Hysterical Blindness

You're blind/you can't see/you need to wear some glasses like D.M.C.---Run-DMC

It's a hell of thing setting high expectations. Invariably, you will disappoint. Certainly, with his soaring campaign rhetoric that created a winning coalition in the 2008 Presidential election, Barack Obama had some people believing he could walk on water. Now that he has been President for over a year now, we have learned that he can't.

He and his administration have certainly not been perfect. They have ticked off independents with what they view as excessive spending. They have upset gays by not attacking the Defense Of Marriage Act and stalling on the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell. They have steamed liberals by showing a willingness to get what they can (see health care reform) instead of what the left wants. They have enraged the right by, well, waking up in the morning and being Democrats. And they have disenchanted the media and punditry by not being as accessible as they would like.

Still, the criticism by the left of the President's speech on the disastrous Gulf Coast oil spill Tuesday night gave me pause.

What exactly did they want him to say? As I was watching Keith Olbermann sighing and harumphing his way through his assessment of the speech, as well as Chris Matthews' stinging rebuke of the President's message with his lower lip literally wet with froth, I thought could they have possibly been watching the same address that I was?

Now I will agree it was not Obama's greatest speech. I don't think the venue suited him. He has always been at his best when he has a live audience in the room with him to play off of. But it was a reasonable summation of how we got to this point, where we are now, and where we are going. While Olbermann and Matthews criticized the President for not being more specific and in Matthews words not projecting "command and control" (whatever the hell that means) and "moral outrage," I realized that we are all the way into "damned if you do, damned if you don't" territory.

When this President gives detailed, complex answers to national concerns, he is criticized for being too "professorial." Now, he's not detailed enough. And I think what the oft-fiery Matthews is saying when he speaks of "command and control" and "moral outrage," what he really means is he wants to see the President good and mad. As if getting angry is a solution. That's obviously what Matthews would do--- and like most people he thinks others should do the same as he.

So fine. They didn't like his lack of detail or the fact that he didn't pound his fist against the desk. If they feel they didn't get that from the speech then that is a fair statement. However, what is not fair is to say that the President stated that he was going to "ask" BP to set up an escrow fund for covering the costs of the spill as Matthews suggested. In truth, the President said that on Wednesday morning he would "inform" BP that they would be creating this fund for the Gulf. I don't know what Matthews' definition of "ask" is, but mine does not include the word "inform."

As well, Olbermann said there was nothing in the speech about "Cap and Trade." Which is technically true but essentially false. The energy bill that the House passed--and is sitting in the Senate awaiting debate--that Obama referred to during the speech does include "Cap and Trade." I think the President is astute enough to know that the words "Cap and Trade" are as loaded as the "Public Option" was in the health care debate. Therefore, he was making a shrewd choice to discuss energy independence without that polarizing phrase. I know we'd like to think that there is no political calculation at play here, but that is wholly unrealistic. What the President is trying to do here is marshall public and political support for a much needed energy bill that will lead to us getting off of fossil fuels. The best way to do that is not to throw dirt on the bill by putting its most controversial measure upfront. Like I said, shrewd.

This President has often been lambasted (mostly by the right) of being more talk than action. Which makes no sense at all if you look at his legislative accomplishments thus far in his presidency, but I digress. So it was quite interesting watching Olbermann, Matthews, and James Carville (whose criticism of the President's response to the spill has been loud and withering) begin to at least partially walk back their hysterical blindness on Wednesday when the President secured a $20 billion escrow account from BP as well as $100 million for out of work oil rig workers (due to the off shore drilling moratorium), and more funds for a coastal wetlands restoration project. This axis of liberal bluster softened considerably after the President squeezed BP for an unheard of amount of cash. And here's the thing: this agreement did not come with a cap! The President made it clear that this merely a down payment.

I wonder if people realize how extraordinary these concessions are. It would have been far easier for the President to enter negotiations with the full force of law behind him. He had hoped to gain leverage previously by having congress raise the oil spill liability for crude companies from the paltry $75 million that it stands at now to something far more substantial. However, Republicans in congress (I'm looking at you Murkowski) have continually blocked such an effort. Without any change to the cap, the President was left with only two weapons in his arsenal. Fear and shame.

Fear that the Department of Justice would sue BP for negligence and regulatory disregard, and shaming the company by continually railing against them. And you know what? It. Worked.

