This Will Be Fun To Watch Unfold

Since it has been a couple weeks since we have had a pointless intra-party poo-flinging contest, I watched with great pleasure as both Keith Olbermann and Robert Reich promoted the idea of putting BP into receivership for the time being. I’m sure you are just as thrilled as I am at watching receivership for BP become the oil spill’s public option, which it no doubt will in short order.

Not like there is nothing big going on in the world right now that we can sit back and have a nice circular firing squad with our left flank screaming about Obama being a corporate whore while the entire wingnut Wurlitzer makes comparisons to Chavez and nationalization of oil industries.

Just shoot me.






138 replies
  1. 1
    Lisa K. says:

    Yeah, nothing says “plug the hole” like socialism!

  2. 2
    SiubhanDuinne says:

    But didn’t you love Keith’s tidbit that BP’s new US PR spokescritter is the woman (whose name is kinda like but is not Ann Coulter — Ann Coltrane, maybe?) who was Dick Cheney’s press secretary at one point. Sorry to be vague but I was making a tuna salad and not giving KO my full attention.

  3. 3
    Xenos says:

    Short of putting the company in receivership, maybe we can force them to put all dividend payments into escrow indefinitely until the criminal and civil cases have been sorted out. Ten or fifteen years should do the trick.

    I have no idea if there is some sort of legal process to do this, but it really pisses me off to see BP shareholders get dividend checks when the economy of the Gulf has been wiped out, and the government will be paying for remediation forever.

  4. 4
    Violet says:

    This seems like a colossally bad idea. The gushing oil still needs to be stopped. If BP is put into receivership, then the government and its resources (our money) will be the ones doing it.

    I understand the thinking behind it, but the consequences seem not to be worth it. And that’s even before the whole “nationalization of the oil industry, OBAMAISWORSETHANCHAVEZ” howling harpy chorus begins.

  5. 5
    Just Some Fuckhead says:

    Can we put Britain’s largest corporation into receivership??

  6. 6
    stevie314159 says:

    All I know is, if AIG insures any of this, THEY BETTER NOT FUCKING PAY.

  7. 7
    John Cole says:

    @Just Some Fuckhead: Reich was suggesting the Northern America operations.

  8. 8
    danimal says:

    Well, at least it would force the Wurlitzer to focus on their true enemy: those that would reduce profits for big corporations (such as Big Oil). I’m getting tired of the GOP posturing that Obama hasn’t been doing enough with regards to the Gulf spill.

    As if Obama could propose anything meaningful that the GOP would support. They’d protest if Obama encouraged thousands of supporters to travel to the Gulf Coast to volunteer cleaning beaches.

  9. 9
    SiubhanDuinne says:

    NOW wtf is going on? The saw/shearing machine just cut *through* the pipe? So there’s even *more* oil and gas escaping into Gulf waters??

    I have been a cheerful, optimistic person for most of my life, but I’m coming around to the “we are so fucked” POV.

  10. 10
    beltane says:

    BP is not long for this world, not in its present form anyway. Is it really in our best interests to advocate for the nationalization of a foreign, soon to be bankrupt oil company?

    The public option was at least sound policy that would have improved the HCR bill; this is just a lot of grandstanding that will do nothing to stop the hemorrhaging of oil or clean up the mess.

    Can’t we all just go pick on Benjamin Netanyahu, he needs to be picked on.

  11. 11
    Bill Section 147 says:

    The only government involvement I want is bringing criminal charges. The way the regulations are without criminal charges BP is going to walk away from this without much ado.

    Union Carbide. Exxon. Enron. Etc. Different disasters but very few got their comeuppance. Without criminal charges it is a short-term glitch on the corporate person. They live forever in some form or another.

    Hopefully we will get something going forward in the way of oversight and responsible regulation but I am not hopeful. What’s manslaughter and destroying the ecosystem of an entire region when torture is not torture? Let’s move forward. Onward. Upward.

  12. 12
    Yutsano says:

    BANG!!

    (but I’m not feeding Tunch. Lily is another story.)

  13. 13
    Violet says:

    @SiubhanDuinne:

    NOW wtf is going on? The saw/shearing machine just cut through the pipe? So there’s even more oil and gas escaping into Gulf waters??

    I’m not following the video, but they did say that doing this next step would temporarily increase the output of oil. So it sounds like it’s going as they planned. Whether it will work or not…

  14. 14
    slag says:

    It’s funny cuz I was just thinking about how the very same people who are benefitting most from the “Government isn’t doing enough!” narrative are the exact same ones who will be pushing the “Government stepped in and messed up BP’s entire oil spill response effort!” narrative next. Yay us!

