Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Oval Office speech open thread

9:55 p.m.: Last thoughts for tonight: Seems to me that Jed Lewison has it right: No, he wasn't as specific as we would have liked. But he did devote paragraphs to the general urgency of acting now.

The intended audience of this speech was a general public wondering what the heck is going on with the spill and what the broader game plan is. This audience didn't need to hear the level of commitment to specific policy prescriptions that we all might have wanted.

And so perhaps it's understandable that this speech was not the major policy conversation-changer some of us might have wanted. That said, we still need to hear more. The jury is still out on whether Obama will seize on this major calamity to produce change we can believe in.

Obama signaled that he is committed to doing that. Now he has to deliver. Obama set himself a high bar tonight, and he deserves credit for that, even if he didn't give us clear indications on how he plans to clear it. Obama's message was that there's more to come.

9:21 p.m.: Don't miss Sarah Palin's take: She faults the Obama administration for not soliciting the help of "the Dutch," who are "known for dikes and for cleaning up water and for dealing with spills":

9:10 p.m.: Might be worth pointing out that on health care, Obama was criticized for being too vague and for failing to clearly articulate his specific legislative goals.

9:02 p.m.: Nancy Pelosi is unrelenting in her insistence that previous deregulatory mania is to blame:

"The disastrous BP oil spill is a harsh reminder of the price we are now paying for the Bush Administration and Republican Congress placing the employees of Big Oil in charge of regulating their own industry. We lost 11 lives in the tragic oil rig explosion, and our thoughts and prayers remain with the loved ones of those that perished. We have lost billions of dollars that belong to small businesses and residents in the region, and we have lost irreplaceable resources. In response, our energy policy must move in a New Direction."

Earlier I had wondered whether Obama would use this Oval address to point a finger at the deregulatory failings of the past, but perhaps this wasn't the place to do that; in any case, others are happy to make that case for him.

8:54 p.m.: Ezra Klein:

He also did not utter the words "climate change" or "global warming." The closest Obama got was to praise the House for "passing a strong and comprehensive energy and climate bill - a bill that finally makes clean energy the profitable kind of energy for America's businesses." The section of his speech devoted to the issue avoided the politically-controversial problem in order to focus on the broadly-popular solution: Clean energy...

Obama did not make any specific promises about the bill he would support, or even that he wanted. He did not say he would price carbon, or that we should get a certain percentage of our energy from renewables by a certain date.

8:41 p.m.: Taegan Goddard:

Though Obama called for a "national mission" to transition to clean energy, he was vague on what he actually wants to see in a comprehensive energy bill. In doing so, Obama is just another president that has refused to ask Americans to sacrifice for this greater national goal. He missed a golden opportunity.

More reax coming...

8;27 p.m.: Let's face it, for Obama to say that he had been given the "assurance" that offshore drilling was safe wasn't a shining leadership moment.

8:23 p.m.: Whatever you think of the speech, the fact that he didn't treat this as a "war," and didn't present himself as General Patton, as seems to be the emerging critique, isn't particularly problematic.

8:19 p.m.: No mention of the Senate bill; no urging of the Senate to action?

8:09 p.m.: Fascinating: Obama addresses his unmistakably awkward decision to endorse expanded offshore drilling. He doesn't quite admit error, but it's an implicit admission of failure, though he seems to push off blame on those who assured him that it was safe.

"A few months ago, I approved a proposal to consider new, limited offshore drilling under the assurance that it would be absolutely safe -- that the proper technology would be in place and the necessary precautions would be taken," he says.

"That was obviously not the case on the Deepwater Horizon rig, and I want to know why. The American people deserve to know why."

8:05 p.m.: Obama makes a critical distinction between previous subjects of Oval Office addresses (one-time disasters) and the current calamity, which is ongoing and has no end in sight, lowering expectations for an immediate solution.

"Unlike an earthquake or a hurricane, it is not a single event that does its damage in a matter of minutes or days," he says. "The millions of gallons of oil that have spilled into the Gulf of Mexico are more like an epidemic, one that we will be fighting for months and even years."

8:03 p.m.: It's underway. Here's the full text of the speech, as prepared for delivery.

7:55 p.m.: Chris Matthews admits that the Clintons have been nothing but a big plus to Obama. Must have been a painful admission...

7:46 p.m.: Let's get goin'. You can watch it right here, and Robert Gibbs' answers to your questions will also be streamed on this vid:


By Greg Sargent  |  June 15, 2010; 7:46 PM ET
Categories:  Climate change  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Happy Hour Roundup
Next: The Morning Plum

Comments

Ethan, thanks for the better link. It worked! :o)

Posted by: suekzoo1 | June 15, 2010 7:55 PM | Report abuse

"Chris Matthews admits that the Clintons have been nothing but a big plus to Obama. Must have been a painful admission..."

I was thinking about this earlier today. I've sat down for a couple of meals with the wife of one of the senior execs at this paper, both of whom socialize with Matthews and wife. A very nice lady but had a barely concealed visceral dislike for the Clintons. I found it inexplicable and the only way I can make sense of it is to assume 1) dislike of the outsider and/or 2) internalization of two decades of attack propaganda.

Posted by: bernielatham | June 15, 2010 8:02 PM | Report abuse

@Greg

I want to bring something up, because I think we both can agree that many people will come out after this speech with the response "what took so long?".

Imagine if he gave this speech 3 weeks ago, and we'd likely be in the exact place we are today. How terrible and impotent would Pres. Obama (and the Gov.) look then...?

Posted by: TheBBQChickenMadness | June 15, 2010 8:07 PM | Report abuse

If Obama had given this speech weeks ago, and all the trial and error stuff that has happened since still happened, and the gov't at least didn't seem to be in more control, as they weren't then, then we would probably have people saying that he needed to give ANOTHER oval speech.

Better late than never.

Posted by: lynell33 | June 15, 2010 8:12 PM | Report abuse

Also, I'm glad he addressed the "obama's katrina" meme. Doesn't mean the MSM is gonna not still call it "Obama's Katrina", but at least he addressed it.

Posted by: lynell33 | June 15, 2010 8:14 PM | Report abuse

John Cole on the address:

"I can’t believe our politics is so f'cking stupid that the President has to bow to political pressure and give a big address from the WH about the oil spill. And then we can all wank about whether he was “tough enough on BP” or if he “showed enough emotion” or “took charge” or showed he was “hands on and in control.” None of which stops the f'cking leak.

Of course, if anything positive was going to happen, Obama would have to stand up there and say “Those penguins coated with oil and shrimp that taste like wd-40? You stupid motherf'ckers can expect more of that until you stop voting for asssholes who oppose alternative energy sources and any move away from fossil fuels. Until then, I hear dental floss works ok removing tarballs from your teeth, you dumbasses. Also, this response IS big government, you teabagging shitheels.”

