Giving the opening statement for Republicans at today's BP hearing, Rep. Joe Barton (R-Tex.), the ranking member of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, vigorously defended the company in the wake of Wednesday's compromise on an escrow fund to pay for damages from its broken oil well in the Gulf of Mexico.
"It is a tragedy of the first proportion that a private corporation can be subjected to what I would characterize as a shakedown," said Barton, "in this case a $20 billion shakedown."
Barton, who holds a safe seat in Texas, is saying what the leading edge of tea partyers and conservatives are saying -- no matter whether it's good politics, his first worry about the response to the disaster is that it will empower the federal government. Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) said this to me on Tuesday, and Dick Armey said it to me yesterday when I told him about the $20 billion compromise.
"It fascinates me," said Armey. "I'm fascinated with it. I'm against it -- there is no doubt that BP has resititution to make, but there is something called due process through the legitimate judicial branch of government through which these things should be adjudicated."
How many of the assembled here would like to see the federal government's position as "We should apologize to BP for Obama trying to make them pay for claims" for the "little people" out there? Seriously, if the Republicans and most importantly the guys behind the Tea Party movement like Dick Armey and faces like Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann are taking BP's side here just to attack Obama, then they are in real, real trouble. Joe Barton has taken a lot of oil money and it shows. I'm pretty sure if you asked the people in his district, they wouldn't want to apologize to BP.
You don't get to play the populist card any longer when you take the position opposite of the populists, and one that embraced by both the left and the right. Obama has fumbled the ball on the response to BP, but if the GOP is really going to back BP on this disaster, they are going to pay for it dearly at the polls. "Accidents happen" just doesn't cut it. People are really pissed off about this.
Suddenly, Obama's position doesn't look so damn awful anymore. Thanks Republicans!
Posts
9 comments:
I haven't read about this yet, did others in the party back him up in this? If so then pretty fail, I actually liked this move on Obama's part. Feds aren't just doling out BP's money and BP isn't being stingy.
As we've learned from folks like Charlie Rangel and Alan Grayson for example, you can't group the entire party together by the actions of a few.
And we all know Bachman is an idiot, shes in the same category with Steve King...
(In before the t-man libertarian QQ)
ok. go post it on a conservative blog.
As a matter of fact the Republican Study Committee, the GOP conservative House caucus, called this a "Chicago-style shakedown" yesterday.
There's 117 Republicans on that committee, including Barton.
So yes, the Republicans are fully backing the "escrow as shakedown" position, although the apology to BP was too much for even some Republicans to take.
Also, Orange Julius is running from this as fast as he can generate energy from his tan.
Actually in doing something t-man should do (educating myself on the matter) I found the reason the Republicans are calling it a "shakedown" is because the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA) already states that "all removal costs plus $75 million" are covered (Or if you go with the § 138.230 Limits of liability. its $87,606,000). The cap doesn't come into play if it's proven there was gross negligence or willful misconduct or a violation of an applicable Federal safety construction or operation regulation.
So regardless BP is on the hook to pay.
Then you have the AG stating he's going to "look into" filing criminal charges, plus the fact that BP was quite a big supporter of Obamas I can see how they connected the dots. For BP they want to make this go away and a criminal trial would not accomplish that. For BP it made sense to hand over money to hopefully get the AG off their back.
The President had no legal ground to twist their arms into handing over those funds, however laws and statutes aside I do believe ethically they should have a 3rd party handle an escrow account to assure everyone involved is compensated and compensated in a timely manner. That's where this gets tricky in my opinion. Ethics and law don't always go hand in hand (shocking right?)
Now the GOP should have chosen better words and backed them up with current law rather than immediately jumping on Obama's back, that just made them look idiotic (similar to someone posting comments essentially adding nothing to the conversation :-) )
TL;DR
- BP is liable escrow account or not
- GOP was technically right but went about it in a piss poor way.