  15. 15
    demo woman says:

    @SiubhanDuinne: That is actually a good sign because now they can build the magic cap that will cover the spill.

  16. 16
    Jim, Foolish Literalist says:

    IANAL, but what’s the controlling legal authority they’re proposing for this?

  17. 17
    Gravenstone says:

    @SiubhanDuinne: As I understand it, this is the intent. In order to get the new oil recovery device in place atop the BOP, they need to remove the fallen riser pipe (which the drilling expert just interviewed pointed out was supposed to have disconnected during the blow out, but failed to do so). So they’ve basically reached the next “point of no return” in the process, but it’s meant to make it easier for them to bring most of the leak going forward to surface vessels for capture. There’s still no stopping the leak until the relief well(s) reach their target.

  18. 18
    mr. whipple says:

    Reich is an idiot, and Keith is being a dick. The former guy from Justice slapped him down pretty well.

  19. 19
    4tehlulz says:

    >receivership for BP

    If I’m at BP, I’m praying for this.

  20. 20
    burnspbesq says:

    At the risk of sounding like a broken record, have any of the folks advocating putting BP in “temporary receivership” explained what statute gives the authority to do this?

  21. 21
    Allison W. says:

    One of the posters at TPM is a lawyer and he gave a thumbs down to Reich’s solution. He said it was against the law or that no law existed to allow Obama to do that. It was followed by a flogging of some on the Left for their disregard of the rule of law whenever it suits them.

  22. 22

    stupid is as stupid does.

  23. 23
    demo woman says:

    @Gravenstone: OMG..you made my answer seem so simplistic, but I still like the magic cap approach.

  24. 24
    Allison W. says:

    and yeah, we’ll be seeing plenty of this term thrown about the liberal blogs and when Obama doesn’t implement it, it will then be another betrayal even though he didn’t promise this.

  25. 25
    Just Some Fuckhead says:

    @John Cole: Does that include Canada and Mexico?

  26. 26
    Lisa K. says:

    @mr. whipple:

    Keith is being a dick.

    Like that’s something unusual?

  27. 27
    mr. whipple says:

    @Lisa K.:

    On one hand, he’s bitching because there’s a limited amount of options for what can be done. On the other, he’s bitching if they snip the pipe it might make it worse if it doesn’t work.

  28. 28
    Cat Lady says:

    If we’re going to nationalize a company can we pick one that has some value and upside, like Home Depot or Apple? I’m sick of owning failing car companies, banks and polluters.

    kthx.

  29. 29
    Sly says:

    Not sure what they mean by receivership. In U.S. law, there are only a handful of entities granted this authority, and its pretty much exclusive to banks, thrifts, and GSEs. And that authority is specifically limited to private entities that are in financial turmoil.

    There really isn’t a historic analogue to simply taking all of BP’s shit. Every other instance of state/federal takeover of private entities (from the Railroad takeover during WWI to the creation of the TSA in 2001) entailed, essentially, buying the corporation(s) from its private owners. Is Reich/Olbermann arguing that we should buy BP’s North American operations? I don’t think so.

    What they’re essentially arguing for is “temporary” nationalization. The problem with that approach is one of due process: you just can’t take someone’s stuff without a proper legal mechanism that withstands judicial review. And while there may be controversy as to whether a corporation counts as “someone,” it does under current law.

  30. 30
    stuckinred says:

    @mr. whipple: Yea, no one around here bitchin now is there?

  31. 31
    Karmakin says:

    Well, even though there may not be a legal method to put BP’s NA operation into receivership, there should be. No, scratch that. There needs to be some way to deal with massive corporate wrongdoing that involves shareholders and upper management basically being wiped out.

  32. 32

    @SiubhanDuinne: The Oil Drum has a great description and explanation of the process (as usual).

    They’re going to cut the pipe on the riser just below where it kinked so they they can try to attach the collection device they hope will direct the flow to a surface vessel. Before they can do that, they needed to relieve the strain on the pipe created by the hanging section.

  33. 33
    AnotherBruce says:

    @Lisa K.:

    Well, nothing says “Destroy the Gulf of Mexico” like capitalism.

  34. 34
    stuckinred says:

    Robert Reich’s idea:

    It’s time for the federal government to put BP under temporary receivership, which gives the government authority to take over BP’s operations in the Gulf of Mexico until the gusher is stopped. This is the only way the public will know what’s going on, be confident enough resources are being put to stopping the gusher, ensure BP’s strategy is correct, know the government has enough clout to force BP to use a different one if necessary, and be sure the President is ultimately in charge.

    If the government can take over giant global insurer AIG and the auto giant General Motors and replace their CEOs, in order to keep them financially solvent, it should be able to put BP’s North American operations into temporary receivership in order to stop one of the worst environmental disasters in U.S. history.

