One problem with President Obama’s Oval Office speech was his declaration that 90 percent of the oil spill would be captured in “coming days and weeks.” Ah, if only government were that strong and powerful. Trouble is, the spill rate late yesterday afternoon was again revised upward toward 60,000 barrels per day from the prior estimate of 25,000.
To most Americans, and especially those in the Gulf, it’s the spill rate of capture that matters most. Perhaps there’s a magic wand to cure this problem — maybe a spill-rate de-stimulus package — but so far the magic cure remains elusive.
In addition, the president did not announce a Jones Act waiver to bring foreign-flag tankers into the Gulf area. Nor did he announce a new task force of hands-on experienced oilmen from the likes of ExxonMobil and other big oil sisters who actually know what they are doing.
Another problem was Obama’s arrogant announcement that he will be informing BP’s chairman “that he is to set aside” some undisclosed asset amount ($20 billion) for the government-run escrow fund to pay for the spill damages. Trouble is, there are no laws to permit our government to force such financial retribution. Not even a new TARP, at least not yet. Did someone say nationalization? But stock-option and credit-default-insurance markets are already pricing in a BP bankruptcy.
And while the media waited breathlessly for a clear Obama push for cap-and-trade, there was only a passing mention of the House bill, rather than a full-throated call to arms. So it was an indecisive Obama, a rather meek and defensive Obama, in terms of reducing carbon dependence. Of course, Obama knows that cap-and-trade politics will drive up Republican numbers even more in the fall.
But folks would rather see a full-throated and comprehensive energy plan conducted on all fronts — carbon and non-carbon — that would unleash energy entrepreneurs and existing businesses to create more power and more jobs and more economic growth. Besides stopping the spill, this is the key point.
Obama’s weak speech really missed the point.
What the President's speech did was highlight the reasons why having real executive leadership experience is critical in people who aspire to be the Leader of the Free World.....or to be leaders in any position.
When we have elections, we talk about the importance of leadership and executive experience but so many people don't know what that means or how it actually manifests.
Now, sadly, we have a case study.
Contrast the leadership response between Rudy G. response to 9/11 and President Obama's response to the BP Deep Water Horizon explosion and resultant oil spill/spew.
As part of this exercise review each "leader's" past managerial and leadership history.
A final note, just because someone is nominally in charge of something (like a campaign) doesn't mean they are actually "leading." Executive leadership doesn't mean currently being or have been an executive. There are many executives who are just as inept in leadership as the President seems to be.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI agree that this was a weak speech. Just goes to show that as a nation, we made a big mistake in making this guy President. Someone with real executive experience(such as Mitt Romney) would be in a much better position to lead the nation in the aftermath of the oil spill. Republicans, independents, and disenchanted Democrats need to band together and elect a President in 2012 that will have real world/executive experience. We need to make Obama a one term President!
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse@ Ms. No-Name: President Obama won the nomination because (a) his people recognized the new and pivotal role of caucuses and used them to build a 100-150 delegate lead that Hillary Clinton could never close, even though she came out ahead on most of the ballot-box primaries; (b) Clinton's people overspent in late 2007 and Obama's net-based fund raising gave him a significant spending advantage throughout 2008; and (c) the MMS was in the tank for Obama to an unprecedented degree.
Any one of these factors could have been decisive.
President Obama won the election because (b) and (c) continued in effect, plus (d) we had an extremely unpopular Republican President; (e) the Bush White House and a Republican Congress had erased the fiscal responsibility/anti-Statist distinctions between themselves and the Democrats; (f) the domestic and the world economy were getting positively scary and it was happening on Bush's watch; and (g) John McCain.
Again, any one of these factors could have been decisive.
Obama himself, even if he acted as "CEO" of his campaign, can claim little credit for any of these things.
P.S. I had dinner with a liberal friend the other night, and she was decrying the influence of private money on politics, calling for public funding instead. Have these people forgotten, already, whose Chosen One it was who became the first presidential candidate in decades to go off the public funding reservation? Unbelieveable!
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse@ 180 Out -- SF CA
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAs a Californian 50 miles away from you with some sanity unlike those of you who live in the land of fruits and nuts of San Francisco most you need to pull you head out and stop drinking the Kool-aid. The president is a castastrophe to the United States! He clearly has shown no leadership skills what so ever and does nothing but blame Bush and you continue to pretend he is a leader... wake up! He makes even Jimmy Carter look like Ronald Reagan..hmm if that it is possible LOL! When are you people gonna get it? I guess you never will because you all are as much as wack jobs as Nancy Pelosi since you are the ones who elected that power hungry witch to congress.
180,
I don't dispute or disagree with your analysis, however, my post addressing a different topic. That topic was the President's lack of executive leadership experience.
It manifests as an inability to take direct and swift action when and where required. I invite the reader of my post to contrast the President's actions in the face of this crisis with that of the former NYC Mayor's actions in response to 9/11.
I further speculated that the vast majority of voters do not understand what executive leadership is and why it matters.
This crisis and the President's response provides a simple and easy to understand case study highlighting the need for real executive leadership experience in positions such as the Presidency.
Thanks, however, for your breakdown of the forces that propelled Obama to the nomination and then the presidency.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse