About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Conservative media defend BP against "shakedowns," "show trials," and environmentalists at least 62 times

Fox hosts, shows, and outlets led the effort with at least 38 defenses of BP

June 22, 2010 12:48 pm ET — 103 Comments

Media Matters has identified at least 62 recent instances of media conservatives defending BP, 38 of which occurred on the Fox News Channel, Fox Business, the Fox Nation, or the talk shows of Fox News hosts. There were at least 21 criticisms of BP's escrow account as an Obama "shakedown" or "slush fund," 10 attacks on President Obama for supposedly "demonizing" BP, 15 examples of conservatives deriding investigations of the company, 12 claims that environmental regulations are responsible for the spill, and five absurd conspiracy theories about the spill.

Right-wing media portray BP as the victim of a "shakedown"

Napolitano: "That is a classic shakedown." On the June 18 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, Fox News judicial analyst Andrew Napolitano stated of the BP escrow account fund designed to aid Gulf residents affected by the oil spill: "The government doesn't have the right -- we don't know what happened in the Oval Office, but you guys reported, and the vice president did not deny, that he walked in and basically said give us the $20 billion or we will take it from you. That is a classic shakedown. The threat to do something that you don't have the right to do." Napolitano also falsely claimed that "the White House is going to distribute" the money in the escrow account, when, in fact, the fund is to be administered by an independent third party.

Ingraham: "Joe Barton, before he apologized, had a legitimate point" about BP being victims of the Obama administration's "shakedown." On the June 17 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, referencing Rep. Joe Barton's (R-TX) claim that the fund resulted from a "shakedown," Fox News contributor Laura Ingraham stated: "I think that Joe Barton, before he apologized, had a legitimate point. First of all, this administration has taken a very aggressive, and I would say strong-arm approach, to private industry across the board. ... I would rather have this fund ... administered by the local authorities."

Limbaugh: Obama taught students "how to use the Constitution to shake down corporations ... much like he's doing to BP." On the June 17 edition of Premiere Radio Network's The Rush Limbaugh Show, Limbaugh said, "In reality, [Obama] didn't teach constitutional law. ... What Obama taught was Rules for Radicals by Saul Alinsky, and how to use the Constitution to shake down corporations through race and grievance lawsuits. That's what he taught students at the University of Chicago. Much like he is doing to BP."

JammieWearingFool: Barton's comments are "the truth." In a June 17 post on his blog, JammieWearingFool wrote: "As an American, I'm ashamed of what's been going on at the White House for the past 17 months. Let's hear it for Rep. Joe Barton of Texas who, I'll remind people, is speaking for himself." JammieWearingFool posted a Dallas Morning News article on the statement and wrote, "Aww, the poor babies can't handle the truth."

Big Journalism: Barton's comments were a "relatively mild statement of fact, expressed inoffensively." A June 17 Big Journalism post highlighted Barton's comments and criticized the GOP for not defending him, calling his statement a "relatively mild statement of fact, expressed inoffensively."

Gingrich: Obama "is directly engaged in extorting money" from BP. On the June 17 edition of Fox News' Hannity, Fox News contributor Newt Gingrich responded to Barton's comments by stating that the Obama administration "is directly engaged in extorting money" from BP.

Hoft: "Of course it was a shakedown. It's the Chicago way." In a June 17 post on his Gateway Pundit blog, Jim Hoft wrote: "Of course it was a shakedown. It's the Chicago way. Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) apologizes to BP for the Barack Obama's '20 Billion Dollar Shakedown.' Well said, Congressman."

Erickson: "Let's be honest. The White House meeting with British Petroleum was a shakedown." In a June 17 RedState post, Erick Erickson echoed Barton's statement that the deal was a "shakedown," saying, "Let's be honest. The White House meeting with British Petroleum was a shakedown." From RedState:

Let's be honest. The White House meeting with British Petroleum was a shakedown.

The White House threatened criminal prosecution of BP, the President gave a miserably received speech, then he hauled BP into the White House and put the Attorney General in the room with the CEO to stare at him, then the President demanded $20 billion.

It was a shakedown.

WSJ: Barton "rightly called" White House "pressure" on BP "a shakedown. In a June 18 editorial, The Wall Street Journal stated that BP "does not deserve the apology" offered by Barton, but the Journal agreed that Barton "rightly called" White House "pressure" on BP "a shakedown.

Napolitano: If government sues BP to require company to pay for workers' lost wages, "that's theft." On the June 10 edition of Fox News' Your World with Neil Cavuto, Napolitano stated:

NAPOLITANO: The government does not have the authority to -- it has the authority to issue the moratorium, which it will issue for political reasons because it wants to get other oil companies out of there, and get the media's eye off the ball of the White House and onto the ball of BP, but it doesn't have the authority to order BP to pay the salaries of those who would have worked in the absence of the moratorium. Therefore if the government wants BP to do that, it will have to sue BP to do it. It can't order BP to do it, if it does, and it takes the money, that's theft.

Beck: "You can't just change the law" to raise BP's liability cap, asks, "Is that what we fought the Nazis for?" On the May 4 edition of Premiere Radio Networks' The Glenn Beck Program, Beck said "Barack Obama and the leftists, now, in the government, led here now by Robert Kennedy Jr., they're making a push today that that cap should be changed. ... Is there anything like the rule of law here? Is there anything -- do they understand how this works? You can't just change the law all of a sudden." Beck later asked: "Did we go and fight Germany for this? Is that what we fought the Nazis for? Is that why those millions of people died?"

Fund on the BP escrow account: "You better believe it's a shakedown." On the June 19 edition of Fox News' Journal Editorial Report, Wall Street Journal columnist John Fund said of the BP escrow fund, "You better believe it's a shakedown" and stated that it "goes around the legal process." He further warned that "the United States can resemble a banana republic overnight with the wrong president in charge," and that the fund "effectively says to foreign investors, 'forget the rule of law.' "

Erickson: BP escrow fund is a "shakedown," congressional hearing "was a show trial." On the June 18 edition of CNN's John King USA, when asked if he agreed that the creation of an escrow fund was a "shakedown," Erick Erickson stated: "Well, yeah, I mean I think it was a shakedown. No doubt British Petroleum cooperated in it just like yesterday was a show trial in Congress."

Fox Nation: "Biden Was The BP Shakedown Artist." Fox Nation reposted an item from the blog Weasel Zippers that characterized Vice President Joe Biden as the "shakedown artist" and the "designated Bad Cop." The post included information from the New York Daily News, which reported: "Biden leaned forward and bluntly informed the Blight Brigade they had no choice: If they didn't do the right thing and put the cash in escrow, it would be done to them."

Buchanan: "There's an aspect of shakedown here." On the June 20 edition of The McLaughlin Group, MSNBC contributor Pat Buchanan repeatedly stated that there was "an aspect of shakedown" to the meeting between BP executives and the Obama administration. He said that having Attorney General Eric Holder present at the meeting in which the escrow fund was discussed was "like having Luca Brasi sitting across saying, 'I'm going to make you an offer you can't refuse.' "

Tantaros: BP "slush fund" is a "political shakedown. It's a stickup." On the June 21 edition of Fox News' America's Newsroom, contributor Andrea Tantaros stated that BP had been the victim of a "political shakedown" and a "stickup" to force the company to fund the $20 billion "slush fund."

Limbaugh: BP "slush fund" is just like "blackmail." On the June 17 edition of his radio show, Rush Limbaugh suggested that the BP escrow account could be called a "slush fund, extra-Constitutional," or "blackmail." He stated that the creation of the fund is "exactly how a blackmailer will hit you. You give him once and they keep coming back for more. They've got you. You pay one time and they'll keep coming back."

