What the heck was that???? Absolutely no sustance of what, where, or when would be done. Even Chris Matthews and Keith Olberman were a little puzzled at what took place.

That certainly was nothing I would tout as presidential.

Heard a poll this morning that 50% of those polled in LA felt Bush did a better job with Katrina than Obama is doing with this spill, including 38% of dems polled. Uh oh.....

Not surprised are you. You can't expect an activist/agitator to grasp executive level management skills and implement solutions based on such. You can only expect blame, litigation, and political posturing.

Change we can believe in ......................................................

Didn't watch it....but when your two main buttboys start turning on you, it's probably time to re-evaluate.

It was alright, not great alright.
I didn't expect substance, as we all already know the substance.
It was a little odd to see him in the Oval Office, as this was his first speech there.
I did like the broad 30,000 feet approach that this is a change in American history and from this moment we need to move away from oil. How we do that is in the details for another speech or address. But like the Kennedy to the moon speech, he said that we should move away from this energy policy and adopt a new policy. Sort of a call to science to advance our country.

Again, wasn't great, but alright. I don't get the bashing from the left and right. I guess they have higher expectations of the speech than I did.

ptown_trojans_1;391286 wrote:It was alright, not great alright.
I didn't expect substance, as we all already know the substance.
It was a little odd to see him in the Oval Office, as this was his first speech there.
I did like the broad 30,000 feet approach that this is a change in American history and from this moment we need to move away from oil. How we do that is in the details for another speech or address. But like the Kennedy to the moon speech, he said that we should move away from this energy policy and adopt a new policy. Sort of a call to science to advance our country.

Again, wasn't great, but alright. I don't get the bashing from the left and right. I guess they have higher expectations of the speech than I did.

Yeah .......... sure wouldn't want to let a good crisis get away without taking advantage of it to implement more socialist/marxist/communist policy.


And by the way:

RASMUSSEN POLL...

Obama Approval Falls to New Low: 42%
Obama Approval Index: -20
Strongly Approve 24%
Strongly Disapprove 44%

His boat is sinking.

Lol what do people want him to do? Go personally clean the spill up?

QuakerOats;391293 wrote:Yeah .......... sure wouldn't want to let a good crisis get away without taking advantage of it to implement more socialist/marxist/communist policy.
And by the way:
RASMUSSEN POLL...
Obama Approval Falls to New Low: 42%
Obama Approval Index: -20
Strongly Approve 24%
Strongly Disapprove 44%

His boat is sinking.

1. Rassmussen is generally a conservative poll.
2. I put no stock in polls.
3. The very idea of moving this country from a oil based energy policy is one we should all get behind. Oil should become a smaller and smaller portion of our energy sector. That idea is not marxist or whatever buzzword you want to use. Notice he did not mention carbon last night. Nor the climate bill in Congress, but a fresh new start to tackling the issue, which desperately needs attention now.

Oil is the engine that drives the world, not just the USA. Look at all of the products produced that are byproducts of oil. It isn't going to change anytime soon, nor do I think it should. We should be spending $$$ on better ways to drill, extract it, refine it, not move away from it.

ptown_trojans_1;391301 wrote:The very idea of moving this country from a oil based energy policy is one we should all get behind. Oil should become a smaller and smaller portion of our energy sector. That idea is not marxist or whatever buzzword you want to use. Notice he did not mention carbon last night. Nor the climate bill in Congress, but a fresh new start to tackling the issue, which desperately needs attention now.

I love the idea of getting away from oil. Wind, solar, nuclear, however. And I can't stand the carbon/climate change alarmists. That was an important point for me.

I completely disagree.

I think we, as a society, need to think bigger. As Americans we have always been at the leading edge of innovation. This is a great example of where out best minds can come up with the next best energy idea to slowly bring us off oil and completely lead the next energy revolution for the 21st century. I guess I am channeling my inner Tom Friedman here.

We have Government Motors, will we soon have BP ....... Barack Petroleum. I assume the similarities to Hugo Chavez's Citgo would then eventually emerge.

Hb31187;391300 wrote:Lol what do people want him to do? Go personally clean the spill up?

LOL is right ............ he doesn't have a clue as to what to do and what should have already been done, and he's the president.

