Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Schumer spox clarifies "cheering on" Blanche against labor

Okay, it looks like this whole flap over Chuck Schumer's apparent cheering on of Blanche Lincoln for taking on unions is not really a big deal after all.

Schumer spokesman Brian Fallon gets in touch to clarify that Schumer was making a specific reference to one of Lincoln's ads.

Schumer had originally raised some eyebrows by greeting Lincoln's victorious return to the Senate with this:

Sen. Chuck Schumer (N.Y.) held up two fists and said of her primary campaign: "Fighting Wall Street with one hand, unions with the other."

That, naturally, pissed some people off, since it smacked of specifically cheering on Lincoln for defeating unions, as if they should be treated as just another garden variety opponent of Dems whenever they threaten a Dem incumbent. But Schumer spox Fallon says it was just a reference to this recent ad, in which she said:

"I won't back down to the Washington unions or the Wall Street banks that don't care about Arkansas."

Seems fair enough. Still not crazy about the fist-pumping bit, though.

By Greg Sargent  |  June 10, 2010; 2:08 PM ET
Categories:  2010 elections , Senate Dems  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Schumer cheers Blanche for fighting unions?
Next: Boehner spox: No taxpayer money on Gulf spill cleanup or damages

Comments

Tone. Deaf.

At best.

Posted by: wbgonne | June 10, 2010 2:11 PM | Report abuse

A signal moment, even from Dems, of how cozy the Senate is and how centrists in the party want to keep their jobs at the expense of large groups of working class citizens.

I really do think this is a filip to labor and an indication that the Senate, and a significant portion of the Dem Party, is blithe to what is going on in middle America and in the middle class.

MORE primaries and more net roots. Greg, please keep up the good work on WHY primary challenges like Halter's is CRUCIAL.

Posted by: BGinCHI | June 10, 2010 2:16 PM | Report abuse

US senate is looking more like the house of lords every day. Celebrate the victory of one of your own, even if she votes against her own leadership on PROCEDURAL ISSUES LIKE CLOTURE!!!! She has the right to vote against the dem leadership on substance, but to side with the opposition and not even allow debate or allow debate to end should be a clear signal to find someone else for that seat.

How many republicans voted against cloture in opposition to their leadership when republicans controlled the senate? Where are they now?

Posted by: srw3 | June 10, 2010 2:21 PM | Report abuse

Gee, Schumer camp. Smooth, very smooth.

The problem with this "explanation" is that Lincoln's ad about fighting off the bad guys who were coming in to Arkansas to try to take away her Senate seat is that it's not like she simply represents Arkansans and the rest of us around the country have no business chiming in.

It's hard to swallow that baloney when her actions as Senator from Arkansas effected every single American when she helped to derail the public option. That single act alone made it the business of the unions and anyone else who tried to hold her accountable on election day.

I'm sorry, but that is a big deal to me.

Posted by: elscott | June 10, 2010 2:25 PM | Report abuse

"US senate is looking more like the house of lords every day."

I sometimes get the impression John Kerry. my senator, thinks he's in the Roman Senate.

Posted by: wbgonne | June 10, 2010 2:26 PM | Report abuse

Greg,

In the words of Judge Judy; "don't pee on our legs, and tell us it is raining".

Schumer said what he said, and he said nothing about any ad.

The clean up spin control is pathetic, and for you to swallow it, is also very surprising.

Instead of Schumer apologizing to the unions, which he should have done, now he is blaming an ad. The Commercial Made Me Do It. Chuck Schumer.

No one is going to buy the lame excuse, and it is making Schumer look worse and worse, and keeping the story going.

Once again, the cover up, is worse than.....

Posted by: Liam-still | June 10, 2010 2:27 PM | Report abuse

"Instead of Schumer apologizing to the unions, which he should have done, now he is blaming an ad."

Just like Rahm calling liberals f-ing retards and then apologizing ... to retarded people. Exactly what planet are these fools living on?

Posted by: wbgonne | June 10, 2010 2:31 PM | Report abuse

Clarification?

Not much of one.

Schumer is cheering on how Lincoln equated unions and banks?

Eff off, Senator.

Posted by: CTVoter | June 10, 2010 2:33 PM | Report abuse

"Eff off, Senator."

Seconded!

Posted by: suekzoo1 | June 10, 2010 2:36 PM | Report abuse

Chuck was striving to become the next Majority Leader in the US Senate.

He just had his "Macaca" moment, and he can kiss That Majority Leader position good by.

Posted by: Liam-still | June 10, 2010 2:38 PM | Report abuse

suekzoo1:

And that's why I'm so skeptical about the derivatives provision: You placate my special interests and I'll placate yours. What a system!

Posted by: wbgonne | June 10, 2010 2:40 PM | Report abuse

Even I am getting tired of all the Dem-on-Dem bashing going on here today! Let's get back to Angle attacks or something...

Posted by: sbj3 | June 10, 2010 2:40 PM | Report abuse

A Wall Street toadie as Dem Majority Leader, in this era? Impossible, I'd say, except ...

Posted by: wbgonne | June 10, 2010 2:42 PM | Report abuse

I think that Sharron Obtuse Angle should take advantage of the situation, and issue a statement saying;

All this Democratic Party infighting is being caused by the fluoridation in their drinking water.

