Press Secretary Gibbs bitch slapped Joe Barton (R) of Texas for apologizing to BP with the following statement:

“What is shameful is that Joe Barton seems to have more concern for big corporations that caused this disaster than the fishermen, small business owners and communities whose lives have been devastated by the destruction,” Mr. Gibbs said in a statement. “Congressman Barton may think that a fund to compensate these Americans is a ‘tragedy’, but most Americans know that the real tragedy is what the men and women of the Gulf Coast are going through right now. Members from both parties should repudiate his comments.”


What comes down to is Barton is a Texas Republican who has received 1.4 million in contributions from Big Oil. He is a dinosaur who will defend them to the end. We need to end the oil age and start a "Manhattan Project" to move away from fossil fuels. The lobbyists have had a strangle hold on our government for decades to prevent this. It is time to get on with it!

6/17/2010 2:04:05 PM

Cool story, bro.

6/17/2010 2:04:42 PM

I'll get right on it.

6/17/2010 2:05:39 PM

6/17/2010 2:08:54 PM

6/17/2010 6:02:07 PM

Whoa! Are you actually suggesting that Big Oil has a hand in Texas politics?!

6/17/2010 6:09:36 PM

Yeah, it's kinda amazing to watch any of the political processes down here. If you think politics in the state of North Carolina is fucked up, that's nothing compared to the mattress-sharing incest going on down here.

6/17/2010 6:21:02 PM

GOP leaders forced Rep. Barton to retract apology to BP
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/17/AR2010061703756.html?hpid=topnews

6/17/2010 6:22:48 PM

^^ I read "The Big Rich" a few months ago and it follows the rise and fall of the Texas oil families. Their level of involvement in Texas and national politics since 1940 is just absurd.

6/17/2010 6:41:06 PM

Thanks for that tip. I'm going to find a copy for myself.

6/17/2010 6:44:06 PM

I recommend it strongly. It's one of the best books I've read in the last 5 years.

6/17/2010 6:57:51 PM

As usual, the GOP handled this oil fund issue in a clumsy manner. They shouldn't have had the main oil industry shill "apologize".

What they should've done is had some one who gets no money from big oil express his outrage over the president grabbing power that the Constitution does not grant him..by pressuring a private company into handing billions over to the gov't.

He should point out the immense corruption that will follow if the fed. gov't is in charge of handing out money. (Katrina credit cards anyone?).

He should point out that a super-fund was already in place. It was created in the aftermath of the Exxon Valdez. Now if congress wants to adjust this fund..that would at least be following the law. But the president has no authority to high-pressure private companies into creating a big federal slush fund.

And the GOP should be hammering Obama on his almost criminal handling of the clean-up. It's shameful that the President is using this awful catastrophe to push his cap n trade tax increase.

6/18/2010 9:09:59 AM

Can you provide any "real" authoritative sources that can prove to us that the president/congress does not have this power?

6/18/2010 9:16:13 AM

^
Sec 7, Clause 1: All Bills for raising revenues shall originate in the House of Representatives: but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

Sec 8, Clause 1
The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the Common Defense and General Welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.

Section 2 basically states that the President is Commander-in-Chief of the military. He can make treaties with other countries and can fill vacancies.

Nothing in there that gives him authority to shake down private companies for federal slush funds..no matter how noble the purpose.

6/18/2010 9:54:20 AM

lol

eat shit you fucker

6/18/2010 9:58:54 AM

I guess this isn't a case where "executive privilege" is okay.

6/18/2010 10:02:13 AM

he didn't force them to do shit. BP did some calculations and decided 20 bil would be fine

6/18/2010 10:11:27 AM

Tony Hayward actully agreed to the 20 Billion it was not forced upon BP by executive order.

6/18/2010 10:54:23 AM

http://joebartonwouldliketoapologize.com

6/18/2010 10:54:58 AM

It wasn't. I don't think anyone is saying that.

