Let's play a game

[meegbear]

I was checking my tweets yesterday afternoon and saw this from The Rude Pundit:

Let's play a game: If Bush had responded to the oil spill the way Obama has, you would have said (fill in the blank).

So I did a quick thought and the first thing I thought of was -- Bush is in with the oil people and he only cares about the crude, fuck everything else and that's he's trying to "cap it" instead of shutting it down.

Now, could I pass the same judgment on Obama? I couldn't; but not that I don't think he's innocent. He should have said screw them, I'll handle it and shut 'em down. And I wish we would NOW!! He's not to blame, but DAMMIT, DO SOMETHING!

So ... what would you say?

[WeDidIt]

1. I'd be truly astounded if Bush would have done even a tenth as much as Obama. n/t

[tekisui]

2. I'd be mad as hell is new drilling permits were being approved.

Which they are.

[CrispyQ]

3. The blame is not on Obama alone, it on the entire government.

Our government is so compromised by big money that it no longer functions, other than to siphon off the Treasury to big business. People fell for Reagan's "government is the problem" & started voting into office, candidates who have disdain for government. It's no surprise that they dismantled everything good that government used to do.

[gateley]

5. Well said, Crispy! Right on!! nt

[Romulox]

7. Furthermore, it plays RIGHT into the GOP's narrative of inept government...

:sigh:

[rudy23]

8. It's the DLC's narrative, too. n/t

[CrispyQ]

13. Like a snake eating it's own tail.

Convince the People that government is the problem, so they vote to stop funding government & then government becomes the problem. :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy:

I believe that people started becoming disillusioned with government when they stopped being as involved in it. My guess is it started shortly after WWII, when TV became a more common feature in many households & Madison Avenue convinced us to trade in our citizenship to become consumers. We stopped paying attention to what was going on in government, unless there was an issue. By then, it was easy to convince people that the private sector could do things better. We've almost come full circle.

I say almost, because we still have the very difficult job of convincing the People that some things should never be done for profit - health care, education, the penal system, come to mind. We also need to remind them, that at least in the public sector, you can vote the scoundrels out. In the private sector, unless you are a significant shareholder, you have no voice.

We're working against decades of propaganda & a severely compromised media. I'm not feeling very optimistic.

[gateley]

4. I would have said the same thing as you, although admittedly with Bush, he IS

the 'oil people'. Obama isn't.

He's been doing a lot, he's not been idle, but we really want to see something definitive so I share your frustration.

Another game just occurred to me:

If Obama HAD gone in at the outset and kicked out BP, and we were unable to stop the gusher for this long, we would be saying (fill in the blank).

My first thought would have been - WTF? How come we can't stop the flow? He's had over a month - why didn't we leave this to the experts? (Damned if you do, damned if you don't.)

No matter who's in charge, it's going to be a seat of the pants operation as different methods are attempted, but BP has incentive to try to stall and recover the oil. In my daddy's store, they would have been sent packing weeks ago.

[Romulox]

6. I just can't play this game, where "my guy's" oil cronies are OK, but the other one's are EVIL!

I don't understand the psychology of the people who think like this...

[AndyA]

9. I would have responded the same as you. However,

I just read that there are a few issues with just going in and capping this thing off. It's not as easy or as simple as it sounds. There are legitimate concerns that when the end of the pipe is capped off, it could cause a rupture further down, which would basically be like a volcano of oil shooting out of the ocean floor.

The oil loss could make what we have now seem minor. The reason for this is the process they're considering to cap the leak will create a great deal of pressure elsewhere.

The bottom line is, I have to wonder why the hell we're doing this in the first place...which takes me back to Bush and the pResidency of the Oil Men from 2001-2008.

It does seem that Obama should have done more, and I think he should absolutely stop all deep water activity immediately and order thorough and complete safety checks on every rig before they can start up again.

And while he's doing that, Congress needs to pass legislation to prevent speculators from using this as a reason to run up the price of oil like they did in 2008.

[Scuba]

10. Why would capping the leak cause "new" pressure? ...

... it can plug up the release point for the existing pressure, which will then seek the next-weakest point, but I don't see how the physics would allow it to create new pressure.

[AndyA]

12. There will be pressure coming from both directions.

To plug the leak, and from deep within the Earth. There's a 16" pipe they're concerned about blowing out.

[gateley]

14. Things are generally more complicated than they appear to those

of us who aren't involved. We're so quick to pass judgment, but we don't have the whole picture. Maybe I should say "I" instead of "we" because that's how I initially respond. The solution is always so simple to me, cut and dried, but then I learn more and realize once again I don't have all the answers. :7

[zipplewrath]

11. Boils down to trust

If you have any "trust" at all that what is being said reflects what is being done, it is going to influence this proposition. With Bush, I'da had not trust what so ever that he was doing the things he said, or was promising. With Obama, I'm warily patient.