Exactly.
Posted on 05/31/2010 5:32:25 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
God forbid the cameras catch Barack Obama playing golf. Almost inevitably, the US president in the past few days has been forced to take full “buck stops with me” ownership of the oil spill crisis as its enormity has unfolded.
That means Mr Obama is effectively on a wartime footing until the leak is plugged – an event that could be as far away as August following the failure of the “top kill” on Saturday. It also means that any display of insouciance on his part will be punished at twice the speed and twice as hard as it otherwise would. Indeed, Mr Obama is already being pilloried for events that have not yet happened.
At the weekend, Arianna Huffington, the liberal blogger, dubbed Mr Obama a “nowhere man” in advance of an event he will host in the White House on Wednesday to honour Sir Paul McCartney, the former Beatle. The moniker, of course, was meant to capture Mr Obama’s allegedly half-hearted engagement with the oil spill crisis in spite of his strong protestations to the contrary.
Others have revived the comparison between Mr Obama and Mr Spock, the Star Trek Vulcan, whose capacity to reason is matched only by his incapacity to feel. It is hard to imagine any other president emulating Mr Obama’s facility with the complex techniques required to contain and plug a deep sea oil leak.
Phrases such as “blowout preventer”, “skimmers”, “controlled burns” and “dispersant” trip off the presidential tongue. But Mr Obama’s critics, a large number of whom appear to be on the left, would prefer to hear more righteousness in his tone. The implication is that the more anger Mr Obama conveys in public, the more effective he will be at containing the disaster.
More ominously for Mr Obama, who, in spite of sharing a rising portion of the blame for the disaster with BP, still has far higher approval ratings than either the Republican party or his own Democratic allies on Capitol Hill, unflattering comparisons with former president Jimmy Carter are starting to resurface.
Specifically, there is a growing parallel with Mr Carter’s Iranian hostage crisis, which sank his presidency and his place in history. Then, like now, Mr Carter was required to make promises that he simply had no means to guarantee – to ensure the return home of the American hostages unharmed.
Then, like now, the network news channels reminded viewers daily of that unfulfilled White House pledge: “Iranian Hostage Crisis: Day 100”. In the past three days, most of America’s cable and network news channels have adopted a similar drumbeat. We are now in: “Oil Spill: Day 43”.
The more that number mounts, and the closer we approach the mid-Atlantic hurricane season, which could add another horrifying dimension to what is already the US’s worst environmental disaster, the more Mr Obama will be pressed to do something radical. Mr Carter caved in to such pressure when he launched the hopeless rescue attempt, which crashed in the Iranian desert.
Mr Obama is already under pressure to “just do something” – even if it sometimes seems it is merely to give the impression of doing something. At the weekend, Colin Powell, the former secretary of state, and supporter of Mr Obama, even suggested applying what sounded like the wartime “Powell doctrine” of defeating your enemy with overwhelming force.
Without specifying what precisely he had in mind, Gen Powell urged Mr Obama to launch a “comprehensive total attack” on the spill with “decisive force”. But as Mike Mullen, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, hinted on Monday, militarising the response would raise expectations beyond the capacity of the US military to meet them. Incarcerate all BP personnel, perhaps? Nuke the well?
There is another avenue available. While straining every sinew to contain this disaster, Mr Obama could seize the chance to overhaul America’s energy debate.
As Mr Obama himself has made plain, every crisis is an opportunity. This summer may well be his best to move the US towards a future in which oil is a thing of the past. We know Vulcans are intelligent. But are they creative?
He was a community organizer just like Hitler and Mao.
Typical moronic liberal. And replace it with what ? What are we going to put in our gas tanks ? Compressed air (wind) ?
At least Adolf Hitler, as evil and horrid as he turned out to be, served in uniform and was awarded a medal for bravery. Can you imagine Mr. Obama enlisting of his own free will?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I wouldn't call the rescue plan hopeless. The sense of hopelessness came when the helo crashed into the airplane and the bad dust storm that preceded it. Has anyone ever found a problem with the strategy of the rescue attempt?
If we play our cards right we can use this BP disaster against cap and trade. What liberals don’t seem to understand is that companies like BP stand to make big bucks by producing less.
>> just like Hitler and Mao.
No, not JUST like Hitler and Mao.
THEY showed up for work.
;-)
Whenever we’ve ‘moved beyond’ a source of energy, it has always been to something more efficient. The fact that is less polluting is a by-product of it’s efficiency. We converted from coal to petroleum at the beginning of the last century not out of any concern for the environment, but because a small diesel engine can move as much if not more cargo than larger coal fie steam engine.
>> Has anyone ever found a problem with the strategy of the rescue attempt?
Only in the context of Carter’s fecklessness and overall incompetence.
It was too little, too late — and it failed. And nothing preceeded it, and nothing was forthcoming after the failure.
Carter was a loser of Obamaesque proportions, and that’s saying a lot.
Jimmeh Cahtuh was in command of it.
You’re right.
There is no viable replacement for the oil reliant internal combustion engine at this point in time.
If there were suddenly an alternative invented tomorrow, it would take many ,many years and billions/trillions of dollars to replace all the combustion engines on the road today.
We are stuck with plentiful, safe (despite the recent spill) oil....
Re: the nuclear option. I read that the Russian did it. Using it would serve two purposes: 1) seal the hole, 2) prove to others that Obama is a serious man.
Here in Michigan, the legislature is forcing production cuts from electricity and gas producers. People wonder why they aren’t screaming bloody murder but less production means lower overhead, higher prices to the consumer and carbon credits to sell.
“Typical moronic liberal. And replace it with what ? What are we going to put in our gas tanks ?”
Exactly...if you engage with a Liberal they think they have the answer which is get away from oil. The funny thing is everything people come in contact with from the start of their day to the end of their day was either made with oil as a byproduct, or a factory burned oil in one form or another to make the product or it was transferred to them by a vehicle burning oil...go ahead and figure a product that can take the place in all those areas and I’m all for it...
Is this porn from the Onion?
Mr Luce is wrong. This is not a good time for the president to sell an alternative energy future. This is a good time for the president to stop the spill.
Anything else will be viewed for what it is: political opportunism.
More efficient use of oil and coal , that's about it.
Batteries suck, everybody knows that, few are brave enough to admit it.
It's a King's New Clothier's type of thing.
FT is a far far far left wing British rag.
Its a disgraceful socialist propaganda sheet.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.