Sowell compares creation of BP escrow fund to the dictatorial powers of Hitler. In his June 21 syndicated column, Thomas Sowell compared the creation of the BP escrow account to "the German Reichstag pass[ing] a law 'for the relief of the German people.'" Sowell asks "[j]ust where in the Constitution of the United states does it say that a president has the authority to extract vast sums of money from a private enterprise and distribute it as he sees fit to whomever he deems worthy of compensation? Nowhere."

Kilmeade "almost" called escrow account a "slush fund." On the June 22 edition of Fox & Friends, co-host Brian Kilmeade referred to the BP escrow account as a "slush fund." From the broadcast:

GRETCHEN CARLSON (co-host): All right, also Feinberg, the guy in charge of putting out all that money for BP -- that $20 billion BP agreed to hand over -- he's already complaining. He's already saying look, we need to get this cash out quicker to the folks who are in need of that. And, by the way, it's going to cost a heck of a lot more than $20 billion. I think his quote was 54 billion? I believe it was. $54 billion he's estimating it will cost.

KILMEADE: And you know with that you only get $5 billion a year in to the sl-- uh, I almost said slush fund --

STEVE DOOCY (co-host): Into the kitty.

KILMEADE: Into the kitty. So they're going to need more than that.

Limbaugh praised Barton's BP apology as a "home run." Limbaugh opened his June 21 program by saying that Barton "must have hit a home run out there the way these people are reacting to this, talking about the slush fund, apologizing last week to the BP execs for being shaken down by the regime."

Varney: "Hugo Chavez-like" plan amounts to "seizing private assets" and "hav[ing] the White House politicians run the money." On the June 16 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, Fox Business host Stuart Varney said the plan to create an escrow account with BP money for gulf relief will "[t]ake the money right off BP and put in some kind of escrow account and have the White House politicians run the money. Taking -- I mean there's no better word for it. It is seizing private assets and sticking them under the control of politicians." Varney asked "who knows what they're going to spend that money on?" Varney also called the plan "Hugo Chavez-like, is it not, to seize a private company's assets."

Conservatives characterized investigations of BP as "Soviet-style" "show trial"

Limbaugh: BP hearings are a "show trial. ... This is what happened in Stalinist Russia." On the June 17 broadcast of his radio show, Limbaugh said of the House's hearings on the oil spill that "what Waxman and these other Democrats want" out of the BP hearings "is for [BP CEO Tony] Hayward and any other BP exec to say things under oath that they can't possible know one way or the other. This is a show trial. If we were back in the era of Stalin -- this is what happened in Stalinist Russia. It's exactly how show trials work. If you translated this into Russian, folks, this is exactly what would be going on in the old Russia, the old pre-Soviet Union days." He added that the hearings are "purely and simply a fraud."

Krauthammer compared the BP hearings to "Inca ritual slaughter." During the June 17 edition of Special Report, Krauthammer said that "these hearings are always just political theatre," but that he "kind of welcome[s] these rituals. We haven't had a good Inca ritual slaughter since the Goldman Sachs hearings." Krauthammer added that unlike with an "Incan ritual slaughter," "we have a scarcity of virgins," and so "we send up a CEO instead. They whack him around for a whole day and everybody goes home happy. The only difference is that our procedure has less blood, but a lot more talking. And I'm not sure which is preferable."

Kristol: "BP is being persecuted by a demagogic congressional committee chairman." Also on the June 17 edition of Special Report, Bill Kristol stated "BP is being persecuted by a demagogic congressional committee chairman, Henry Waxman."

Savage: "The Democrats have held a Stalinist show trial against BP. ... They're very, very clever devils indeed." During the June 17 edition of his show, Michael Savage stated: "All these Congress vermin do is threaten people and sue people. Secondly, while these hearings have been very informative, I would now like to see an equal set of hearings with the government put on the stand." Savage added: "What they've done here is very clever indeed. The Democrats have held a Stalinist show trial against BP. Perhaps rightly so in part, but what they've really done here is pass the buck. They're very, very clever devils indeed. What they've done is put the entire blame -- that is 100 percent of the blame -- on BP rather than on the Obama administration."

Levin claimed "Soviet-style spectacle" of BP hearings is part of "a huge cover-up." On the June 17 edition of his radio show, Mark Levin pushed a conspiracy theory revolving around the BP hearings, stating that "[y]ou have a huge cover-up going on" because the Minerals Management Service [MMS] must have given BP permission to drill. Levin continued: "So we had a Soviet-style spectacle today where they bring in the CEO, this Tony Hayworth [sic] of BP, and they kick him around like a soccer ball. He's been well schooled by his lawyers, so he's not going to say anything that affects him or his company in a detrimental way. Obama's already said we're looking to bring criminal charges and civil charges and all the rest, so of course he's not going to sit there and sing like a bird, but Congress wants you to think it's really, really busy, it's really on your side, so they go through this spectacle."

Erickson: "Only thing separating" BP hearing from "Soviet show trial" is that Hayward "walked out without any lead in him." In a June 17 RedState.com post, Erickson wrote: "And keeping with the honesty, let's also admit the Congressional hearing was a show trial. The only thing separating it from a Soviet show trial is Tony Hayward, the CEO of British Petroleum walked out without any lead in him. The result, however, will be the same as a Soviet show trial: not a single thing will happen. Nothing."

Beck compared BP hearings to McCarthy hearings, feeding Christians to lions. On the June 18 edition of his radio program, Beck asked during a discussion of the BP hearings, "How do we not see the McCarthy hearings in this and everything else that is going on in Washington?" He went on to criticize the tone of the hearings, stating, "If you have all of the facts, if you can nail them to the wall, there's no reason to get nasty." Beck concluded: "We are in a thugocracy. We are being run by criminals, and we've got a little puppet show just to entertain the masses. Why don't we bring some Christians out and feed them to lions?"

Beck on BP hearings: "[W]e've got Salem witch trials going on in Washington, D.C." On the June 18 broadcast of his radio show, Beck asserted: "Instead of saying to BP, 'Can you do this -- yes or no?' 'What are you doing?' 'How can we help you shutting it down?' Instead, no, no, no, we've got Salem witch trials going on in Washington, D.C." He went on to call the lawmakers involved "thugs and bullies."

Beck: Lawmakers in BP hearing "will be held in front of an eternal judge" and "will be praying" for "the mercy of Guantánamo." During the same June 18 broadcast, Beck attacked the lawmakers, asking, "Why don't you ask these dumb questions after we've stopped the oil leak?" He then said: "All of these people should be not only ashamed of themselves, they will be held in front of an eternal judge for what they have done to this country. ... They will be held in front of an eternal judge and they will be praying, praying, for the mercy of Guantánamo when they face that judge."

Beck claimed "[t]here is no investigation going on" and suggested lawmakers' only expertise is "stealing from the American people." During the same broadcast of his show, Beck said of the federal government's investigation into BP: "They're not investigating. They are making speeches on television. That's all they're doing. There is no investigation going on here." Beck then suggested that the government instead investigate the details of one of his conspiracy theories, stating: "So you want to do some investigation? We have some investigation. You want to do some investigation? Go out -- send an investigator. You people in Washington, I don't even know what you do. What is your expertise besides stealing from the American people?"

Urbanski: "Rush was accurate" in calling hearings "Soviet-style public trial. ... It was horrible to watch." On the June 18 edition of The Rush Limbaugh Show, guest host Douglas Urbanski called the hearings "theater" and then stated: "I think Rush was very accurate when he called it a Soviet-style public trial. You know, in Japan, they commit hara-kiri over things like this. We don't do this in the United States. It was sort of -- it was sort of horrible to watch."

Buchanan: Tony Hayward testimony was "a Stalin show trial." On the June 20 edition of The McLaughlin Group, Buchanan stated that Hayward's testimony was a "Stalin show trial." Buchanan also said that Hayward took "his beating like a man" and was "contrite."

