The Radio Equalizer: Brian Maloney

24 May 2010

Libtalker Pleads With Obama To Take Action On Oil Spill


Libtalkers Worry Public Outrage Shifting Toward Obama

Can blame for gross inaction on the Gulf oil spill be shifted away from Obama indefinitely? Some on the left are clearly beginning to realize the anti-BP OUTRAGE (!!!) machine has begun to lose its effectiveness.

While that won't stop many "progressives" from continuing their relentless tirades against Big Oil, there is increasing worry that the president's mishandling of the situation has become difficult to defend.

That has the state-run media desperately searching for new ways to cover for him, including attacking Sarah Palin and other Republicans. But none other than Official White House Apologist Chris Matthews has now raised the question of Obama's "eventual" responsibility.

Making the case in blunt terms is MSNBC libtalker Ed Schultz, who used his television program to plead with the federal government for quick action (though it now seems much too late):

SCHULTZ (4:52): Our government's not doing enough. We have how many millions of Americans that are unemployed? Would it make sense to, maybe, offer a job to people who want to go down to the Gulf and get accommodations and get meals and just help with the cleanup? Could BP write that check? Is there anything we can do to save our beaches? Is there anything we can do to keep the oil offshore?

SCHULTZ (5:57): Mr. President, I'm a huge fan, but this is now your oil spill. It's on your watch. We need to come up with some kind of huge plan on what we're going to do, because we've spent thirty days waiting for BP, waiting for Transocean, who've done a great job of just washing their hands of all of this.

Let me just say this, Washington: It's time to get it on. It's time to get real serious about this.

The real question: why the left waited 30 days to challenge the White House on its chronic laziness when it's clear Bush wouldn't have been given 30 minutes before being subjected to a full-scale partisan attack. Is protecting Obama really worth the cost?


  • Brian, you'll like this.

    By Blogger rivky, at 24 May, 2010 22:31  

  • Absolutely. Obama and his minions dithered for well over a week and a half before getting involved due to growing critical pressure from the blogosphere. Obama and his guys just don't do well at all when bumped off their scipt and forced to think on their feet.

    By Anonymous William in AZ, at 24 May, 2010 23:47  

  • I dislike much of Obama's policies. I see alternatives that would be better.

    Now, about the BP spill. I don't see reports on what BP did wrong or on what the US government is supposed to do. So, why is Obama responsible?

    I've read that a previous government commission recommended that the USGov keep an inventory of "fire boom" to contain and burn off the oil from such a spill. Both the USGov and BP didn't do this. Maybe BP expected the USGov to have this boom available.

    I see this as the usual failing of our large, complex, and mismanaged government. That isn't Obama's particular fault. I would fault Obama (as a big govt type) for believing that any government is going to be effective in planning for the future. I would fault Obama for blaming everyone else but the USGov.

    It is ironic that Obama is being blamed for "not doing something, anything". It is a fitting problem for Obama, someone who proclaims the fantasy of government solving every problem.

    The real political problem for the Democrats and all politicians is that this oil spill demonstrates the poor planning of government and the inability of government to ride in to the rescue. BP has the available knowledge and resources to cope with the spill, not the Government. The spill decreases trust in big government, which is a problem for all politicians.

    Of course there will have to be better protections on deep ocean oil wells. BP wishes that it had spent an extra $1 million if needed on a better blow-out preventer. Maybe if oil companies were less government managed, with less political protection from liability, and (yes) higher profits, there would be better equipment on that well.

    By Blogger Andrew_M_Garland, at 25 May, 2010 00:45  

  • The real question: why the left waited 30 days to challenge the White House on its chronic laziness when it's clear Bush wouldn't have been given 30 minutes before being subjected to a full-scale partisan attack.

    The real answer: the Left doesn't really believe in the things they lecture us about.

    By Blogger Fen, at 25 May, 2010 01:31  

  • BP has hardly just "washed their hands" of it..they've been pretty darned busy trying to do something that will put a stop to the spill. it might be encouraging that some folks are beginning to say that the feds have a responsibility here, but the narrative will be that barack came riding in on a half white-half black horse to save the day after those evil corporations effed-up.. sigh.

    By Blogger el polacko, at 25 May, 2010 01:48  

  • What's even more amazing about these "libtalkers" is how they've blinded themselves the cultish cognitive dissonance they've embraced since Mr. Obama was coronated. Dissent and criticism of the President is no longer cool now that their ideologue is in charge, in fact some on their side are calling it "seditious". Heh!