That would probably be deemed partisan, though. Just shoot me.

And no, I’m not watching."

Posted by: BGinCHI | June 15, 2010 8:25 PM | Report abuse

I'm listening to KO whine about how Pres. Obama didn't go into detail about the energy bill, Matthews complaining about not getting legal details about how Obama will compel BP to set up the escrow, and Fineman get all outraged that he didn't declare war on the oil slick.

This feels more and more like yet another case in which Pres. Obama is speaking to a TOTALLY different audience than the DC media corp.

It's gone completely over their heads.

@Greg:

"No mention of the Senate bill; no urging of the Senate to action?"

He didn't say "Senate", but the reference about the House passing a bill already is an implicit mention of the Senate. Plus, he did say that he won't except inaction...that sort of feels like a "urge" for action, don't you think?

Posted by: TheBBQChickenMadness | June 15, 2010 8:26 PM | Report abuse

You and Fineman both brought up the same point.

Are you guys hooked up to some kind of pundit talking point machine?

Posted by: mikefromArlington | June 15, 2010 8:26 PM | Report abuse

LOL, yeah...Fineman sounded like a fool right there. NUKE THE OIL! ARRRGGG!!!!!!!

Posted by: TheBBQChickenMadness | June 15, 2010 8:28 PM | Report abuse

lol.

I'm listening to Palin on O'Rielly.

She doesn't make any sense, ever.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | June 15, 2010 8:28 PM | Report abuse

Holy f'in cow. Seriously, how can anyone think Palin should be in any sort of leadership role.

She can even complete a single train of thought.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | June 15, 2010 8:32 PM | Report abuse

Not on the speech (I can't watch it here) but related.

BP lobbyists, bless their little hearts, tried to get the 34 year old Canadian regs dropped so that relief wells wouldn't have to be drilled as a blowout safeguard (things would be jim-dandy due to the sophistication of modern drilling technologies).
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=127381814

Posted by: bernielatham | June 15, 2010 8:32 PM | Report abuse

"the fact that he didn't treat this as a "war," and didn't present himself as General Patton"

Except for the part where he called it a battle plan.

Greg. Did you listen to the speech?

Posted by: mikefromArlington | June 15, 2010 8:33 PM | Report abuse

@mike - Is Palin doing commentary on the speech?

Posted by: bernielatham | June 15, 2010 8:34 PM | Report abuse

Olbermann, Matthews and Fineman are all FOS.

Olbermann tweeted right b4 the speech began that the speech was gonna be disappointing and not enough. So shock of all shocks, Olbermann, Tweety, and Fineman all agree, it was disappointing.

Let’s be real here, if you have problems with the handling of the spill, then this speech was not gonna be enough for you anyway. This speech was obviously not for you then. Keith O, Tweety, and Fineman have already been on record as being disappointed in Obama’s response. So fresh eyes ain’t what these guys had.

Is it too much to expect them to at least acknowledge their bias?

Posted by: lynell33 | June 15, 2010 8:34 PM | Report abuse

Mike, I was ridiculing that line of criticm obviously

Posted by: Greg Sargent | June 15, 2010 8:35 PM | Report abuse

Mike, give us a Palin paraphrase!

Posted by: BGinCHI | June 15, 2010 8:35 PM | Report abuse

Ugh...I had to turn it. Seriously, the pundit class is really, really freakin' stupid these days. On all networks. They are angry that he didn't give the speech THEY wanted him to give, so now they are teeing off on him. That's not analysis at all, that's just poutrage.

It really is utterly impossible for them to think that the speech wasn't meant for those who would be immediately talking about it afterward. Like the only reason for the President to give a speech from the Oval Office would be to respond to what they babbled about on air over the last few days. Because they are just that important.

There were several things I would have liked to have seen in this speech that I didn't. But there were many things in it that I felt were needed, and I think will quell some nervousness/anger out there among the broader public. If so...then he accomplished what he was going for.

We'll see in the coming days whether some of the broader promises he made get the details filled in and move forward. That's the real test...

Posted by: TheBBQChickenMadness | June 15, 2010 8:35 PM | Report abuse

mike, what is Palin's take? I can't watch Fox because I blocked it with parental controls...

Posted by: suekzoo1 | June 15, 2010 8:37 PM | Report abuse

Ugh...I had to turn it. Seriously, the pundit class is really, really freakin' stupid these days.
...
Posted by: TheBBQChickenMadness | June 15, 2010 8:35 PM
===============================

These days? They've been freakin' stupid since the oh so important bj investigation. Followed by 8 years of "Marianas sex slaves for GOP? lol who cares!", and now we're back to the Clinton rules again.

Our pundits get paid well to tell us what the ruling class wants us to hear. In that respect, they've been successful and well rewarded.
~

Posted by: ifthethunderdontgetya | June 15, 2010 8:40 PM | Report abuse

I miss snark a lot.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | June 15, 2010 8:46 PM | Report abuse

@Greg Re: 8:27

Yeah...that was a really awkward moment. As he started into it, I was expecting a full mea culpa moment. It felt, to me, like whoever sold him on the idea to offer offshore drilling up to the gods of bipartisanship over scientific method must be someone he doesn't want to fire.

Honestly, that's probably the best way, politically, he can handle it. An awkward juggle then move on to the other issues - the ones he can name the villain and take action on. The best we can hope for on his mistake on this is that he learned his lesson, and he doesn't do it again.

That's a level of trust in him/government that a lot of people are lacking at the moment, esp. on this subject.

Posted by: TheBBQChickenMadness | June 15, 2010 8:47 PM | Report abuse

My wife and I were saying that this felt like we just finished watching the Presidential debates and all the pundits were telling us how McCain won the debates. And then the outside the beltway results came in and it became obvious that the beltway and the rest of America are not the same.

Olberman'ss little whine/sigh while the camera was still on the President before they switched the video to him was pretty much the indication of how he was going to cover it.

Olberman, Mathews and Fineman didn't get their daddy moment. Then went to CNN where they had to tell us that Republicans weren't going to be happy because he wants Congress to legislate on climate change and energy while the well is leaking. Because you know, Congress is so busy on the gulf coast personally doing clean up work. Maybe we should ask Congress to donate their paychecks to the gulf region if they are going to refuse to legislate during this crisis.

And then Palin on Fox. Wow. Can she form a proper sentence or stick to one actual train of thought. i couldn't follow her, something about Norway and Maine and bureaucracy. I think she was complaining because not everyone was going and doing things in the gulf. Which is opposite of CNN complaining about there were too many different groups doing things.

The media wanted a certain something said in the speech. When the President didn't do what they wanted they got all weepy.

Posted by: zattarra | June 15, 2010 8:48 PM | Report abuse

Here's the thing Gret et al:

How often do we read the blog or watch political news and the like? I ask this, because I we are obviously all political junkies/activitist, you Greg and your MSM pals are political reporters. So ya'll live and breath this. I'm one too, but the rest of my family; who lives in New Orleans, I might add; are not.

