Conservative media defend BP by claiming Obama is "demonizing" the company
Media conservatives are rushing to BP's defense, attacking the Obama administration for "demonizing" the company after the Gulf oil spill.
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
Conservative chorus: Administration is "demonizing" BP
Varney: The federal government has "demonized" and "looted" BP. Appearing on Glenn Beck, Fox Business' Stuart Varney stated: "BP was prepared to meet all genuine claims, all viable claims. It said frequently it would pay legitimate claims. Not good enough for the government. They have successfully demonized and now looted BP." [Glenn Beck, 6/16/10]
Barnes' advice to Obama: "Stop demonizing BP." Discussing public approval ratings of Obama's handling of the spill, Fox News political contributor Fred Barnes said that Obama could "turn those poll numbers around" by ending the six-month moratorium on offshore drilling and "particularly stop demonizing BP." [Special Report with Bret Baier, 6/15/10]
Newsmax's Kessler: Obama has "confused the good guys with the bad guys by demonizing BP." Newsmax's Ronald Kessler wrote in a June 14 article: "Count on Obama to emerge from the meeting with BP full of bravado, childishly saying he is trying to determine 'whose ass to kick.' " Kessler continued: "But having confused the good guys with the bad guys by demonizing BP, Obama has torpedoed his own efforts." [Newsmax.com, 6/14/10]
Hoenig: Congressional hearings are "about humiliating CEOs and demonizing big oil." Appearing on Fox Business Network's Cavuto, guest Jonathan Hoenig commented: "Well, this wasn't about solutions, Neil. This wasn't about cleaning up the oil spill. This is about humiliating CEOs and demonizing big oil, not unlike the Toyota hearings, not unlike the bank hearings. I mean, that was the purpose of today's hearings." [Cavuto, 6/15/10]
Varney: Obama's response is to "[d]emonize BP, seize its assets, raise taxes on energy." Appearing on Hannity, Varney stated: "The administration's response can be summed up as follows: Demonize BP, seize its assets, raise taxes on energy, and therefore raise prices, pile on regulation, appoint a commission, all to gloss over the failure to deal promptly with the oil spill. And then give us pipe dreams about a green future." [Hannity, 6/15/10]
Palin: "[W]e can't afford to demonize" BP. On The O'Reilly Factor, Fox News' Sarah Palin complained that "we can't afford to demonize these energy producers to such an extent, though, that they go under. We do need to work with them, though, but we need to verify everything it is and hold them accountable for all that they have done in this situation." [The O'Reilly Factor, 6/15/10]
Crowley: "[T]his is his default position: demonize BP." On The McLaughlin Group, radio host and Fox News political analyst Monica Crowley commented: "Look, this is nothing new coming from this president. He needs an enemy, John. He has demonized the banks, demonized Wall Street, demonized health care companies, demonized Fox News, demonized the Republicans. So it's -- this is his default position: demonize BP, when what the White House should be doing -- there will be plenty of time to assign blame, do the lawsuits, do the culpability. But right now, they should be working as partners to try to plug the damn hole and get the area cleaned up." [The McLaughlin Group, 6/13/10]
This is the same argument we see here all the time - that calling someone a "liar" or a "troll" is wrong and a personal attack or namecalling, when it's NOT if there's evidence to back up those claims!
And here, there's plenty of evidence that BP acted willfully and negligently here, and they should have their feet held to the fire on this issue!
This is their world view and their strategy.
Notice that the federal governments handling or mishandling of the crises is fairly typical of a government response to a large and (at least to the government) unpredictable disaster. They trusted PB and the oil industry.
Funny how people like Sean Hannity and Fox and friends are the same people who defended, as much as they could get away with, Bush's response to Katrina. I am sure there are some interesting quotes in the archives.
If you were to give the government's response a C for being average, you would have to give PB and F. They were reckless and they had no plan for things going bad.
Yet conservative libertarians will insist that this is all a lesson in the futility of government leadership when really it is about the dangers of authoritarian, short term profit based corporate leadership.