    We all know the howling they would have put up if it had been President Bush who essentially sat back and pointed fingers at BP while doing nothing to galvanize the almighty AmeriKan government against this terrible rape of Gaia Earth [libspeak mode/off]

    Obama slept while Gaia wept.

    And we're barely a year and a half into this karmic payback that took liberals eight years of mindless ranting to accrue.


    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 25 May, 2010 05:14  

  • Oooh, someone's going to be in trouble from the White House.

    Gee, 30 days later Ed realizes Obama isn't a leader? "it's time to get serious." In other words, quit playing golf, and DO something?

    MSNBC is useless. Only took them 30 days to realize Obama is, too.

    By Blogger sarainitaly, at 25 May, 2010 05:26  

  • Whoa, whoa, whoa...

    This spill isn't Obama's fault.

    This spill is George W. Bush's fault.

    There, all better now. Perhaps Mr. Schulz should have gotten his left wing talking points before he tried to affix the blame to the sitting President who previously wanted to allow more offshore drilling.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 25 May, 2010 06:54  

  • Your "real question" answers itself.

    By Blogger Donald Sensing, at 25 May, 2010 06:57  

  • Also, I wonder whether these libtalkers realize that they are now coming dangerously close to sedition?

    By Blogger Donald Sensing, at 25 May, 2010 07:06  

  • Now you care about the unemployed Ed? It takes an average of 140 days for the federal governament to hire someone. That's September Ed.

    By Blogger Unknown, at 25 May, 2010 08:28  

  • Is protecting Obama really worth the cost?

    And therein lies the difference between Katrina and the oil spill. For the first time, supporting Obama and giving him a pass on his incompetence has a real, measured cost, in a currency that has meaning to environmentalists and other progressives. The cost is the permanent destruction of the Gulf Coast.

    This sort of massive, man-made catastrophe is absolutely par for the course in Socialist governments. Obama can keep running around, calling BP "greedy", and his minions can talk all they want about "keeping their boots on BP's neck", but the reality is that if BP were to walk away from the disaster, the Obama administration would be completely powerless to stop the spill. Ever. It would just keep leaking and leaking until the entire Gulf of Mexico was a black, dead American version of Chernobyl.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 25 May, 2010 08:54  

  • Would the left have let Bush sit on his hands for a month after Katrina? This is with out a doubt the most inept administration ever!!!

    By Blogger zombie, at 25 May, 2010 09:03  

  • Yes Obama has done nothing. Maybe that is better than getting involved in something they have no expertise on.

    Ed Schultz - What an idiot. What are millions of people going to do? Form a human shield?

    BP sitting on their hands? They have thousands of people working on solutions and trying fixes. BP has the most to lose from this, they are working the hardest to fix it.

    By Anonymous carla, at 25 May, 2010 09:46  

  • The federal contingency plan goes back to, when, 1994? Why didn't the feds have the booms needed? Was the money asked for, but not appropriated by Congress? Did they just forget to assign someone the responsibility to procure the equipment? Was it once procured but surplussed because people didn't know what it was for?

    And while it most likely wouldn't have made any difference (BP had an exemplary safety record), why didn't the MMS inspect on the schedule it's own regulations require?

    By Blogger LarryD, at 25 May, 2010 09:49  

  • Ed: Obama is handling this crisis in the same fashion as the economic crisis. Do you get it yet?


    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 25 May, 2010 10:24  

  • It is incompetence. An administration that is venal and
    ignorant on how the world works.

    By Anonymous PTL, at 25 May, 2010 10:58  

  • If a big oil company like BP can't fix this mess quickly, why does anyone think the government can do a better job? They can't even run the Postal Service adequately.

    By Blogger RebeccaH, at 25 May, 2010 13:52  

  • I must say that it would be nice to have people who have an understanding of the oil industry, like saaaaaaaay, Bush & Cheney. Instead, America elected a marxist street agitator, who knows how to organize protests. Plus, nobody he knows nobody who does. His "experts" are evironmentalists, who will push for banning all offshore exploration. It happened in California, & I can't wait to pay $5 plus for gas because of the idiocy that is going to be proposed.

    By Anonymous danybhoy, at 25 May, 2010 15:12  

  • That's the problem with Big Giovernment: When you insist on controlling *everything*, *everything* is your fault even when its not.

    Like when politicians take credit (or blame) for "the economy". It's like taking credit for "the atmosphere". It is completely out of their control; it is the result of an incalculable number of forces and variables.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 25 May, 2010 15:25  

  • Perhaps if Tingles dipped his leg into the oil it might remove the Tingles.

    By Anonymous Tyrone, at 05 June, 2010 17:27  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Page Rank Checker

Powered by Blogger