I posted this in the last thread, but I spoke to my family this weekend, specifically my aunts. Asked them how they felt about the oil spill and the President's response. And you know what, they were, not suprisingly, upset about the spill and the affect on NOLA, but she did not blame President Obama nor did she say the oil spill was just like Katrina all over again.

This speech was for her and the other people I know who are just gonna watch the address and turn off the commentary afterwards to watch the game or some other show. They are not listening to Olbermann and the like (to be honest, I would bet you they dont' even know who Olbermann is, they are liable to recognize Bill O and Fox News b4 Tweety or Olbermann actually.

I didn't' have the heart to tell her that based on what I'm reading on the blogosphere, she is obviously misinformed, cause this oil spill is soooo "Obama's Katrina".

Posted by: lynell33 | June 15, 2010 8:50 PM | Report abuse

sorry, am on phone. Couldn't relay Palin's air head commentary.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | June 15, 2010 8:50 PM | Report abuse

thx BBQ. I really cringed at that. Someone let him down by allowing him to say that.

Posted by: Greg Sargent | June 15, 2010 8:52 PM | Report abuse

"i couldn't follow her, something about Norway and Maine and bureaucracy."

I think that pretty much sums up all of her speeches.

Posted by: schrodingerscat | June 15, 2010 8:54 PM | Report abuse

Having Palin respond to Obama's address definitely doesn't do anything good for the conservative movement for anyone with half a brain listening.

I'd love to watch Krauthammers face off the camera when she answers questions. That would be priceless.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | June 15, 2010 8:56 PM | Report abuse

Yet again, the press is trying to cram this speech into a prefab media narrative. Y'all are like Cinderella's stepsisters, trying to slice up your feet just to fit the glass slipper.

Listen. If he'd given detailed plans, the press would have lambasted him for being too technical, just like you did during his press conference a few weeks ago. Remember that, guys? And you would pay more attention to his tone and whether he sounded angry enough, rather than whatever details he would have given up (just like how now, he's apparently not "Patton"-ish enough for some--never mind the words coming out of his mouth, he wasn't wearing jodhpurs in front of a giant flag, so obviously the speech was terrible).

Most of the press has been absolutely worthless in covering this disaster. Sure, he's done things wrong. You'll never hear about those things from the cable echo chamber, because they're too busy making complaints about tone and image.

Posted by: dkp01 | June 15, 2010 9:04 PM | Report abuse

"He also did not utter the words "climate "

He just mentioned climate legislation.

He didn't utter the words Terrorists! ZOMG!

He didn't mention FISH either! What about all the fish? Sure he mentioned fisherman and fishing but still!

I could find a thousands things he omitted if I sat down and thought about it.

I understand everyone wanting their issue addressed but one thing I thought many agreed on before he went into this was it should focus on what to do about the Gulf, guess not.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | June 15, 2010 9:05 PM | Report abuse

Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!

Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!

You moonbats are getting flim-flammed!

That was the lamest address from the Oval Orifice EVAH!

"Good evening. As we speak, our nation faces a multitude of challenges. At home, our top priority is to recover and rebuild from a recession that has touched the lives of nearly every American. Abroad, our brave men and women in uniform are taking the fight to al Qaeda wherever it exists."

{But enough about that...now on to the IMPORTANT STUFF! I'm shaking down BeePee for BIG BUX, and I want the Congress to begin funding unicorn ranches and magic bean factories immediately!}

Ha-ha-ha!

Ha-ha!

Now let's look at his lies:

"...And that's part of the reason oil companies are drilling a mile beneath the surface of the ocean - because we're running out of places to drill on land and in shallow water."

That is a Bald-faced Lie. We are running out of shallow water sites ONLY where he and his Odministration allow us to drill, which is only of the coasts of Louisiana and Texas and Mississippi.

"The consequences of our inaction are now in plain sight. Countries like China are investing in clean energy jobs and industries that should be here in America."

Another LIE. And one that you can see with your own eyes in the skies over Shanghai or any other industrial Chinese city.

The recent fatal coal mine disaster in West Virginia, was, by the standards obtaining in the Chinese coal fields, no more than a run of the mill Monday.

If you fools still believe, after the revelations of the state of environmentalism that were common behind the Iron Curtain, that a socialist government is at ALL "eco-friendly", then you are truly irretrievably stupid.

Further Lie:

"Last year, the House of Representatives acted on these principles by passing a strong and comprehensive energy and climate bill - a bill that finally makes clean energy the profitable kind of energy for America's businesses"

And these are going to be the hardest lies to convince you clowns really IS a lie, because the premise itself, that you can legislate profitability, is itslf a lie.

Look kids,(you too, Barry!), if unicorn farts were really that desirable an energy source, you wouldn't need any legislation whatsoever by anyone to MAKE them profitable.

When you start going down that road, it's a centrally planned economy...and show me one that has worked for more than a century.

The other lie in that statement is the implicit "anthropogenic" that he DIDN'T SAY before "climate-change".
The implication, the LIE, being that human behavior can affect global-warming/climate change for good or for ill in any measurable metric.

So there's two gigantic whoppers, (shallow drill sites and Green/Red China), and a two-fer of false premise and bad "science"...that he told right to your faces.

And you moonbats will hail him as though he had walked across the Gulf waters and reached down with his hand and plugged the well.

Fools!

Posted by: Bilgeman | June 15, 2010 9:17 PM | Report abuse

Bilgeman forgets Oval Orifice messages about the dangers posed by Saddam, the so-called effort to pursue bin-Laden to the ends of the earth, and assorted propaganda because he's nothing but a gooper keyboard kommando.

Meanwhile, here's what moonbats have to say:

http://moonshinepatriot.blogspot.com/2010/06/president-barack-oval-office-address.html

~

Posted by: ifthethunderdontgetya | June 15, 2010 9:31 PM | Report abuse

All, just added video of Palin reax above. It's pretty great, def worth a watch.

Posted by: Greg Sargent | June 15, 2010 9:31 PM | Report abuse

"This speech was for her and the other people I know who are just gonna watch the address and turn off the commentary afterwards to watch the game or some other show."

The village just can't seem to understand why the W.H would waste so much valuable air time and face time on one region of the country. One region that didn't help elect the President and won't help re-elect him.

They can't believe he really means what he says when he promises not to abandon the Gulf. And he can't possibly deliver on his pledge to re-build the Gulf region the way it should be done.

So, if you can't figure him out it's easier to just accuse him of inexperience, indecision and ineffectiveness.

Clearly, KO, C-Matt and H-Fine, took the easy route.