Posted by: Liam-still | June 10, 2010 2:45 PM | Report abuse

Oh, puhleeze. I cannot believe anybody buys this.

Turn in your press credentials immediately if you are that gullible.

Posted by: solsticebelle | June 10, 2010 2:45 PM | Report abuse

Here's a little Angle tidbit.

"That Internet thing is mighty tricky for Republicans to master. Sharron Angle—Tea Partier, Oath Keepers supporter, anti-fluoride crusader, and new GOP candidate for Senate from Nevada—is already demonstrating her solidarity with party luminaries like Ted Stevens, George W. Bush, and the entire House Republican caucus by staging an epic Web fail of her own. In a possible bid to play down her more right-leaning, less mainstream views—which are bound to be a liability in a general election fight with Democratic Senate majority leader Harry Reid—Angle's campaign website has been scrubbed of its spiciest material."

http://motherjones.com/mojo/2010/06/nevada-tea-partier-memory-hole-website-sharron-angle-harry-reid-senate

Posted by: lmsinca | June 10, 2010 2:48 PM | Report abuse

OT:

* BP will expedite claim payments *

Congressional leaders step up pressure on oil company

...the Obama administration announced that the oil giant agreed to speed up payments to people whose livelihoods have been washed away by the spill.

on Thursday, Tracy Wareing, of the National Incident Command office, said administration officials raised a "pressing concern" during a meeting Wednesday with BP executives about the time the company has been taking to provide relief payments.

She said the company would change the way it processes such claims and expedite payments. Among other things, it will drop the current practice of waiting to make such payments until businesses have closed their books for each month.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37602151/ns/disaster_in_the_gulf/

Obama admin turning up the pressure on BP... and they're starting to crack. Good news for Gulf Coast residents.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | June 10, 2010 2:49 PM | Report abuse

Isn't Schummer running for reelection, and isn't New York a a large labor union state?

If he keeps this up, he will make the new York senate seat competitive for the Republicans.

Posted by: Liam-still | June 10, 2010 2:50 PM | Report abuse

OT, jobs jobs jobs:

New claims for jobless benefits fell for the third straight week but remain elevated, suggesting the labor market is still sluggish.

Initial claims fell by 3,000 to a seasonally adjusted 456,000, the Labor Department said Thursday. That's nearly the same level as in January.

At the same time, the tally of laid-off workers continuing to claim jobless benefits fell by the largest amount in almost a year. That could be because more people are finding work. But it may simply mean that they have exhausted their initial state benefits.

Continuing claims fell by 255,000 to 4.5 million, the lowest level since December 2008, the department said. A Labor Department analyst said state agencies didn't provide any explanation for the drop.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37612338/ns/business-stocks_and_economy/

Posted by: Ethan2010 | June 10, 2010 2:51 PM | Report abuse

Seems fair enough? Seems like a lie to me.

Posted by: obrier2 | June 10, 2010 2:51 PM | Report abuse

He should have blamed his wife, Morgan Fairchild, for having made him say it.

Yeah Yeah, that's the ticket.

Posted by: Liam-still | June 10, 2010 2:54 PM | Report abuse

OT:

Sharon Begley eviscerates sand berms and Bobby Jindal...

* The Case Against Sand Berms..Don't Just "Do Something" *

http://www.newsweek.com/2010/06/10/don-t-just-do-something.html

Posted by: Ethan2010 | June 10, 2010 2:55 PM | Report abuse

SORRY CHUCK BUT, WE'RE NOT BUYING IT! YOU'LL BE ABLE TO WAVE BYE, BYE TO LINCOLN WHEN THE REAL REPUBLICAN WINS IN NOVEMBER AND THE UNIONS WON'T BE THE ONLY ONES CHEERING!

Posted by: roxsteady | June 10, 2010 3:02 PM | Report abuse

OT, Israel cracking under international pressure on Palestinian embargo?

Three years after Israel and Egypt imposed an embargo on this tormented Palestinian strip, shutting down its economy, a consensus has emerged that the attempt to weaken the governing party, Hamas, and drive it from power has failed.

In the days since an Israeli naval takeover of a flotilla trying to break the siege turned deadly, that consensus has taken on added urgency, with world powers, anti-Hamas Palestinians in Gaza and some senior Israeli officials advocating a shift.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/11/world/middleeast/11gaza.html

Posted by: Ethan2010 | June 10, 2010 3:07 PM | Report abuse

OT:

* Congress Frees Cleanup Money for Gulf Oil Spill *

[The bill] removes the $100 million limit that the Coast Guard can spend on the spill from a government trust fund used to pay cleanup costs. Rep. James Oberstar of Minnesota says the Coast Guard will run out of money to fight the spill next week if the spending cap is not lifted.

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2010/06/10/us/politics/AP-US-Gulf-Oil-Spill-Cleanup-Fund.html

Posted by: Ethan2010 | June 10, 2010 3:09 PM | Report abuse

Nice move Chuck Schumer!

Even these moonbats aren't yet QUITE so effin' retarded as to think that their ears flapped instead of your lips fluttering!

Except for the flunkie Meme-Master, who will do ANYTHING, just ANYTHING for access...

Epic FAIL!

Any of y'all recall when I said I wanted drilling rights on Schumer's head?

See what I mean?

One wondres how many millions of barrels of oil lie inside THAT coconut...

