Just because Obama and the administration aren't on the Tee Vee 24/7

[Windy]

Doesn't mean that they aren't appropriately responding to the oil spill. The MSM has far too much control in this country. They decide that the "President hasn't shown leadership" in the crisis based on what? On the fact that he hasn't been doing PR???

I for one would rather have my President working on the problem 24/7 instead of wasting time going on television to battle with the news media and talking heads who only want to create controversy.

I was recently in South Africa and got more actual news from the BBC and Al Jazerra in that short period of time than I've gotten from the tabloid news in this country in the last several years!!!

As one traveler I met in South Africa from the Netherlands told me in a conversation, the US media has far too much control over the politics and policies in our nation!

[liberal N proud]

1. But the talking heads are on 24/7

telling us that Obama isn't doing enough.

:sarcasm:

[phleshdef]

2. No one can say he hasn't dedicated a wealth of attention to it without lying.

I think the Whitehouse failed to get the message out that they were on it at the beginning of this thing, but at this point, the response effort has been loud and clear. At some point the whole "harping on the admin response" meme is going to run out of steam and people are going to stop being responsive to it. I'd say we will see the beginning of that trend sometime after this speech tonight.

[vaberella]

10. Check out the post below yours. n/t

[Raine1967]

13. I hope you're right.

This is a most reasoned post.

It's time for the meme to end, and for people to start looking to what can be done NOW.

[DrDan]

3. you seem to be making the connection between showing leadership and being on "TeeVee 24X7"

Has anyone really said Obama needs to be on TV more? Perhaps so - I have not heard it.

I am not arguing that the media is not lacking in objective coverage, But . . . I also question leadership from the White House. For example - to make a statement about needing to know who's ass to kick when it has taken weeks and weeks to have that first conversation with Hayward. I think we all know who's ass needs to be kicked.

[vaberella]

5. Actually no we don't.

At the end all we know is that there were many asses to kick. 1) Bush was involved and we have to deal with the deregulation. 2) then you have to deal with a reorganization and firing of people within the Dept. of Interior and MMS with corrupt officials working there as well. 3) BP, 4) the people who built the rig in the first place----contrary to popular belief BP did not create the rig---they just used it for drilling. 5) then you have to see if there are any criminal malfeasance and who did it (are we looking at just individuals or just an entire enterprise) 6) you have to figure out how to prevent that stuff in future ie..was this a problem of regulation if not people, was it a problem of administration if not skill.

So you have a lot of asses to kick and he had to get that organized before he could make a move. I hate when people sit there and they think things are just 1-2-3 and we're good. There's a lot of complexity here and there are a lot of things to get done. So for you to say it took weeks---yeah it did have to take weeks. You don't go around accusing all over the place because they were there. That's like seeing a good Samaritan (I'm not suggesting in any way shape or form that BP is a good Samaritan) where a dead body lies and saying---they did it. You need to gather all the evidence and then come up with whom the culprit is---unlike CSI or Law & Order it doesn't take an hour to figure all that out.

Further more...if you don't want tv, how do you then measure his leadership. Majority of American's know nothing about the student financial reform. However you wouldn't know because the media didn't even talk about it--except for a few journalists on blogs. So you'd say he's not showing leadership. Because we don't see journalists and bloggers defining his every move and more actually criticize his every more doesn't mean he's not showing leadership. At this point this call that Obama needs to show leadership---is weak because it was him who sent out the FBI to look for criminal activity. He's canceled appointments to go down to the area, meet the people and talk to the representatives there. It's been him who's pushing for more legislation in regards to environmental policy changes. And yet you claim he's not showing leadership. What I get the impression is when people ignore all the above is that they want him to swim down to the bottom close the leak and turn all the oil into clean fresh water. He's not the second coming...jus a president.

[DrDan]

7. well . . . if you don't thnk Hayward deserved a call . . . then I I would also question your

leadership abilities.

Of course there is a lot of blame to go around. But why not start at the top of the culpable corp. WHY NOT START?????? You don't need to spend 2 months getting organized before having that call. Why would you not have that conversation? If you want to get to the bottom of this mess - that would be a perfect place to start.

"if you don't want tv . . " ----- The OP seems to be equating 24X7 TV with leadership. Do you agree with that?

71% of Americans feel leadership in this mess is inadequate. Can't say I disagree with those 7 in 10.

[vaberella]

9. See...that's what I find weird.

Most of the articles only talk about face to face meetings. No one has actually said he hasn't spoken to the guy on the telephone. I actually doubt that it's possible that Obama didn't speak to the CEO of BP on the phone. Although admittedly---the Department of the Interior head should be the one doing majority of the talking to that guy.

I hardly agree with the idea that tv is equal to leadership. However, I think...many on DU do because I'd like to know, as I asked, you'd rate leadership. Most of the stuff that the government is doing is hardly being publicized unless it's what people believe to be the wrong things.

As for starting with the culpable corp. Obama already said he would have fired the CEO, the government has already sent in a bill to bP, they are also forcing the hand of BP to pay reparations to the people who are losing their businesses because of this, Obama is also pushing for legislation laws, Obama as I had already said has sent the FBI to look on for criminal charges.