Posted by: Andy94 | June 15, 2010 9:34 PM | Report abuse

""The consequences of our inaction are now in plain sight. Countries like China are investing in clean energy jobs and industries that should be here in America."

Another LIE."

Hmmmm...explain this:


"China Overtakes U.S. in Green Investment
China has shown determination to be on the frontline of green technology, while U.S. investors have been put off by uncertainties amid the legislative battle on climate change."



BP Rivals Slam Firm Over Gulf Disaster
Spanish Unions Call General Strike Over Labor Market Reform
Kia Pulls 56,000 Cars for Brake Fault Check
China's U.S. Gov't Debt Holdings Hit 2010 High
Nestle Files Lawsuit Against Sara Lee
Fitch Slashes BP Rating
More News »A study led by the Pew Charitable Trusts shows that Chinese investment in clean energy soared by more than 50% in 2009 to reach $34.6 billion, far more than any other country in the Group of 20 major economies.

The report said that China has shown determination to be on the frontline of green technology, while U.S. investors have been put off by uncertainties amid the legislative battle on climate change.

Total U.S. investment was about half that at $18.6 billion, the first time in five years that the world's largest economy lost the top spot in clean energy, the study said. While the United States dominates technological innovation, its investment in clean energy tumbled 42% last year from 2008 levels.

More here: http://www.industryweek.com/articles/china_overtakes_u-s-_in_green_investment_21415.aspx

Posted by: suekzoo1 | June 15, 2010 9:36 PM | Report abuse

Now what I DID like about his speech:

He reads the Teleprompter uncommonly well, and has a Go-given baritone speaking voice.

I also was amused to see him evoking JFK's "hand jive"...that's not a rap against him, either, better he ape Kennedy than Nixon, who looked like he was suffering from manual spasms when he orated.

I also thought I detected a Reaganesque upward head-tilt to the left.
This evoked an "Aw,shucks!" kinda vibe for Reagan, and oddly enough it seems to do the same trick for Obama.

In a set-piece scripted speech, the Alleged Hawaiian has very few equals.
A pity he uses it for spouting moonbat hogwash.

Oh, and hated the curtains drawn behind him. I think I saw the exact same pattern in a Ramada Inn room outside of Chattanooga TN a few months ago. That doesn't work in the Oval Orifice.

Posted by: Bilgeman | June 15, 2010 9:37 PM | Report abuse

Bad paste above. Sorry.

"A study led by the Pew Charitable Trusts shows that Chinese investment in clean energy soared by more than 50% in 2009 to reach $34.6 billion, far more than any other country in the Group of 20 major economies.

The report said that China has shown determination to be on the frontline of green technology, while U.S. investors have been put off by uncertainties amid the legislative battle on climate change.

Total U.S. investment was about half that at $18.6 billion, the first time in five years that the world's largest economy lost the top spot in clean energy, the study said. While the United States dominates technological innovation, its investment in clean energy tumbled 42% last year from 2008 levels.

"China is emerging as the world's clean energy powerhouse," said Phyllis Cuttino, global warming campaign director of the Pew Environment Group. "This represents a dramatic growth when you consider that just five years ago their investment totaled $2.5 billion," she said.

China has also overtaken the United States as the top emitter of carbon blamed for global warming and came under fire for its role in December's much-criticized UN climate summit in Copenhagen.

But the study found that China had made a strategic decision to invest in wind and solar technologies as it copes with sharply rising demand for energy -- and has set some of the world's most ambitious targets on renewable energy.

The study also found strong investment by Britain, which ranked third with $11.2 billion for clean energy; Spain, which came in first in green investment when taken as percentage of gross domestic product, and Germany.

Nations seen as struggling in the clean energy competition include the United States, Australia and Japan, the study said. Cuttino said the three nations have "less consistent, clear and long-term policies in place."

Posted by: suekzoo1 | June 15, 2010 9:39 PM | Report abuse

That is a Bald-faced Lie. We are running out of shallow water sites ONLY where he and his Odministration allow us to drill, which is only of the coasts of Louisiana and Texas and Mississippi.
...
Posted by: Bilgeman | June 15, 2010 9:17 PM
========================

The bald-faced lie is that our off shore drilling is significant to the amount of oil we need to import. Hey, oil's expensive, so peeps make money! Especially if they cut corners and nothing bad happens.

We should have listened to Jimmy Carter. You keep slurping on Dick Cheney's azz, bilgeman. Apparently this keeps you happy.
~

Posted by: ifthethunderdontgetya | June 15, 2010 9:40 PM | Report abuse

Slave suezkoo1:
"Hmmmm...explain this:


"China Overtakes U.S. in Green Investment
China has shown determination to be on the frontline of green technology, while U.S. investors have been put off by uncertainties amid the legislative battle on climate change.""

Woman...have you ever BEEN to Shanghai?

I have.

Have you ever been to Tijuana?

I have.

Shanghai's skies make Tijuana's look like the skies over winter-time Vermont.

So you cite some article extolling how "Watermelon China" is leading in "Green Technology".

Doofus...they're using coal-fired industry and two-stroke motorbikes to manufacture the compact flourescent light bulbs that you congratulate yourself on being so "eco-friendly" for buying.

And they dump the mercury right into the river.

Hey, don;t believe me or some e-zine article, get your butt on an airplane and go visit Shanghai, (or pretty much anywhere else in Guangzhou Province).

Then you won't sound like such a partisan chump.

Posted by: Bilgeman | June 15, 2010 9:45 PM | Report abuse

Fifty bucks says Palin thinks "the Dutch" come from "Dutchland".

Posted by: schrodingerscat | June 15, 2010 9:45 PM | Report abuse

Bilgeman, yes I have been to Shanghai. Obama said that China is investing in green technology. You called that a lie. I gave you evidence that what he said is true. There are several other independent confirmations of the same.

Obama did not say that the Chinese had solved their air quality problems, he said they are investing in new energy sources. And they are. And we, sadly, are not.

The bottom line is this: we are either going to be a net importer of this kind of innovation and technology, or a net exporter. We can't be both. I know which I would choose for our country. EXPORTS.

Posted by: suekzoo1 | June 15, 2010 9:53 PM | Report abuse

ifthelivestockdon'tgetya:
"The bald-faced lie is that our off shore drilling is significant to the amount of oil we need to import. Hey, oil's expensive, so peeps make money! Especially if they cut corners and nothing bad happens."

You don't think it's significant, huh?

Another moonbat spouting ignorance like a broken oil well riser.

I happen to be sitting on a ship in Port Fourchon, LA.

What is germane to this issue, is that Port Fourchon, which is a god-forsaken dung-heap of a port, (and I've been to some REAL Winners in 25 years of seafaring, believe me), handles something like 16%-18% of the US oil supply.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Fourchon,_Louisiana

(bottom of the first para)

So fold what you think is "significant" five ways, plug your personal well-bore with it using both hands, and run on along on your elbows.