Posted by: Bilgeman | June 10, 2010 3:09 PM | Report abuse

To get back to the BP destruction of the Gulf Coast;

Does the Coast Guard have any submarines, or any time of deep under water craft?

If not, then why the hell are they the branch that is handling the situation for the government?

Why not the Navy. They have the equipment. Lots of subs, and deep water explosives technology, should an implosing and entombing of the well site be required, to end the spillage.

If the Coast Guard can not get down to take a look at it, and are just relying on what BP tells them, then they are about as useful as nipples on a bull.

Where are the army corp of engineers. Surely they have more expertise in underwater engineering projects than the Coast Guard.

Posted by: Liam-still | June 10, 2010 3:09 PM | Report abuse

This site has become more and more angry over the last few weeks. I am having trouble at this point trying to figure out which Democrat we aren't against.

I've enjoyed reading this site for a long time and have been following Greg's posts for years. But this constant sniping during a difficult election year has become depressing and too FDL for me.

So enjoy your anger and list of grudges, but I can't stomach it anymore. I'm out.

Posted by: Beeliever | June 10, 2010 3:12 PM | Report abuse

If you can't stand the heat..... and you know the rest of how it goes.

The real problem is not what is being discussed and debated on here.

The real problem is having the White House, and a Senate Leader, fragging their staunch historical ally.

Posted by: Liam-still | June 10, 2010 3:16 PM | Report abuse

Liam-slave-still:
"To get back to the BP destruction of the Gulf Coast;"

I'm sorry, but I must have missed the ten minutes that you spent on something else.

"Does the Coast Guard have any submarines, or any time of deep under water craft?"

Nope.

"Why not the Navy. They have the equipment. Lots of subs, and deep water explosives technology, "

Nope. Wrong kind of subs. Bombing the well is likely to open up even more vents to the pay.
Now if you want a ship sunk or a city nuked, the Bubblehead Navy are THE guys to call.

"If the Coast Guard can not get down to take a look at it, and are just relying on what BP tells them, then they are about as useful as nipples on a bull."

Yes, the Coast Guard could. There ARE ships that have their own ROV's that are available for charter, that the USCG hasn't done so is likely that they don't need to.

What are they supposed to see that the vessels that BP is chartering is supposed to not be showing them?

Seriously?

You're starting to sound like one of those 9/11 Troofers, y'know?

"Where are the army corp of engineers. Surely they have more expertise in underwater engineering projects than the Coast Guard."

Nope, they don't. building a dam or a levee or a set of canal locks, and they're who you call.

Sorry, Charlie, but if you want to know who knows how to plug and abandon an oil well, you call the people who work with oil wells.

No "magic Federal oil well-pluggung fairy" for you, moonbat.

And, just an observation, if this is SO important to you, why don; you bring a roll of paper towels and a bottle of baby oil and come down here and swab down a pelican.

Oh, that's right....that WORK would render a REAL service, wouldn;t it?

Posted by: Bilgeman | June 10, 2010 3:24 PM | Report abuse

Beeliever, you are mistaking being against a policy or a statement or a political move for "being against Democrats."

We are criticizing what people do, not who they are, unless the who they are has everything to do with the what they do. Follow?

I generally like the Chuck Schumers, but not when they play to narrow, well-funded (or, in the case of oil and Landrieu, well funded) interests.

Thicker skin, please. Ain't no loyalty oaths in this party.

Posted by: BGinCHI | June 10, 2010 3:25 PM | Report abuse

MUST READ at TPM:

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2010/06/let_the_bamboozling_began_1.php#more?ref=fpblg

BP, Boehner, and the Chamber of Commerce together to stick us with the damages tab for the spill.

Greg?? We need a post on this.

Posted by: BGinCHI | June 10, 2010 3:28 PM | Report abuse

I wonder how Blanche feels about the explanation that the Schumer SPOX issued?

What he said: In A Nutshell.

Hey Don't blame Senator Schumer, he was just repeating what Blanche said about the unions. Blame her.

Posted by: Liam-still | June 10, 2010 3:32 PM | Report abuse

From Sam Stein:

White House Meets With AFL-CIO But No Detente Reached

He makes an interesting point near the end about the fraying of the WH/Union relationship:

"Through it all there was one thing (or person) keeping the relationship at an amiable level. That was Andy Stern, a close ally of the president who, as head of the Service Employees International Union, had visited the White House more than any other union leader. When Stern retired last month, the connections between labor and the administration frayed, far more so that has been reported. There is, currently, serious debate as to whether anyone can replace the emissary role that he played.

Stern declined a request for comment."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/10/white-house-meets-with-af_n_607716.html

Posted by: suekzoo1 | June 10, 2010 3:34 PM | Report abuse

BG said:
"http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2010/06/let_the_bamboozling_began_1.php#more?ref=fpblg

BP, Boehner, and the Chamber of Commerce together to stick us with the damages tab for the spill.

Greg?? We need a post on this."

Yes, we do.

Posted by: bernielatham | June 10, 2010 3:40 PM | Report abuse

The Democratic Leadership is playing with fire.

If they do not reconcile with the Unions, they might end up with a some one running against President Obama in 2012, just like Ted Kennedy did against Carter, and it tore the party apart.

Ronald Reagan had his eleventh commandment, about never attacking a fellow Republican.