Wrong they didn't trust them, the government has regulations in place through the OCSLA that could have prevented this from happening. MMS employees preferred sex and drugs to doing their jobs though. Trust had nothing to do with it.
So the oil companies invested and planned ahead for such accidents on their own, without effective government enforcement, because they wanted to make sure off shore drilling actually was safe?
It seems to me that big oil has big PR and big connections in government and the media to shout as loudly as possible that offshore drilling is safe and that they should be left to take care of themselves. This has been their message for years. Conservatives, in particular have bought into that message. Obama did to.
A 20 billion dollar escrow account isn't that impressive compared to the 230 billion dollar economy that BP just stifled down there.
Don't get me wrong, it beats a blank, but impressive would have included BP execs being perp walked to prison.
There's still time...
In summary, the conservative media believes that Obama didn't act quickly enough but shouldn't have done anything at all. I guess this makes sense in their world.
Cons cried: Obama shouldn't interfere with private industry!
So he took a cautious approach, allowing BP time to start fixing their mess with technology and methods they assured us they had.
then the Cons Cried: Obama was too slow to act, he needs to do something NOW NOW NOW!
So he starts taking a more hands on approach and hitting BP in the only place they can feel pain, the pocketbook.
and the Cons cry: You're being mean to BP!
I'd love to hear a conservative respond to my pointing out of their blatant hypocrisy with an explanation of how they can continue to push contradictory attacks on Obama just days apart, but I'm sure the response would be something like: "socialism, nazi, liberal, triplicate laminated long form birth certificate written on magic parchment, stop playing the race card, I'm a victim, waah!"
so why bother even asking...
First, not a single person said Obama should let BP deal with the problem alone. Obama was completely mum on the issue until a week after it happened. There was no outcry from the right for him to take a hands off approach. ZERO, ZILCH, NADA, ZIP.
Second, it took Obama almost a month to realize that BP wan't going to stop the spill anytime soon. Obama should have been on the phone with BP CEO from day one with a no bullsh*t answer as to when the spill could be contained, instead he campaigned for Democrats in this election year. he should have, could have mobilized federal resources to minimize the impact on the coasts, and ocean ecology.
Third, it isn't about BP's fiscal, and social responsibility to clean up after itself that conservatives are angry with. Its statement like "Whose ass can I kick?" from Obama, that are pointless and don't help anyone. I haven't heard from a single person who thinks that BP isn't fiscally responsible for the spill, have you?
Considering BP's extremely conciliatory attitude during this entire process. Obama's bombastic, overtly angry statements make him look more like a cocksure-bully than the President of the United States.
Don't be so arrogant Coolslaw, you sound like an idiot.
Media Matters is the best source I've found for explaining the president's involvement in the Gulf explosion and spill. The president has been involved since the beginning, but you believe otherwise because 1.) You don't do your own research and/or 2.) You have swallowed whole the lies told to you by your corporate overlords on Fuchs Noose, in Congress, on rw radio, and on rw blogs.
I think both of these can be applied to you as an explanation for why you don't seem to know what the president has done on this issue.
PLEASE TELL ME.
Hardly talking points, I actually take pride in the fact that I don't subscribe to mainsstream RW talking points. MMFA on the otherhand, just another fart in the room, if enough people fart, nobody knows who farted last.
So it's clear to us that you aren't HONESTLY asking for information about what's wrong with what you wrote - you're just looking for negative attention to distract us from the actual topic here - that the conservative media is pretending that Obama's doing something wrong, pretending that BP is a victim of Obama's demonization!
But we know better. BP is NOT a victim here. They aren't being demonized. They are being called to account for their offensive and outrageous behavior!
They KNOW that attacking Obama is a winning political strategy!
There are a lot of people who hate Obama, and they don't care how illogical, contradictory or hypocritical their feelings on individual issues that hatred is!
This is probably the stupidest of the bunch. Isn't it BP's job to deal promptly with the oil spill? And wouldn't regulation be one of the few ways the president could deal with it? Sometimes I think conservatives blather on about personal responsibility so they don't have to discuss corporate responsibility.
