from firedoglake:Barack Obama received more campaign money from multinational BP Oil, the company whose rig is now leaking, than any other person in 2008 according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Note that 18 days before the leak began, in what is likely to be the largest such disaster of all time, Obama changed the nation’s off shore drilling policy. Obama reversed 27 years of policy and essentially took up Sarah Palin’s cry of "Drill, Baby, Drill".
The oil well in question, moreover, was drilled (March to September 2009) after Obama took office so it was under the supervision of his administration.
more...
9 comments:
Yeah, I read the rest of the blog post by flambeau (what an appropriate moniker!) at firedoglake.
Nasty indictment.
But guess what?
Your alternative was a war hawk 10 times more aggressive, who even now is showing signs of mental instability with his bizarre re-election platform, and trashing of the Rule of Law in his statements about the rights of the failed Times Square bomb suspect.
And his backup would have been The Crazy Lady, of whom it was revealed has ties to Big Oil even more blatant than Obama, almost as cozily in bed with the oil moguls as George Bush.
And of whom it was recently revealed has ties with criminal elements in Giddings and Tyler Texas (along with Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity)
And of whom her PAC treasurer runs a shady political dirty tricks organization self-described as a "issue advocacy organization".
This SarahPAC treasurer's organization claims to be a non-profit 501(c)(4), but a nonprofit web identity, but "has not registered as a nonprofit, has no board of directors, and no paperwork on file with the IRS or the Federal Elections Commission".
I'm not having any trouble picking out which of these is the "lesser of two evils".
Obviously campaign finance reform is sorely needed, but with the Supreme Court's recent ruling rolling back campaign cash limits, that'll never happen. "On January 21, 2010, the Supreme Court issued a ruling affirming and expanding corporate rights to free speech in elections. In Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, a 5-4 majority invalidated many restrictions on corporate spending to influence elections." Reagan's or George Bush's appointments dominated this decision.
As is all too common, Phil has fallen for an ill-conceived, erroneous, and extremely short-sighted assumption as if that is a credible method to explain a very complex circumstance.
Are BP's donations to Obama a problem ? Yes, from a campaign finance viewpoint, that kind of financing should be prevented and an alternative should be found. Public financed elections would help to eliminate some of the influence pedaling but truthfully, all such influence pedaling can't be completely stopped. Controls and transparency can help, but that's not sufficient to lay blame, all by itself, in this case or any other.
There's a little thing called 'evidence' that needs to be introduced, and for all Phil's talk of being a progressive, he's stepped outside of the basic rule of law, a behavior he frequently bashes others for attempting to do, but here, he's doing it himself.
Insinuation isn't enough, but then Phil knows that, he just thinks he can slip one past his own knowing better.
Does that donation history mean Obama 'allowed' or can be 'blamed' for BP's negligence ?
No, it's not that simple.
There undoubtedly is blame to be spread around, but Congress, present and past bears far more responsibility, not to mention Cheney's Energy Task Force born in the Bush administration and the appointments within the MMS, the deregulation and the maiming of the EPA and the other regulatory and oversight agencies.
Is there work to be done to repair that damage ?
By all means, but that takes Congress and like it or not, that takes a long time, especially with the obstructionists still maintaining enough power to block and delay reform.
Can the well that blew out be so simply 'laid at Obama's feet' ?
Hardly. The rig and the drill plans were approved long before Obama became president.
To say the drilling happened after Obama became president and therefore any problems are now the fault of the new administration is simplistic nonsense.
BP's negligence is a well known historical fact. The MMS corruption and failure is a long running fact.
Yes, there needs to be more regulation and a housecleaning at all levels of the regulatory agencies involved. There needs to be new policies developed to address what has been an atmosphere of little or no oversight.
The Obama administration isn't perfect, but they are relying on an administrative and regulatory infrastructure that is known to be corrupt, ineffective and incompetent. Fixing all those ills takes a long time.
In the meantime, Obama can take some of the blame, but the largest part of the blame lies nowhere near Obama.
And despite Phil's over-simplified nonsense, those larger issues need to be addressed and corrected.
Phil's over-simplification ignores too much reality for it to be taken seriously.
But then, Phil has a long running habit of often times mistaking simplified nonsense for cogent thought and rational analysis.
..
Two things to keep in mind here:
1. Compare contributions to the opposite party now and during the election, and what they also contributed to the Bush Admin. Large $ contributions to presidential candidates of both parties is common.
2. The Republicans have held up literally 100's of appointments to important cabinent and department positions. The organization's are still operating short staffed, under funded and many still have Bush era appointees in lead positions.
Though I have been very dissapointed that the President hasn't acted as progressively as his campaign led us to believe; I do think he's being obstructed and undermined continuously and being purposefully made to be the scapegoat in many situations.
-Hedgewytch
BP contributed money to Obama's 2008 presidential campaign so now he is somehow implicated by this oil spill?? Give me a break! Have you been drinking Wassilla water again? Or just crawled in bed with Grandma?
Although I go to Progressive Alaska often and agree with much written here by Mr. Munger, I'm increasingly appalled by the lengths he goes in bad taste to defame those he doesn't agree with. It is certainly good that he also includes entries about his garden, music, and day to day events which humanizes him and so those who don't know him personally can see him as more than a foul, crude-spoken, frustrated political animal.
Barack Obama is a pragmatist out of necessity. It is ludicrous to infer that he is in the pocket of big oil, just as it is ludicrous to state that he is a terrorist.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/05/AR2010050504837.html
If BP's money helped elect him, all I can say is good. This country does not need Palin anywhere near the Whitehouse. If she had been in there, there would not have been any restrictions on drilling.
And I bet you voted for him Phil!
I have a question for you on my blog...along with the Girl? from Homer and Celic?Diva
The spammer is plugging his 'blog'.
HIs 'blog' is the one preaching eliminationism.
The spammer is a real peach.
The only question he needs answered is what was his own purpose for being ?
..
Annonymous 7:38 pm,
I don't have to plug my blog.
And the only ones preaching eliminationism would be the left.
Anything else you need to yammer about?
Post a Comment