Of course, this defense of the President's speech and recent action doesn't mean that I think that his handling of this crisis has been perfect. Far from it. There are several areas where the President and his administration need to improve. The chain of command needs to be more clear. The collection strategy needs to be stepped up. The ability of BP to control the press needs to be addressed. The clean up workers must be provided (at BP's expense) with proper safety gear to avoid long term health issues. The Department of the Interior needs to completely make over the Minerals Management Service that was supposed to be in charge of regulating the oil companies. And of course, "Plug the damn hole."

Obama is not at fault for the lax regulation during the Bush years which has played a big part in this disaster. However, he does bare responsibility for not cleaning up the MMS more expeditiously. I was personally incredulous when Obama agreed to open up more of our coasts to expanded off shore oil drilling (http://sumopop-ed.blogspot.com/2010/04/crude.html). Now that we see the state that the MMS was in at the time of that decision I am even more so. The MMS has been criticized for having "too cozy" a relationship with oil companies. That is putting it mildly.

The MMS is reported to have 60 inspectors for over 4000 oil rigs. The inspectors are both underpaid and poorly trained. The department relies heavily on accurate reporting from the oil companies to ascertain whether they are compliant with federal regulation. Which essentially means that they are regulating themselves. This is how you end up with spill response plans that are "virtually worthless" according to House Democrat, Bart Stupak. In fact, when the heads of the five major oil companies (Exxon, Chevron, Shell, ConocoPhillips, as well as BP) met with congress on Tuesday, it was revealed that their Gulf Coast plans for capping and collecting oil in the worst case scenario were nearly identical. All of them included relief plans for walruses. Walruses! A creature that hasn't known the gulf as its home in the long history of the planet.

One executive (Rex Tillerson of Exxon) broke ranks and admitted that when spills happen, "we are not well-equipped to handle them." I'd like to commend his honesty, but every time I see an oil soaked pelican I can only reel in disgust at his negligence.

Clearly, Obama and the Department of the Interior (which oversees the MMS) have moved far too slowly in overhauling that department and must take some of the blame for this disaster.

But this department didn't get this way overnight. If you have been paying attention to the typical response from Republicans during this crisis, it's not difficult to see how things got this way after eight years of Bush and six years of a Republican controlled congress (2000-2006). Aside from blocking the effort to raise the cap on the oil spill liability law, you had House Minority Leader, John Boehner suggesting that tax payers should be on the hook for cleaning up this mess (he has since reversed course). House Republican from Minnesota, Michelle Bachmann, was on CNN referring to the escrow account by saying: "And we don't want - we don't think it's a good idea for the federal government to see private industry as essentially a piggy bank for the federal government.” To top it all off, yesterday the top ranking Republican on the House Energy and Commerce Committee actually apologized to BP CEO, Tony Hayward for the Obama administration's "shakedown" of his company. "Shakedown!?" I think like most Americans I want the "shakedown" followed by a take down and finished off with a beat down.

I know Republicans are trying to turn this disaster to their favor for the mid terms (the Democrats did the same post-Katrina). But here's the thing: If the Republicans were to take back the House, Joe Barton would become the Chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee. Is that the guy we want looking out for the public interest? Does anyone really think that if Republicans were in charge that they would be tougher on big oil? Or that the possibility of this type of spill wouldn't actually increase?

Hell, the Governor of Louisiana, Bobby Jindal already wants the moratorium on deep sea drilling lifted. While I understand that a significant portion of their economy relies on the oil industry, doesn't he see the damage being done to his shores? My God man, just look at the water! You can't have it both ways. There has been a lot of talk about Jindal's strong leadership during this crisis, and I was on board with it early on. But when you consider his position on the moratorium, how can his judgement not be questioned?

There is plenty of blame to be passed around here from previous administrations to the current one. From past chambers of congress to the present. All are at least somewhat responsible for this tragedy.

But let me close with this thought:

At a time when the cap on oil spill liability is a pathetic $75 million and Republicans in congress continue to block any raise of said cap, this President walked into a room with BP and came out 20 minutes later with $20 BILLION with NO cap despite not having the full force of law behind him. Can anyone--and I mean anyone--imagine Bush or McCain doing the same? I await the sound of crickets.

Sumo-Pop June 18, 2010