Fox Nation calls BP hearing a "show trial." On June 18, Fox Nation's home page referred to the hearings as a "show trial," and displayed the following text from a Wall Street Journal editorial:

foxnation

There was in particular no reason for BP to compound its error and agree to spend another $100 million to compensate the oil workers sidelined by the Administration's policy choice to impose a drilling moratorium. BP had no liability for these costs, and its concession further separated its compensation from proper legal order. BP deserves to pay full restitution for the damage it has caused, but it ought to do so via legal means, not under what Texas Republican Joe Barton rightly called the pressure of "a shakedown" yesterday. On the other hand, BP does not deserve the apology that Mr. Barton also offered, though he quickly backtracked when the White House pounced on his comments.

Kilmeade suggests criminal inquiry into oil spill "just tank[ed] the market," asks, "Was that smart?" On the June 2 edition of Fox & Friends, co-host Brian Kilmeade stated, "The Department of Justice is probing, and for a myriad of reasons, it looks like, into BP and what they've done and what they could have violated." He then suggested that the announcement of the investigations "drop[ped] BP's stock 15 percent" and "just tank[ed] the market," and asked, "Was that smart?" Co-host Steve Doocy replied, "Maybe not, because if they're facing all these lawsuits, suddenly, where's that money going to come from?"

Krauthammer: Announcing criminal investigation into BP oil leak is "entirely unnecessary." On the June 10 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Bret Baier, Fox News contributor Charles Krauthammer said, "It is not so that the administration has not had an effect on the price -- on the share price [of BP stock]. On the day that it was announced that we were going to go after the oil company criminally, there was a collapse of the price, and that was the kind of escalation that was entirely unnecessary."

Conservatives criticize Obama for "demonizing" BP

Varney: The federal government has "demonized" and "looted" BP. Appearing on the June 16 edition of Glenn Beck, 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."

Barnes' advice to Obama: "Stop demonizing BP." Discussing public approval ratings of Obama's handling of the spill, on the June 15 edition of Fox News' Special Report, 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."

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."

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."

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."

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."

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."

Krauthammer: "[D]eclaring war on the oil company, at this time, and in a criminal way, I think is really distasteful." On the June 1 edition of Fox News' Special Report, Fox News contributor Charles Krauthammer stated of Holder's announcement that he is launching an investigation into the oil spill: "I think what the attorney general did today is somewhat over the line ... I might have missed it but I didn't hear a syllable about what evidence he has of criminal activity here." Krauthammer later said: "So they want to make it look like they are doing something, but declaring war on the oil company, at this time, and in a criminal way, I think is really distasteful. It's not going to help anybody."

Varney: "All it does is divert attention. You demonize and divert attention from your responsibility." Discussing the DOJ investigation on the June 1 edition of Fox News' Hannity, Fox Business host Stuart Varney asked: "What good does it do to threaten criminal charges to try to ruin British Petroleum? What good does it do?" He then stated: "All it does is divert attention. You demonize and divert attention from your responsibility."

Fox News' Payne: White House aims "vitriol" at BP but not at terrorists. On the May 8 edition of Fox News' Cavuto on Business, Fox Business contributor Charles Payne stated: "A lot of this emanates from the White House. The White House is going to put a boot on the neck of BP, but they never used that kind of vitriol when it comes to Islam, or even terrorism."

Conservatives falsely claim that environmentalists are to blame for BP spill because they blocked "safer drilling areas"

Despite conservative claims to the contrary, increase in deepwater drilling actually due to region's large oil reserves and was championed by Bush administration, oil industry. As Media Matters has documented, both Bush administration reports and the oil industry itself touted the vast reserves of oil available in the deepwater regions of the Gulf of Mexico.

Palin: "Radical environmentalists: you are damaging the planet with your efforts to lock up safer drilling areas." On June 2, Fox News' Sarah Palin posted an entry on Facebook to attack "radical environmentalists" who she blamed for "making drilling more dangerous." Palin stated that the oil spill "proves" that environmentalists' "lies about onshore and shallow water drilling" are "catching up with" them. Palin criticized "extreme 'environmentalists' " for supposedly "hypocritically protest[ing] domestic energy production offshore and onshore." She called their efforts "misguided, nonsensical radicalism," and contends that "there's nothing 'clean and green' about [their] efforts." From Palin's post:

This is a message to extreme "environmentalists" who hypocritically protest domestic energy production offshore and onshore. There is nothing "clean and green" about your efforts. Look, here's the deal: when you lock up our land, you outsource jobs and opportunity away from America and into foreign countries that are making us beholden to them. Some of these countries don't like America. Some of these countries don't care for planet earth like we do -- as evidenced by our stricter environmental standards.

With your nonsensical efforts to lock up safer drilling areas, all you're doing is outsourcing energy development, which makes us more controlled by foreign countries, less safe, and less prosperous on a dirtier planet. Your hypocrisy is showing. You're not preventing environmental hazards; you're outsourcing them and making drilling more dangerous.

Extreme deep water drilling is not the preferred choice to meet our country's energy needs, but your protests and lawsuits and lies about onshore and shallow water drilling have locked up safer areas. It's catching up with you. The tragic, unprecedented deep water Gulf oil spill proves it.

[...]

Radical environmentalists: you are damaging the planet with your efforts to lock up safer drilling areas. There's nothing clean and green about your misguided, nonsensical radicalism, and Americans are on to you as we question your true motives.

Krauthammer: We're drilling deep because "environmentalists have succeeded in rendering the Pacific and nearly all the Atlantic coasts off-limits to oil production." In a May 28 column, Krauthammer blasted environmentalists for driving oil companies into deeper waters. Krauthammer concluded that "we [are] drilling in 5,000 feet of water in the first place" in part because "[e]nvironmental chic has driven us out there."

Doocy: "Back in the day, they used to just drill pretty close to shore," but environmentalists "pushed them out further and further." On the June 3 edition of Fox & Friends, Doocy stated that "back in the day they used to just drill pretty close to shore," but "as the environmentalists said there's a real danger here, they pushed them out further and further." Doocy then cited an editorial in Investor's Business Daily that he said made the "good point" that "questions would this be so tough to cap and stop if it weren't pushed into water almost a mile deep by environmentalists."

IBD: "Environmentalism... help[ed] make" oil spill "possible." In the June 1 editorial Doocy cited, IBD stated, "Environmentalism did not cause the Deepwater Horizon oil disaster, but it did help make it possible," and suggested that "if British Petroleum and others were not barred from drilling in ANWR or in the shallower water of the Outer Continental Shelf, we might not be having this conversation."

Limbaugh: "What the environmentalist wackos are making us do is drill down 35,000 feet." Rush Limbaugh claimed on the May 17 broadcast of his radio show: "What the environmentalist wackos are making us do is drill down 35,000 feet, 6.6 miles, when there's oil practically begging to be taken out of the ground in areas that are now off-limits because of U.S. regime regulations."

Kristol: If it weren't for restrictions "after the Santa Barbara incident 40 years ago," we would be drilling closer to shore, "which is probably less dangerous." In a May 2 appearance on Fox News Sunday, Bill Kristol placed blame for the spill on regulations that pushed drilling "50 miles out from the coast." Kristol called himself a "drill-baby-drill person" and went on to suggest that ANWR land be made available for oil extraction, where "there are no waves, there's no ocean," and it is "perfectly easy to drill." Kristol likened the restrictions on drilling in the Gulf to restrictions on nuclear power after the Three Mile Island meltdown, which he claimed even environmentalists agree "was a wild overreaction."