- Obama is a master of arm twisting
- Few cheap shots at t-mans inability to comprehend <3
Yea, GOP is already backing down
"Rep. Barton retracts his apology to BP for having to set up an escrow fund; fellow GOPer tells him to step down as committee vice chairman"
still no evidence that you're visiting any conservative blogs to lay down all this science and it seems a shame to waste it on us dumb liberals.
i love the fact that you're making me out to be some obsessed loony when you actually took the time to visit my moribund (and that's being polite) blog this morning. i would like to point out (for about the 80th time) that you seem to have no self-awareness whatsoever. you have something to add (sometimes stupid, sometimes not entirely) to damn near EVERY SINGLE THING Z POSTS! are your jibes at me what psychiatrists refer to as "projection"? yeesh, you really are a fuckin' nutbar.
I see t-man still has nothing useful to add to the conversation.
You notice all day you haven't had a rebut for anything I've said? You go after my character, like that means anything in an online environment where I openly admit I'm trolling. With each post anyone reading gets more of an indication of how clueless you are. You want to debate an issue fine, you want to act like an internet badass get in line with the rest of em. I dont even see Z in here saying "GTFO". Z feel free to intervene at anytime but I don't really think he cares about me posting comments in his blog because he wants discussion. If not he would have deleted comments from me or if possible blocked me a long time ago.
So if the blog writer has no problems with it and no desire to address, why do you seem to care so much? Oh that would most likely be because I don't share your same beliefs.
It's amazing to watch you overreact to someone just because they post comments in a blog that contradict your beliefs. If I were in here posting and cheering Z on and agreeing with everything he said would you have nothing to say then?
Fail. Harder.
again, you criticize me for doing exactly what you then do. you overreact, play internet tough guy, throw insults. but if i do those things, i'm wrong. and you never address the substance of what i'm saying: which is that if hypocrisy really bothers you, why does it only seem to bother you when it comes from the left? on my blog earlier you seemed to indicate that your big problem with Z is his "arcadian" straw-man poster. really? that's why you started posting here? you're just pulling answers out of thin air because you have none. your responses get angrier and more incoherent and you accuse me of the same. this is so transparent as to be funny. i never said that i wanted to debate you on the issues. i simply think you're a smug ass and feel compelled to call you on it. "fail. harder." are you really such a horse's ass that you can type such nonsense unironically? i'll keep saying nothing all i fucking well please, moron. you want "fail"? look in the fucking mirror, troll.
again, you criticize me for doing exactly what you then do. you overreact, play internet tough guy, throw insults. but if i do those things, i'm wrong.
How? Anything that hasn't been a direct response to you is just insults back and forth with Allan that are hardly offensive and are also making points, or I'm responding to the blog post.
"you never address the substance of what i'm saying"
Why should I when you're not even discussing the subject at hand? We're discussing X and you want to talk about Y and Y has nothing to do with the blog post and is actually another attempt to show your mental superiority on the internet. Hence why I said "Fail. Harder." You're attempting to analyze someone through comment posts in a blog. That's honestly nothing short of pathetic but it is entertaining :-)
"which is that if hypocrisy really bothers you, why does it only seem to bother you when it comes from the left? "
Who's making the decisions right now? Who's got the majority? 5 years ago I was criticizing the GOP because they lost their ways and were spending us into oblivion without delivering on promises made. For some reason you cant accept the fact that someone is just critcial, just cuz...there has to be an underlying motive or a big conspiracy. Sorry life just isn't all that exciting.
"on my blog earlier you seemed to indicate that your big problem with Z is his "arcadian" straw-man poster"
Is your reading comprehension honestly that bad? I stated that's why I was staying around. (Also lol at you for removing your blog from your profile, clearly I'm not getting to you AT ALL eh?)
"i simply think you're a smug ass and feel compelled to call you on it. "fail. harder." are you really such a horse's ass that you can type such nonsense unironically? i'll keep saying nothing all i fucking well please, moron. you want "fail"? look in the fucking mirror, troll. "
You feel compelled because I don't share your same beliefs and dare to say otherwise (Still no Z backing you up...) Rather than debate about the issue you'd rather go on long nonsensical rants and try to show just how awesome you are. Hence why I say "lulumad?" cause it's obvious I'm pushing your buttons :-)
Post a Comment