Obama: Oil, The GOP & The Media

Regarding the oil mess in the Gulf, the President is hemmed in by politics and the political climate in the country at this point in time. What I mean is, when this first happened, BP, the oil giant doing the drilling and reaping the profits from the well, issued statements saying that things weren't all that serious. It wasn't until the live camera showed Americans (and the World) what was really happening that everyone could see that BP's statement of "not serious" was something that definitely was "not serious." If the administration had ordered BP to do certain things, just imagine the reaction from some Republicans, especially the hard rightwing: "They're trying to take over the country!" "They want to order private companies around, is your company next?" "They actually want to regulate the oil industry!" Or, if government authorities had essentially assumed control and started doing whatever was thought necessary to contain the situation (something I don't believe they actually had the overall capability of doing, at least not immediately), then those same Republicans would have said, "They're bailing out a private company with taxpayer money!" If you're a hardline Republican, admit that what I'm saying is right.

When it became obvious that the magnitude of the disaster was much greater than "not serious," some Republicans then turned to: "Where's the government?" Talk about having it both ways! Which way is this, GOP? Too much government or not enough? After 28 years of government bashing (prior to the Obama Administration), and executive control of government for 20 of those 28 years, the government has been run into the ground, especially on the regulatory side, where so many on the political right have prevailed with "the best regulation, is no regulation!" This political situation is a valid point, and does give the President a little "cover," but not much, in my book.

With hurricane inflicted damages, for instance, the government should move immediately, and actually BEFORE the storm hits an area, since hurricanes don't just develop in the time it takes to watch "Sixty Minutes," which would be...let's see...an hour. See! Give me time and I can figure things out. Besides, hurricanes aren't owned and operated by BP, Walmart, UPS, or even The Weather Channel. The point is, "natural disasters" require government at all levels. In this present situation, we have a private company, BP, which not only is private, but based in a foreign country, the United Kingdom. Hmm, if I were one of those rightwing conspiracy nuts, I might say, "I think they're trying to get even with America for what happened in 1776! And furthermore, I think Obama is in on it. Just think, his father was from Kenya....and Kenya was once a British colony! Ah ha! There's the connection!" (If these folks spent half as much time devoted to helping humanity, as they spend on such nonsense, the world would be a much better place!)

Now, Obama and his administration have not handled the overall situation well, in my opinion. Blaming the media doesn't cut it with me (and that goes for BOTH political parties!). The media is what it is, and he and his people have to deal with it. The other day the President mentioned that he was on the Gulf coast not long after the spill happened, but that the media didn't cover it. Okay folks, the idea that the White House couldn't arrange media coverage of a presidential trip to a potential (at that time) disaster site is nonsense! Further, the President needs to toughen his hide, as he appears far too thin-skinned in this 24/7 media coverage age. Some in the media have criticized his lack of "anger," and while I understand that, he just doesn't seem to be much of the kind of guy to go bonkers, even if he knew "whose ass to kick," to quote the President, but he damned well better learn that role, as this is about governing, not campaigning for president.* Part of the job of being President is expressing "our" collective emotions, something this President seems uncomfortable in doing. He needs to forget the "I'm going to change Washington" nonsense, too. During the campaign, he and his aides were able to get around the media to some degree by going directly to supporters via the 'Net, and this may have instilled a sense of "I'll change Washington." Not so now! Further, there's no question the media had a love affair with Obama back during the campaign, just as McCain had their love back in 2000, but now, they want to get a story or develop a story further, and if Obama and his folks think they can change this, they will suffer the consequences.**

Americans tend to like bold action. If the President had really taken charge, put BP on the spot right off by demanding "up front money" to cover containment/clean-up costs and reparations for Gulf coast businesses, do you think the public would have ignored Republican claims that "he's trying to take over the country?" Or would we agree with the rightwing, because we wouldn't have known all the things we have come to know now?

Having said all of the above, "if" the spill is soon stopped and the oil spread contained, Obama may come out looking better than Randy thinks he will, but the effects of this whole situation, and I'm NOT saying that he could have waved a magic wand and made things right, are potentially going to last for years, and not only environmentally and economically, but perhaps even in our dealings with the UK. Such things can seriously diminish a president's reputation. (A Word History is below the notes)

* Ronald Reagan had much the same overall "get along" temperament as Obama, but Reagan came from the world of Hollywood, and he understood how images can have an impact on the public and how the media (even well before 24/7 coverage in those days) wants a story, and how they develop a narrative. I just forget the exact incident, but Israel had done something that made Reagan and his administration look foolish, and it didn't take long before a stern-faced Reagan was shown (in still pictures) on the telephone to the Israeli prime minister. Did he fake it? (the anger mode, I mean) Maybe, but regardless, he understood what the situation required, and how the presidency is more than just about being the chief executive or commander-in-chief. And, let's not forget Bill Clinton's "I feel your pain."

** Herbert Hoover, a Republican, won the presidency without ever having held elected public office. He was very bright and was a hands on kind of executive; after all, he was an engineer, a profession that often requires micro-management. Trapped by the collapse of the economy during the opening years of the Great Depression, Hoover failed to grasp the public leadership role of the presidency. Instead of trying to demonstrate his concern for average Americans struggling to get by, he distanced himself from such "staged" events. He loved children, and one story went something like this: One day when out for his daily walk, he came upon a group of young boys playing baseball. The boys came over to see the President, and one climbed up on his knee. The usually "stiff" president showed his "warm" side. One of his aides told the President that he should come back tomorrow and that he would arrange for photographers to be there for pictures to show the human side of the beleaguered chief executive. Hoover refused, not wanting to stoop to things he saw as gimmicks. The public became very disconnected from Hoover, and he lost the next election in a landslide. (I'm not saying this was the only reason for his defeat!)

WORD HISTORY:
Gulf-The origins of this word are uncertain, but Greek had "kolphos/kolpos," which gave Latin "colfos," which then became Italian "golfo," and then Old French "golfe." All of these forms had similar meanings: "bay, gulf," but initially in Greek it meant "bosom," before taking on the "bay/gulf" meaning, supposedly taken from the enclosed nature of a bosom (a "gulf" being a relatively enclosed body of water). In Latin it also took on the added meaning of "chasm/abyss," which seems to have been passed on to its offspring in Italian and French, and carried over to English when it borrowed the word from French during the 1300s, first as "goulf," before moving on to the modern spelling.