  35. 35
    demkat620 says:

    OT, I know, but this will make you feel much better.

    Tweety tonight discussing Al and Tipper

    Matthews: I’m looking at myself in the camera and I’m saying, “I don’t understand what I’m talking about here.” I am so far beyond what I know anything about here. I’m a political watcher.

    Tell me, why is this assclown still on the air?

  36. 36
    AnotherBruce says:

    @Karmakin:

    Yes this, if corporations can be legally designated as persons, there ought to be a way to put them in prison or execute them.

  37. 37
    Xenos says:

    @burnspbesq:

    At the risk of sounding like a broken record, have any of the folks advocating putting BP in “temporary receivership” explained what statute gives the authority to do this

    I don’t know, maybe Congress could pass a fucking law at some point that would cover this situation… I suppose the Commerce Clause would allow the sequestration of profits of a company that recklessly trashes the economies of five states at a single blow. Should not be too much of a stretch, even with the post-W judiciary.

  38. 38

    @demkat620: the same reason Morning Hoe is still on the air.

  39. 39
    dmsilev says:

    @Cat Lady:

    If we’re going to nationalize a company can we pick one that has some value and upside, like Home Depot or Apple? I’m sick of owning failing car companies, banks and polluters.

    Tax returns will be issued in the form of sheets of plywood and iPads?

    Hmmm, you might be on to something there.

    dms

  40. 40
    Just Some Fuckhead says:

    @demkat620: We should all be so lucky to make it to 40 years of marriage.

  41. 41
    Brandon says:

    When’s the last time Robert Reich had a legitimately good idea? And in that vein, it’s amazing to me how much mileage that man has been able to gain after one stint as a rather unaccomplished Labor Secretary. That is unless he actually did something profound that I missed, I’ve never heard anyone ever pine for the days he was Labor Secretary. I’ve never even heard anyone say he was a “good” one. The only thing that is ever said is that he was one.

  42. 42
    scav says:

    SiubhanDuinne;: No, that cut probably just moved where all that oil was coming out. The big tin snips cut the long pipe (“riser” I think) that used to connect the well+BoP to the surface of the water+platform. That was of course broken a long time ago and spewing. They had to cut it shorter so that the cut at the ToP of the BoP had a better chance of being a clean one (for a solid seal). The cut at the ToP of the BoP (in my best DJ voice) is below the kink in the riser. When that gets cut, the kink is now longer holding back the oil, so we’re down to whatever closure there is in the BoP. As I understand things, bien sûr.

  43. 43
    Xenos says:

    @demkat620:

    Tell me, why is this assclown still on the air?

    I tuned in to see if he would apply his Blumenthal standard on Kirk, and he did not fail to disappoint.

    Who needs Fox news when we have Tweety?

  44. 44

    @burnspbesq: The I’ll hold my breath ’til I turn blue statute.

  45. 45

    forgetting for a minute whether it is either legal or likely politically, why the fuck would we want to do it? The government, specifically the Democrats, would now own the spill. Yeah, you could argue they already are bearing some responsibility, but this would be different.

    Make some demands backed up armed coast guard cutters if it will actually accomplish anything (and outside of maybe some shore cleanup, I don’t see how it would at the moment), but let BP twist in the wind on this one. I think the situation may manage to eliminate all shareholder value without any help from us.

  46. 46
    mr. whipple says:

    @stuckinred:

    Well, I’d like to know Keith’s big idea. He’s taken to signing off with ‘the 43rd day of the Deepwater disaster’ like he did with ‘it’s the x day since mission accomplished in Iraq.’

    Yeah, they are exactly the same. I guess he wants Obama to scuba down personally and plug it with his massive package.

  47. 47
    robertdsc says:

    @Karmakin:
    Look at the makeup of this Congress. The fucknut Blue Dogs won’t lift a finger and the GOP will block everything. Not gonna happen, regardless of how many podiums POTUS pounds on.

  48. 48

    @demkat620:

    add to that he also said “I am on the side of Israel on this” and I totally lost it. How can you defend that? Mother fucker.

  49. 49
    Jay B. says:

    Yeah, this sounds so bizarre:

    We know that Saturday for example Steven Chu, the secretary of Energy, said to BP that top – that top gunning that you were trying to use is just too dangerous,” he continued. “But you see the government right now has no official legal authority to tell BP what to do. And when we hear that this thing is going to go on until August, most Americans don’t even know and have no assurance that all of the resources BP could possibly utilize are actually being utilized.