The Democratic Leadership appears to be adhering to a Dyslexic version of Ronnie's commandment; and believe in only attacking fellow Democrats, but never say anything harsh about the Republicans, who are trying to destroy them.

Posted by: Liam-still | June 10, 2010 3:44 PM | Report abuse

To make it clear what's in the TPM post:

What the GOP and CoC are suggesting is not so much that the gov't pay for part of the clean up. The real question is who is on the hook for DAMAGES.

THIS is the big price tag part of the disaster. This is why Boehner backpedaled to say BP should pay for the clean up. He conspicuously didn't say they should be on the hook for damages.

The GOP and CoC have no decency. I can't believe people will stand for this.

Posted by: BGinCHI | June 10, 2010 3:44 PM | Report abuse

Ah,.., the primary was what, almost 3 days ago. I know I'm gonna probably get flamed for this, but from the outside looking in, while I am in labors corner, this has essentially become a pissing contest between labor and the WH/Congress. It's becoming a contest of chicken or let's see who has the biggest balls!

There is other things going on. From most claim, aside from some pending lawsuits, not many people are claiming that Lincoln's win was ilegitimate right. Was it the outcome that labor/progressives wanted...no. So what exactly is this fight over. Yes the WH shouldn't take Labor for granted. Yes, Labor is not at the beck and call of the WH. What is the point of all this?

Now if we want to talk about some REAL examples of illegitmate elections, why aren't we hearing more about the Dem nominee(s), Alan Greene in SC. There is some REAL lurky, possibly outright sabotage going on their. Rep Clyburn is alleging, that not only is Alan Greene a plant, but there may be 2 more "plants" enlisted to sabotage the Dem election in SC.

With all of your resources Greg, it would be really great it you could please look into that. Would this constitute election fraud.

"Clyburn Alleges Conspiracy To Plant Candidates In Three Dem Primaries In S.C."
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/06/clyburn_alvin_greene_not_only_suspicious_candidate.php

More of this please.

Posted by: lynell33 | June 10, 2010 3:45 PM | Report abuse

This is not just full to bursting with Kristolian stupidness, it's really very funny...

"Guess the criticism of [Obama] as a professor and seminar leader has gotten to him. But his pseudo-macho defense of "talking to experts" is itself professorial: He talks to experts so he'll "know whose ass to kick." Real men don't need experts to tell them whose asses to kick."

Can we imagine our favorite private school boy, upper west side Manhattanite, effete intellectual, no-military-service-for-my-social-class Kristol EVER kicking anyone's ass like those real men do?

Posted by: bernielatham | June 10, 2010 3:45 PM | Report abuse

"The real question is who is on the hook for DAMAGES."

Right. Boehner does not support raising the damages cap past $75m. And clearly, that is not enough money to spread around the Gulf Coast. Not even close.

Posted by: suekzoo1 | June 10, 2010 3:48 PM | Report abuse

THIRD the motion that we need a post on Boehner's comments!!!

Essentially he's trying to play semantics.

What costs more:

Laying out shoddy boom...

...or...

Paying the economic price of destroyed fisheries, closed ports of call and the livelihoods thereof?

THIS IS WHY THEY NEED TO GET RID OF THE LIABILITY CAP ONCE AND FOR ALL!

More posts on this topic plllzzzzz!!!

Posted by: Ethan2010 | June 10, 2010 3:50 PM | Report abuse

Kicking no; Kissing Yes. He actually super glued his lips to Grizzly Palin's seat of knowledge.

Posted by: Liam-still | June 10, 2010 3:50 PM | Report abuse

I hereby challenge Bill Kristol to a Texas Cage Match.

Come on Bill, you must think you can beat up a little professor.

Here kitty kitty.

Posted by: BGinCHI | June 10, 2010 3:54 PM | Report abuse

Redesign the BP Logo Contest! (Some of these are terrific!)

http://www.logomyway.com/contestView.php?contestId=1746

Posted by: suekzoo1 | June 10, 2010 3:58 PM | Report abuse

THIS ISN'T JUST BOEHNER. THIS IS BP's STRATEGY and the GOP IS PLAYING RIGHT ALONG!!!

Oil major BP believes it may be heading for a showdown with the White House over ever- increasing demands that it cover costs related to the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, a BP source said on Wednesday.

"At some point a line has to be drawn," the source said.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6586CQ20100609

Unbelievable! This could be a huge scandal. The GOP is actively trying to pull the wool over America's eyes while helping BP in their quest to escape paying ANY LIABILITY DAMAGES whatsoever. NUTS!

Where's the MSM on this!?!?!

Posted by: Ethan2010 | June 10, 2010 3:59 PM | Report abuse

Andrea Mitchell today was busy asking Judd Gregg if he was thinking about running for president. I shiit you not.

And that's the "liberal" (hahaha) network.

Posted by: BGinCHI | June 10, 2010 4:02 PM | Report abuse

BG: "The real question is who is on the hook for DAMAGES."

Oh yes, that is the issue and it's why the CEO has standardly said "We will honor all LEGITIMATE claims" thus leaving the door open to contest anything and everything in court. As in Bhopal, as in Alaska.

They will be absolutely happy to stiff American citizens for whatever they can get away with. And the Chamber of Commerce will be utterly delighted with this arrangement as well. And Boehner...what can one say about people this corrupt?

I despise these people. This is the pathology of psychosis institutionalized.