Thumbs up!!!
The conservative stereotype of liberals is that they are self centered, irresponsible, into their own short term pleasure, wanting others to pay their way whenever possible, not realistic, bias toward their ideology, morally relativistic and incompetent. They expect to be bailed out when they fail.
Well the same tendencies can be found in many corporations. They are by nature self centered around their ability to make profit. Without internal or external checks on their behavior, their pursuit of short term profit naturally leads to irresponsible behavior. When ever possible, they will avoid paying the external cost to any transaction, causing the society at large to pay for any side effects from their products. They are notorious for being biased toward their products and services, finding a morally relativistic view to justify risky behavior. Also, in spite of PR to the contrary, they can be just as bureaucratic and incompetent as any other organization. Often they expect a bailout when they fail.
Conservative libertarians fail to see how liberal corporate America really is. Corporations will plow over tradition, ecology, family values, honesty, and fairness in pursuit of profit. They work to create an environment where there are few limitations to what they can do.
You are confusing two issues here. BP is dealing as promptly as possiblej with the oil spill. If there is any evidence to the contrary please point it out. That isn't to say that there options they haven't tried, but just because they don't dump tons of hay in the ocean, doesn't mean they aren't promptly dealing with the oil spill.
"And wouldn't regulation be one of the few ways the president could deal with it?"
No, regulation is too late to deal with the problem. Regulation could help stop future problems, but regulation can't do anything to help witht he current disaster.
BP bucked regulation and fostered a culture corporate recklessness concerning safety. They put production (profits) above safety.
Thanks for posting this link. I love Fresh Air. This one got a thumbs down? Wonder if you even took the time to listen to the interview?
Is someone else taking responsibility? Did i miss that news, is someone else paying $20 billion for restoration efforts?
What do you mean by "mostly", are you implying someone else is partly to blame? This is from the Mineral Management services website, "The MMS’s oversight and regulatory framework ensure production and drilling are done in an environmentally responsible manner, and done safely." Strangely, I couldn't find where it said bribes, sex, and drugs were regularly traded for favors...
"You can't point to a specific Obama screw up."
Actually, all the regulations necessary to avoid the DWH spill were in place.(OCSLA) The MMS failed horriby at its job, and has the head of the all federal institutions, Obama is ultimately responsible. Sorry. Lets see when did Obama first mention the Oil spill? Over a week after it started. Why did it take almost 2 months to meet with the CEO of BP?
I think the most specific "Obama screw up" is seen in his complete lack of action. Why were federal resources mobilized to protect the shores, or clean up the ocean?
The most sickening sensation is his mock anger with BP, its all an act, a lie. Its politics as usual at the White House, give the people a show.
You're on the wrong web site if you want to receive validation for your lies.
We progressives deal with truth, not fantasy.
It's impossible to debate anything with un/ill-informed individuals.
Blah blah blah, say something new.
I'm not looking for you or MMFA to validate my "lies." You seem to be the one with your panties in a bunch.
"We progressives deal with truth, not fantasy."
Oh hell, you really are making me sick now. Delusion makes another appearance.
Just tell me one thing, is anyone saying anyone but BP should be responsible for the restoration costs?
I hope President Obama learns from this incident and starts listening to the Progressives more when it comes to keeping oil companies accountable, regulating them and keeping our environment safe. We have been right all along and every disaster so far has proven that.
Their response to oil spills hasn't progessed since the Valdez. Yet the technology to drill miles under the sea floor wasn't around at the time of the Valdez.
Try again.
The MMS, as configured by a Republican President and an Interior Secretary who was an enemy of the environment, James Watt, has always been too buddy-buddy with the oil industry.
Obama had sent someone with the job of straightening that dep't out, but it hadn't been fully completed yet, and likely without this kind of a horrific wake-up call, might not have been done well, considering how lumbering gov't can be at times. But at least he was trying, and he saw the problems. Bush, on the other hand, encouraged more and more lax regulation - that's why almost ALL of the shenanigans happened under Bush's watch!