Doocy and Varney agree: "We know why they drill in the deep water, environmentalists pushed them out from the shallow water." On the June 16 edition of Fox & Friends, Doocy stated "We know why [oil companies] drill in the deep water, environmentalists pushed them out from the shallow water." Varney agreed, "That's why we're not drilling in Alaska, not drilling in the shallow water. We've been pushed out in the deep water where it's difficult and dangerous."

Fox's Napolitano: "The feds decided where [BP's] oil well would be drilled." In the opening monologue of the June 16 edition of Glenn Beck, guest host Andrew Napolitano said that the federal government is "able to tell the oil companies where to drill," later adding that "the feds decided where this oil well would be drilled."

Big Government's Flynn: "The federal government made them drill in water that deep." Also on the June 16 edition of Glenn Beck, Mike Flynn, editor in chief of Andrew Breitbart's BigGovernment.com, said of the BP oil well location: "The federal government made them drill in water that deep, let's be clear about that."

O'Reilly: The environmental movement "absolutely did" contribute to the oil spill. On the June 10 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, host Bill O'Reilly, while commenting on a Time magazine piece, stated, "What Time magazine ignores and what absolutely did contribute to the disaster is the intense environmental movement, which has prevented much shallow water drilling, and the ANWR arctic exploration."

Napolitano: The government made BP "drill in 5,000 feet of water instead of 500." On the June 10 edition of Fox News' Your World with Neil Cavuto, Napolitano said the "government made BP drill in 5,000 feet of water instead of 500 feet of water."

Right-wing media invent conspiracy theories about the oil spill

Limbaugh suggested that "environmental whackos" may have blown up oil rig to "head off more oil drilling." On his April 29 radio show, Rush Limbaugh questioned "the timing" of the explosion and said: "Lest we forget ... the cap and trade bill was strongly criticized by hardcore environmentalist whackos because it supposedly allowed more offshore drilling and nuclear plants." Limbaugh added: "[W]hat better way to head off more oil drilling and nuclear plants than by blowing up a rig? I'm just, I'm just noting the timing here."

Perino: "[W]as this deliberate?" On the May 3 broadcast of Fox & Friends, Fox News contributor Dana Perino said of the spill: "I'm not trying to introduce a conspiracy theory, but was this deliberate? You know, you have to wonder ... if there was sabotage involved."

Bolling falsely claimed it was "nine days before" the leak "was even addressed" and asked, "Did they let this thing leak? ... if they're going to try and pull drilling, that may be the way they do it." On the May 3 edition of Fox & Friends, Fox Business Network host Eric Bolling said: "The question is ... why the delay in the response? You guys were pointing out, nine days before it was even addressed, 12 days before he made a formal comment. The question is, did they let this thing leak? I mean, BP said maybe a thousand barrels a day, it went to five thousand. Did they let it leak a little bit and say, boy I don't know. I mean, the conspiracy theorists would say, 'maybe they'd let it leak for a while, and then they addressed the issue.' " Bolling added: "It would be a humongous accusation and probably the net result would be no different, but if they're going to try and pull drilling, that may be the way they do it."

Bolling asks if Obama "let" oil rig leak so he "could renege on his promise" to "allow some offshore drilling." On the May 27 edition of Fox Business' Happy Hour, host Eric Bolling asked guest Alan Colmes "Are you sure they didn't let [the oil spill] leak so he could renege on his promise to allow some offshore drilling?"

Michael Brown on Fox News: Obama wanted oil spill so he could "shut down" offshore drilling. On the May 3 edition of Fox News' Your World with Neil Cavuto, former FEMA chief Michael Brown repeatedly suggested that the Obama administration deliberately chose to let the BP oil spill "get really bad" so it would have an "excuse" to "shut down offshore drilling."

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by mary59 (June 22, 2010 1:25 pm ET)
      7 1
      Beck wins an award for the volume of nutty statements, particularly comparing holding BP responsible to Nazis, then goes on about Christians & lions and Salem witch trials. However Krauthamer with his Inca ritual slaughter must certainly be in competition for strangest/original comparison.

      the rest are pretty garden variety hack statements.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by progressivevoicedaily (June 22, 2010 2:21 pm ET)
      6 2
      SO WHAT??? Whether it was a shakedown or BP offering it, the most important thing is that these people affected by this will not have to wait 20 years like the Valdez spill to get justly compensated. The right would rather our government treat a corporation like a child and put them in time out rather than see the American people and OUR COASTLINE AND NATURAL HABITATS AND WETLANDS done right by. This is the most anti-American stance I've heard in a long time. THESE PEOPLE ARE NOT PATRIOTS, THEY ARE TRAITORS!!!
      Report Abuse
      • Author by fairliberal (June 23, 2010 9:42 am ET)
        1 5
        I love how the lefties are constantly citing the constitution when it suits their purpose but conveniently forget about it in other instances, like this situation.

        They will oppose the Patroit Act because it might lead to abuses, they oppose an immigration law because it might lead to abuses, even though it expressly prohibits them. This is perfectly acceptable behavior to them.

        But they have no problem when dems advocate putting an oil company in receivership and the president "informs" an oil company that they must turn over their money to a fund controlled by a third party. That kind of abuse is perfectly acceptable.

        It seems due process is something reserved for terrorists and democrats accused of crimes. Oil companies need not apply. The progressive movement in action, constitution protections are afforded to select groups only.

        That being said, I am glad the Obamanation got the $$, he just went about it in the wrong way.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by raddave43 (June 23, 2010 11:01 am ET)
          4 1
          I love how wingnuts can't believe that the President and the head of BP both agreed to this. BP does the responsible thing and all of a sudden the President shook them down.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by eb (June 23, 2010 12:26 pm ET)
            2  
            But they have no problem when dems advocate putting an oil company in receivership and the president "informs" an oil company that they must turn over their money to a fund controlled by a third party. That kind of abuse is perfectly acceptable.

            Corporations are chartered by the government for their very existence. Their owners are given a limited liability for damages, which means the government and not the owners are responsible. Since the government ultimately is responsible for the damage, they have a responsibility to intervene or even void a corporate charter.

            Corporations exist to make profit for their owners, not to protect the environment or the people. Protecting our interests is the government's responsibility. Taking responsibility for the oil spill is not abuse. It is about as abusive as ending up in court with the risk of loosing your license after having multiple DWI's.

            Report Abuse
            • Author by mikehuck1976 (June 23, 2010 3:48 pm ET)
              2 2
              Whoa, whoa. That is WAY over fakeliberal's head. Have you ever read her posts?
              Report Abuse
        • Author by mary59 (June 23, 2010 12:20 pm ET)
          2 3
          There, there, sillyfakeliberal. Don't worry. We understand that you need help. You, and poor oppressed 'lil BP.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by roundhouse (June 23, 2010 7:59 pm ET)
            1
          BP is a corporate felon. You're an idiot for defending them.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by CoolSlaw (June 22, 2010 5:00 pm ET)
      6 2
      Gingrich,Buchanan,Palin,Krystol...what a gallery of hypocrites,liars,racists and quitters! Even Michael Brown chimes in with a heckuva' wild conspiracy theory!

      Wow, the only way to lose "cred" with right wingers must be to deviate from the talking points. Scandal, hypocrisy, incompetence, corruption, quitting? Those must be crazy lib'rul talking points.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by johnbrown (June 22, 2010 7:40 pm ET)
      1 2
      I think Limbaugh's piehole could suck up the oil spill then a "shakedown" as Barton and company like to call it wouldn't be necessary.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by little poncho (June 22, 2010 10:05 pm ET)
      1 1
      limpbag is nothing LESS then a IDIOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
      Report Abuse
      • Author by mari2jj (June 23, 2010 1:09 am ET)
        1  
        You forgot to say self obsessed and a totally silly person. If you could buy Limbaugh for what he is worth and sell him for what he THINKS he is worth. you could settle the National debt with plenty left over to make YOU independently wealthy!! The poor thing is pitiful in everything that realy counts!
        Report Abuse
    • Author by Jose4 (June 22, 2010 10:13 pm ET)
      1 8
      Let's toss out the Constitution and let the ends justify the means.