Posted by: bernielatham | June 10, 2010 4:04 PM | Report abuse

Greg,

How about a thread, with a link to the Fiorina video on CNN, where she slams Senator Boxer's hairstyle?

I am no judge of women's hairstyles, but in that video clip of Fiorina, her own hairstyle struck me as lookinhg like some seabird, who has just been rescued from the gulf oil spill. Carly looked just like an Damn Oily Pelican.

Posted by: Liam-still | June 10, 2010 4:08 PM | Report abuse

OT:

* GOP lawmaker with BP stock has role in spill probe *

A multimillionaire House Republican who owns thousands of shares of BP stock has no plans to recuse himself from a congressional investigation related to the Gulf oil spill or from votes on Capitol Hill that could affect his investments in the oil company.

In the seven weeks after the April 20 spill, Sensenbrenner had avoided making public statements on the disaster, other than responding to questions from constituents in his district, spokeswoman Wendy Riemann said. He plans to participate in the Judiciary Committee's investigation surrounding legal liability issues of the spill.

"He has no intention of recusing himself from any votes," Riemann said.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_GULF_OIL_SPILL_SENSENBRENNER

Posted by: Ethan2010 | June 10, 2010 4:08 PM | Report abuse

Slave Ethan:
"THIS ISN'T JUST BOEHNER. THIS IS BP's STRATEGY and the GOP IS PLAYING RIGHT ALONG!!!"

Do you even read your cites, ace?

Since you manifestly DON'T, here's the Reuter's article:

""At some point a line has to be drawn," the source said.

Earlier on Wednesday, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar told a Senate hearing he would ask BP to repay the salaries of any workers laid off because of the six-month moratorium on deepwater exploratory drilling imposed by the U.S. government after the spill.

BP has said it will pay for the clean-up and direct damages to those affected by the spill, such as fisherman. But the source said the moratorium was a government decision, and so the costs related to it were a different matter.

The company declined comment.

Salazar's comments helped push BP's New York-listed American Depositary Receipts down 15 percent on Wednesday."

The fact that this is Reuters, which burned you dummies with their doctored photographs deleting the knife-wielding "peace activists" less than one week ago, we'll lay aside.

I said earlier today that BeePee is NOT responsible for Salazar's imposition of the Moratorium.

They won't have to pay for THOSE damages, the Feds will, since it was the Feds who over-reacted.

End of story.

No court in the land is going to lay blame on BeePee for what the Interior Secretary did to Shell or Chevron.

BeePee is on the hook for what IT has done or failed to do.
Salazar and the Alleged Hawaiian have to "man up" for what THEY have done...and failed to do.

Posted by: Bilgeman | June 10, 2010 4:14 PM | Report abuse

Slave Ethan:
"THIS ISN'T JUST BOEHNER. THIS IS BP's STRATEGY and the GOP IS PLAYING RIGHT ALONG!!!"

Do you even read your cites, ace?

Since you manifestly DON'T, here's the Reuter's article:

""At some point a line has to be drawn," the source said.

Earlier on Wednesday, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar told a Senate hearing he would ask BP to repay the salaries of any workers laid off because of the six-month moratorium on deepwater exploratory drilling imposed by the U.S. government after the spill.

BP has said it will pay for the clean-up and direct damages to those affected by the spill, such as fisherman. But the source said the moratorium was a government decision, and so the costs related to it were a different matter.

The company declined comment.

Salazar's comments helped push BP's New York-listed American Depositary Receipts down 15 percent on Wednesday."

The fact that this is Reuters, which burned you dummies with their doctored photographs deleting the knife-wielding "peace activists" less than one week ago, we'll lay aside.

I said earlier today that BeePee is NOT responsible for Salazar's imposition of the Moratorium.

They won't have to pay for THOSE damages, the Feds will, since it was the Feds who over-reacted.

End of story.

No court in the land is going to lay blame on BeePee for what the Interior Secretary did to Shell or Chevron.

BeePee is on the hook for what IT has done or failed to do.
Salazar and the Alleged Hawaiian have to "man up" for what THEY have done...and failed to do.

Posted by: Bilgeman | June 10, 2010 4:16 PM | Report abuse

MURKOWSKI RESOLUTION FAILS.

47 yea 53 nay

h-u-g-e.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | June 10, 2010 4:16 PM | Report abuse

Thanks Ethan. Bullet, dodged.

Posted by: BGinCHI | June 10, 2010 4:19 PM | Report abuse

After having slammed Meg Whitman for appearing on Hannity, now Fiorina is going to appear on Hannity tomorrow.

Carly, Do As I Say, Not
As I Do, Fiorina.

Posted by: Liam-still | June 10, 2010 4:20 PM | Report abuse

"The moratorium was a government decision, and so the costs related to it were a different matter."

Not only that, but it has already been posted here:

"Members of a panel of experts brought in to advise the Obama administration on how to address offshore drilling safety after the Deepwater Horizon disaster now say Interior Secretary Ken Salazar falsely implied they supported a six-month drilling moratorium they actually oppose."

Posted by: sbj3 | June 10, 2010 4:21 PM | Report abuse

"Oh yes, that is the issue and it's why the CEO has standardly said "We will honor all LEGITIMATE claims" thus leaving the door open to contest anything and everything in court."

How exactly would you phrase it?

