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?
A large part of the riskiness of this well and the difficulty in closing it can be laid right at the feet of reactionary environmentalism. There is no reasonable replacement for oil that won’t require a massive, expensive, and painful retrofit of the entire world’s infrastructure. The obvious solution to preventing future disasters is to take away the enviro’s ability to dictate how and where the oil industry does its job.
Obama is a genius at one thing: accumulating power through blackmail and other contemptible means. He’s an incomplete person in many other ways. And as far as opportunity, this oil spill is potentially a boon for on-shore drilling. But then, the dark side is very powerful and the masses only like to logically for a step or two.
Natural gas is not a too expensive retrofit. Might cost 100 billion to retrofit all short haul trucks and buses. That would knock out most of the foreign import bill of +-500 billion annually. So it would pay for itself in the first year.
It came from the same place the “transparent”, “ethical” admin also came from .. the media’s imagination!
“....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.”
Yes, the point to be made is a great shift in public mind: the corporations are cooperating with the government to get more money for less product.
How to demonstrate that in 10 sec ads is the problem. The attention span of the average voter is limited.
The worst thing about this article is how Spock is insulted with a comparison to BHO. :)
The future is bleak. Here is what recently retired president of Shell Oil John Hofmeister says about the situation:
“On one side, we have the oil companies, blaming the political groups for trying to over-regulate the industry, and thus hold down oil supplies. Perhaps there is a bit of truth to the issue, but the basic issue remains that the cheap oil and gas have mostly been extracted, and our economy cannot really afford expensive oil and gas.”
“On another side, we have many encouraging outrageously optimistic views regarding what alternative energy sources can do, but not considering the issue that maintaining such basics as food and heat for the current population would be a major challenge. There is also an issue regarding how much of these alternatives our financial system can really afford. If we can’t afford $150 oil, it is not clear we can afford high priced alternatives, especially if they cannot operate our current oil-based infrastructure.”
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.