      Since BP is a major campaign contributor to the Democratic Party and since BP embraces Cap and Tax and other progressive ideas that dominate the UK, the right wing would be wise to let BP go bankrupt under an Obama shakedown.

      The problem is the Obama shakedown gives the US Government ownership over BP in America and could lead to the takeover of BP as happened to GM, etc.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by soze169880 (June 23, 2010 1:07 am ET)
        4 2
        God, you're boring. Go back to the fart obsession.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by Unreality (June 23, 2010 1:33 am ET)
        3  
        Are you with us or agin us? Are you for Taxpayers or BP?

        Looks like you're on the side of BP.

        I'm on the side of taxpayers.

        Why do you hate taxpayers so much?

        (You obviously don't comprehend the legal distinction between owning equity in a company [known as ownership] and a company paying a penalty or expense for damages [known as a tort].)
        Report Abuse
        • Author by Jose4 (June 23, 2010 8:27 am ET)
          1 9
          What about the damage you caused by supporting a President who wouldn't suspend the Jones Act to allow the many nations volunteering in the cleanup?

          What about the damage you caused by promoting environmental wacko ideas that force deep sea drilling?

          What about the damage you caused by supporting the drilling moratorium on rigs that aren't part of BP's drilling shortcuts?

          When it comes down to it, you are more responsible than BP with your ridiculous progressiveness.



          Report Abuse
          • Author by raddave43 (June 23, 2010 8:54 am ET)
            3 2
            Do you get extra credit for the more wingnut talking points you can fit into a post?
            Report Abuse
            • Author by Jose4 (June 23, 2010 9:05 am ET)
              1 4
              quoting raddave,

              "If something is a wingnut talking point then it is automatically wrong. I don't care about reality."


              So what is your progressive talking point response?

              Report Abuse
              • Author by MiniTru (June 23, 2010 9:16 am ET)
                2 1
                That wasn't a quote, it was a strawman.

                Jose (1, then 2, then 3, then 4), are you waiting to be banned yet again for lying?
                Report Abuse
              • Author by raddave43 (June 23, 2010 9:17 am ET)
                3 1
                "If something is a wingnut talking point then it is automatically wrong. I don't care about reality."


                Not "automatically wrong," but about as fast as it takes for google to deliver results debunking them.
                Report Abuse
            • Author by eb (June 23, 2010 9:07 am ET)
              5 1
              What about the damage you caused by supporting a President who wouldn't suspend the Jones Act to allow the many nations volunteering in the cleanup?

              This has been debunked! Notice how it doesn't matter at all that its been debunked because it keeps getting repeated by so called trusted sources.

              Why does it keep getting repeated? Because it reinforces the negative stereotype of progressives and Obama. In the conservative mind evil doers are easy to identify - anyone who is not conservative.

              Isn't it childish to think that nearly half of our country is evil, intent on doing evil, and designed to do evil simply because you don't agree with them? It also is requires an incredible twisting of reality, as well as logic. For example, is Obama so in love with, or intimidated by, or brainwashed from labor unions that he will turn away help on an issue that could damage him politically?

              I find it more likely that the right, which gets much more support/influence/ideology from corporate power, will defend the unthinkable due to a real conflict of interest.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by Jose4 (June 23, 2010 9:15 am ET)
                1 7
                So your response to ONE point is it has been debunked with nothing to back it up.

                You ignore the rest of the points and contribute nothing.


                Report Abuse
                • Author by MiniTru (June 23, 2010 9:18 am ET)
                  2 1
                  Your repeating one debunked point as if it had relevance automatically renders the rest of your post null and void. There is no reason to reply to, or even read, any "points" that follow the debunked one.
                  Report Abuse
                • Author by eb (June 23, 2010 9:30 am ET)
                  5  
                  This is a quote found in the website you are on right now
                  http://mediamatters.org/research/201006150033

                  Read it and realize that conservative media has a low opinion of you. They blatantly repeat lies because they know how to press your buttons. Maybe someday you will direct your anger at them. Here is the quote:

                  National Incident Commander Admiral Thad Allen today announced the development of specific guidance to ensure accelerated processing of requests for Jones Act waivers should they be received as a part of the BP oil spill response.

                  Currently, 15 foreign-flagged vessels are involved in the largest response to an oil spill in U.S. history. No Jones Act waivers have been granted because none of these vessels have required such a waiver to conduct their operations in the Gulf of Mexico.

                  However, in order to prepare for any potential need, Admiral Allen has provided guidance to the Coast Guard Federal On-Scene Coordinator, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), and the U.S. Maritime Administration to ensure any Jones Act waiver requests receive urgent attention and processing.

                  "While we have not seen any need to waive the Jones Act as part of this historic response, we continue to prepare for all possible scenarios," said Admiral Allen. "Should any waivers be needed, we are prepared to process them as quickly as possible to allow vital spill response activities being undertaken by foreign-flagged vessels to continue without delay."

                  [...]

                  Generally, federal law prohibits a foreign-flagged vessel from transporting merchandise between points in the United States encompassed by the Coastwise laws. CBP makes determinations as to whether or not the Jones Act applies to the activities of a foreign-flagged vessel operating within U.S. waters.

                  Even if the Jones Act applies, a foreign flagged vessel can still conduct certain planned operations as part of the BP oil spill response if the vessel is an oil spill response vessel and meets the requirements of 46 USC § 55113.

                  The guidance provided by Admiral Allen would route waivers related to the BP oil spill response through the Federal On-Scene Coordinator, who will forward requests immediately through the National Incident Commander for expedited clearance.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by congero6189599 (June 23, 2010 12:29 pm ET)
                    1 1
                    What no reply from jose1-2-3-4?
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by Jose4 (June 23, 2010 1:04 pm ET)
                        2
                      Basically we had a breakdown in government where the States and others are doing operations in spite of opposition by the Feds.

                      Report Abuse
                  • Author by Jose4 (June 23, 2010 12:50 pm ET)
                    1 2
                    HAHAHA Would you be concerned if the conservative media had a low opinion of you?

                    I've been accused of copying Limbaugh when the fact is I said it first here before Limbaugh said it.

                    I know the conservative media is watching me and they are free to verify and expand on any of my ideas - just as the progressives are when I say something where I surprisingly agree with them.

                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by mary59 (June 23, 2010 1:08 pm ET)
                      4 2
                      So Limpballs copies your talking points? Now both of you, careful about falling into ditches.

                      All the Jose numbers that have posted must be careful, lest the right-wing talkers put you through 62 shakedowns, launch a show trial, and call you an environmentalist because they stole all your great ideas and are afraid you'll out them as copycats.

                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by Jose4 (June 23, 2010 1:14 pm ET)
                        1 2
                        Unlike most people here, I am capable of originality. If I get copied once or twice by Limbaugh that's great.



                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by congero6189599 (June 23, 2010 2:36 pm ET)
                          2 1
                          You confuse being a crazy kook with being original.
                          Report Abuse
              • Author by mikehuck1976 (June 23, 2010 3:57 pm ET)
                3 2
                This has been debunked! Notice how it doesn't matter at all that its been debunked because it keeps getting repeated by so called trusted sources. - eb

                To be fair, no one considers Jose a trusted source. Not even his loved ones. And, he does not confer with any trusted sources. He has no intention of using any trusted sources. In fact, he will now come back to you demanding you prove him wrong. He will never use any facts to support his assertions, but he will demand someone prove him wrong. He is either too ignorant to understand how evidence and proof works, or he is too far gone to care.
                Report Abuse
          • Author by eb (June 23, 2010 9:22 am ET)
            3 1
            What about the damage you caused by promoting environmental wacko ideas that force deep sea drilling?