Why not come on down for a vacation?

http://www.portfourchon.com/

Posted by: Bilgeman | June 15, 2010 10:00 PM | Report abuse

Interesting thing, Bilgeman. You like to call others "slave-this" or "slave-that."
You seem to be the one enslaved to the past ways and past days. Over my 30+ year career, I have had to make many changes, and adapt to diminishing industries, retrain and be open to new opportunities where I could find them. That meant having to move several times, across the country, and back again.

Apparently, you have not, or at least you exhibit no evidence that you have had to. Change is hard, and sometime frightening. But those who stand still end up getting left in the dust. Life goes on. Innovation is the way of the future. We used to ride in horse & buggies, which gave way to the automobile which will give way to something else. There are three things in life that are certain: death, taxes, and CHANGE.

Stand still if you like. The rest of the world is moving on. You're free to come along, or stay behind if that is your preference. But time waits for no man.

Posted by: suekzoo1 | June 15, 2010 10:01 PM | Report abuse

All, final thoughts added above

Posted by: Greg Sargent | June 15, 2010 10:08 PM | Report abuse

Sarah Palin, the intellectual fire power of the right!

She bombed about as bad as Jindal. What a contrast between Obama and his competition.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | June 15, 2010 10:11 PM | Report abuse

Bilgey, did you play the character Sawyer on Lost?

Posted by: BGinCHI | June 15, 2010 10:18 PM | Report abuse

Regarding Palin's idiotic comments, I'd point out that it's the GOP that took their finger out of the dike. The whole point of what the Dutch do, and what smart European countries do, is anticipate disasters by regulation and by being extremely proactive about environmental matters.

50 bucks Palin doesn't know that Holland and the Netherlands are the same.

Posted by: BGinCHI | June 15, 2010 10:27 PM | Report abuse

Slavezkoo1:
"Bilgeman, yes I have been to Shanghai."

Then you know what a fool you sound like to someone who has also been there.

"Obama said that China is investing in green technology."

Investing in "Green Technology" does not mean EMPLOYING "Green Technology". As I gave an example, building a factory that makes CFL light bulbs, and that dumps the waste mercury into the river is "Investing in Green Technology"
But I think you;d rather NOT think about that side of it, huh?

"Life goes on. Innovation is the way of the future. We used to ride in horse & buggies, which gave way to the automobile which will give way to something else."

Well, you;ll be happy to know that with $10.00 a gallon gasoline, we might see a renaissance of the horse and buggy all over again!
Maybe the Alleged Hawaiian could direct Government Motors and his chums in the UAW to start making them,huh?
(He seems to be okay with THAT non-Green Technology Investment, does he not?)

"Apparently, you have not, or at least you exhibit no evidence that you have had to. "

Men who work at sea are usually a very conservative lot. That is because not only is the sea itself eternal, and largely unchanging, but also because as Margaret Thatcher said:

"The facts of life are Conservative".

You do what WORKS, and you don't abandon what hard-bought knowledge has taught you works just because some goober claims he has something better, (or, to be fair, because some "suit" in Houston is buggin' over the budget and the schedule).

Posted by: Bilgeman | June 15, 2010 10:30 PM | Report abuse

Why not come on down for a vacation?

http://www.portfourchon.com/

Posted by: Bilgeman | June 15, 2010 10:00 PM
==================

Toiletman ducked the question: USA offshore drilling (insignificant portion of our oil need) versus controlling the demand side. And of course, the needle/drilling and the damage done. Will this catastrophe be repaired in our lifetime? Bilgeman doesn't give a rat's azz, because he's dittohead.

You're an idiot, bilgeman. Bring more non-sequiturs ! Wave a flag!
~

Posted by: ifthethunderdontgetya | June 15, 2010 10:30 PM | Report abuse

MoonbatinCHI:
"50 bucks Palin doesn't know that Holland and the Netherlands are the same."

They're not. You lose. You can donate your 50 bucks to Palin's favorite charity.

"The Netherlands in its entirety is often referred to as Holland, although North and South Holland are actually only two of its twelve provinces (see terminology of "the Netherlands")"

From:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netherlands

Posted by: Bilgeman | June 15, 2010 10:33 PM | Report abuse

I took a break from politics and took my daughter fishing.

Sounds like I missed nothing but lies and excusifying. No surprise.

Even the lefties seem to think it was weak.

But citing China as a green leader???

Anyone who has been to China has to be laughing. Bilge is right -- again. China spews pollution people in this country can't even imagine. The air in many places is unbreathable. Water is totally unsafe.

Obama obviously thinks the public is really, really stupid.

Posted by: quarterback1 | June 15, 2010 10:34 PM | Report abuse

Does anyone know if Michael Bromwich has to go through Senate confirmation to head MMS?

Posted by: suekzoo1 | June 15, 2010 10:35 PM | Report abuse

qb, except for the fact they are creating massive wind and solar farms.

And, turn of the tv, check out the news about our Gulf if you want to see what energy companies do to the U.S. environment. Check out our coal ash sludge messes, mountain top removal, large rivers like the Potomac that post recommended amounts of fish to eat from them.

We ain't no saint either when it comes to a clean environment as a result of our energy policy.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | June 15, 2010 10:39 PM | Report abuse

ifthemoonbatdon'tgetya:
"oiletman ducked the question: USA offshore drilling (insignificant portion of our oil need) versus controlling the demand side. And of course, the needle/drilling and the damage done. Will this catastrophe be repaired in our lifetime? Bilgeman doesn't give a rat's azz, because he's dittohead.

You're an idiot, bilgeman. Bring more non-sequiturs ! Wave a flag!"

Are you a liar. or did you fail to read this...I even provided a Wiki-cite:

" What is germane to this issue, is that Port Fourchon, which is a god-forsaken dung-heap of a port, (and I've been to some REAL Winners in 25 years of seafaring, believe me), handles something like 16%-18% of the US oil supply.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Fourchon,_Louisiana

(bottom of the first para)"

Say good bye to around 20% of US gas and oil supply, and your neighbors would beat you to death for the gasoline in your lawn tractor, moonbat.

Posted by: Bilgeman | June 15, 2010 10:41 PM | Report abuse

That's what you get for relying on wiki for your knowledge. You end up sounding like an uneducated dolt like Palin.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | June 15, 2010 10:42 PM | Report abuse

Bilgeman: "Investing in "Green Technology" does not mean EMPLOYING "Green Technology"."

So I take it that you register your vote to import the technology from China. Thanks for clarifying.

I vote EXPORT from the US every time.

Posted by: suekzoo1 | June 15, 2010 10:42 PM | Report abuse

Bilgey, difference without a distinction. I don't know any Dutch person who sticks to that distinction.

Anyway, I know more about European history than anyone ever needs to.