    But sure, I agree that it’s probably illegal, so there’s nothing we can do. But far as the laughable “rule of law” bullshit, let’s finally grow up. You use it for transparently partisan reasons, not because you actually believe in it. I mean Obama’s not obeying it now in respects to the people being held at Gitmo — most of whom are innocent. Let’s not pretend anyone here really gives a shit about the rule of law, otherwise some of you might get a little more upset when a Democrat continues to detain innocent people indefinitely.

    But sure. Rule of Law! Yay! Hopefully BP has our best interests at heart!

  50. 50
    Just Some Fuckhead says:

    @Brandon:

    When’s the last time Robert Reich had a legitimately good idea?

    Well, he was saying we should pass the Affordable Health Care For America Act, flawed as it was, much like the consensus opinion here, so there’s that I guess..

  51. 51
    Brandon says:

    @Allison W.: I didn’t know that John “six to the noggin” Aravosis posted at TPM. He’s so gangsta.

  52. 52
    gwangung says:

    I don’t know, maybe Congress could pass a fucking law at some point that would cover this situation… I suppose the Commerce Clause would allow the sequestration of profits of a company that recklessly trashes the economies of five states at a single blow.

    Um, seriously….ex post facto, anyone?

    Now, maybe a class action lawsuit, coordinated by US attorneys, for clean up, loss of business and material damages….(which, of course, would have to wait until the leak is fixed)…and THEN confiscate assets to pay….

  53. 53
    Ailuridae says:

    @burnspbesq:

    Of course not. Its not very hard to find the law that enabled the Fed takeover of AIG.

  54. 54
    SiubhanDuinne says:

    @Violet, demo woman, Gravenstone: Thanks. It still feels and looks very counterintuitive to me, but then IANAHorPE. And in fact I’m technologically challenged/-phobic enough that I confess I haven’t been following the details closely.

  55. 55
    mr. whipple says:

    @Brandon:

    Reich is a go-to media guy for criticism of Democrats, but instead of working for Fox he works for TPM. I’m sure he finds it baffling why another administration won’t hire him.

  56. 56
    Steeplejack says:

    @stuckinred:

    Reich:

    [. . .] the government [. . .] should be able to put BP’s North American operations into temporary receivership in order to stop one of the worst environmental disasters in U.S. history.

    There is absolutely no evidence to support the idea that this or any legal maneuver will do anything to solve the engineering problem.

  57. 57
    maye says:

    Since BP is the only entity with the equipment and know-how to actually fix their own disaster, what would they do if put into receivership? Tell the U.S. govt. to go to hell? Then where would we be?

  58. 58
    Ailuridae says:

    @Sly: @gwangung:

    You lawyers. So obsessed with the law. I would love to see a President file for receivership against a healthy company that doesn’t even operate in finance. Ignoring the political disaster how long would it really take for any federal judge to rule in BP’s favor?

    I am not watching Countdown right now but when Olbermann was advocating this did he bring out Turley or any sane fucking person?

  59. 59
    John Cole says:

    @Brandon: He had some good ideas during the stimulus discussion. I’d suggest that given the data mistermix posted this morning, he and krugman were right on a lot of those things…

  60. 60
    Brandon says:

    @Just Some Fuckhead: But was that really Reich’s idea? Does it really count if he is just repeating what every Democrat to the left of Nelson were saying, spare the firebaggers?

  61. 61
    stuckinred says:

    @Steeplejack: I fully agree, I just posted it to give clarity to what he said.

  62. 62
    Just Some Fuckhead says:

    @Brandon: I dunno, I can’t keep track of who we’re supposed to be hating at any given moment and for what reasons.

  63. 63
    slag says:

    @Jay B.:

    Let’s not pretend anyone here really gives a shit about the rule of law, otherwise some of you might get a little more upset when a Democrat continues to detain innocent people indefinitely.

    STFU, asshole. A lot of us are upset about this situation. And a lot of us have said so many times. You choose to ignore this fact (as you do so many others) because you have a story to tell. That’s your problem. No one else’s.

  64. 64
    Steeplejack says:

    @stuckinred:

    Yeah. Got that. Just wanted to belabor the obvious.

    We seem to have reached the point where we have the power to create technological problems that we cannot solve, and as our power increases we should be vewy, vewy afraid.

  65. 65
    Belafon (formerly anonevent) says:

    The difference between BP and AIG/GM/Chrysler is the last 3 volunteered to be taken over in exchange for having their debt handled by the government. If I remember my history correctly, the Supreme Court overruled Truman’s attempt to nationalize the steel industry against its will.

    And the one thing I don’t want in this case is for the government to own what is going on down in the Gulf, especially since it doesn’t have the resources to handle it, even if it took over all or part of BP.

  66. 66

    It has not gone unnoticed that DougJ has shown great restraint this week. Go DougJ.

