Reflecting On Obama’s Speech
There was quite a bit of discussion on Obama’s speech yesterday and the concensus was that we didn’t like it. I have to say that I also agree that I didn’t like the speech. I didn’t dislike the speech but I’ve also realized I am not the target of the speech and neither are you. The target of the speech was not news junkies who are watching the live spillcam but the American public
MMonides, an energy policy expert at Balloon Juice had this to say about the speech:
IM less than HO, POTUS addressed every issue he needed to last night. He discussed the past, how we got in this situation, his own mistake in believing the safety technology was sufficient, the government response, and BP’s “recklessness.” He went on to commit to the Gulf’s recovery and to accountability, and presented a blue print for our government’s next steps. He tied the situation to our energy policy specifically, but without pushing any hot-button issues. He acknowledged MMS corruption, and his Administration’s plans to address it. He even pointed out how our addiction to fossil fuels has led us to us to risky deep water drilling, and how the environmental costs of fossil fuels far outweighs any energy tax. He continued to be the mature one in the room, asking his opposition for ideas instead of attacks.
It was sober, responsible, and an important update for confused citizens trying to understand this situation, presented by their POTUS in simple language that was designed to inform and reassure.
There was just no way that President Obama was going to give specific details in a 20 minute speech. I heard him trying to say that there’s no easy answers to this problem and he was pointing us to the future.
It’s not only MMonides that had good things to say about the speech. Here’s Jed Lewison at Daily Kos:
Moreover, I think he made several very important points on energy policy.
1. Obama gave the House credit for passing “a comprehensive energy and climate bill” and said that the House’s bill reflected the principles that he campaigned on.
…
2.Obama said that the time to act is now, and that any legislation must “tackle our addiction to fossil fuels.”
…
3. Obama argued that energy reform will provide a boost to our economy
…
4. Finally, President Obama explained the basic ideas behind peak oil in plain, easy-to-understand English
…
That is about as clear and concise an explanation I’ve seen of why dependence on oil is going to be increasingly risky and expensive. True, it didn’t cover climate change, but there’s more than one reason why oil is a bad idea, and in the context of a speech about an offshore drilling disaster, this was a very important point to make.
It’s true, President Obama did not get into the details of procedural issues like whether and when the Senate should vote. But one of the things we learned from the health care debate is that dwelling on procedure turns off the public. And he wasn’t as detailed on policy proposals as Jimmy Carter was in 1979. But Jimmy Carter’s approach didn’t manage to solve our energy problems, no matter how well-intentioned he may have been.
Do you think the American people have heard the case for moving to cleaner energy presented this way? Most haven’t. It may be something we’ve discussed on the activist left but what most Americans have heard is “drill baby drill.” As Jed explained, this is Obama as Educator-in-Chief, rather than Crisis-Manager-in-Chief.
Just in case you don’t remember what we’re up against, here’s the Republican reaction to the speech:
The Republican Study Committee, a group of conservative members of the House, released a statement today calling the $20 billion BP escrow account a “Chicago-style political shakedown.”
“BP’s reported willingness to go along with the White House’s new fund suggests that the Obama Administration is hard at work exerting its brand of Chicago-style shakedown politics, wrote chairman Tom Price (R-GA). “These actions are emblematic of a politicization of our economy that has been borne out of this Administration’s drive for greater power and control.”
I think one problem that Obama has is that people don’t want to believe that we don’t know how to stop the oil spill, even though that’s the truth. I hope we get policy addresses by people like Steven Chu and Ken Salazar with more details, for the people like us who crave more information.
Tags: BP, oil spill, President Obama
But what did he mention the most? He made 17 references to God, prayer, blessings or faith in a 20 minute speech. That’s his plan. Pray like the shrimp fishers. He makes George W. Bush look like a secularist.
On BP, Obama just has to resign himself to being a pinata for those on the left and the right who are going to hate him anyway. As usual the press will amplify the voices of the haters until they create a reality which is then taken up by low-information voters in the middle.
Like this:
http://www.delawaretomorrow.com/ouch/
Bottom line: If economic recovery continues and there are jobs, all this criticism of Obama over BP will blow over and be forgotten, no matter what happens to the oil or the beaches.
But if we go back into recession, or if the jobless recovery continues, the BP disaster will continue to be hung around Obama’s neck, however wrong and stupid that may be.
That is why Obama’s failure to make the stimulus big enough and targeted enough on job creation might come back to bite him and Democrats, as will tneir failure to create a public option health care.
More information isn’t going to help when media and talk shows keep wringing their hands for some bit of magic to put an end to this. Oddly, these are often the same people who want to dis liberals for not knowing how work gets done. Yet they would pontificate on whether enough effort is being expended on Presidential yelling at the spill and giving this oil a time out. As if it would fix anything.
I heard the speech, but did not see it. The first part I thought was awesome — it was a great breakdown on how big this problem is and just how hard it will be to fix it. This was about trying to reset expectations and this was good, but I don’t know if expectations were brought into line. The policy stuff was OK, but really I don’t know how you talk any of this without talking about climate change or about carbon. His endorsement of the House bill was good, but he needed to set out a path — especially since there are simply not the votes in the Senate to get the House’s bill done. And really, it is about time to start beating up on the Senate.
The real pity of the House bill failing is that we are going to give up a proven, market-based way of managing carbon emissions for a command and control one. And that command and control method will cost way more, be more painful to implement and won’t get you anywhere near where we need to be.
Another Harvard grad, another Nobel Peace Prize laureate, blah blah blah. Why do Harvard, and the Nobel prize seem less prestigious now?
“Why do Harvard, and the Nobel prize seem less prestigious now?”
Because you unthinkingly despise everything connected in any way to Barack Obama?
Did you feel the same way about Yale for belching forth George W. Bush?
it is about time to start beating up on the Senate.
Yeah, he sure beat hell out of Blanche Lincoln.
The time to beat up on the Senate was when we had 60 votes. If any beatings happen now, they are just for show. The Senate already showed Obama who is boss.
““Why do Harvard, and the Nobel prize seem less prestigious now?””
“Because you unthinkingly despise everything connected in any way to Barack Obama?”
“Did you feel the same way about Yale for belching forth George W. Bush?”
Bush went to Harvard too.
Geezer, do you really still give the same amount of credence to the Nobel committee as in the past ? They handed out that prize to Obama, and Gore solely for political purposes. I feel bad for the people that actually earned it.
As for Harvard, Obama has stacked his administration with Harvard grads, and all I see is failure.
I have a Obama shrine with a picture of Obama, complete with a rubber chicken offering a small pile of rice , some dried tea, and fancy candles.
I just sprinkled some rice over the photo in hopes that I may be forgiven, just in case I insulted the Obama.
P.S. I really do have the shrine. Everyone loves it.
Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize is about as deserved as Henry Kissinger’s was, considering Obama’s record on Afghanistan, civil liberties, Gitmo, Bagram, denial of habeas corpus, extraordinary renditions, and failure to prosecute war crimes by the previous administration.
I can’t think of a single accomplishment of his towards peace that isn’t grossly offset by his war in Afghanistan and his disregard for human rights, civil liberties, and equal justice under the law. Can anybody?
good thing obama is the leading critic of his own nobel prize, idiot.
FBH: The specific criticisms are fair enough. All’s I’m saying is they’d carry more weight it you didn’t despise everything he does and says.
As A1 notes, the peace prize was degraded long before they gave it to Obama. Let’s just say the choice did nothing to restore its prestige.