You again, have ignored all of this to again imply he's done nothing. Why would all of that be nothing? Because he hasn't destroyed BP?! I didn't know the government had any power to take over international enterprises from the top down. All it can is what Obama has done. Further more getting those reparations is hard so he has to hire and organize that department to get that done. It doesn't happen in a week-end. But again, you seem to want to push that Obama is not a leader. So how do you define leadership in regards to this situation?

[DrDan]

12. here is a link that clearly indicates there was no conversation up to a week ago

along with a direct quote from Hayward confirming that.


BP Plc Chief Executive Officer Tony Hayward hasn’t spoken directly to President Barack Obama since the Deepwater Horizon rig exploded on April 20.

“There is no need for that,” Hayward told the British Broadcasting Corp. in a live interview in London today. “I have spoken to his key lieutenants.”

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=asQDvBNvDFIE

Interesting that Hayward seems to be deciding that it is not necessary.



No - I certainly do not think he should be destroying BP. He has no right to take over BP . . .or fire anyone. He does have the duty, however, to insure all that can be done is being done. He also has the duty to do all in his power to contain this mess. He decided to leave the containment and cleanup up to BP - it should have been led by the Feds. He also had to have made a conscious decision to not not have a direct conversation with Hayward . . . or perhaps Hayward made that conscious decision.

Sending a bill, talking about BP being responsible for all claims, and suggesting an investigation is far from leadership. Any accountant worth his/her salt could do that much. He has not been out-front on any of this. He has reacted to the polls and to the adverse coverage. The whole "who's ass to kick" was a reaction to not being agressive enough. The trips to the gulf ssem to be a reaction to adverse coverage to not being at the gulf.

[vaberella]

15. Yes and I was informed that Hayward is actually required to deal with the Dept. of Interior people.

And various other officials---Apparently the President is under no obligation---if BP follows DoI's regulations and requirements.

[phleshdef]

22. Fuck Hayward. Fuck calling Hayward. Fuck meeting Hayward. Did I say, Fuck Hayward?

[DrDan]

24. of course . . .. why call him and have a discussion . . . he is only the CEO . . .

geez . . .

[phleshdef]

25. Oh so, NOW DU decides to complain that Obama isn't kissing enough CEO ass.

What are they going to discuss? How Obama can give Hayward his life back?

This is petty bullshit. Hayward and the administration have communicated plenty anyway so its a moot point. Spare me your concerns over meaningless formalities and Tony Haywards feelings.

[DrDan]

26. What are you talking about

geez - are you ever off-base.

Who said anything about kissing a CEO's ass?????


You harbor your opinions and I shall harbor mine.

"Spare me your concerns . . . " easy enough - just read those posts you agree with.

[phleshdef]

27. Off base is implying that meeting or not meeting with Hayward makes any real world difference.

[DrDan]

28. not kissing someone's ass though . . . right?

[phleshdef]

21. Wow, you totally missed what the "who's ass to kick" comment even meant.

Why don't you try actually listening for a change instead of taking a sound byte and running with it.

The President said that the time he spent at the beginning meeting with experts and people that knew what was going on was spent that way so that he would know who's ass to kick. In other words, he likes to know what he is talking about before he speaks. He likes to have all the facts before he decides on the appropriate course of action. That IS leadership.

The attention deficient bullshit some around here are guilty of astounds me.

[DrDan]

23. and why would that rule out talking to Hayward . . .

I said "about needing to know who's ass to kick "

and you said "so that he would know who's ass to kick"

and I missed the point?????


why do you have the need to interject some personal insults?

[The Wielding Truth]

4. Couldn't someone on the Pres. staff be on tv all the time with

information on where to go for beach safety, food safety, fishing safety and oil containment lessons, the best use of booms, improving travel plans in effected areas, applying for BP reimbursement? I know all of us don't need to know this stuff, but if this information were available 24/7 that would show the general public a "hands on control".

[vaberella]

8. Hmm..this would be helpful.

However Obama has that information on the site and I believe he talked about it in his video addresses:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/deepwater-bp-oil-spill/

[The Wielding Truth]

14. It may all be available online, but that is not big enough to comfort the

masses. It seems.

[vaberella]

16. It never is...

Again...showing on a regular basis is always better than saying it once on tv and providing links.

[The Wielding Truth]

17. yep

[O is 44]

19. +1, if only they'd utilize WH.gov, many

will not since that would render them mute.

[vaberella]

20. Agreed.

WH.gov is ridiculously informative. When I have a question or some confusion on what was said by the WH on an issue or like to know the Gov's response to situations----you find it all there. As I like to say when it comes to the Obama administration---I listen to the horses words than the memes by pundits and bias media.

[Empowerer]

6. I seem to recall that about 9 months ago, the MSM was warning the president he was "overexposed"

because he was on television too much.

[Bitwit1234]

11. Fox snd CNN give the republicans plenty of coverage

I think CNN is shriller trying to outdo Fox.

[Politics_Guy25]

18. And they gave no coverage to the dems during the Bush era

Dems vanished apparently during the Bush years and the media couldn't find a single one to interview! Sarcasm....YEAH right. Yeah right that they couldn't find dems to interview, that is. They just weren't allowed to speak and any critcism of King Bush was heresy in the media.