We need a Presidential Crisis Center. A plea from the Gulf.

[skip fox]

If Obama would treat the crisis as a real catastrophe he would do well to consider creating a Presidential Crisis Center like a mini-Manhattan Project (but highly public) which would:

--Fly in experts on the wetlands, on health, on oil flow, on cleanup, etc., as well as the best engineers and lawyers (especially to coordinate the various states with claims) and house them in one area. (In a city along the Gulf . . . The best knowledge comes of being in the area, not treating isolated problems from behind desks at various univeristies.)

--Be housed in a large enough building that all the best minds will be under a single roof (or small area) and can intermingle, brainstorm, etc.

--Have a core division which would work on nothing but streamlining (cutting red tape, getting things dones, etc.) and have the head of that division in constant contact with the governors of the Gulf states.

--Have partially public video conferences with Obama and the heads of all divisions weekly.

--House fairly regular presidential visits with high exposure.

This is not theater! (At least in large part, but it would definitely help him politically. And an essential job of a politician is to become elected or re-elected.)

Various experts living close together in the area will creatively come up with more effective and efficient solutions to the myriad problems that will surface over the next several months or years.

Let BP pay!

(The division on streamlining, headed by a Ken Feinberg-quality administrator, is essential both politically and pragmatically.)


June 20
Lafayette, LA

[Autumn]

1. I think that would help quite a bit,

and it makes a lot of sense. K/R but its still at zero

[skip fox]

3. On the last comment: there are lots of children out there. . . little nodes of negatively

As an old prof, I'm used to petulance as well as peevishness, militant ignorance, self-righteous hypocrisy, etc. No big deal.

The "unrecommend" might have been the occasion for some blip of self-satisfaction. It probably came from the person (or persons) who do this to me with a degree of regularity. The first time I flowed this idea they called me an idiot for thinking Obama was losing popularity in his handling, saying I listened to Fox News too much. They quit making this complaint when they started looking at facts. Now they just "unrecommend" as compensation for being wrong. Well, they have their reward.

[Flying Dream Blues]

2. K&R

[skip fox]

4. Florida seems to be working along these lines. Why not the federal government?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4434367

[Empathic_1]

5. Agree wholeheartedly.

Should have been implemented long ago.

[TomCADem]

6. That sounds more theatric to be honest. More experts equals results? Paralysis by analysis.

Look at Congress and the House of Representatives. Does adding more people to deliberate improve decision making or not? If Obama did what you proposed, I would be very worried, because it just sounds like he is creating another mega-commission that is even more unwieldy.

The Manhattan Project reference underscores the problem. First, the Manhattan Project evolved over several years. Second, why fly-in lawyers to be in the same room with engineers, in the same room with marine biologists? It may create interesting optics, which is why it sounds theatrical, but does it move the ball forward?

Finally, at the State level, you do need some of the State actors, like Haley Barbour, to stop denying the existence of a disaster, and doing things on the ground to prevent damage. Likewise, look at Lousiana. President Obama authorized Bobby Jindal to call-up the National Guard with BP paying the costs, but for all his posturing, Bobby Jindal is now sitting on the authority that he demanded. He just needs to do it.

[skip fox]

8. Hour after hour in this area one hears of idled equipment, methane gas, chaos and confusion amid

deaf ears.

A Crisis Center would make it worse? Highly unlikely. (I can't stress that enough.)

Obama needs to take charge not like a lawyer but like a general, not having Central Command at the Pentagon, but in theater, not split up but centralized as much as possible.

These things can be done and America has wildly succeeded at doing them. (It's not bad to be suspicious of government, but too much of this leads us to ignore what it can do. We're not wing-nuts, after all.)

[skip fox]

12. addendum: we see this all day every day:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6rTz6w0uuF4&feature=player_embedded

[NNN0LHI]

7. Some anti-big gubmint teabagger would just blow it up or fly a plane into it

Be like trying to protect the Green Zone.

Don

[skip fox]

9. There is, of course, always that.

Which could keep us from doing anything if we let it.

[skip fox]

10. Yes we can!

It's easy to be an idealist if we don't have to mind the evidence. But did we come here(as humans, as people interested in the nature of the human and politics &c) for ease?

Fox and the negative right wingers will yet at anything ("He doesn't do anything." "He strong-arms people like a Chicago thug!" etc.), so the hell with what they will say.

[Radical Activist]

11. Not this shit again.

Picking a nice office building and distracting people with the hassle of frequent Presidential visits isn't going to solve anything.

I get the feeling that if Obama were to do everything any pundit demanded, we would still be told that all offices should be using RED staplers instead of normal black ones if Obama took this seriously.

[skip fox]

13. So very thoughtful.

[Radical Activist]

14. If you've ever helped manage a Presidential visit somewhere

you would realize what a large undertaking it is, and you would realize what a wasteful misuse of attention, resources, and manpower it would be. There's nothing to gain from it but publicity for Obama. It would only detract from what really needs to be done.

[skip fox]

15. As an old prof. and literary scholar, I distrust the theatrical. Obama as a legal

scholar must look askance at trial lawyers who stir up emotions and rely on what these lawyers seem to to think is the simplistic emotions of juries. (Undoubtedly there are many trial lawyers who distrust this type of lawyer as well. I have a number of colleagues who I feel similar about.)

These are the niceties.

But the practicality is that Obama needs to get re-elected. (Not just for himself, look at the current mindless lock-step of the Republican Party and imagine what they would likely give us. Much many hang in balance.)

But I offer my suggestion not just for political reasons but for pragmatic ones. Where was European Allied Command in WWII, in DC? Is there not a depth of understanding when one is in the presence of a situation as opposed to hearing about it over the screen or on the phone?

Perhaps you don't recognize the scope of this disaster. Perhaps I over estimate it. (I hope so.) But everything indicates that it is going to be more massive than we've witnessed. Perhaps the Dust Bowl was greater. It seems like this will be comparable.

What then is the best course? (See link on the video above or go to DU homepage and see the video of what we see constantly down here.) I think it justifies and even requires a large scale, visible, intelligent and efficient response, which coincides with a way in which Obama might turn around his polls numbers, mitigate the mid-term damage, and possibly strengthen his chances for re-election (which, frankly, has weakened significantly over the past two months).

I’ve said my peace.