Let me just shorten my point. Palin is an idiot. What she said makes no sense. Und so weiter....

Posted by: BGinCHI | June 15, 2010 10:42 PM | Report abuse

MoonbatinCHI:
"Bilgey, difference without a distinction. I don't know any Dutch person who sticks to that distinction."

They're a peculiar lot, the Dutch, no denying that.
They don't indulge the regionalism like we do, (how could they? Their provinces wouldn;t make decent COUNTIES in our western states), but that all aside, a Limburger from Maastricht is usually quite happy not to live in the Randstaad.

And with reason, frankly. Limburg is some pretty country. The Hollands and the other provinces...not so much.

A cold and wet Louisiana.

Posted by: Bilgeman | June 15, 2010 10:56 PM | Report abuse

80% of the dutch speak better English than Palin.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | June 15, 2010 11:00 PM | Report abuse

mike,

China is ruled by a communist totalitarian regime. Their economic decisions are made by communist ideologues sitting in Beijing. They aren't based on economic rationality and don't have to be economically efficient.

Yes, I know, they are making all sorts of supposed "progress" based on what is effectively slave labor and utter devastation of their society and people.

If you haven't been there or at least done a lot of study about it, I really don't think you have any idea what you are talking about.

Much of the population, even in the modern cities, still lives in medieval conditions -- or worse. In much of the country, you can taste the coal dust and heavy metals in the air 24/7. Not just smell but taste. As Bilge says, they dump heavy toxins right in the rivers. The 3 Gorges dam is a monumental environmental disaster in the making (and in some respects already has been). Great planning by the communists.

One could go on and on. The conditions in most of the country are literally unimaginable to people in this country. Go look up the forbidden cities where they collect the world's electronic junk. You won't believe what you see.

It is absolutely ludicrous for Obama to hold up China as an example to follow. I am far from an expert, but I've been there and have personal reasons to know, and it revolts me.

Posted by: quarterback1 | June 15, 2010 11:03 PM | Report abuse

The real leader (and our next president) that being Gov. Sarah Palin, was on Fox News' Bill O'Reilly show after the teleprompter boy. Can you imagine her playing a dozen rounds of golf while an entire section of this nation was devastated? Me either! She'll be a breath of fresh air after 4 years of Mr. Party-Hearty, Wagyu beef and 18 holes. BTW, the Dutch DID ask if they could assist us and were turned down IN WRITING by Barry McFailstain and his brain trust!

Posted by: sandbear | June 15, 2010 11:05 PM | Report abuse

slavezkoo1:
"Bilgeman: "Investing in "Green Technology" does not mean EMPLOYING "Green Technology"."

So I take it that you register your vote to import the technology from China. Thanks for clarifying.

I vote EXPORT from the US every time. "

Do you now? Well then what are you doing making common cause with these moonbat cattle?

The business environment that they and their Water-walking Well-plugging Messiah have engendered is likely to mean that we'll be importing EVERYTHING soon.

(At least for those of us with civil-service jobs that will be able to afford the imports).

Let me tell you a secret about China.

If we will buy it, they will export it.
If we will buy it and we also make it, they will make it cheaper, and still export it.

Now if we got smart and played THEIR game, we'd import ONE. We'd then back-engineer it and produce it in mass quantities so that the cost for them o export he next unit would not be profitable.

That's largely how they screwed us, y'know

The trick though, is that we need to make things that people WANT without government prompting.

Posted by: Bilgeman | June 15, 2010 11:10 PM | Report abuse

"The trick though, is that we need to make things that people WANT without government prompting."

These people want centralized government economic planning, not free enterprise and free markets, not economic efficiency.

They are socialists.

Posted by: quarterback1 | June 15, 2010 11:23 PM | Report abuse

Bilge, the N'lands are underrated as far as beautiful country goes, but as you say, yes, contrasts. Still, even some of that wet, flat land is pretty in its way. And the cycling is the best; you can ride anywhere and then just get a room and eat and drink until you're silly.

Also seems weird that here in the US Amsterdam has a reputation as a non-destination. It's really a great city. It's not all wh'res and drugs.

Posted by: BGinCHI | June 15, 2010 11:29 PM | Report abuse

Greg, your 9:53 pm post nicely summed up the speech.

People who cover politics and who closely follow politics often forget that everyone isn't a political animal.

Obama's speech updated the nation on what's going on the Gulf, and it planted a seed for more action on energy reform in the coming days and weeks.

I think it had enough information for people who aren't consumed with politics, and that was his target audience tonight.

Posted by: associate20 | June 15, 2010 11:37 PM | Report abuse

Can there be a disclaimer when a video of Palin is posted that says "hear speaks a dumb*ss, listen with caution"? The fact that millions of Americans view her as a goddess and take her words as gospel truth is highly frightening to me. And no, I am not an "Obamaniac" - I'm not registered with either party.

Incidentally, wouldn't recruiting the Dutch to help be anti-American? Can't we help ourselves? Oh I forgot - the only pro-America parts of this country are small towns, the rest of us are worthless, unpatriotic socialist communists.

Posted by: CTgirl3 | June 16, 2010 12:18 AM | Report abuse

The New Gulf War - O'Bama has fired the first shot. It's not quite sure where it landed and there are no reports of any injuries or damage. BP execs are quoted as saying. "Are you talking to me?" Residents of the Gulf Coast are quoted as saying, "Are you talking to me?" The underwater residents of the Gulf Coast have not been heard from and are assumed to be dead.

Posted by: RonaldSpiegel | June 16, 2010 12:31 AM | Report abuse

"You do what WORKS, and you don't abandon what hard-bought knowledge has taught you works just because some goober claims he has something better, (or, to be fair, because some "suit" in Houston is buggin' over the budget and the schedule)."

Too bad the "free-market" suits at bee-pee didn't listen to those with the "hard-bought knowledge".

Posted by: Andy94 | June 16, 2010 12:33 AM | Report abuse

That twit from tundars vid... uuugghh

Posted by: amkeew | June 16, 2010 3:38 AM | Report abuse

That twit from tundras vid... uuugghh.

Bet she was thinking of the Pennsylvania dutch a la joey tribbiani. Does that twit know the other name of Holland ? I bet not.

Posted by: amkeew | June 16, 2010 3:40 AM | Report abuse

Andy94:
"Too bad the "free-market" suits at bee-pee didn't listen to those with the "hard-bought knowledge"."

Indeed.

Eleven guys who were doing nothing more than busting their behinds trying to make a living would still be alive.

Posted by: Bilgeman | June 16, 2010 7:26 AM | Report abuse

"80% of the dutch speak better English than Palin."

That's very funny, mike.

Posted by: bernielatham | June 16, 2010 7:53 AM | Report abuse

Kenneth Greene dissects last night's speech...or really ANY Obama speech, for that matter.

http://blog.american.com/?p=15456

Posted by: ScottC3 | June 16, 2010 7:54 AM | Report abuse

Bernie says:

"That's very funny, mike."