            Conservatives feel entitled to the oil and the life style it brings. being responsible for the side effects makes the lifestyle more expensive and the entitlement less justified. In this case responsibility can be avoided by pretending the side effects don't exist. This is a big conservative media strategy often used.

            If you want to avoid deep sea drilling, use less oil. Conserve. Be responsible!

            Even without environmentalist, most of the easy to get oil has been burned anyway.

            Trust that big oil will let its conservative allies know when they think a lot of oil production is being restricted by all those losers who are worried about the side effects of drilling.

            Oil supplies are finite and we burn 80+ million barrels a day in the world. Discoveries have been in decline since the sixties world wide. Reality won't always melt away just because conservative ideology says it should.





            Report Abuse
          • Author by eb (June 23, 2010 9:35 am ET)
            3 1
            What about the damage you caused by supporting the drilling moratorium on rigs that aren't part of BP's drilling shortcuts?

            Do you know what caused the oil spill? We were told this type of drilling is safe. Even the so called socialist, anti white CEO, Marxist, Muslim, non citizen president Barak Obama was fooled by them.

            When being responsible gets in the way of the economy, the economy wins every time. All you have to do is pretend the risks go away when they become inconvenient.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by Jose4 (June 23, 2010 11:12 am ET)
              1 2
              It's not just the economy that's at stake. It's your food, your clothing and your shelter.

              Beyond that, what if there was a 5% chance that a buildup of methane hydrate was to lead to an extinction event much worse than any global warming catastrophe?

              Shouldn't we be drilling and consuming as much oil as possible?

              In 2002, a BBC2 'Horizon' documentary, 'The Day the Earth Almost Died' summarized some recent findings and speculation concerning the Permian extinction event.

              Your text to link here...

              Report Abuse
              • Author by raddave43 (June 23, 2010 11:16 am ET)
                3 1
                Talk about a strawman.
                Report Abuse
              • Author by congero6189599 (June 23, 2010 11:29 am ET)
                3 1
                Dude,you are one confused person and thats being nice.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by Jose4 (June 23, 2010 12:03 pm ET)
                  1 3
                  Typical replies from the clueless.



                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by mary59 (June 23, 2010 12:23 pm ET)
                    4 2
                    Any response to eb's post above debunking your hack talking point about the Jones Act?
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by Jose4 (June 23, 2010 12:41 pm ET)
                      1 2
                      I re-read eb's post and all I see is his assertion that the Jone's Act talking point has been debunked by trusted sources.

                      Looks like a classic strawman argument to me.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by Unreality (June 23, 2010 12:55 pm ET)
                        1 1
                        BJF is that you lurking again as Jose? Can't you go back to Ireland for a nice Guinness?

                        Jose would think a strawman argument referred to the Wizard of Oz.
                        Report Abuse
                      • Author by congero6189599 (June 23, 2010 2:39 pm ET)
                        2 1
                        If thats all you read you need help.
                        Report Abuse
                      • Author by eb (June 23, 2010 3:12 pm ET)
                        3  
                        I gave you a quote from the Administration on the disaster response. I pointed out that it came from here mainly to show you how easy it is to debunk Conservative Media Celebrity propaganda.

                        It seems the administration is not cooperating with the Right Wing attack media and playing the villain. Or are you saying the administration lying to protect their labor union overlords?
                        Report Abuse
      • Author by raddave43 (June 23, 2010 9:01 am ET)
        4 1
        Calling it a shakedown is just an attempt to smear the President, even though sane people would realize he and BP did the right thing. Imagine the outrage if the President had said something like "Hey,under the law BP is liable for only $75 million. The taxpayer is going to have to pay for the rest of the cleanup. And, to pay for it we have to raise the tax on gasoline during the summer. Hopefully we can get some of the money we spent back after 20 years or so of fighting in the courts." Yeah, I'm sure the wingnuts would have been standing up and cheering for that.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by Jose4 (June 23, 2010 11:19 am ET)
          1 3
          It's also an indictment against BP for letting their progressive policy of allowing them to be shaken down.

          If you want to change the tort system so it doesn't take 20 years then change it.

          Instead of tort reform which they've been fighting for years, the left wants to bypass the rule of law and create uncertainty that will scare any new private investment away.

          It shouldn't be any surprise that the left doesn't want private investment and wants to a government run economy.





          Report Abuse
          • Author by raddave43 (June 23, 2010 11:26 am ET)
            3 1
            How is it an "indictment" against BP to do the responsible thing? How is it a "shakedown" when BP agreed willingly to set up an escrow account? Tort reform has NOTHING to do with changing the appeals process, but rather the limit of damages a corperation can be made to pay and is just another strawman argument on your part. This argument also has nothing to do with private investment and is still one more straw you added.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by eb (June 23, 2010 12:42 pm ET)
            2 1
            It's also an indictment against BP for letting their progressive policy of allowing them to be shaken down.

            Have conservatives, in their knee jerk defense of all things corporate and wealthy, forgotten about the mess that BP caused.

            Progressives did not force or encourage PB to drill irresponsibly. Quick easy profits and I would assume a dysfunctional corporate bureaucracy was all that was needed. The fact that they would work with the government to mitigate the damage, rather than fight for every concession shows that:

            1. PB realizes that their culpability in this disaster is obvious
            2. PB realizes that it is in their interest to cooperate

            It shouldn't be any surprise that the left doesn't want private investment and wants to a government run economy.

            Didn't Obama approve more drilling before this disaster?

            Not every non-conservative wants the government to own anything. YOU have been intentionally mislead by conservative media celebrities to think that. They take you for a fool by blatantly lying repeatedly and assuming you will fall for it.

            I like the idea that the private enterprise specializes in making money and public government oversight puts checks and balances on such enterprises to look out for the public good and long term interests. If the government makes profit directly, it can be more difficult to deal with the conflict of interest with making money and being responsible.

            Modern conservatives trust that authoritarian corporations will effectively worship the bottom line and look out for the public interest. They take us for fools.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by Unreality (June 23, 2010 1:09 pm ET)
              1 1
              eb,

              'Jose4' is a troll playing dumb, or is a 10th grader on summer vacation. I'll be generous and assume the latter.

              He doesn't know how business works or what private investment means. He doesn't know the basic distinction between equity and escrow (both start with 'e' is not on the multiple choice test).

              He doesn't realize that the highest value tort cases are big companies suing each other under the law of torts. I suggest a good use of his summer vacation time is to visit a federal court and watch a couple teams of litigators battle a patent dispute over a few billion bucks. It's lots of fun and very educational.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by Jose4 (June 23, 2010 1:30 pm ET)
                1 3
                When bond holders first in line at a GM bankruptcy go to the back of the line, how soon are they going to go back in buying more bonds?

                And some of that BP money in escrow belongs to little old ladies investment accounts.

                If you want to see an example where tort reform would help look at SCO vs IBM, SCO vs Novell.

                Looks like you're the one who needs educating.



                Report Abuse
                • Author by mary59 (June 23, 2010 2:46 pm ET)
                  2 1
                  So what would your solution be for all the people who have lost income because of this BP sponsored disaster?
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by eb (June 23, 2010 3:18 pm ET)
                    1  
                    Tort reform???? Yes this is the idea. Give corporations the benefit of the doubt when regulating them and limit the damages people can get when they mess up.

                    Oh and if I should feel sorry for little old ladies who got burned by inadvertently investing in irresponsible companies, then that should tell you something about the state of corporate governance.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by Jose4 (June 23, 2010 3:25 pm ET)
                      1 2
                      How about tort reform that stops celebrity lawyers from gaming the system and dragging out lawsuits for years.