Do you suggest they should honor illegitimate claims?

Or do you believe there is no such thing?

Posted by: quarterback1 | June 10, 2010 4:22 PM | Report abuse

Killing an American:

http://www.juancole.com/

Posted by: Papagnello | June 10, 2010 4:23 PM | Report abuse

"I am having trouble at this point trying to figure out which Democrat we aren't against."

There's the problem right there. You don't have to be against any Democrat if you don't want. Argue your point instead of walking away, that's what the rest of us try to do. And I've been here long enough to know people come and go and the trend of comments changes day by day depending on what Greg gives us and what we come up with on our own.

I agree with everyone, we need some clarification on the BP liability mess. And Bilgey, I would think the government would have the right to shut down any business for a safety or environmental hazard evaluation and not be obligated to pay their employees.

Posted by: lmsinca | June 10, 2010 4:23 PM | Report abuse

"Do you suggest they should honor illegitimate claims?"

Do you think they should FIGHT legitimate claims?

Posted by: Ethan2010 | June 10, 2010 4:26 PM | Report abuse

The moratorium was a government decision triggered by British Petroleum's reckless pollution of the gulf coast, with no methods in place to stop the destruction.

BP triggered it, so they must pay for it.

When manufacturers' defects trigger recalls, the manufacturer is on the hook for all the costs caused by the steps required to make sure it does not happen again.

Republicans hate the American Tax Payers, and are trying to stick the BP costs to the taxpayers.

Posted by: Liam-still | June 10, 2010 4:27 PM | Report abuse

I don't think there is any way consistent with American law that BP can be held responsible for harm caused by the Obama-imposed moratorium.

Proximate causation would be entirely lacking and impossible to prove. This is more of a BP-haters club pipe dream.

Aside from that, it's rather comical to see eco-fanatics who are exulting in this dream while at the same time arguing that off-shore drilling should have been shut down previously and should be shut down now.

Posted by: quarterback1 | June 10, 2010 4:30 PM | Report abuse

News of climate regulation vote hits the wire, yeehaw!

The Senate has rejected a bid to stop the Obama administration from imposing regulations on greenhouse gases, giving a boost to President Barack Obama as he pursues broader clean energy legislation.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_GREENHOUSE_GASES

Posted by: Ethan2010 | June 10, 2010 4:34 PM | Report abuse

BP broke it. They own it. "Pottery Barn Rules".

Republicans, Big Business Lap Dogs, seek to let BP(Big Polluter) off the hook, and stick it to the innocent tax payers.

Posted by: Liam-still | June 10, 2010 4:35 PM | Report abuse

All, Boehner caves, says no taxpayer money on spill cleanup or damages:

http://bit.ly/cE4TWG

Posted by: Greg Sargent | June 10, 2010 4:36 PM | Report abuse

lmsoakedinca:
"Bilgey, I would think the government would have the right to shut down any business for a safety or environmental hazard evaluation and not be obligated to pay their employees."

Hoo boy...sometimes, you SCARE me, you know?

The government doesn't HAVE "rights", citizens do. Government has "Powers" that were specifically given to it by the citizenry.

The Power to impose a punishmnet on one person or corporation for the wrongdoing of another is specifically prohibited.
It's known as a Bill of Attainder.

That's why the Fuzz can't evict you becuase your neighbor runs a meth lab in his house on the "theory" that you all live on the same street.

It scares me that I apparently have to explain this to you...you should, if not already know this, at least have an inkling that "collective punishment" is unfair and unjust.

If the Alleged Hawaiian's Corps of Flunkies want to shut down deepwater drilling rigs or production rigs, then let them show cause.

Posted by: Bilgeman | June 10, 2010 4:41 PM | Report abuse

Liam-slave-still:
"BP broke it. They own it. "Pottery Barn Rules"."

Tell it to the judge, Perry Mason...tell it to the judge.

Posted by: Bilgeman | June 10, 2010 4:56 PM | Report abuse

Let me see whether I can explain this to the knucklheads.

American law generally follows a principle of proximate causation, under which a tortfeasor is only liable for damages following as a direct and natural result of the wrongdoing. There can't be supervening or intervening causes -- like the government imposing a moratorium -- of the alleged harm.

For example, if A injures B, who is then killed by C through negligent administration of first aid, C and not A is liable for B's death.

BP's presumed negligence or recklessness is (we are assuming) the cause of the blowout and spill. (Although deep-sea drilling might also qualify as an ultrahazardous activity, for which strict liability rather than negligence is the standard.)

Either way, BP's presumed wrongoding clearly is NOT the proximate cause of jobs or revenue lost by people as a result of the GOVERNMENT moratorium. The moratorium is not based on the belief that BP did something uniquely dangerous but that ALL currentoff-shore drilling is too dangerous. BP's disaster is only a "triggering" event of this in the sense that it is viewed by the Obama Admin as evidencing this inherent danger in ALL existing off-shore drilling.

Liam's recall comparison is totally off point and garbled. A company that has to recall a product is NOT responsible for costs of other companies who have to correct problems with there own products or must recall them as well. Liam is talking pure nonsense.

BP did not break "it," where "it" means off-shore drilling. If the government wants off-shore drilling stopped, it is because off-shore drilling is (we are too believe) too dangerous and thus inherently "broken."