Right, because Palin is known for her poor speaking skills.

Apparently there is almost no gratuitous and baseless insult to Palin that the "progressive" mind will not find amusing or apt. The left's obsession with Palin seems to know no bounds.

Posted by: ScottC3 | June 16, 2010 8:14 AM | Report abuse

It's interesting to contrast the comment by Lewison that Greg notes up top and the comment this morning from Michael Gerson http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2010/06/obamas_oval_office_address_big.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

Lewison's attention is not merely on the "presentation" aspect of the speech but on the vision it contains for the future and the changes to policy that are shown by the spill itself (not to mention its causes in appetite for oil and the culture of deregulation that arose from a blinkered and deluded faith in the inevitable blessings of unfettered capitalism) to be absolutely necessary.

Gerson's attention is strictly on "presentation", that is, how does the speaker come across politically. It's a telling difference. The Bush WH political operations were concentrated on presentation above all else. Would Gerson have been happier to and would we be better off if Obama had given his speech from an oil platform or aircraft carrier with a thousand troops arrayed behind? Or if Obama was plunked in front of a dramatically lit building with a Hollywood director laying out the visuals and drawing needed electrical power from rescue/hospital operations as the Bush WH did post Katrina?

Note Gerson's use of "limp" and related terminiology/imagery meant to convey the manly/effeminate dichotomy. But that is a key technique in rightwing propaganda - go for the primitive - and that's why we see it used so commonly by them.

Posted by: bernielatham | June 16, 2010 8:19 AM | Report abuse

@Scott - re Palin...Come on, you're smarter than that.

Palin's commonly incomprehensible statements are the product of her noggin. She doesn't speak well because she doesn't think well. And she doesn't think well (on the sorts of things she has been pushed by circumstance and ambition to pretend knowledge or expertise in) because she is both poorly educated and undisciplined. The "insults" you talk of are not baseless, they are grounded in the above.

Posted by: bernielatham | June 16, 2010 8:30 AM | Report abuse

ScottC3:
"Apparently there is almost no gratuitous and baseless insult to Palin that the "progressive" mind will not find amusing or apt. The left's obsession with Palin seems to know no bounds."

Totally understandable.

On the female side, you have the simple envy of the moonbat "Janeane Garofalo crew" beta-females for a woman who looks like Sarah Palin...

OTOH, you have the wistful reaction of the beta-male moonbats, expressing their unrequited longing for an alpha-female. Nevah happen for the losers and geeks, and they know it...

And finally, I think that in a certain segment of moonbattery, Sarah Palin arouses feelings of latent heterosexuality...

Posted by: Bilgeman | June 16, 2010 8:32 AM | Report abuse

OT - Closing arguments today in the Prop 8 case. Apparently they will be simulcast for media.

Posted by: bernielatham | June 16, 2010 8:36 AM | Report abuse

Canadian Man-bag:
"She doesn't speak well because she doesn't think well. "

Maybe she should take courses in self-important pomposity from you.

The Alleged Hawaiian has a God-given speaking voice, but his mellifluous intoning cannot mask the fact that most of the time when he opens his soupcooler, moonbat hogwash and neo-socialist pablum flows out of it.

Posted by: Bilgeman | June 16, 2010 8:36 AM | Report abuse

Canadian Man-bag:
"She doesn't speak well because she doesn't think well. "

Maybe she should take courses in self-important pomposity from you.

The Alleged Hawaiian has a God-given speaking voice, but his mellifluous intoning cannot mask the fact that most of the time when he opens his soupcooler, moonbat hogwash and neo-socialist pablum flows out of it.

Posted by: Bilgeman | June 16, 2010 8:36 AM | Report abuse

"Lightning strike destroys Touchdown Jesus statue"

Hmmm. The wealth of American Protestant theology will be brought to this curious happenstance and sense will be made of it.

Posted by: bernielatham | June 16, 2010 8:41 AM | Report abuse

Tomasky comes closest to my response to the speech...

"Ronald Reagan in particular used these prime-time speeches to great effect. When he had a big bill before Congress, he gave one of these addresses, and often, public opinion shifted overnight. I don't know if that's quite possible in our time in quite the same way, since Reagan had no 24-7 noise machine to contend with. George W Bush tried one after Katrina, albeit not in the Oval Office but down in New Orleans, and that one didn't play so well. But now, for a president whose handling of the oil spill is hardly getting rave reviews, it seemed the perfect time – finally – to give it a try.

But this speech fell well short of the mark rhetorically. The language was too broad and the structure too formulaic to break through the media babble. Being an effective explainer-in-chief is all about tone, word choice, confidence. Obama didn't show much confidence. Toward the end, as he discussed the need for comprehensive energy legislation, he spoke fairly strong words, but somehow his face conveyed that he wasn't really sure Congress would listen to him (or maybe I'm reading into that, since I doubt Congress will on this question).

A run of the mill speech won't kill Obama politically any more than a brilliant speech would have saved him. What's needed are some results. And the results are still going to take time. As Obama outlined the steps government is going to take, I thought: OK, very well, a good idea, but that will take six months, a year, more. The problem is that this crisis is in people's faces here every day."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/michaeltomasky/2010/jun/16/barack-obama

Posted by: bernielatham | June 16, 2010 8:47 AM | Report abuse

Bernie:

I thought the speech was fine on substance. A bit messy in rhetoric but that doesn't really matter. The question is whether the Oval Office address signifies the beginning of some real heavy lifting by the White House. This is a massive subject area, far more complex than health care. There are issues concerning the Gulf Coast economy; climate change; national oil dependence; air pollution; national security, etc. Congress is simply incapable of putting all the pieces together in any coherent structure; Obama must provide the framework and let Congress fill in the blanks. This should begin now. We'll see.

Posted by: wbgonne | June 16, 2010 8:49 AM | Report abuse

All, morning roundup posted:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/06/_maybe_im_just.html

Posted by: Greg Sargent | June 16, 2010 8:52 AM | Report abuse

wb - Agreed. There is, I think, a very common but inexcusable failure in commentary to either perceive or acknowledge the magnitude of the inertial forces (and institutions) that Obama has taken on in a year and a half. Surely, much of this has been forced on him by circumstances but he hasn't backed away from much (major exception - the potential war crimes issues of the last administration). He is taking on the most powerful and wealthy bodies in the country and he is taking them on in the face of a powerful and pervasive propaganda universe dead-set on stopping him from doing so. It's a bit like trying to move an oil tanker poorly piloted and heading towards a dock filled with people but using a bunch of eager kayakers for the task. It's an amazing and truly brave endeavor.

Posted by: bernielatham | June 16, 2010 9:16 AM | Report abuse

Bernie says:

"She doesn't speak well..."