    Unless of course he has been on holiday. So Thrrrp….

  67. 67
    mr. whipple says:

    Since BP is the only entity with the equipment and know-how to actually fix their own disaster, what would they do if put into receivership?

    I want to see Pelosi control those underwater robots and Obama laying pipe.

    If the gvt took over BP, could they sue themselves? That would be cool.

  68. 68
  69. 69
    stuckinred says:

    @Steeplejack: Aw fuck all that afraid stuff. On further review, go ahead if ya want!

  70. 70
    scav says:

    @maye: Well, actually, there are other large oil companies and a solid lot of the work you’re seeing isn’t being done by BP employees. Subcontracting anyone? This has nothing to do with the legalities of anything, but BP is not the Illuminati with unknown magic skills.

  71. 71
    beltane says:

    @Belafon (formerly anonevent): Yeah, who in their right mind would want to own this oozing carbuncle on the earth’s crust? BP needs to be prosecuted and sued into oblivion, not foisted onto the American public. You nationalize the desirable companies, not the pariahs.

  72. 72
    That's Master of Accountancy to You, Pal (JMN) says:

    @Ailuridae: I don’t think that was a law so much as AIG begging to be taken over.

  73. 73
    Brandon says:

    @John Cole: I suppose that his best ideas seem to be to listen to what knowledgeable people are saying and then use his profound instincts of self promotion to repeat them. Not to beat up on Reich too much, he seems like a nice enough guy and he usually seems to have better instincts than to get out in front of and promote such I’ll thought out policy. So I’ll give him a mulligan on this one. Particularly with all the pressure to go on TeeVee and come up with something new and original to say about this debacle that hadn’t already been said. And you’ve gotta go on TeeVee, even if you’ve got nuthin to say

  74. 74
    Xenos says:

    @gwangung:

    Um, seriously….ex post facto, anyone?

    Seriously… was I talking about criminal law?

    Of course it is gross simplification to say that ex post facto laws are always OK in civil or administrative contexts. but there is plenty of ongoing damage. All the more reason to hurry up and pass such a law.

  75. 75
    flukebucket says:

    It is not that I do not give a shit about the rule of law. It is just that the rule of law can be turned on and off a lot easier than that spill in the gulf.

    My guess is that the count gets to 172 days before the spill is officially stopped.

    And yeah. I pulled it out of my ass.

  76. 76
    stuckinred says:

    @Brandon:

    Please don’t dominate the rap Jack
    if you got nothing new to say
    If you please don’t back up the track
    This train got to run today

    New Speedway Boogie

  77. 77
    Ailuridae says:

    @Belafon (formerly anonevent):

    The difference between BP and AIG/GM/Chrysler is the last 3 volunteered to be taken over in exchange for having their debt handled by the government. If I remember my history correctly, the Supreme Court overruled Truman’s attempt to nationalize the steel industry against its will.

    Youngstown Sheet and Tube Co. v. Sawyer. From Truman’s declaration to the time time the Supreme Court ruled against him was two months to the day. I strongly imagine if Obama tried this today a federal judge would move against him by Monday and the Supreme Court would certainly rule against him soon.

    Given that Reich was Secretary of Labor and Youngstown and the Steel Seizure have a whole lot to do with you know, labor history in America.

  78. 78
    Belafon (formerly anonevent) says:

    @flukebucket: Based on prior history, anything less than 300 is a victory.

  79. 79
    scav says:

    @mr. whipple: Pelosi might be able manage those robots with simply with a solid motherly glare, but I think we should let Malia and Sasha have a go too. The yungstas are usually the ones with the mad Wii and video game / time-setting skills. And we could put Obama in charge of stuffing a basketball down the pipe in a showy SlamDunk Kill.

  80. 80
    maye says:

    @scav: but placing them into instant uncooperative mode would not be helpful — and for what exactly?

  81. 81
    stuckinred says:

    @Belafon (formerly anonevent): As opposed to some other kind of history?

  82. 82
    stuckinred says:

    @maye: To give the wingnuts “socialism” ammo.

  83. 83
    SiubhanDuinne says:

    @scav #42: That post (1) made a certain amount of sense, and (2) made me laugh. The ToP of the BoP, love it! You, sir (or madam?), are a RaP artist.

  84. 84
    Brandon says:

    @Just Some Fuckhead: I don’t hate Reich, I just wonder why he is relevant.

  85. 85
    Belafon (formerly anonevent) says:

    @stuckinred: Yeah, that was redundant. Been watching too much Doctor Who.