Nor is this a matter of whether Republicans or anyone else "want" BP to be held responsible for the moratorium. That will be a question for courts, and no court can hold BP liable for that consistently with American law. Louisiana's law is unusual in many respects, but I don't think even there this theory of remote liability for Obama's action could pass muster.

Posted by: quarterback1 | June 10, 2010 4:57 PM | Report abuse

Bilgey, since the government, elected by the citizens (quit mis-interpreting my words) imposed the moratorium already and nobody said they didn't have the right to do that, what's your point? My point was, are we also obligated to pay their employees? I don't think so. Let them collect unemployment like the rest of the middle class. I know you like to paint me as a DFH from CA, but it makes you look silly.

Posted by: lmsinca | June 10, 2010 5:02 PM | Report abuse

"No court in the land is going to lay blame on BeePee for what the Interior Secretary did to Shell or Chevron."

Well said, Bilgey.

"It's known as a Bill of Attainder."

I have to dissent on that one though, my friend.

A Bill of Attainder is a decree of guilt or punishment by a legislature rather than a court (and is banned as abusive by the Consitution under ancient principles of Anglo-Saxon and American law).

What primarily prevents imposition of moratorium liability on BP is the lack of causation and, at a constitutional level, the guarantee of due process. The Supreme Court has held in various contexts that it is a violation of that right to impose liability or punishment apart from causation.

But I would not put it past this Democrat Congress to get to work on some hasty Bills of Attainder (as well as ex post facto laws) against BP. Of course, they won't call them that, but I won't be at all surprised.

Posted by: quarterback1 | June 10, 2010 5:10 PM | Report abuse

I don't see why anyone, the government or BP would be liable for the loss of work due to the moratorium. Again, isn't that what unemployment insurance is for. The liability of the spill would be different and if negligence is determined the cap disappears doesn't it?

Posted by: lmsinca | June 10, 2010 5:15 PM | Report abuse

lmsinca,

I think the answer to the question you raise -- whether the government would be liable for moratorium losses -- is slightly more complex, but likely is "no." In general, no, the government has no liability for losses people might claim as a result of regulation. But t's something that could possibly be litigated in this context.

For example, I can imagine many lawyers working right now to analyze whether companies might have some type of claim based on a failure of the government to follow proper administrative procedures in imposing the moratorium. I don't know enough about these agencies or the moratorium to know, but questions like these are probably at least being looked at by lawyers.

What I could also see happening is an attempt by BP to implead the government as a liable third-party by BP if someone tries to hold BP liable for the moratorium.

These issues can get very complicated as a result of sovereign immunity doctrines, adminstrative law and procedures, and lots of other factors. My seat of the pants guess would be, no government liability, but I also wouldn't be surprised if the government tries to provide some nonjudicial relief, or if there are arguments raised.

Posted by: quarterback1 | June 10, 2010 5:19 PM | Report abuse

lmsinca:
"Bilgey, since the government, elected by the citizens (quit mis-interpreting my words) imposed the moratorium already and nobody said they didn't have the right to do that, what's your point?"

There are lawsuits against Salazar filed within the last day or two challenging his authority to impsoe this moratorium.

So drop this fantasy that "nobody said they couldn't"...they have, and there will be more coming.

Now as to he point, despite what some of these moonbat cattle might think, winning an election does NOT confer the "right" for a President to do whatever he wants to.

That's the difference between a dictatorship and a republic.

"My point was, are we also obligated to pay their employees? I don't think so."

See you in court.

"Let them collect unemployment like the rest of the middle class. "

No, that will be for YOU to do. The Federal unauthorized and arbitrary and unConstitutional over-reaction of imposing the moratorium is not a normal business condition or economic hazard, but one of the pitfalls of state central economic planning us on the Right have been warning about.

The Feds can pay for the workers it's actions impacted.

And I should tell you that a guy out here who sweeps swabs and scrambles eggs can make $60k a year.

The tree-hugging whack-jobs who are so quick to pull the trigger can cough up the extra taxes to PERSONALLY pay for the consequences of their rhetoric.

And BTW, if there's this much resistance to paying the working families of the Oil Patch, you're getting a preview of what it's gonna be like when gasoline and diesel cost $10 a gallon...

"DFH"? Care to translate?

Posted by: Bilgeman | June 10, 2010 5:19 PM | Report abuse

Thanks Bilgey, but I liked qb's answer better, I learned more and he didn't treat me like a moron. And why is a 30 day moratorium so difficult to fathom after a disaster of this magnitude? If there are lawsuits filed as you say then I guess the courts will decide if it's reasonable or not, not me or you for that matter. I'm not interested in having an authoritarian government either BTW.

Posted by: lmsinca | June 10, 2010 5:40 PM | Report abuse

QB1:
"I have to dissent on that one though, my friend."

I'll defer to you on that. IANAL, and nor do I play one on Teevee, (although I HAVE been called a "sea-lawyer" before in my day).

Peculiar though, that a Power specifically denied the legislature may be exercised by the executive.

More pointedly, I got ahold of the press release, and among the grounds they are seeking this injunction against the moratorium on are the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act and the Administartive Procedure Act.

Needless to say, the plaintiffs chgaracterize Salazar et al's actions as "arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of discretion".

