Obama Oval Office Speech

[Embar Angylwrath]

Point taken.

[Lurker]

I don't know, I expected it to be less blah blah blah and that there would be more ideas, calls-to-action that didn't feel half-ass, and general substance.....*that certain something* you look for from your country's leader in times of trouble.

Do you mean a call to action on the cleanup of the spill, or on a move to clean energy? Because if he had used the speech to push harder than he did for his energy policy, including a demand for cap-and-trade which is what most on the left were looking for, we'd still see a flood of negative commentary about the speech.

Anyways, I'm more concerned with what actually gets done than what he talks about in his speech or how it plays to the talking heads. I know Obama has mobilized the government to address this crisis and he's in daily meetings with the key players. In the short term, they are trying to stop the leak. In the medium time frame, he's got a commission to figure out exactly what went wrong at BP and the Government agencies responsible for oversight. And in the long term, he's creating a task force to come up with a comprehensive plan to clean up and rebuild the region.

Expecting an immediate plan or solution is understandable but not reasonable. It's no different than Roger Simon wanting a magical President to pull a rabbit out of a hat. It's childish.

Point taken.

I sure hope so. We'll see.

[Embar Angylwrath]

http://www.gq.com/news-politics/big-iss ... z0qw04KWRK

Visceral read from GQ about the spill... good lord.

@Lurker.... Expecting substance in an Oval Office address two months AFTER the spill isn't an expectation that is "immediate". Again, he's had two months. And all we really got last night was a chin-up, American spirit, rah-rah speech and a recap of what's transpired, and yet another statement that he's going to make sure BP pays.

[Freecare Spiritwise]

I'll toss in my brainwashed-by-the-liberal-media perspective:

There's some issues that I'm dissatisfied with the way the Obama administration is handling -mostly technology related issues- but this isn't one of them.

I don't get the impression that anyone is standing around yanking their wanker, and I have confidence that the administration is doing everything that can possibly be done to stop the leak. Anything aside from that is just fluff.

[Lurker]

Gee... will the Obama failures never cease? In his speech Obama engaged in "blatant pandering" (to quote Embar), promising the impossible! And today, he... oh wait...

BP to Suspend Dividend and Set Up Fund for Oil Spill Claims

I know some think this is meaningless, but it's critical for any plan to restore the region that cleanup costs and damage claims are handled in a transparent and timely manner and that BP is held liable.

[Embar Angylwrath]

Gee... will the Obama failures never cease? In his speech Obama engaged in "blatant pandering" (to quote Embar), promising the impossible! And today, he... oh wait...

BP to Suspend Dividend and Set Up Fund for Oil Spill Claims

I know some think this is meaningless, but it's critical for any plan to restore the region that cleanup costs and damage claims are handled in a transparent and timely manner and that BP is held liable.

Emphasis on timely and tranparent. In the interest of trnasparency, I'de like to see the governing document on the $20 billion escrow. If anyone thinks BP just funded $20 billion with a handshake deal, they're mistaken. BP got something out of this.. maybe it was a release of further claims, maybe it was an agreement on totla liability.. they got something. And I'd like to know what.

[Lurker]

The escrow fund is not a cap on damages or a release from further liability. As for what BP got, having a plan in place to pay the massive amount of damages they are liable for is better for stockholder confidence than not having a plan. I know you're searching and searching, but I don't see how this is a bad thing from any angle.

[Embar Angylwrath]

The escrow fund is not a cap on damages or a release from further liability. As for what BP got, having a plan in place to pay the massive amount of damages they are liable for is better for stockholder confidence than not having a plan. I know you're searching and searching, but I don't see how this is a bad thing from any angle.

I didn't say it was bad Lurker. I said I want to know the details. You're making an assumption about what the agreement entails. But the fact is, we don't know what it entails, all we got is the scripted version from the WH. Wouldn't you like to see the details of the deal?

[Partha]

Didn't watch the speech. Didn't listen to the talking heads afterwards. Big speeches from the Oval Office are not for wonks. BP has to do the spill regardless.

And Embar shits the bed again. Some things never change.