  86. 86
  87. 87
    Ailuridae says:

    @That’s Master of Accountancy to You, Pal (JMN):

    I have no idea where the idea originated but the ability of the Federal Reserve to take its initial actions into AIG without either legislative or executive branch say so is enumerated in 13(3) of the Federal Reserve Act. I’m talking about the creation of the initial credit facility which started the bailout bail rolling (and once started there was really no ability to stop it).

    In the case of a situation with an oil company or other private non-quasi banking sector firm I have yet to have anyone even attempt to explain how the US government can take a private company into receivership that is not even near bankruptcy.

  88. 88
    gwangung says:

    @Xenos: Meh, we’re just quibbling on how to make the bastards pay. No entertainment value…unless we’re thinking of how badly while still being legal.

  89. 89
    Martin says:

    Ad for Israel tourism just came on. No assurance they won’t do a nighttime assault on Carnival cruise ships approaching the coast. Can you lynch a commando with a shuffleboard stick?

  90. 90
    stuckinred says:

    @Martin: The somali pirates attacked a US Frigate in a motor boat and 2 AK’s!

  91. 91
    Belafon (formerly anonevent) says:

    @stuckinred: That’s why I rarely pick on other people (though I will make an exception for everyone at the Weekly Standard): I made this great statement about Truman vs. the Supreme court, and then I make a statement like “prior history.”

    The flub did give me another chance to say Doctor Who – new episode on Saturday – so that was ok.

  92. 92
    Bob Loblaw says:

    @John Cole:
    You chum up the waters, you get the frenzy. Stop posting this “solidarity, solidarity!” bullshit all the time and you’ll attract fewer partisans (from both sides).

    Now Robert Reich is just a huge dickwad who’s never contributed anything of value to American society, as well as an academic fraud who’s never been right about anything ever. I’m guessing the people the Labor Dept. regulations helped under Clinton (in between Reagan and Bush’s individual takes on the topic, mind) are just confused or something. Plus, something, something, Glenn Greenwald. Also, too.

  93. 93
    Martin says:

    @stuckinred: Good point. Too risky. I’m vacationing in Libya instead.

  94. 94
    scav says:

    @maye: I explicitly didn’t address the legality or practicality of whether we should or shouldn’t put BP into receivership. I was merely commenting on the fact that there are other people and companies with those skills, so that specific line of “defense” against legal actions won’t hunt.

  95. 95
    stuckinred says:

    : Thank you mrs palin

  96. 96
    Just Some Fuckhead says:

    @Martin: You should be fine as long as you don’t take the Humanitarians and Aid Workers Cruise.

  97. 97
    Xenos says:

    @gwangung: I just want to get the debate going in Congress, so that we can see how many representatives and Senators are complete sellouts. I am sure they would find a way to spike it in committee, and it would not be a good thing for the country, my blood pressure, or my mental health.

    All three are probably too far gone to be tampering with at this point.

  98. 98
    Ailuridae says:

    @Bob Loblaw:

    I want to make sure I understand this. Robert Reich asserted that the President do something he plainly doesn’t have authority to do and because Cole and his readers find that appallingly dishonest they are the problem?

    To put this in economic perspective a whole lot of right-leaning economists during the stimulus debate argued for a monetary instead of fiscal stimulus apparently unaware that FFR was already at zero and couldn’t be lowered any more than that. They were dutifully mocked, as they should be.

    So when Robert Reich gets it plainly wrong and a new firebagger meme starts spreading throughout the left its all good because he is one of “us”?

    FWIW, I think the US would be very well advised to nationalize its energy sector. I doubt I will see a Congress in my lifetime that has the courage to do it though.

  99. 99
    The Dangerman says:

    @freelancer:

    Brilliant fucking cartoon.

    Also, for the poster early on that said he/she wasn’t feeding Tunch, isn’t that the fasttrack to becoming Tunch food?

  100. 100
    Triassic Sands says:

    Just shoot me.

    Shoot yourself.

    Jeebus, how lazy can you get?

  101. 101
    maye says:

    @scav: I’d wager no one has more incentive to bring this sorry disaster to a close than the higher-ups at BP. Steven Chu is a smart guy, but starting from scratch at this point seems like a bad idea.

  102. 102
    mr. whipple says:

    Hey, we killed Al-Qaeda #3. (again)

    Al-Qaeda #3 is like the drummer for Spinal Tap.

  103. 103
    scav says:

    @maye: grand, but it’s still not the point I made.

  104. 104
    Jay B. says:

    @slag:

    Right. I was told, right here on this very blog, that I was a “civil libertarian absolutist” by an apologist for why it was OK for this to continue. And given the ample amount of Greenwald hate — I can only conclude after your heartfelt upsetness, must happen only because he writes long boring things on Brazilian culture and not because he’s critical of any kind of double-standards or anything.