The bottom line is this:

http://www.dailycomet.com/article/20100604/FEATURES12/100609622/1292?Title=Mass-layoffs-expected-at-Fourchon-Edison-Chouest

That crew of the Damon Bankston, who headed into the flames and rescued 115 people from the sea and the fire, will likely get laid off or suffer pay-cuts.

Some thanks these moonbat cattle show.

Let's hear about how DemocRats care about "working families" NOW!

When they want votes, they better hope that pelicans and oysters can cast ballots.

Posted by: Bilgeman | June 10, 2010 5:43 PM | Report abuse

Bilgey, I don't think anyone here is looking to add to the unemployment lines. It's a matter of safety and the environment. Hopefully, they'll get back to work asap. There's enough misery floating around the last two years for everyone including the families of the 11 rig workers killed. I'm having trouble seeing why verifying the safety of the wells isn't in everyone's ultimate best interest, including the people working the other wells.

Posted by: lmsinca | June 10, 2010 5:51 PM | Report abuse

At the risk of belaboring this, perhaps this would be useful background.

You start from the point of sovereign immunity -- you don't get to sue the federal government unless it lets you.

It does let you sue in certain circumstances, principally for violating your constitutional rights or violating sub-constitutional restrictions the government has placed on itself.

And that is where things can get murky. Generally speaking, no one can sue the government just because of claimed economic harms from things like safety or environmental regulations. But at some point, rash agency action might raise a colorable due process violation (or a takings claim -- but "regulatory takings" claims don't fare too well). People seeking this type of relief here would be fighting an uphill battle, but it isn't exactly in the realm of fantasy.

But I will say this, and I think this is something Bilgey is suggesting that is correct, the idea that the government could be liable is much less of a stretch than the idea that BP is liable for the moratorium.

And I should say I have not dealt much with these areas in some time, but I think this is a fair account of the realities.

Posted by: quarterback1 | June 10, 2010 5:54 PM | Report abuse

Just for the record I wasn't suggesting BP should be liable for the economic hardship from the moratorium only the spill. Thanks for the legal lesson. I don't think the 75 million cap will cover the damages.

Posted by: lmsinca | June 10, 2010 6:08 PM | Report abuse

lmsinca:
"Bilgey, I don't think anyone here is looking to add to the unemployment lines."

Please note that I'm not "tarting up" your monniker, and I'm dropping the moonbat slave theme, to impress upon you just how important this is.

I give you the benefit of the doubt that you really believe what you say, but I am here telling you that that is exactly what you are doing.

I walk out of my shop and I see 7 Edison Chouest boats tied up and nested together, doing...nothing.
And those are just Chouest boats...there are other companies' boats in this spit-hole of a port, dozens of 'em...doing nothing.

If the moratorium stands, and Port Fourchon goes down, it is going to drag this parish down with it.
The spill was a disaster for the oystermen and the shrimpers, but the moratorium is going to be a catastrophe for these people, who just got over having Hurricane Gustav smack them in the face two years ago.

"I'm having trouble seeing why verifying the safety of the wells isn't in everyone's ultimate best interest, including the people working the other wells."

Because this isn't ABOUT safety of other wells. A lot of those wells haven't even been drilled yet!

This is a political pander to the eco-kooks like Liam and Ethan who oppose any drilling anywhere, whether because they're both crazier than shaved rats in coffee cans, or because they're flacking for foreign oil interests.

The Fed doesn't need a moratorium to conduct a safety audit...they can do that in a month...and if they want to impress upon the industry that the regulations have teeth, then prosecute the sycophants and dummies over at BeePee who may have criminally played "cowboy".

But let me prophesize this, (one of my more peculiar, and dodgy, Gifts), the pain that the Feds are heaping on to places like LaFourche Parish will not be suffered only here.

It will just hit here FIRST.

And remember, I don't even live here!

I don't think you appreciate what $10 a gallon gasoline and diesel will do this country.

I DO know that you do NOT want to find out.



Posted by: Bilgeman | June 10, 2010 6:13 PM | Report abuse

o/t from Weigel re Alvin Greene:

"One theory coming out of Republicans right now -- more a response to Clyburn than anything serious -- is that Democrats, for all their bluster, might have gotten Greene into the race to give defeated candidate Vic Rawl a boost. In South Carolina, if a candidate has no opponent, he is not listed on the ballot. Even then, why this guy?"

Posted by: sbj3 | June 10, 2010 6:23 PM | Report abuse

OK Bilge, I understand the ramifications of the moratorium, honestly I do. And just so you know I have as much respect for oil rig workers as any other blue collar in this country. We've managed over the last couple of decades to ruin the prospects of the middle class and we're all to blame IMO. $10 a gallon gas will cripple the country but until the big polluters realize we need to begin a transition and quit fighting every small step like we're trying to put them out of business maybe nothing else will work. I'm not smart enough to figure it out.

There's a lot of protest going on right now re the moratorium so maybe they'll find a compromise that will work for everyone. The divide is so wide between people I don't see how though. Obama was willing to give offshore drilling a chance and BP blew it. I'm afraid it will affect the PR of other oil companies whether deserved or not until the oil stops flowing.

Posted by: lmsinca | June 10, 2010 6:53 PM | Report abuse

Beeliever, I wish the Democrats were for the Democrats. Schumer looks like he's trying to be a Rockefeller. I wish we had some Democrats around.

Posted by: sparkplug1 | June 10, 2010 8:02 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company