[Fallakin Kuvari]

Edit: And if Olberman and Matthews had issues with the speech, you know Obama has failed.

MSNBC anchors have been turning on Obama over the past couple months because they think he hasn't gone Left enough.

[Embar Angylwrath]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0610/38609.html

More reaction to Obama's speech.

And as a side note... Obama has a comprehensive energy reform bill in the house which enjoys bipartisan support. It would pass on a stand alone vote if brought to the floor. However, the Senate version has stalled.. why? Because they added crap that even some Dems backed away from. All Obama has to do is convince the Senate to change the language in the bill to more closely mirror the one in the House. And he'll get his energy reform bill passed.

[Lurker]

You're making an assumption about what the agreement entails. But the fact is, we don't know what it entails, all we got is the scripted version from the WH. Wouldn't you like to see the details of the deal?

Sure, I think they should make the details public but I wasn't making assumptions. You speculated that BP got a release from further claims or a cap on liability, and according to what Obama told the press after an agreement was reached your speculation is not true. Those two things were specifically addressed as not being in the agreement. So I was not making assumptions, I was correcting the record.

And we get it! The talking heads didn't like the speech. Who cares. I'm more concerned with solving the crisis than whether Obama "changed the Washington storyline".

[Embar Angylwrath]

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing- ... -agreement

Details begin to emerge.

[Lurker]

Obama has a comprehensive energy reform bill in the house which enjoys bipartisan support. It would pass on a stand alone vote if brought to the floor. However, the Senate version has stalled... why? Because they added crap that even some Dems backed away from.

Can you tell us what the vote breakdown was on the House version and what was added to the Senate version that made it so distasteful?

[Embar Angylwrath]

I don't think the bill was voted on. I said it had bipartisan support. As to the Senate version, I think the hitch is climate change language.

[Lurker]

The House bill was voted on. Last year. It included cap-and-trade language.

Can you tell us what the vote breakdown was on the House bill? How many Republicans voted for the legislation and how many Democrats voted against it? Whats the support from each party for the Senate bill? Cause I have to tell you... the numbers don't support what you said and the contents of each bill doesn't support what you said. You were either misinformed or you just made it all up.

[Fallakin Kuvari]

If you know so much why don't you just come out and say it?

[Lurker]

Embar made the following statement.

Obama has a comprehensive energy reform bill in the house which enjoys bipartisan support. It would pass on a stand alone vote if brought to the floor. However, the Senate version has stalled... why? Because they added crap that even some Dems backed away from. All Obama has to do is convince the Senate to change the language in the bill to more closely mirror the one in the House. And he'll get his energy reform bill passed.

None of that was true. The House bill passed last year with 8 Republican's (4.5% of their caucus) voting yes. That's not what I consider bi-partisan support. That would be the same as two Senators supporting the bill, and if the Republicans weren't lock-step opposing everything there would be at least two Republicans supporting it... probably four. The House bill contained cap-and-trade language so he was wrong about that too. If the exact text of the House bill was brought before the Senate the same crowd would oppose it and Embar would be here trashing that legislation.

Asking him about it instead of just posting the information was a better way to point out that he didn't know what he was talking about.

======

Back to the topic, here's a comprehensive fact sheet about the escrow fund.

[Embar Angylwrath]

HR 2454.

Dems voting for:211 Against:44
Reps voting for:8 Against:168

It wouldn't have passed if not for those 8 Rep votes. As I said before, it had bipartisan support and could pass a standing vote. You may not think 8 votes are anough bipartisan support, but without them, it would have failed (because of the 44 Dems voting against)

[Lurker]

That's an exceptionally weak definition of bi-partisan. You know that.

And you still didn't explain what the difference is in the Senate bill that's preventing the same levels of bi-partisan support (two senators by your definition). And you didn't explain how the language of the House bill would get those two votes. Do you support the House bill? It has that nasty "climate change language" in it, after all.

See... this is another one of those situations where you'd be better off admitting you were wrong and dropping it. You obviously didn't know what you were talking about when you made the initial statement.