    Not to mention that an Obot on this very thread whined about the “Rule of Law” to hurl against an admittedly far-fetched idea as if that really had any standing. It doesn’t. It’s a fiction.

    We use it when we want to feel superior. Not because we really believe in it.

  105. 105
    stuckinred says:

    @Jay B.: who’s this we you are talkin bout?

  106. 106
    dnelson says:

    Just some random thoughts, mainly a lurker, c matthews has a mail slot for a mouth, drop the letter in and he spews his nonsense. Obama has not put on his eco sandals, his robe, grown a white beard and shook his mighty cane forsaking the heavens, and having manna rain down from the heavens, and when that happens, the bread will absorb the oil, the president can wear the bread shoes, and the seas will part and there will be an upside down tornado that will create a new universe of oil and bread. Let the new reality start. Another random thought, everything I buy, on line, chases me on this blog. Is that normal. Everyone in DC has to retire by the time they are 65 or 70, no more old people, times are changing people. No more old folks. Enough already. Loved the dog dancing for food. Way too cute.

  107. 107
    Kelly says:

    Is there any way I can filter this blog for only posts by DougJ and mistermix, or can they just start their own, more interesting blog

  108. 108
    Steeplejack says:

    @Kelly:

    Nothing stopping you from reading only their posts. But petulant dissatisfaction noted.

  109. 109
    Bob says:

    Apparently Olbermann doesn’t consider the flotilla incident worthy of making his countdown.
    Fucking liberal media.

  110. 110
    JL says:

    Cole: Consider that a fair percentage of the president’s port side critics are chicken-hearted, and will flock to the polls in a close presidential election.

    Then think Gray Davis.

    Consider that a healthy-enough percentage of such criticism deals with pure political perception.

    And then ask yourself: why is a corporation suspected of criminal malfeasance still anywhere near the drivers seat?

  111. 111
    scav says:

    @Kelly:
    Thankfully not.

    But petulant dissatisfaction noted.

    and pointedly ignored.

  112. 112
    Neutron Flux says:

    @Kelly: I don’t know about filtering, but I am sure you can have some pie.

  113. 113
    gopher2b says:

    @Just Some Fuckhead:

    The answer you are looking for is no.

  114. 114
    Nellcote says:

    Congress can’t even lift the 75M liability cap! Maybe Reich thinks the Feds will only be liable for 75M max if they nationalize BP.

    Support for deep water drilling still gets the majority in polling. How many people in the gulf crying about this mess still support drilling?

    After fighting drilling off the CA coast for DECADES I can’t help but think What in the hell did you expect? and a big fat Told ya so. Not helpful I know but I’m disgusted with the ongoing stupidity.

  115. 115
    Allison W. says:

    THE DAILY SHOW IS ON!!!!

  116. 116
    Bob Loblaw says:

    And Allison W will be sure to call Jon Stewart a splitter come tomorrow’s post!

  117. 117
    Allison W. says:

    @Bob Loblaw:

    I have no idea what a splitter is. Please speak normal.

  118. 118
    Nick says:

    @Just Some Fuckhead: No, just it’s American assets, which would be akin to a “bailout”

    So let’s bailout BP, what could possibly go wrong with that idea?

  119. 119
    Nick says:

    @Just Some Fuckhead: No, just it’s American assets, which would be akin to a “bailout”

    So let’s bailout BP, what could possibly go wrong with that idea?

  120. 120
    Nellcote says:

    @Nick:

    So let’s bailout BP, what could possibly go wrong with that idea?

    Exactly!

  121. 121
    trollhattan says:

    At present (10:27 Central time) the diamond saw is cutting through the riser pipe. They’re basically doubling down on this scheme, since they’re going to get unrestricted flow from the well once the folded riser pipe is gone. Here’s hoping THIS one works.

    Again, amazing video–saw debris mixed with crude and gas, all a mile below the surface.

    http://www.bp.com/liveassets/b.....tream.html

  122. 122
    ricky says:

    How many teachable moments of possible nationalization
    must pass before we make Kools out of Kool Aid?

  123. 123
  124. 124
    Michael says:

    Involuntary BK. That may be an answer.

  125. 125
    Yutsano says:

    @The Dangerman: It’s not that I don’t have much love for the adorable furball. It’s just that I don’t have the financial means to keep him in the amounts of tuna to which he has become accustomed. I am thinking of both our needs in this instance.

  126. 126
    Joe Buck says:

    BP’s assets might well wind up being less than their liabilities. The Clean Water Act alone could generate billions of dollars in fines.

    If BP is found criminally liable, then the cap on torts goes away, and every fisherman, every resort owner, every business based on Gulf Coast tourism, can go after BP and take everything.