                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by mary59 (June 23, 2010 4:21 pm ET)
                        2 2
                        That wouldn't be enough. It's only a small speck of a problem in the vast ocean of mega corporate irresponsibility.

                        Any other brilliant ideas?
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by mary59 (June 23, 2010 4:23 pm ET)
                          2 2
                          oh yeh, and if you're talking about Exxon's lawyers dragging out the lawsuit over the oil spill in Alaska, I'd be all for reforming that travesty of justice. They still haven't paid out many of the litigants who lost their livelihoods in that disaster.
                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by allan.masri1047 (June 23, 2010 6:42 pm ET)
                            2  
                            The executives at Union Carbide India were just sentenced to 2-year terms, 28 years after their actions caused 3500 deaths in Bhopal. I would favor tort reform that increases the liability of corporate officers for actions of their corporations. The corporate officers collect huge salaries to "run" the company. They need to pay huge penalties when they "run" the companies over the bodies of innocent bystanders.

                            The CEO of Union Carbide is still under indictment in India, but he will never go back to face justice.
                            Report Abuse
                • Author by Unreality (June 24, 2010 12:42 am ET)
                  2 1
                  I must have been too generous.

                  You still haven't answered my original and simple question: Why should my tax dollars pay for BP's blowout?

                  The money in escrow is the protection for taxpayers. You remember taxpayers, don't you? If little old ladies want to invest in risky businesses, that is their choice in a capitalist system. Just because a risk manager didn't properly factor the risk (sounds like AIG and MBS, doesn't it) shouldn't require taxpayers to cover the loss. Why should BP shareholders profit while taxpayers get punished? That's not the capitalism I learned in biz school.

                  GM BK is outside my area of knowledge and I was a bit busy with medical patent at the time, so I can't render an informed opinion.

                  I know a fair bit about SCO vs et al being here in Silicon Valley. We all knew it was a hollow threat, but it took pick pockets to defend. I've participated on the defense side of a patent mill lawsuit with over $15 billion at issue. We eventually "won." I'm professionally pleased to see Bill Lerach out of business after serving time, but think we do need better corp governance and SarBox has too many unintended consequences.

                  I am always learning.

                  And I will assert you write too much like BJF to be a coincidence.
                  Report Abuse
            • Author by eb (June 23, 2010 5:35 pm ET)
                 
              Not every non-conservative wants the government to own anything

              anything should be everything!
              Report Abuse
          • Author by Unreality (June 23, 2010 12:48 pm ET)
            2 1
            Jose,

            Do you have a random list of copy and paste talking points on you screen? You continually demonstrate very shallow knowledge and a micron's depth of curiosity to actually learn the facts. The facts are out there and often just a wikipedia entry away.

            You don't comprehend the basic rule of law called torts, which enabled the people to have equal standing with the king.

            You don't comprehend that if BP doesn't pay, taxpayers are stuck with the bill. Why do you think taxpayers should pay for BP's disaster? You've yet to address this.

            You don't comprehend that a lust for profits drove BP to drill in deep water. This was a competitive advantage for BP, doing something smaller firms would not, or could not, attempt. They bought the lease for the land to keep out competition. As an inventor and entrepreneur, I share a lust for profits. But my inventions go through FDA approval of 2-7 years for each device. "Under current law, the Interior Department has only 30 days to review an application...[to drill a deep sea well]"
            Report Abuse
            • Author by Jose4 (June 23, 2010 1:43 pm ET)
              1 2
              Using the FDA as a model for government efficiency does not serve you well.

              Report Abuse
              • Author by mary59 (June 23, 2010 4:24 pm ET)
                2 2
                Why do you think that taxpayers should pay for BP's disaster?
                Report Abuse
      • Author by mikehuck1976 (June 23, 2010 3:50 pm ET)
        1 1
        "BP embraces Cap and Tax" - Jose

        And, he actually believes that. Priceless.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by ipawlzon (June 23, 2010 5:10 am ET)
      4 1
      They try soo heard to demonize Obama it has become silly. I just ran across this youtube video from "The Drudge" making fun of his golf swing calling him "shankapotomus" (SP?). So THIS is also "newsworthy"???:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9m3GyDh6M8&feature=player_embedded

      I tried to put in my 2 cents under my nick "thatguyfromga" since he is just being bashed by nothing but drudge readers.. Everyone should read these brainwashe a**holes lame comments. And the top rated comment is:

      N37BU6
      11 hours ago 10
      "Did you learn to golf yet, daddy?"

      WOW.. another Presidential Daughter remark from a Glen Beck fan.. Just thought that the readers of MMFA should see this.. I am sorry if this is in the wrong section, but I am just furious.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by mary59 (June 23, 2010 2:44 pm ET)
        1 1
        There is no shortage of stupidity on this planet.


        Report Abuse
        • Author by Jose4 (June 23, 2010 3:03 pm ET)
          2 1
          While reading your comments I have the same thought.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by congero6189599 (June 23, 2010 3:44 pm ET)
            1 2
            Finally self reflection. Now if we could just get you to put that thought in action and stop posting stupid stuff.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by Jose4 (June 23, 2010 3:44 pm ET)
              1 2
              Look who's talking.

              Report Abuse
              • Author by congero6189599 (June 23, 2010 4:42 pm ET)
                2 2
                Would a person who ate rice but no beans and watched TV be stronger than a person who ate beans and watched TV? How about if we eliminated TV who would be the stronger? Now if I watched TV just 1 hour/day but ate Big Macs were would I rank on your strenght meter? How about if I ate carne asada with my rice and beans and watched TV would I be stronger than someone who ate Big Macs but didn't watch TV?

                Where can I find scientific proof of your assertions? lol.
                Report Abuse
    • Author by manofmystique (June 23, 2010 8:44 am ET)
      3  
      Have you ever seem people who openly lie over and over again and still treated like celebrities? These people have absolutely no credibility, yet they are held as analysis.
      Although most of them are on the airwaves, it is clear they are talking to one group of people, those on the fringe.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by eb (June 23, 2010 9:45 am ET)
        2 1
        This is why I call them Conservative Media Celebrities. Their appeal is their personal ability to provide a clever analysis designed to destroy anything that stands in their way of being infallibly correct and well positioned politically.

        When you listen to their shows, ultimately it comes down to who they are and how they feel and think. Its not really about any kind of reality beyond the thin space inbetween their ears.

        Beck, Rush, Hannity, Savage all are conservative media celebrities. They are not journalists humbled at the responsibility of unraveling an issue or reporting on an event. Like all celebrities, they should be under the media spot light. If they are celebrated for their triumphs (and they are), they should be scrutinized for their failures (which, for some reason, they get a pass).
        Report Abuse
        • Author by Jose4 (June 23, 2010 1:57 pm ET)
          1 2
          If you have a choice between the State run media like CNN/CNBC or Conservative Media Celebrities, which one are you going to choose?



          Report Abuse
          • Author by mary59 (June 23, 2010 2:43 pm ET)
            3 2
            ha ha. state run media? Love your original thoughts. Although I think they were stolen from the psychic hotline.

            Back to the article, are you feeling sorry for BP?
            Report Abuse
            • Author by Jose4 (June 23, 2010 2:49 pm ET)
              1 3
              In fact, if not for the few voices of dissent on talk radio, Fox News and a few other outlets, the Obama administration would have achieved by default an alarming, historic first: an American state-run media. And now, not content with having 90 percent of the media establishment supporting its agenda, the White House is committed to bullying Fox News.

              Your text to link here...

              This thought isn't that original, see above.

              Report Abuse
              • Author by eb (June 23, 2010 3:36 pm ET)
                1 1
                State run does not mean they agree with Obama. You guys see socialism everywhere. You know, that public library is a cesspool of socialism. So is the interstate highway system.

