Posted on 06/21/2010 4:27:13 AM PDT by Kaslin
Thuggery is unattractive. Ineffective thuggery even more so. Which may be one reason so many Americans have been reacting negatively to the response of Barack Obama and his administration to BP's gulf oil spill.
Take Interior Secretary Ken Salazar's remark that he would keep his "boot on the neck" of BP, which brings to mind George Orwell's definition of totalitarianism as "a boot stamping on a human face -- forever." Except that Salazar's boot hasn't gotten much in the way of results yet.
Or consider Obama's undoubtedly carefully considered statement to Matt Lauer that he was consulting with experts "so I know whose ass to kick." Attacking others is a standard campaign tactic when you're in political trouble, and certainly BP, which appears to have taken unwise shortcuts in the gulf, is an attractive target.
But you don't always win arguments that way. The Obama White House gleefully took on Dick Cheney on the issue of terrorist interrogations. It turned out that more Americans agreed with Cheney's stand, despite his low poll numbers, than Obama's.
Then there is Obama's decision to impose a six-month moratorium on deepwater oil drilling in the gulf. This penalizes companies with better safety records than BP's and will result in many advanced drilling rigs being sent to offshore oil fields abroad.
The justification offered was an Interior Department report supposedly "peer reviewed" by "experts identified by the National Academy of Engineering." But it turned out the drafts the experts saw didn't include any recommendation for a moratorium. Eight of the cited experts have said they oppose the moratorium as more economically devastating than the oil spill and "counterproductive" to safety.
This was blatant dishonesty by the administration, on an Orwellian scale. In defense of a policy that has all the earmarks of mindless panic, that penalizes firms and individuals guilty of no wrongdoing and that will worsen rather than improve our energy situation. Ineffective thuggery.
And what about the decision not to waive the Jones Act, which bars foreign-flag vessels from coming to the aid of the gulf cleanup? The Bush administration promptly waived it after Katrina in 2005. The Obama administration hasn't and claims unconvincingly that, gee, there aren't really any foreign vessels that could help.
The more plausible explanation is that this is a sop to the maritime unions, part of the union movement that gave Obama and other Democrats $400 million in the 2008 campaign cycle. It's the Chicago way: dance with the girl that brung ya.
Or the decision to deny Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal's proposal to deploy barges to skim oil from the gulf's surface. Can't do that until we see if they've got enough life preservers and fire equipment. That inspired blogger Rand Simberg to write a post he dated June 1, 1940: "The evacuation of British and French troops from the besieged French city of Dunkirk was halted today, over concerns that many of the private vessels that had been deployed for the task were unsafe for troop transport."
Finally, there's the $20 billion escrow fund that Obama pried out of the BP treasury at the White House when he talked for the first time, 57 days after the rig exploded, with BP Chairman Tony Hayward. It's pleasing to think that those injured by BP will be paid off speedily, but House Republican Joe Barton had a point, though an impolitic one, when he called this a "shakedown."
For there already are laws in place that ensure that BP will be held responsible for damages, and the company has said it will comply. So what we have is government transferring property from one party, an admittedly unattractive one, to others, not based on pre-existing laws but on decisions by one man, pay czar Kenneth Feinberg.
Feinberg gets good reviews from everyone. But the Constitution does not command "no person ... shall ... be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law except by the decision of a person as wise and capable as Kenneth Feinberg." The Framers stopped at "due process of law."
Obama doesn't. "If he sees any impropriety in politicians ordering executives about, upstaging the courts and threatening confiscation, he has not said so," write the editors of The Economist, who then suggest that markets see Obama as "an American version of Vladimir Putin." Except that Putin is an effective thug.
Barone is as always on the money.
The Messiah will not be with us very long in my view. There are too many bad enemies out here
SMACK!! BANG!! CRUNCH!! POW!!
Obama mistook America wanting to see a true leader, tough and handling the crisis, SOLVING THE PROBLEM, for us wanting to HEAR “I’m tired of these mothereffing snakes on this mothereffin plane!”
We don’t need no stinkin’ due process, sheriff. We know BP is guilty so you’d better bring ‘em out so we can string ‘em up or we’re coming in to git ‘em.
Oh yeah, and the Arizona immigration law is bad because the state sheriff MIGHT violate somebody’s rights somewhere. Say what?
Let’s be clear on this: Stroker (obama) is the personification of USELESS. His very existence is a reminder to all that certain people should never be allowed to procreate.
Amen
“Thuggery Is Unattractive”
Not to the hardcore base. They absolutely love it, even thought it might be ineffective.
The important thing is that the hardcore left’s people have the chutzpah to “act tough” to the enemy and treat them as if they’re the dumbest beings on the face of the earth.
For a leftist to say “boot on the neck” and “ass kick” is music to the ears of a revolutionary leftist.
(And all those brilliant “independents” are greasing up their fingers to move left because those Republicans and Conservatives are a bunch of wimps who don’t use macho language like “ass kick” and “boot on the neck”.)
IMHO
It’s instructive how many supposedly responsible Democrats are willing to go along with the thuggery. I’m reminded of Sebelius praising the SEIU, the day after members beat up that black guy.
But the Constitution does not command “no person ... shall ... be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law except by the decision of a person as wise and capable as Kenneth Feinberg.” The Framers stopped at “due process of law.”
I wish I could use this for a tagline!
Democrats have a strong union base coupled with the black majority.
Unions have always been pretty much terrorist organizations under the current definitions and blacks are a malleable bunch that will agree to about anything if there is something free involved. The result is approval of thuggery and quasi terrorism.
It’s in their blood and generations old.
Unions are now running the country.
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.