QuakerOats;391355 wrote:We have Government Motors, will we soon have BP ....... Barack Petroleum. I assume the similarities to Hugo Chavez's Citgo would then eventually emerge.

Evidence of a takeover of BP?

ptown_trojans_1;391315 wrote:I completely disagree.

I think we, as a society, need to think bigger. As Americans we have always been at the leading edge of innovation. This is a great example of where out best minds can come up with the next best energy idea to slowly bring us off oil and completely lead the next energy revolution for the 21st century. I guess I am channeling my inner Tom Friedman here.

Then you do the AMERICAN thing, get out of the way and let the market take care of it. When new energy is just as efficient but cheaper than oil/coal, the market will find the solution. All the intervention into the private sector by Obama hinders the progress of innovation. You shouldn't push something ahead of the market, at the cost of a carbon tax, when in 20 years the technology could be there anyway and you wouldn't have had to damage your whole economy if you had just waited. New energy should come when the market says so, not when some politician who has little to no knowledge on how the market truely works says so and throws multiple BILLIONS at it.

BTW, solar sucks, wind sucks (and kills LOTS of birds, why do environmentalists want wind power when it is a mass killer of birds?) nuclear power isn't profitable without subsidies and guaranteed loans, what else do we have? We should be drilling in ANWR and on land if drilling 4 miles down is too dangerous.

ptown_trojans_1;391364 wrote:Evidence of a takeover of BP?

Socialist government officials have already demanded $20 billion from BP to be given to a body under control of politicians, no strings attached, to dole out as they see fit.

Socialists government officials have demanded that BP cut, or eliminate, its dividend.

BP remains under assault by government and by government sponsored lawyers at a time when we should be doing all we can to support BP and their efforts to fix the problem.

Obama's record, recent and alarming, of using crisis situations to seize entities or industries and place them under government control or severe and damaging government regulation.

What more do you want ................ the policies of a radical are being implemented on a daily basis right in front of your eyes.

QuakerOats;391457 wrote:Socialist government officials have already demanded $20 billion from BP to be given to a body under control of politicians, no strings attached, to dole out as they see fit.

Socialists government officials have demanded that BP cut, or eliminate, its dividend.

BP remains under assault by government and by government sponsored lawyers at a time when we should be doing all we can to support BP and their efforts to fix the problem.

Obama's record, recent and alarming, of using crisis situations to seize entities or industries and place them under government control or severe and damaging government regulation.

What more do you want ................ the policies of a radical are being implemented on a daily basis right in front of your eyes.

1. BP, as well as awful regulation, caused the mess. BP should pay for nearly all the cleanup and recovery.
2. Care to cite that high level officials said that BP should be cut in half or eliminated?
3. BP should be under assault as they skirted the laws of regulations.
4. I still fail to see evidence, hard evidence of any idea to takeover BP. Until then I don't believe it.

Lol what do people want him to do? Go personally clean the spill up?

The speech should have about the cleanup. Nothing more and nothing less. Mr. Obama chose this moment to focus on his energy plans for the future and thus politicized the entire speech.In a time when he should be trying to unify the country, he is choosing to divide the country. Poor effort.

Yes, BP should pay, after the oil stops gushing though. And this committee that Obama is establishing to dole out the money is just a way to circumvent the courts. In the real American way, the court system is the body of government that gets to decide financial punishments and divvy up the money. This escrow account gives more power to the executive branch and less and less power in the legislative and judicial. Slipping further and further to elected dictators in this country.

Lol what do people want him to do? Go personally clean the spill up?

The speech should have about the cleanup. Nothing more and nothing less. Mr. Obama chose this moment to focus on his energy plans for the future and thus politicized the entire speech.In a time when he should be trying to unify the country, he is choosing to divide the country. Poor effort.

bigmanbt;391379 wrote:Then you do the AMERICAN thing, get out of the way and let the market take care of it. When new energy is just as efficient but cheaper than oil/coal, the market will find the solution. All the intervention into the private sector by Obama hinders the progress of innovation. You shouldn't push something ahead of the market, at the cost of a carbon tax, when in 20 years the technology could be there anyway and you wouldn't have had to damage your whole economy if you had just waited. New energy should come when the market says so, not when some politician who has little to no knowledge on how the market truely works says so and throws multiple BILLIONS at it.

