The Recklessness in the Oval Office
President Obama has accused BP of "recklessness"--the word he used in his Oval Office address last night--insisting that the company pay the costs of the six-month moratorium on drilling in the Gulf that he has declared. There are really only two possibilities here:
Possibility one: We know that BP was indeed reckless. But if that's the case--if we know for certain that the oil leak was caused by BP's recklessness--then why impose a moratorium on drilling by everyone else? Does the highway patrol shut down an entire interstate for six months when a reckless driver causes a crash?
Possibility two: We don't know that BP was reckless for the very good reason that we still don't know what happened when the Deepwater Horizon exploded and oil began to gush from the bottom of the Gulf. As the President himself said last night, "I have established a National Commission to understand the causes of this disaster...." But if this is the case, then by what conceivable right does the President accuse BP of "recklessness?" And insist that BP bear all the costs of a the moratorium, paying the wages of idled workers, when, for all he or anybody else knows, the accident might just as well have happened on another rig operated by another corporation?
Faced with a massive economic and environmental catastrophe, the President has chosen to adopt a position that is simply incoherent.
- Comment (12)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (4)
Comments :
Re: The Recklessness in the Oval Office
Nothing new to add, just want to "LIKE" this!
May '10
Re: The Recklessness in the Oval Office
Question: Lets say that BP was indeed reckless and their actions directly led to the explosion and resulting spill. Why should BP be paying workers from other companies who are idle due to the moratorium? BP didn't stop all drilling, the administration did. I fully support BP being responsible for cleanup efforts and costs as it was their well that blew out. But paying someone else's idle workers because the administration told them they couldn't work?
Regardless of if they are found to have been reckless, I agree that the President has got himself in a bit of a pickle here. He has proven that while "the buck stops with him", he still has no clue what denomination it is.
May '10
Re: The Recklessness in the Oval Office
Well, he needs a scapegoat for the broad shutdown done for purely political reasons against the advice of his hand-picked experts, who announced to the press that they had recommended not shutting off Gulf wells that had no problems. This risk is unique to new deep-water holes, not on-going existing well-heads.
I blame George Bush for the whole thing. As with every other thing. Matter of fact, this irritating hangnail...
May '10
Re: The Recklessness in the Oval Office
President Obama simply does not like oil, and he especially dislikes oil producers. He calls a moratorium on drilling (which plays to his base) and puts it on BP's ever expanding bill (taking advantage of their unpopularity). The goal is to drive an agenda, for which things like evidence and coherence are unnecessary.
May '10
Re: The Recklessness in the Oval Office
Seeing the Lincoln life masks on a recent trip to the National Portrait Gallery reminded me of Whitman's poem that refers to Lincoln's assassination,"O Captain! My Captain!" Last night I recalled that poem again during Obama's address, but for a different reason. I don't feel like we have a captain in our president. I don't know what he is doing, but I know it is not leading, and we are left to drift in the current.
Re: The Recklessness in the Oval Office
Benjamin Carter writes above:
You know what? That's a very good point. BP shouldn't be liable for the costs of the moratorium even if it was reckless.
Re: The Recklessness in the Oval Office
Peter: spot on! Obama's position is incoherent, but there is one unifying theme: contempt for the law. Whether it's BP or Chrysler bondholders, Obama seems to enjoy rushing to judgment and then using the power of the Oval Office to push extra-legal actions. And when the legal system is allowed to operate, he reserves the right to publicly scold the Supreme Court for decisions he doesn't like.
This is the guy who, with characteristic modesty, promised to restore the "rule of law." Who knew that "the law" turns out to be a mere plaything? Perhaps we'll have show trials soon.
Re: The Recklessness in the Oval Office
You remind me, Adam, of one of my favorite moments in the entire history of American journalism. It was during the baseball strike of the nineteen-nineties. Some Clinton mouthpiece--maybe James Carville--was being interviewed by Brian Lamb of C-SPAN. Carville (let's say) yammered on about Bill Clinton's glorious plans to summon to the White House both owners of baseball teams and representatives of the players' union. Lamb listened for a moment, then asked, in that marvelous, flat midwestern voice, "Which article of the Constitution gives the President the right to do that?"
Adam, you're a lawyer. Why is no one asking that question now? Which article of the Constitution gives Obama the right to demonize and cow a major corporation? And deprive its shareholders of their property? And if there is no answer to that question, then--and shouldn't everyone be crying this from the rooftops of every court and news organization in the country? Shouldn't they?--then what we're seeing in the Obama administration is nothing but a crude and brazen display of lawlessness.
Edited on Jun 16, 2010 at 11:57amRe: The Recklessness in the Oval Office
Since you ask, there's nothing in the Constitution that, in good faith, could be used to assume the powers you mention. Whereas Bush asserted executive power where there is a clear textual basis to do so -- in defense and foreign affairs -- Obama has created an imperial presidency in domestic affairs. As Ricocheterians know, the Constitution actually describes two really cool branches (Legislative and Judicial) that are supposed to deal with things like compensation and property rights.
In fact, some sections of the Constitution should, at least, slow down the stampede to loot BP. Like the due process clause of the 5th Amendment. Or the Takings Clause (Prof. Epstein, where are you?) Or the Bill of Attainder clause -- if Congress adopts legislation targeting BP.
Re: The Recklessness in the Oval Office
Okay, Adam, next question:
To quote Bob Dole, "Where's the outrage?"
Can it really be that we've come to this point in the life of the nation? That the President may strut like the commandante of a banana republic...and nobody utters a peep of protest?
May '10
Re: The Recklessness in the Oval Office
You do realize, Peter, that accusing Obama of "strut[ting] like the commandante of a banana republic" is incredibly racist?
/sarc
And of course he is and has been for a while. I do think that the outrage and protest are muted because calling Obama "skinny" (IIRC) was called coded racism. Or was it outright racism? Can't remember. I wish our side, particularly the more public members would "man up" and stop being defensive. We need to be confident enough in the rightness of our own message--and our innocence of racial animus--to stand up to the name calling and accusations of whatever "-ism" they throw at us. Remember that tea party protester with the sign that said (something like) "Whatever this sign says, you'll call it racist."
We all (you all!) need to be more like Bill Bennett or Ann Coulter when it comes to the accusations of (nonexistent) malicious intent. I won't go on with their examples because I think they're probably well enough known to the readers here.
May '10
Re: The Recklessness in the Oval Office
Unfortunately, I'm convinced that there is a small, but vocal segment of American voters (a good chunk the Hollywood set) who would agree with Woody Allen's opinion that Obama should be a dictator for a few years. For some, a dictatorship is only a bad thing if you disagree with the dictator. The liberals have a laundry list of programs they'd like to push through, regardless of the law. But they think they know what's good for us, and the ends justifies the means. I think it is obvious that people are outraged, but how best do we direct it to be most effective? How do get citizens to respect a constitutional republic, when they view the concept with such contempt?