Tuesday, June 1, 2010

Politics

Blaming President Obama for the oil spill makes about as much sense as blaming George Bush for Hurricane Katrina, but it's likely to get interesting as Gov Jindhal squares off against the Federal Government over relief efforts.

Jindhal, you've probably heard, has long been touted as a potential Presidential candidate. Possibly, even against Obama in 2012.

My personal observation: There is more at stake in this for the President than I think he is aware of.

13 comments:

Bike Bubba said...

I think the President knows what's at stake, but he's in seriously above his head. He's leading with what he knows--lawyers and intimidation--when what the situation needs is engineers and scientists.

And I'd have to differ about it being his fault. After all, on his watch, the agency responsible for regulating drilling appears to have given the driller a safety award without performing much in the way of audits.

Would it have prevented the disaster? Who knows, but certainly Obama's men did not do their job, and arguably he's not doing his job now. This sticks just as well as oil to a bird.

Brian said...

I think some analogy between Katrina and the spill is fair. In both cases you had what certainly looks like a failure of federal oversight before the fact (levees in one case, regulation of offshore drilling in the other). Obviously, the president does not personally oversee these things (and in both cases, systemic problems likely preceded each president's tenure), but I am certainly of the opinion that the person with the big title, the big house, and the personal 747 gets those perks for a reason, i.e., they are ultimately responsible for a hell of a lot.

There is a lot at stake here, and the thing that worries me most is that Obama (and congress) will overreact. Actually, I shouldn't be worried, because I already know that it's going to happen. This is going to do for domestic offshore drilling what Three Mile Island did for nuclear power. Any hope of energy independence just got pushed back 30 years.

The only possible upside I could see coming out of this is that oil prices shoot up enough to drive alternative fuels to market faster than they otherwise would have been. But that's gonna hurt.

K-Rod said...

Since when is pain for innocent people an "upside"???

Brian said...

The oil is going to run out, eventually. (Actually, it will more likely become sufficiently expensive to make other forms of energy more cost effective before it literally runs out.) Getting off of it will be a good thing, in the long run, but in the short run, it's gonna suck.

Sorry, I know you find nuance confusing and frightening.

K-Rod said...

Right. And weren't we supposed to run out of food years ago?
Wasn't the earth supposed to be deforested by now?

Hey Brian, tell Chicken Little that K-Rod says 'Hi'.

RW said...

I recommend definition 3.

Nuance (noun): NOO-ahns. 1.Denoting something of subtle import. 2.The existence of something more meaningful than the obvious. 3.Not a fart.

Gino said...

brian: the oil can never run out because we will just make more.
see?

W.B. Picklesworth said...

Back to the matter at hand. Will this cause us to pull back (even more) from exploiting our energy resources? I think Brian is right, but I wonder about wild cards. The world seems pretty unstable right now. There are a lot of things that might make domestic production not only attractive, but necessary.

tully said...

Finally some peace and quiet!

K-Rod said...

RW, do you have any proof for definition 3?

Because it actually sounded like one.

tully said...

Hey Gino, did you have a "nono" who made his own wine? If so, was it good? Just curious.

Gino said...

yes!

K-Rod said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.