                Obama did get criticized on other media outlets. If you want't to see media support, go back to the unquestioning media before the Iraq invasion.
                Report Abuse
              • Author by eb (June 23, 2010 3:36 pm ET)
                1 1
                State run does not mean they agree with Obama. You guys see socialism everywhere. You know, that public library is a cesspool of socialism. So is the interstate highway system.

                Obama did get criticized on other media outlets. If you want't to see media support, go back to the unquestioning media before the Iraq invasion.
                Report Abuse
              • Author by eb (June 23, 2010 3:36 pm ET)
                1 1
                State run does not mean they agree with Obama. You guys see socialism everywhere. You know, that public library is a cesspool of socialism. So is the interstate highway system.

                Obama did get criticized on other media outlets. If you want't to see media support, go back to the unquestioning media before the Iraq invasion.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by Jose4 (June 23, 2010 3:45 pm ET)
                  1 1
                  If you don't agree with Obama you lose access. How is this not a State run media?

                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by mary59 (June 23, 2010 4:30 pm ET)
                    1 3
                    I see your strategy. Have a lame brained argument about CNN being a "state run media" and stick to it until people throw up their hands in amazement and disgust.

                    Regardless, Faux is a 24/7 propaganda arm of the Republican Party and certainly your talking point about "losing access" was true with Bush and reporters.

                    I'm beginning to think that you don't care at all about people losing their livelihoods in the Gulf coast.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by Jose4 (June 23, 2010 4:39 pm ET)
                      1 2
                      Good try at redirection.

                      Try actually reading my posts before making such ridiculous statements.

                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by congero6189599 (June 23, 2010 4:50 pm ET)
                        1 1
                        Your post offer no help in that regard but they do give us insight into how a deranged brain works. Thanks.
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by mary59 (June 23, 2010 5:38 pm ET)
                          3 2
                          It is a case study, conger, but he'll keep at it tenaciously. I was trying to redirect him into reality AND the actual topic of this thread, but that's a hard sell for him.
                          Report Abuse
            • Author by Jose4 (June 23, 2010 3:13 pm ET)
              1 1
              I don't feel sorry for BP and their cap and trade leanings.

              I do feel sorry for the millions of Americans who have investments and jobs adversely affected from the outrageous action by the Federal Government.

              Report Abuse
              • Author by eb (June 23, 2010 3:31 pm ET)
                1 1
                I don't feel sorry for BP and their cap and trade leanings.

                Folks, this is a real conservative dilemma. What do you do when even the powerful private sector corporations deviate from Media Conservative ideology. PB isn't to be criticized for unsafe practices and deceptive PR. No, the problem is that sometimes they see it in their interest to do something that conservatives don't like.

                The funny thing is corporations aren't democracies. Good luck in convince PB to change just because Glenn Beck doesn't like it.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by Jose4 (June 23, 2010 3:48 pm ET)
                  1 1
                  So if I don't want to move back into caveman days that somehow makes me a conservative?

                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by congero6189599 (June 23, 2010 4:53 pm ET)
                    1 1
                    Don't flatter yourself you are no conservative just a kook.
                    Report Abuse
          • Author by congero6189599 (June 23, 2010 2:44 pm ET)
            2 1
            What are you on? Really!!! WTF are you on?
            Report Abuse
          • Author by eb (June 23, 2010 3:26 pm ET)
            2 1
            you have a choice between the State run media like CNN/CNBC or Conservative Media Celebrities, which one are you going to choose?

            CNN = Pravda? Really. How does that work. Does congress fund CNN? Is it administered in secret by Obama's inner city community organizer thug squad? Where is your proof or did Beck/hannity/rush tell you that.

            Probably because CNN/CNBC are not spoon feeding you the conservative line, you assume they must be evil. Can't you understand that not everyone likes to be lied to continually.

            Actually if you want to know who influences CNN, watch the commercials. NPR/PBS has more to do with the government and they actually do investigative journalism, rather than agenda driven content to sooth the afraid to be confused conservative listeners.

            Report Abuse
            • Author by Jose4 (June 23, 2010 4:48 pm ET)
              1 2
              If you agree with Obama you get access. If you disagree you get bullied.

              How is this not considered State run?

              Report Abuse
              • Author by congero6189599 (June 23, 2010 4:56 pm ET)
                1 1
                Shake whatever brain cells you have left and try again no one is falling for your kooky allegations.
                Report Abuse
              • Author by mjlilgui (June 23, 2010 5:17 pm ET)
                2  
                Would they continue to run after they stopped getting the "inside scoop" (which is apparently overrated anyways... Fox News seems to be doing ridiculously well with judging all of Obama's motives without being front and center for him)? Do they get funding from Obama?

                I'm all for intellectual discussion, but you're seriously killing yourself here. Either you don't realize it or you don't care.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by Jose4 (June 23, 2010 5:26 pm ET)
                  1 2
                  Anyone who asks the Obama administration tough questions and persists on getting an answer gets booted off of CNN.

                  If you want a critical review of the Obama administration there are few places to go.

                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by congero6189599 (June 23, 2010 5:38 pm ET)
                    1 1
                    So your response is you just don't care that your making yourslef look foolish. We get it.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by mary59 (June 23, 2010 5:43 pm ET)
                      2 2
                      We can only guess at who Jose4 might be talking about who got booted off CNN for asking "tough Questions."
                      Maybe Lou Dobbs? He certainly had a lot of crazy train stuff about Obama's birth certificate. But t'was the poor ratings did him in...on he went to Faux.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by Jose4 (June 23, 2010 5:46 pm ET)
                        1 2
                        Don't forget Glenn Beck being kicked off CNN.

                        Report Abuse
                      • Author by congero6189599 (June 23, 2010 5:57 pm ET)
                        1 1
                        Mary I admire your patience in trying to understand this person jose but the more he is pressed the more absurd he becomes. Now he's asserting Glenn Beck was removed from CNN for asking tough questions. Have you seen him offer an article,anything to back up his allegation. You debunk one claim he makes another ridiculous one. He's not serious(thats giving him the benefit of doubt)just needy for attention.
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by mary59 (June 23, 2010 6:24 pm ET)
                          2 2
                          True. He's not seriously concerned about the Gulf Coast and BP's culpability at all. May be just a bored kid.
                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by Jose4 (June 23, 2010 6:38 pm ET)
                            1 2
                            Wrong again. Try reading my posts above. I'm not going to repeat myself more than twice.



                            Report Abuse
                          • Author by mikehuck1976 (June 24, 2010 12:36 pm ET)
                            2 1
                            Even for a kid, he is woefully misinformed and ignorant. I would suspect a right-wing hate radio Fox News junkie. They tend to be much more ignorant than the average 9 year old. And proud of it as well.
                            Report Abuse
                    • Author by Jose4 (June 23, 2010 5:45 pm ET)
                      1 2
                      You are obviously not on the payroll.

                      Report Abuse
          • Author by mikehuck1976 (June 24, 2010 12:32 pm ET)
            1  
            Jose4, who does not understand the most basic concepts of socialism or the state. Who does not want the government involved anywhere in anyway, except, of course, when cleaning up the mess mde by BP. That's the kind of bailout he supports. Classic ignorant right-wing nutjob.
            Report Abuse
    • Author by little poncho (June 23, 2010 10:07 pm ET)
      1 1
      The conserative media cannot stand the people of the gulf coast are getting the $20, billion from BP to get thru this crisis, and more to clean up this mess. The right wing think, they have all the answers. Probably, they think they are entitled to the $20, billion instead of the AMERICANS in the gulf coast region......... AMERICA THINK ABOUT IT!!!!!!
      PS. What would bushie had done different ???? DAH!!!!!!!!!
      Report Abuse