The President exerted political pressure. As the President, he has the power to make BP's life a living hell. BP obviously wants to sell to the Americas, they want to drill here, etc. They don't have room to bargain with.

What conservatives are saying is that exertion of political pressure was "a shakedown."

6/18/2010 11:03:33 AM

one guy said that and then his party told him to shut up

6/18/2010 11:11:12 AM

Rush also said it.

6/18/2010 11:29:09 AM

The funny thing is Conservatives said Obama wasn't being tough enough so now when he exhibits political pressure it is all of a sudden a "shakedown".

6/18/2010 3:09:46 PM

Uh, yeah, haven't you realized that their platform is to unilaterally oppose anything Obama proposes, regardless of how beneficial it is to the country?

6/18/2010 3:13:27 PM

actually I would say the Libs are coming down harder on BO. most Cons are frustrated, but the far left is PISSED.

6/18/2010 3:14:41 PM

Not about the alleged "shakedown," though.

6/18/2010 3:16:03 PM

true. i guess that is what this thread is about

6/18/2010 3:22:40 PM

Quote :

"Uh, yeah, haven't you realized that their platform is to unilaterally oppose anything Obama proposes, regardless of how beneficial it is to the country?"

Haven't you realized that being dickhead crybabies is always the platform of the party that isn't in power?

6/18/2010 3:25:08 PM

I fully support Barton and BP. BP deserves an apology from the US government. The feds need to stop getting their hands into the private sector. You don't just abandon your ideals when its convenient. I am tired of limited government people saying "LIMITED GOVERNMENT" and then wanting the government to step in on a crisis like this to fix everything...Its complete hypocrisy. Did BP screw up? Yes. Do we crucify them? No. I love that the US government can screw up and no one ever holds them accountable but BP is demonized...

And Obama filing a lawsuit against AZ is the same thing...the feds dipping into states...Despot much?

Moral: If you are for limited government don't go crying to the feds to solve your problems...it only causes an expansion of government

6/19/2010 7:57:08 AM

Quote :

"he didn't force them to do shit. BP did some calculations and decided 20 bil would be fine"

It's kind of amazing he got them to do the escrow account. He had no power to do it, and it doesn't seem (right now) that he overstepped his bounds in any way.

He just used the Office of the President to convince them on a particular point.

6/19/2010 8:19:50 AM

^^ I agree with not abandoning your principles, but the rest of that was the most intellectually dishonest thing I've read all week. We shouldn't be crucifying BP? Why not? There are thousands of people having their lives disrupted right now, not to mention the people that burned to death on the rig that sank. BP's own documents show a pattern of preferring to cut costs and time at the expense of safety. And you think the government should be apologizing to them? "We apologize for granting permits for you to drill in the first place."

The government failed because it trusted the word of BP. If you want to fix a problem in the government, fix THAT one, instead of saying, "you screwed up so now you no longer exist."

6/19/2010 8:39:57 AM

^^^
You don't seem to understand what "limited government" means. It means that the role of government is limited, not the scope of what it does in that role. What BP did is criminal, and the role of government to prosecute crimes is proper -- I gladly pay taxes to support the government exercising its proper role. For the government to "go after" BP is perfectly fine because BP is now a criminal entity, (...well, an alleged one at this point, anyway.) If my private company commits a crime and harms you, and then the government takes my company to court and forces it to be punished and to pay restitution to you for the harm it caused you... that's not "The feds...getting their hands into the private sector". Do you understand that?

And with the AZ thing -- Laws must be constitutional. (I happen to think that their immigration law is, in fact, constitutional.) If the federal government suspects a state law to be unconstitutional, should the federal government do nothing? Recently, DC had an unconstitutional ban on handguns. Was the federal government's involvement in overturning that law "the feds dipping into states"? No. (of course, DC isn't a state, but still...)

