Excellent comments. You're a fine debater. However....

You're right - I do disagree. See my comments in-line.

The courts should certainly be involved in judging exact extent of damages and BP's responsibility - that is the extent of the federal government's legitimate involvement. Period.

One of the primary functions of the government is to protect the people. I see Obama trying to do that. Had he has not said anything, or done nothing else, I think (I'm open to correction here) you'de be saying, "Why isn't this guy doing something". Either way, from the way I see it, Obama can do no right in your eyes.

I said here before that Obama's rhetoric (and now actions) have had a negative impact on the very market he's vowed to protect. BP is still the only one that can fix this, and they don't need the "foot on the neck" (exact quote from the White House) while they're trying to fix the problem.

I don't believe for a second that BP is the only one who can fix this. The should, however, be stepping up and taking the point, which as we agree they are failing to do.


I posted this before: we should not drop the context that the government bears some responsibility by blocking oil exploration on land. If oil companies were permitted to drill in shallower waters and in the Arctic (where there's nothing but tunda) instead of deeper waters in the middle of fishing areas (like the Gulf), an accident or blowout is easier to address.

Not necessarily easier to address, just less noticeable because there's a smaller population per capita. The Exxon Valdez incident took a long time to fix, as this will, and the impact is still being felt, as this will for many years to come.

I'm not being an apologist for BP - they must be held accountable. But Obama's reactions the last few weeks have given one more piece of proof on just how bad a leader he is. Obama's statement that he would have fired the BP CEO for the "I want my life back" comments, in microcosm, is the quinessential example of Obama having no executive experience. Firing the CEO at the time would have been bad business, no matter how badly BP screwed up. But Obama doesn't realize that. (And yes, those BP CEO comments were very stupid).

I guess we have different opinions on what "Leadership" means. I see leadership as someone who steps up and takes command when times likes these arise. I was a Marine, so that's my view. Initiative is a key component of leadership. I see Obama taking command. He's putting these CEO's A$$ to the fire, as they should be, and he's demanding action and answers.

We could all second guess Obama, but ask yourself something. It's been said that each president has his crisis. Bush has 9/11. Obama has this. What exactly are you expecting from someone who's facing a catastrophic event the likes we've never seen?

Obama doesn't have anything to offer here - and that's fine - but he needs to take a page from the book of Calvin Coolidge: "I minded my own business".

You're right. How does't someone offer answers and solutions to something no one has faced before. Does it make him les capable because he makes off comments, or does something differently that you expect in a time where there is no standard for dealing with this kind of thing.

As President, this IS his business. What do we elect a President for? Photo ops and trips to day cares? No we elect them to stand up and say, "I'm going to take charge and make this right". Seems to me he's doing just that.

I look forward to your rebuttal.

K