action could ever pass the various tests people are applying to it, no matter what the circumstances were.

I don't know what else to say. There seems to be some sort of deep-seated aversion to government, and confidence in corporations, that is just impossible to overcome. It is as though people are in some hypnotic trance.

"We don't know how to solve the problem and that is the barrier" is BP's public relations spin on this. Can you not see that? You are letting them define the problem for you, and define it in a way that leads you to think "oh well, the government can do nothing, so best leave it to BP." BP was previously saying that it could be solved. BP is saying whatever will serve their needs and interests. Of course. Pacifying the public is one of BP's goals. We have people right here saying "there is nothing to be done so we may as well face reality and accept it." Should someone say "wlel let's bring the full might and authority of the federal government in and SEE is nothing can be done, they just keep repeating, as if in a trance - "nothing can be done, nothing can be done, nothing can be done." If you persist in questioning that they get angry - "NOTHING CAN BE DONE! WHAT PART OF THAT DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND? WHAT KIND OF MORON ARE YOU?" and start attacking them or trying to undermine the credibility of the person questioning the "nothing can be done" mantra

It is bad enough that people are bowing down to and worshiping authority with so little questioning, but it is corporations that are the authority they are meekly submitting to. How do we overcome that?

Many outrageous ideas and absurd and illogical arguments have been floated into the political discussion over the last few years. But I think that the anti-government arguments that are being promoted about the Gulf disaster are the worst of any of them. People are counseling, advising what amounts to social suicide, total surrender to corporate power, and telling us to go meekly to our fate. It is extremely alarming and disturbing.

[Cant trust em]

34. Which brings me back to my original question.

You're clearly a well read person who has a lot of knowledge. If you've seen a technical solution to what could be done in any article, blog, TV or radio show, please let me know. If there are experts out there who have solutions that aren't being heard, I would love to hear what they have to say. Maybe the media is keeping them silent, but the situation looks pretty bleak.

I'm not coming at this from an anti-government standpoint. I just want results, but I've yet to hear anyone come up with a concrete solution.

[William Z. Foster]

35. where are we misconnecting here?

I am puzzled.

Why are you obsessing over a "technical solution?" I am saying that getting to a technical solution, if there is one, requires government command and control of this operation rather than laving it to BP. You are not hearing that. I don't understand why.

You said we are in too much of a hurry to nationalize this. Now you say we can't do anything until we have a technical solution. Too much of a hurry doing what, if we don't have a solution, and if it all depends on having a solution? That is illogical.

Let's have the government mobilize all resources and personnel, and take charge of all of that. Then maybe we will find out if there is a technical solution or not.

Nothing is lost by that approach. Nothing that is already happening need stop, nothing will be set back. What is the problem?

This is one of the most mysterious things I have ever encountered.

People are actually arguing both of these two points -

This:

"You are just impatient, that is why you are demanding nationalizing the operation. This is going to take a long time, so you need to accept it, and there may be no solution."

and this:

"We have no time to nationalize the project. We can't wait around, this is an emergency. Besides, the government has no solution."

Those two talking points contradict each other, yes people are going back and forth between using each of them.

[Cant trust em]

37. Speed isn't really the issue.

Framing this is a speed or an efficiency problem is like saying that BP is trying to dig a hole with 1 shovel, whereas we really need 10 shovels to do the job properly. The government should just buy the additional 9 shovels and then we'd be set.

What I'm saying is that we need to dig a hole so deep that we need to invent some crazy new contraption.

Yes, I think we're having a massive disconnect here.

BTW, maddening as it is to have someone misunderstand your point, this has been a fun discussion.

[William Z. Foster]

38. I see

Well, we don't really know what is happening nor what the options are - or at least we cannot trust that we have the complete and accurate story. That is because control over the response to the crisis has been privatized.

There is more to the problem than capping the well.

[Cant trust em]

41. Alright. I think we're on the same page now.

For the record, I don't think that nationalizing the problem can hurt the effort. It can only help. I just don't see it as the silver bullet solution that we've been looking for.

I agree that there is more to the problem than capping the well, however I think that is the biggest part of the problem.

Then there's the cleanup. Then there's a new regulatory structure.

As Ned Flanders would say, we sure are in one dilly of a pickle.

[Loge23]

8. C - Capable of better work.

I think his rhetoric is right, but....it's just rhetoric.
I'd like to see him take a much higher profile down there. I do not necessarily advocate a governement takeover of the disaster, I don't think the government is equipped for that.
I would like to see strong regulatory measures adopted and complete accountability laid at BP's doorste by Barack.
This will not end well, either way.

[branders seine]

11. How about I

for impotent

[Blue_In_AK]

12. BP should be shut down

and its chief officers under arrest right now.

[jayfish]

13. At The Very Least...

their assets in the US should be frozen and seized. Their leases should be terminated and they should be barred from acquiring new ones.

FSH

[Bluebear]

46. You said it

[Upton]

14. Obama should have been out front on this

from the beginning..riding herd on BP, holding thier feet to the fire. Instead, he's stood in the background and allowed BP to continue with the destruction of the Gulf. They're basically just flipping him off when they lie about the seriousness of the leak and refuse EPA directives. And yet somehow, they are still in charge..

Why doesn't President Obama lay the law down to BP and stop screwing around? This is an emergency!

[branders seine]

19. It is clear which way the power flows in the relationship

between Obama and any major corporation.

He is their creature.

[Swamp Rat]

15. F

Those of you who do not understand this grade, will understand soon enough.

[jus_the_facts]

23. I totally concur Swampy,,,,

:pals:

[Catherina]

36. Latèt lou Swampy. Mon kèr krévé krier . Krévé de chagrin. Toi pas seul. F n/t

Y’na moun ki laim pa lavi. Ye blijé péyé pou ça-ki yé té fait.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQhuQRlNpwQ

:hug:

[Swamp Rat]

43. i will change this grade if obama gives me some real hope real soon

we are running out of time... BP is killing us. :cry:

[Bluebear]

47. +

[lostnfound]

16. Incomplete

I don't know what he has up his sleeve, so I'll refrain from grading. But thus far the progress report ain't looking good.

[tavalon]

18. President Obama has failed to attend class frequently

and while he may be doing the homework, he isn't very good at sharing with the rest of the class. He's very intelligent and just doesn't seem to be living up to his potential. I hope to see much better attendance next semester. As well, it would be a good thing if he decided to stop hanging out behind the school with the corporations.

[Bluebear]

20. You win the internets!

[Warren Stupidity]

29. This remains a teachable moment, but so far Obama does

not appear to have the fire in his belly to seize the initiative and use this moment to change the course we are on. On the other hand, there is little that the administration can do directly to fix the problem, we do not have the expertise, nor do we have the equipment, and neither does BP, as has become painfully obvious. 'D'. Our government's conduct over the last 30 years of the Reagan Counter-Revolution gets an F.

[WeDidIt]

39. Amazingly similar results

To multiple DU polls on healthcare.

No surprises here.

[Lorien]

42. Unreccs are coming in quickly

obviously there are those who hope the results of this poll won't be noticed.

[Bluebear]

45. It certainly is illuminating since everyone gets one vote

[flamingdem]

49. The OUTRAGE by Carvelle and many other pundits is a DECADE LATE and a BILLION short

They never gave a crap about the environment, so many haven't, but now they have SO MUCH TO SAY.