James Carville Attacking Obama for his handling of Oil Spill

#2
#2
Does the gov't have heavy duty oil rigging equipment that I don't know about?

Look, I can criticize Obama as much as the next guy. But lets be honest, folks... there is nothing the gov't could have done to stop this or alleviate the problems, other than allow La. to take the measures they wanted to take a bit sooner without having to wait on the US Army Corps of Engineers to make a decision.

What happened to the conservatives? I thought the private sector was supposed to be the best at addressing problems such as this and the gov't should get out of the way?
 
#3
#3
I just found it curious that Carville, the most well-known Democratic strategist in the US, was attacking Obama.
 
#4
#4
If they can't seriously limit the flow of oil for the next two months while the new wells are being drilled, Obama will be a goner.

I think you could take that argument about Obama not being at fault and apply it to the BP CEO as well. I doubt he personally made or knew of the corners being cut, but because of the nature of organizations, he'll bear the blame. Similarly, Obama will shoulder the blame for this if turns into the worst ecological disaster in history. Same deal with Fulmer in a way as well: can't hire a competent OC? Well, see ya.
 
#6
#6
LG will not be happy that another right wing nut job is blasting ……. Oh wait!!
 
#7
#7
jvol1 said:
If they can't seriously limit the flow of oil for the next two months while the new wells are being drilled, Obama will be a goner.

I think you could take that argument about Obama not being at fault and apply it to the BP CEO as well. I doubt he personally made or knew of the corners being cut, but because of the nature of organizations, he'll bear the blame. Similarly, Obama will shoulder the blame for this if turns into the worst ecological disaster in history. Same deal with Fulmer in a way as well: can't hire a competent OC? Well, see ya.
Click to expand...

Not hardly. From 2002-2008, the Vols became mediocre. Fulmer had no idea how to rebuild. When he took over the program, it was loaded from top to bottom
 
#8
#8
truefan said:
Not hardly. From 2002-2008, the Vols became mediocre. Fulmer had no idea how to rebuild. When he took over the program, it was loaded from top to bottom
Click to expand...

You're right. Obama took over a bad situation and has made it significantly worse.
 
#10
#10
Rasputin_Vol said:
Does the gov't have heavy duty oil rigging equipment that I don't know about?

Look, I can criticize Obama as much as the next guy. But lets be honest, folks... there is nothing the gov't could have done to stop this or alleviate the problems, other than allow La. to take the measures they wanted to take a bit sooner without having to wait on the US Army Corps of Engineers to make a decision.

What happened to the conservatives? I thought the private sector was supposed to be the best at addressing problems such as this and the gov't should get out of the way?
Click to expand...

You answered your own question in the paragraph above....La should have been able to do what they wanted to, a la states rights.

Just because one private company can't fix something doesn't automatically prove the premise false. And it's not like the government coming in has done much either. This is a problem that both can be blamed for.
 
#11
#11
BigPapaVol said:
I wouldn't go there, but I would say his "intervention" has been negative to neutral at best, thus far.
Click to expand...

Yes, I'm very skeptical of the Health Care Bill as well as the outcome of the stimulus package. I'm assuming those are going to be collossal wastes of money; thus, my statement.
 
#12
#12
LawVol13 said:
Yes, I'm very skeptical of the Health Care Bill as well as the outcome of the stimulus package. I'm assuming those are going to be collossal wastes of money; thus, my statement.
Click to expand...

now those two are complete abortions.
 
#13
#13
LawVol13 said:
Yes, I'm very skeptical of the Health Care Bill as well as the outcome of the stimulus package. I'm assuming those are going to be collossal wastes of money; thus, my statement.
Click to expand...

I assumed you meant his entire presidency, and I thought BPV meant the BP spill.
 
#16
#16
VolsSportsFan said:
I assumed you meant his entire presidency, and I thought BPV meant the BP spill.
Click to expand...

I took him to be talking about the spill only. The presidency as a whole is a different animal. The two hallmarks of his presidency are unbelievably expensive and uber liberal garbage. We'll see how overturned majorities impact him.
 
#17
#17
LawVol13 said:
You're right. Obama took over a bad situation and has made it significantly worse.
Click to expand...

My point wasn't anything about Obama and everything about Fulmer. Fulmer losing his job had nothing to do with his OC choices. It became apparent many years ago that Fulmer might have been the luckiest SOB in the world when he got the job back in 1992.
 
#18
#18
BigPapaVol said:
I took him to be talking about the spill only. The presidency as a whole is a different animal. The two hallmarks of his presidency are unbelievably expensive and uber liberal garbage. We'll see how overturned majorities impact him.
Click to expand...

I should have clarified. I was talking about his entire presidency.
 
#19
#19
BigPapaVol said:
I took him to be talking about the spill only. The presidency as a whole is a different animal. The two hallmarks of his presidency are unbelievably expensive and uber liberal garbage. We'll see how overturned majorities impact him.
Click to expand...

Can't really do anything but help him. I have always been of the opinion our goverment functions better when there are opposing parties in the legislative and executive branches
 
#20
#20
truefan said:
Can't really do anything but help him. I have always been of the opinion our goverment functions better when there are opposing parties in the legislative and executive branches
Click to expand...

It salvaged Clinton's presidency.

Big majorities killed Carter, Bush and are ruining Obama.

Obama's greatest strength is probably in the trenches and swaying support. He loses that because the power balance makes near insane liberalism a possibility so he asks for it. I think he's suited to gridlock. I don't he'll ever be a leader worth Moose Piss, but he is suited to that fray.
 
#23
#23
droski said:
clinton was far more of a pragmatist than obama IMO.
Click to expand...

he certainly became so. He is also a helluva lot smarter. Doesn't need coaching and theatrics to hold a political discussion.

The overturn forced him to be pragmatic, but he was being ambitiously megaliberal for his first couple of years too.
 
#24
#24
WRT oil spill response. The sense of urgency was weak initially as was the mobilization of clean up and containment (e.g. boom) equipment.

In addition, the bureaucracy was not sufficiently subverted in a time of crisis. We see this with the LA situation along with other containment/disperant options that simply can't get approval quickly enough.

In short, a command environment didn't exist.

Add to that, the administration is prematurely going to criminal and appears more concerned with political fallout than results. Ironically, results would be the best thing for political purposes.
 
#25
#25
BigPapaVol said:
he certainly became so. He is also a helluva lot smarter. Doesn't need coaching and theatrics to hold a political discussion.

The overturn forced him to be pragmatic, but he was being ambitiously megaliberal for his first couple of years too.
Click to expand...

I think his actually having some administrative experience is what seperates him from Obama.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top