    BP’s going to be an ex-company. Maybe they can try to split themselves, to try to salvage some non-US operations.

  127. 127
    MBSS says:

    sometimes i feel bad for you, cole.

    but the sunday night +3 screed was impassioned and praiseworthy, if not entirely my cup of texas tea.

    kudos.

  128. 128
    The Raven says:

    Reich answered your question, you know: he quotes a petroleum engineer to the effect of what the government could do. This is an answer to the question you asked, John, take it and run with it.

    The latest in the AIG story is that, apparently, there are to be no prosecutions.

    Ah! Food for corvids. Mind the oil!

  129. 129
    WereBear says:

    @Allison W.: That will be the pillow of this coming Christmas!

  130. 130
    rickstersherpa says:

    I was home from work yesterday. Boy am I am glad I am back at work as nothing was dumber than watch Morning Joe and some other cable news shows. They were quoting the Irish dumb twins of American politics, Maureen Dowd and Peggy Noonan, and essentially blaming the administration because BP screwed the pooch and engaging in endless psychoanyalzation for which neither have a degree or an inch of competence. It seems that everyone on these shows has become “Cliff Clavin” and that as Bob Somerby notes on the Daily Howler, dumbness now rules the world ( (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cliff_Clavin)

    Which is probably why Sarah Palin will be perfect as our next President.

  131. 131
    kay says:

    @rickstersherpa:

    Morning Joe is appalling.
    The disgraced former House member, his sidekick, a woman who has desperately adopted this ridiculous persona, “subservient useful idiot” to make a buck, and the former newspaper columnist who steals other people’s work.
    The guests are always selling something: a book, a consulting firm, a magazine, a website.
    Millionaire media personalities who pontificate on the common man, while marketing their own products.
    They’re soulless ghouls. All that forced hilarity just depresses the hell out me.

  132. 132
    kay says:

    @rickstersherpa:

    I can respect celebrity interviews, in the entertainment field. It’s a straight-forward deal. The viewer gets to see the celebrity, the celebrity gets to push product.
    The Morning Joe people don’t reveal that, although every single one of them is selling a product. Slick self-marketing is presented as “news” or “commentary”.
    I object to how stupid they assume we are.
    Pop singers and celebrity athletes have more respect for their audience.

  133. 133
    Joy says:

    Olbermann’s righteous self-indignation is getting a little old. I appreciate passion, but floating a conspiracy theory last night was plain nuts. Just imagine if we had President McCain right now. Of course, he could use Vice-President Mama Grizzly to come up with a plan, since he was touting her oil experience creds during the campaign. I wonder how that would be working out for us? She has been amazingly silent all this time. I realize this is politics for some people, but the people on the coast are feeling the pain. Does anyone really think that the Obama Administration doesn’t have the best and brightest working on this?

  134. 134
    aretino says:

    while the entire wingnut Wurlitzer makes comparisons to Chavez and nationalization of oil industries

    Not that poses any obstacle to our deranged media elite, but Veneuela already had a nationalized oil industry for decades before Chavez arrived. Chavez just extracted it from the grip of the insiders who had been happily skimming off its wealth before he got there.

  135. 135
    burnspbesq says:

    @JL:

    “And then ask yourself: why is a corporation suspected of criminal malfeasance still anywhere near the drivers seat?”

    because “suspected” is not the same as “convicted,” yanno.

  136. 136
    les says:

    @Xenos:

    If ex post facto isn’t enough, Bill of Attainder anyone? This is a person you’re talking about here.

  137. 137
    Mouse Tolliver says:

    @burnspbesq:

    because “suspected” is not the same as “convicted,” yanno.

    You do realize BP’s been convicted for committing environmental crimes in Texas and Alaska. It’s still on probation for two of those disasters.

  138. 138
    johnny walker says:

    Oh boy, and here we are with another fine BJ thread re: “don’t do that, it’ll support Republican frames!” What about for once having some guts and realizing that it’s possible to push back against this rather than simply curling up and dying at the ‘inevitable’ triumph of conservative spin? Oh no the Republicans are going to say mean things! How many times do we have to learn that they’re going to do that anyway no matter what? Have we not noticed that one of the reasons “liberal” has become a dirty word is that we have such a tendency to shrink away from standing up for what we claim to believe is right? Every time we pre-cave it just makes the whole “liberals know their policies are unpopular, that’s why they always try to slip them through unseen rather than standing up for them” argument. How’s that for reinforcing Republican frames?

    I mean is it really such a crazy idea to debate this idea on the merits of whether or not it’s good and valid and — if we conclude it’s good policy — to debate how to overcome the conservative spin? Stop being such a wuss, Cole.

Comments are closed.