[Edited on June 19, 2010 at 9:28 AM. Reason : ]

6/19/2010 9:23:35 AM

Quote :

"If my private company commits a crime and harms you, and then the government takes my company to court and forces it to be punished and to pay restitution to you for the harm it caused you... that's not "The feds...getting their hands into the private sector". Do you understand that?"

the Courtoom of the Honorable Obama?

6/19/2010 10:00:42 AM

^
Not exactly..
If my company is "too big to fail", and for other such exceptional situations, I think there exists a proper role of the executive branch to use the bully pulpit to encourage my company to (voluntarily?) go above and beyond what may technically be legally required of me. Also, if the damage I do to you is also dealt to millions of others in indirect and unclear ways, there exists a proper role of the executive branch to set forth on efforts to safely, quickly, and accurately determine those details. Also, if the damage I do to you and the millions of others is ongoing, and I'm the only one that can stop it, .... (and so on) -- BP's situation is worse for them because they're so big, not better. They should never have been (allowed to be?) engaging in an activity as they did with such an unreasonable risk of harm to others.

[Edited on June 19, 2010 at 10:23 AM. Reason : ]

6/19/2010 10:16:37 AM

So basically no one should use advanced energy technologies to forward the capabilities of man?

Because it's too risky and could hurt people?

That means no fire, no electicity, no water, no oil, no nuclear power, no driving your car, no watching tv, no crossing the ocean in a boat, no space exploration, eating cold food, staying cold in the winter, I could go on and on and on....

6/19/2010 10:38:36 AM

HOLY STRAW-MAN, JEBUS!

No, no... you just have to eliminate the unreasonable risk of harm before doing something.

6/19/2010 10:45:32 AM

Quote :

"the president grabbing power that the Constitution does not grant him..by pressuring a private company into handing billions over to the gov't. "

Surely this depends on what "pressuring" means. Obviously he doesn't have the authority to force them to pay up or leave the country, but I don't see anything wrong with him telling BP, for example, "Oh, you fuckers. You'll pay up right now or I'll spend the rest of this term encouraging Congress to pass a law that lets me personally fuck each of you in the ass. No lube."

I mean, he can threaten all he wants. The President is within his rights to be a dick or even a bully in person. If we're going to take such a literal view of the Constitution that the only acceptable personality traits are the ones described within, then let's just scrap the fucking thing and try...feudalism. I don't think feudalism got a fair shake.

6/20/2010 11:30:46 PM

Quote :

"What they should've done is had some one who gets no money from big oil"

I'm genuinely curious as to whether such a man exists in the GOP.

Quote :

"express his outrage over the president grabbing power that the Constitution does not grant him..by pressuring a private company into handing billions over to the gov't."

This GOPer would like to school you on pressuring corporations. Specifically the Anthracite Coal Strike.

"Pressure" is specifically a non-formal action, and thus not within the realm of the Constitution.

Next-up for the GOP: is the President allowed under the Constitution to give BP dirty looks?

6/21/2010 4:19:49 PM

What the fuck -- I would think conservatives would applaud obama for getting BP to pay for the harm it has done to other people without getting the courts or government involved. That's the motherfucking dream scenario for conservative ways to solve problems.

6/22/2010 12:53:49 AM

I don't applaud the "conservative regime," but you, skokiaan, clearly don't understand it at all.

6/22/2010 1:37:08 AM

Quote :

"With their manic, absurd defenses of BP, certain leading Republicans (echoed by Fox News commentators) have achieved levels of self-parody far too exaggerated for a "Saturday Night Live" sketch. Everyone understands that politicians of both parties sometimes stooge for corporations. But Haley Barbour, Michele Bachmann and Joe Barton, among others, have said things about the British oil giant -- and the $20 billion escrow fund to compensate Deepwater Horizon damages -- that could only be uttered by someone truly stupid. Or someone who thinks the rest of us are truly stupid. "

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/joe_conason/2010/06/17/populist

6/22/2010 2:51:44 AM