Wednesday, June 09, 2010

BP and the President

This president is a disaster of BP proportions.

To all bar Tony Hayward, it is clear that BP is finished in America. A Macarthyite degree of opprobrium has been cast against the interloper. As Matthew Lynn notes, BP’s PR flunkies are grovelling across the networks, apologising in that singularly lachrymose British fashion. They should stop demeaning themselves and fight back. BP is to blame for the leak, but it is being demonised by an American President whose desperate populism and prejudice is masquerading as principled leadership; it is the latest British institution to be victimised by Barack Obama...

Barack Obama ignores these current and historical realities by unleashing banal rhetorical flourishes, such as: ‘BP is responsible, BP will pay.’ (Lawyers will debate that contention for years.) Next, disregarding BP’s loud remorse, he castigated the company’s directors for ‘trying to point the finger at everyone other than themselves.’ His coup de grace was to call a fatuous criminal investigation into BP. The indignant, fuming President then softened his image by posing with Diana-like despair on a sunlight beach, gazing into the middle distance above the blackened sea. None of which has stemmed the disaster. Powerless to act and unpopular, his arsenal's a bland granary of brimstone and photo-ops; the mid-terms must worry the visiers surrounding the king.

He's been likened to King Canute of "commanding the tides" fame (yes, I know that Canute himself was saying the opposite of the impression often attributed to him). Professor Obama doesn't know what to do when he commands the oil to recede, or commands BP to make it stop, and his command fails. Was it arrogance that caused him to turn down offered help from other countries? He wants to keep his boot on BP's neck, but doesn't know whose "ass to kick".

Really, America? You voted for this guy?

5 comments:

pseudotsuga said...

Don't look at me, I didn't vote for this train wreck...

mazenko said...

Kind of like the Prince Hal connections to the recent occupant. Yes, America did vote for him ... for many very good reasons. And they would do it again given the other choices. That said, there is a human element, and it would have been tough to be perfect in the maelstrom of 2008 - 2010.

Doug said...

I don't understand it either. How 52% of the nation was hornswaggled I still don't understand. Was it "White Guilt"? Contrary to mazenko, I can not think of a solitary good reason to vote for him.

maxutils said...

In related news, the Milwaukee Manatees no longer take 'BP' before their games . . ..they now refer to it as 'hitting rehearsal.' I kid you not.

MikeAT said...

Yes, America did vote for him ... for many very good reasons.

You don't have to remind me of the fact he won the election...I'm counting down the days for his reign of error to end...and to join with Doug, would you give us one very good reason an American would vote for B Hussein Obama for dog catcher, much less the Presidency

And they would do it again given the other choices.

I kinda agree...a tired out RINO like McCain and the socialist Obama...at least Barry was a better actor, pretending to be intelligent and capable. The Republican party shot itself in the foot by nominating a tired looking moderate who turned off the American people…like Dole in 96. Hopefully in 12 we will nominate a true conservative like Mitch Daniels or Fred Thompson or dare I say it Palin. They will have no problem with Jimmy Carter the Younger.

That said, there is a human element, and it would have been tough to be perfect in the maelstrom of 2008 - 2010.

No mazenko, we never expected a president to be perfect...but simple competence is not too much to ask is it? I mean, handing the economy and the oil spill should be no problem with B Hussein’s background in???I mean his experience handling????well he can just plug the damned hole and know whose ass to kick!