Great post.

Prescott;391480 wrote:The speech should have about the cleanup. Nothing more and nothing less. Mr. Obama chose this moment to focus on his energy plans for the future and thus politicized the entire speech.In a time when he should be trying to unify the country, he is choosing to divide the country. Poor effort.

Doing what liberals do best.

Seriously, Obama focusing on future energy policy is tantamount to saying, "See, if only we had never become so dependent on oil, this disaster would've never happened." I don't want to hear/read the word "Progressive" when describing liberals/statists/socialists/Marxists EVER AGAIN.

Bachmann Blasts 'Redistribution Of Wealth' Escrow Fund, Says BP Shouldn't Be 'Chumps'

The Minnesota Independent reports that Bachmann spoke Tuesday to the Heritage Foundation, and badmouthed the idea. "The president just called for creating a fund that would be administered by outsiders, which would be more of a redistribution-of-wealth fund," said Bachmann. "And now it appears like we'll be looking at one more gateway for more government control, more money to government."

Also, David Weigel reports that Bachmann also said: "They have to lift the liability cap. But if I was the head of BP, I would let the signal get out there -- 'We're not going to be chumps, and we're not going to be fleeced.' And they shouldn't be. They shouldn't have to be fleeced and make chumps to have to pay for perpetual unemployment and all the rest -- they've got to be legitimate claims."

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/06/bachmann-blasts-redistribution-of-wealth-escrow-fund-says-bp-shouldnt-be-chumps.php?ref=fpb

That didn't take long. The claims of this being nothing more than a wealth redistribution scheme have begun.

Just watched the video....and have to agree with Prescott. At best it was a barely adequate speech, and that is with the new Obama standard. The speech should have been focused on what is being done to help people in the gulf and how to address the problem. The continual rearview mirror comments about what people did in the past that he didn't control is gettig old...quickly.

Just another point - last week I had lunch with my biggest client, the owner of the company (not an Obama fan) made a comment about Obama's rhetoric that after listening to the speech and reading the text is incredibly appropriate. As an executive and figurehead of anything, be careful how you use the words "I", "me", "my", etc. as compared with "we", "us", etc. He told me to listen to Obama and see the way he refers to himself and to us as a country.

The speech starts off ok, but when Obama gets political the majority of the negatives our about "we" and "us" (e.g. "For decades, we have known the days of cheap and easily accessible oil were numbered", "We cannot consign our children to this future. ") and the positives are about "I" and "me" (e.g. "When I was a candidate for this office, I laid out a set of principles that would move our country towards energy independence", "The one answer I will not settle for is the idea that this challenge is too big and too difficult to meet").

I'm not sure who writes this guy's speeches, but it comes off as being incredibly narcissistic.

Hb31187;391300 wrote:Lol what do people want him to do? Go personally clean the spill up?

How about spare us the campaigning? I didn't vote for him last time and I won't be voting for him next time. He's been in office for a year and a half now... At some point he can stop campaigning. Of course, in 6 months it will be...time....to start campaigning!

That speech was just a waste of our time and his. I do like how he promised to force BP to set aside money for damages. Actually, if you can do that without all the red tape and legal maneuvering I applaud it, but it came acrros as very Big Brother, very socialist, another cramdown. Like others, I found his tone brushing aside the courts and the process less than cavalier. Talk about streamlining the process and expediting payouts, don't speak like an dictator like you're just going to throw aside law and property rights and tell them what to do.

Yet another speech appealing to the lowest common denominator "I'm going to make crooked Big Oil pay!!!"

bigmanbt;391479 wrote:Yes, BP should pay, after the oil stops gushing though. And this committee that Obama is establishing to dole out the money is just a way to circumvent the courts. In the real American way, the court system is the body of government that gets to decide financial punishments and divvy up the money. This escrow account gives more power to the executive branch and less and less power in the legislative and judicial. Slipping further and further to elected dictators in this country.

Brokering a solution that saves times and money = good. Govt cronies controlling the allocation of those funds = bad.