The best way to end the oil spill drama was to plug the leak ... I don't know that Obama could have done anything to get that accomplished quicker than it was.

 

 

We don't agree often in this forum (any forum?), but I agree with you.

Sorry... I actually do have a day job that requires attention.

 

As examples of how the President and his administration could have sped up the cleanup process by removing red tape, or not creating it, I cite the following as just a few I can come up with quickly:

 

• The Oil Pollution Act of 1990 makes the response to an oil spill the President’s responsibility.
   
  
• The President did not expeditiously waive the Jones act, which would have allowed needed assistance from other countries with better resources than we had on hand.
   
  
• There were approximately 60 separate foreign offers of resources to help with cleanup, the first one coming only nine days into the crisis… yet, two months later, 46 of those offers remained “under consideration.”
   
  
• Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal repeatedly warned, “It is clear we don't have the resources we need to protect our coast... We need more boom, more skimmers, more vacuums, more jack-up barges that are still in short supply.” And yet... the Administration refused to permit Louisiana to dredge protective sand berms to prevent the spill from penetrating delicate coastal marshes and estuaries.
   
  
• Obama stopped all drilling in the Gulf cutting over 40,000 well paying jobs, when most experts stated it would be safer to continue.
   
  
• The President refused to override the Occupational Safety and Health Administration workplace rules that hampered cleanup efforts. OSHA released a “Heat Stress Management Plan” that mandated workers could only work 10 minutes of every hour for the first two days on the job if they were “workers new to working in a hot environment, workers returning after three weeks of cooler weather, or returning after being sick.” Again, another layer of needless red tape.
   
  
• On May 2 Mr. Obama stated, “I'm not going to rest—and none of the gentlemen and women who are here are going to rest—or be satisfied until the leak is stopped at the source, the oil on the Gulf is contained and cleaned up, and the people of this region are able to go back to their lives and their livelihoods.” Yet during the first 60 days of the crisis, the President went on vacation twice, played eight rounds of golf, was a guest on the Jay Leno and George Lopez shows, and attended two rock concerts and a baseball game. I don’t think it is overly critical to state that this record certainly does not appear to be without plentiful moments of “rest”.
  

 

The fact that the Chilean President not only eliminated such barriers and governmental red tape, he actively reached out to all with the technology and resources to assist in this rescue. Whether the speed of this rescue may be attributed to him or not, at the very least he had the sense to get the government out of the way.

 

As far as taking advantage of a PR opportunity. Give me a leader able to help get things done and then bask in the limelight over an obstructionist ideologue still hungry for the nearest camera and teleprompter. :thumb:

 

You still haven't shown where he slowed down the response to or was not attentive to the #1 issue - the hole.

 

As to him taking vacation, unless you expected him to dive down to the hole what's the issue? Isn't this what we complained about when people took shots at President Bush for taking "vacactions" as if while on vacation he has no contact with anyone?

We don't agree often in this forum (any forum?), but I agree with you.

Does the ground feel cold under your feet? :lol:

And I'm not certain - but I strongly suspect - that had President Obama done the same - he would have been excoriated for undertaking publicity stunts and not being focused enough on the war, the economy, etc. By one side of the aisle, anyway.

 

Just a guess.

 

Another factor that FB is conveniently ignoring is the hardcore jingoists who would have excoriated Obama for seeking help from other countries and causing the U.S. to lose face.

I can't understand how you compare the Gulf oil spill and the miner rescue. I see no parallels.

Another factor that FB is conveniently ignoring is the hardcore jingoists who would have excoriated Obama for seeking help from other countries and causing the U.S. to lose face.

All you're doing is emphasizing my point. A true leader does not place consensus or acceptance ahead of doing what is the highest and best thing to do in any given situation. The problem is, this requires a true leader to look at and do what's best for those he serves... not what's most convenient or expedient for himself.

 

Why should it matter what jingoists or myopic opponents have to say if you are certain what the right thing is to do... and you do it?

 

I pray to God I have raised my children to do what is right regardless of what their peers might be telling them they should do.