Yet again the progressive mind alters reality to fit its thinking as opposed to vice-versa. Whatever intellectual shortcomings Palin may have, public speaking is not one of them. She's actually quite a charismatic and engaging speaker (even if you think what she is saying is dumb), which is precisely why the joke wasn't really funny...it made no sense apart from seeing Palin as a legitimate target of any old gratuitous insult.

Posted by: ScottC3 | June 16, 2010 9:32 AM | Report abuse

@Scott - "Public speaking", you say. Handy shift over into something else.

Differentiate what is revealed about a person's mind, knowledge, expertise, coherence of thinking etc in these two situations:

1) pre-scripted, rehearsed presentation to some audience which has no opportunity to ask questions

2) an open and adversarial discussion, interview or debate

I don't know what to say to you, Scott. You don't show the simplest honesty here.

Posted by: bernielatham | June 16, 2010 10:10 AM | Report abuse

Know what happens when you get a Liberal like Sargent using his ignorance to criticize Sarah Palin who knows more about oil that Obama and Sargent ever will?

You have a liberal embarassing himself with his ignorance.

Looks like Obama is taking Sarah Palins advice.

The U.S. Government has apparently reconsidered a Dutch offer to supply 4 oil skimmers. These are large arms that are attached to oil tankers that pump oil and water from the surface of the ocean into the tanker. Water pumped into the tanker will settle to the bottom of the tanker and is then pumped back into the ocean to make room for more oil. Each system will collect 5,000 tons of oil each day.

Posted by: robtr | June 16, 2010 3:52 PM | Report abuse

Yuk, yuk! That Sarah Palin is so stu... What's that coming up on my screen? Obama is accepting the Dutch offer? Ah, Mr. Web guy, clean up on aisle Plume Line. Palin par. down the memory hole, if you please!

She was also so stupid for pointing out the Obamacare "death panels." Yet a few days later, the supposedly nonexistent "death panels" section was deleted from the bill.

As we reality-based citizens (tea baggers to you) like to say, "I can see November from my house!"

Posted by: Trav2 | June 16, 2010 4:01 PM | Report abuse

Let's see, "The Dutch"...hahahaha. That silly Sarah Palin...oh wait...look.


The U.S. Government has apparently reconsidered a Dutch offer to supply 4 oil skimmers. These are large arms that are attached to oil tankers that pump oil and water from the surface of the ocean into the tanker. Water pumped into the tanker will settle to the bottom of the tanker and is then pumped back into the ocean to make room for more oil. Each system will collect 5,000 tons of oil each day.

One ton of oil is about 7.3 barrels. 5,000 tons per day is 36,500 barrels per day. 4 skimmers have a capacity of 146,000 barrels per day. That is much greater than the high end estimate of the leak. The skimmers work best in calm water, which is the usual condition this time of year in the gulf.

These systems were developed by the Dutch as a safety system in case of oil spills from either wells or tankers. The Dutch have off shore oil development and also import oil in tankers. Their economy, just like ours, runs on oil. They understand that the production and use of oil has dangers and they wanted to be ready to cope with problems like spills. The Dutch system has been used successfully in Europe.

The Dutch offered to fly their skimmer arm systems to the Gulf 3 days after the oil spill started. The offer was apparently turned down because EPA regulations do not allow water with oil to be pumped back into the ocean. If all the oily water was retained in the tanker, the capacity of the system would be greatly diminished because most of what is pumped into the tanker is sea water.

As of June 8th, BP reported that they have collected 64,650 barrels of oil in the Gulf. That is only a fraction of the amount of oil spilled from the well. That is less than one day’s rated capacity of the Dutch oil skimmers.

Turning down the Dutch skimmers just shows a total lack of leadership in the oil spill.

Posted by: paul21 | June 16, 2010 4:05 PM | Report abuse

C'mon, Sargent, you leftist dipsh-t. You can't make one lame joke about Palin and "The Dutch" now that Preznit HoodOrnament has accepted the offer?

Surely you, or some of your brainy leftard commenters, can dazzle us with your combined ignorance of all things oil industry related.

Posted by: paul21 | June 16, 2010 4:12 PM | Report abuse

Jeez, Palin must have set some sort of record for pwnage today!

In the space of less than 21 hours, she completely and totally owned Gred Sargent AND his entire stable of lefty commentators.

Look down, Greg. At your feet. Yep. Those are clown shoes.

"You betcha!"

Posted by: section9 | June 16, 2010 4:38 PM | Report abuse

Greg, question for you: You "wondered whether Obama would use this Oval address to point a finger at the deregulatory failings of the past, but perhaps this wasn't the place to do that; in any case, others are happy to make that case for him." Others being Nancy Pelosi. So let me ask you: What case is Pelosi making? What case is there to be made? What, in short, what deregulatory failings of the past? Pelosi says that the Bush admin put oil industry people in charge of their own industry. First, there's no truth to that. Second, it's not deregulation. Third, what deregulation? What deregulatory mania? Bush wasn't even a mild deregulator, let alone a manic deregulator. So what's the case others are making? You, like all other leftycrats who make this all-purpose claim, rarely specify any deregulation, and never actually show any link between any deregulation (yes, the only instance ever specified is Gramm-Leach-Blilie, a bipartisan dereg passed with overwhelming support in both houses and signed by Clinton [that's not spelled B U S H], and that had nothing to do with the credit meltdown) and any negatives--be it the credit meltdown or the oil spill. You guys are nothing more than demagogic blowhards, and your shtick isn't even mildly plausible anymore.

Posted by: d1stewart | June 16, 2010 5:17 PM | Report abuse

> She faults the Obama administration for
> not soliciting the help of "the Dutch,"

Heh. How many sets of kneepads have you worn out from your Obama-worship?

Lefties just can't help but prove how stupid they are, especially when it comes to Palin.

Posted by: malclave | June 16, 2010 7:49 PM | Report abuse

Fifty bucks says Sarah Palin thinks Austrians speak Austrian! Ha ha! Oh wait, no, that's Obama.

Fifty bucks says Sarah Palin said the US is comprised of 57 states! Oh wait, Obama again.

Fifty bucks says Sarah Palin thinks we should accept the offer of help from "the Dutch"! Damn! Obama AGAIN!

Posted by: JeninNC | June 16, 2010 11:02 PM | Report abuse

Bwah-hah-hah-ha! "The Dutch!" Have you ever heard something so crazy?

Well, actually, dude, we have. From a "Dutch" "minister," in fact.

What does this mean? It means that Sarah Palin was talking about something you'd never heard before and were using sneer-quotes to indicate what an absurd idea you thought it was.

In other words, you were ignorant, and you projected your own ignorance against Sarah Palin. Luckily for you, though, she put you on some knowledge!

Posted by: neversaylie | June 17, 2010 10:52 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company