 

I can't understand how you compare the Gulf oil spill and the miner rescue. I see no parallels.

Surely you do not mean this. Really Zoot... really?

 

I did not open this thread to compare the Gulf Oil Spill to the Chilean Miner Rescue. I intended to compare the leadership styles of the Presidents of both countries. The oil spill and the miner rescue merely provided the most significant crises in each leader's term by which to measure their distinctly varied styles.

 

 

I am genuinely baffled at how some of you refuse to see what is so obvious to a large and growing percentage of the American people. You are certainly welcome to defend this paper tiger to your last breath, but the numbers of those willing to heed your party/personality loyalty is thankfully diminishing.

 

I would be a hypocrite to suggest that you should change your stance merely because of overwhelming public opinion, but I am hoping you will be able to see the true character and agenda of this man before you choose to fall on your sword for him. :thumb:

Surely you do not mean this. Really Zoot... really?

 

I did not open this thread to compare the Gulf Oil Spill to the Chilean Miner Rescue. I intended to compare the leadership styles of the Presidents of both countries. The oil spill and the miner rescue merely provided the most significant crises in each leader's term by which to measure their distinctly varied styles.

 

 

I am genuinely baffled at how some of you refuse to see what is so obvious to a large and growing percentage of the American people. You are certainly welcome to defend this paper tiger to your last breath, but the numbers of those willing to heed your party/personality loyalty is thankfully diminishing.

 

I would be a hypocrite to suggest that you should change your stance merely because of overwhelming public opinion, but I am hoping you will be able to see the true character and agenda of this man before you choose to fall on your sword for him. :thumb:

 

I do mean it. Your evidence of "leadership" is the vague "he invited technology from around the world" and "vowed not to rest". That's it? That's what made him an excellent leader? And I don't for one second buy the junk about him sticking his neck out to do this. It was a politician's dream and it fell into his lap. What he did was stand there and welcome each miner out. No denying that is a benevolent act, but to make him to be a saint is a bit of a stretch. So please tell me what he did that was so extraorindary. You didn't see or hear anything from him until it was time to bring them out.

 

Your conclusion was laughable. "If Obama had moved similarly, the oil spill would have been resolved quicker." Seriously? They couldn't plug the hole because Obama didn't show good leadership? Tell me EXACTLY what Obama could have done to make the hole stop spewing oil faster. This connection between this event and the miners is non-existant.

 

The right has rushed to remark what amazing leadership Pinera showed during the rescue and lamenting that Obama isn't the same. I ask, what if they were pulling bodies out instead of the living? You think he would have been standing there, consoling families as it happened? Doubtful.

 

Listen, I've been souring on Obama for a long time. Did I think he would be a great president? Yes. Have I been pleased with his performance so far? No. But what really irks me is when silly and erroneous arguments are made for the sake of bashing Obama. You don't like him, we get it.

You still haven't shown where he slowed down the response to or was not attentive to the #1 issue - the hole.

 

As to him taking vacation, unless you expected him to dive down to the hole what's the issue? Isn't this what we complained about when people took shots at President Bush for taking "vacactions" as if while on vacation he has no contact with anyone?

 

 

I think that the vacation comment was just to corroborate with the other luxurious/celebrity events that he did.

As far as taking advantage of a PR opportunity. Give me a leader able to help get things done and then bask in the limelight over an obstructionist ideologue still hungry for the nearest camera and teleprompter. :thumb:

 

If memory serves Jimmy Carter did just that in the Iranian Hostage Crisis. He stayed in the White House almost constantly and rarely campaigned in the public compared to other re-election candidates. He was often portrayed as "held hostage in the rose garden" like the real hostages in Iran. He was working the channels right up to the time he was handing the keys to the White House over to Ronald Reagan. I'm not saying "Yeah Carter" but from your first post, this is the image I had of what you were looking for.

^ Memory serves, I believe. And has ANYONE come out and extolled the virtues of Jimmy Carter, leader extraordinaire?