Football bat? I'm not the biggest sports fan but I'm not sure such a thing exists.

*controversy

Adding video to channels (Controversy) - requested by MrFisk.

I can see where Carville is coming from, I really can. And if I were a Gulf Coast resident, right now I might feel the same way.

However, exactly how much should the President be doing about the oil spill? Should he be holding press conferences every day, saying, "I'm gonna get those motherfuckers!"? He's basically already done that, just without saying "motherfucker." Should he set up house in Louisiana and move his entire staff down there with him and stay until it's all cleaned up? I know those are both extreme examples, but I'm trying to make a point, which is the same one Fareed made: He can't spend so much time on just one major issue.

The last I heard, the U.S. is still at war in two countries, our economy is still shaky and 9.5% of our labor force is still out of work, Iran might be trying to make nuclear weapons, immigration is in desperate need of overhaul, and the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is perpetually at risk of getting much worse, among other major issues. Should he give less attention to all of those issues just to appear to be doing more about the oil spill?

Fareed's just asking us to be more sensible about this, while Carville is just making emotional appeals. Do you want the president to be sensible, or just emotional? That's what you have to ask yourself.

He's the President of the United States, not just the Gulf Coast.

Carville's a blowhard. Never passes up a chance to be a self-righteous jerk.

^I don't care for him either, but I tried to keep that out of my equation.
And "jerk" is being too nice, really. I expect better from you.

I think that Zakaria was trying to make the point that the media was more concerned about what the president appeared to be doing about the oil spill, and about how he appeared to feel about it, but maybe I'm wrong.

However, I pretty much agree with Carville on this one, and I can't claim to be a fan of his.

If we couldn't do more about the spill, I think that more could have been done to protect the shores, at the very least.

I hate to say it, because it gives the cons on the web very tight pants and palpitating heart rates, but Obama has not taken this seriously enough.

This thing has the potential to haunt us for generations, not just a few months.

This thing can create dead zones the size of a floating state of Texas in not only the gulf, but in the Atlantic as well.

This is a greater threat to our country and its welfare than 9/11.

>> ^kronosposeidon:

our economy is still shaky and 9.5% of our labor force is still out of work

You don't think that this oil spill is an immediate risk for a significant proportion of our economy?

Maybe it's time we let the world deal with the world.

He's the president of the US, not the president of the Middle East.

Yes, it does impact our economy. I'm not trying to play down the seriousness of the issue. However our economy wasn't in good shape before the spill, and even if everything were cleaned up by tomorrow our economy would still be shaky, and we'd still have tons of people unemployed.

I also think that we should withdraw our troops from Iraq and Afghanistan, but right now we're still there, and as long as our troops are still there then both wars are major issues facing the President - the Commander-In-Chief.

I also don't like our involvement with Israel, but if Israel escalates their aggression towards their neighbors, it would be naive to think that we wouldn't get involved. Israel bombed Iraq when they thought Iraq might be developing nuclear weapons. It's easily conceivable that they might do the same to Iran, and don't think the U.S. or other countries wouldn't get sucked into that.

As far as other important domestic issues are concerned, both sides of the aisle agree that immigration policy needs reform. We still have major trade deficits, and our national deficit is also ballooning. Millions of Americans are living in poverty, many of them homeless. Our public education system desperately needs fixing, though there are major disagreements about how to do it. College costs continue to spiral, making higher education less accessible to lower and middle class Americans. An undereducated nation could be a big problem down the road, couldn't it?

As I said, there are a host of major issues on the President's desk, both foreign and domestic. I can't see how he can focus like a laser beam on just one major issue without letting others slip through the cracks.

I want the Gulf cleaned up just as bad as anyone else. But I don't want the President to jump through all these hoops just for the sake of appearances. And I don't want a single issue to become the sole issue. We've seen it happen before with the healthcare issue dominating the political landscape to the virtual exclusion of almost all other issues. I don't want that to happen again.>> ^bmacs27:

>> ^kronosposeidon:
our economy is still shaky and 9.5% of our labor force is still out of work
You don't think that this oil spill is an immediate risk for a significant proportion of our economy?
Maybe it's time we let the world deal with the world.
He's the president of the US, not the president of the Middle East.

Maybe I don't understand the whole situation... but what more can the federal government do at this point to help with the spill? Should they send troops to the shores to shout "INCOMING" and shoot at the blobs of oil?

The impression I get is the Gulf States governments are incapable of doing anything more than asking the Federal Government to help. Do these States not have any resources or capabilities of their own... are they in need of something? I never hear specifics of what the Fed can provide, just that they want the President to act emotionally and have his entire focus on the issue in the Gulf.

This is totally stupid. Carville says in the first twenty seconds that Zakaria was being critical of the administration. He was not. He was being critical of citizens and the media. Period.

Anything said in the video beyond that first twenty seconds might as well be fart noises.

>> ^HugeJerk:
Maybe I don't understand the whole situation... but what more can the federal government do at this point to help with the spill? Should they send troops to the shores to shout "INCOMING" and shoot at the blobs of oil?
The impression I get is the Gulf States governments are incapable of doing anything more than asking the Federal Government to help. Do these States not have any resources or capabilities of their own... are they in need of something? I never hear specifics of what the Fed can provide, just that they want the President to act emotionally and have his entire focus on the issue in the Gulf.


How can the federal government do more? Let me count the Ocean Waves...

Well, for one, they can start using the agencies that regulate safety to actually, um, enforce those regulations to their fullest. If those regs are inadequate, then make new ones. But for Christ's sake, don't make new agencies! Use the ones we have!!! We have 30 billion regulatory entities that do nothing but sit on their own fingers and rotate...

Oh, and the states themselves? Haha... Wait? You were serious? Sorry, anyways, no, the states suck. Look at Katrina...

Something else the Federal Government can do--when help is offered, don't have red tape that prevents that help from arriving. I am not sure if the countries that made offers to help were doing so out of pro-bono expectations, or, sans that, reasonable expectations, however, that isn't the point. Let the public know why you turned down much needed help...

Next, don't apologize to BP for "having" to make a fund helping those that are affected by the horror of Oil-Cane BPer...

Hrm, what else? Actually have a surplus of money instead of debt out the ass...this way you can actually afford to do something about catastrophes...

But like you, I can't think of anything the Federal Government can do... Beats me...

>> ^kronosposeidon:
I can see where Carville is coming from, I really can. And if I were a Gulf Coast resident, right now I might feel the same way.
However, exactly how much should the President be doing about the oil spill? Should he be holding press conferences every day, saying, "I'm gonna get those motherfuckers!"? He's basically already done that, just without saying "motherfucker." Should he set up house in Louisiana and move his entire staff down there with him and stay until it's all cleaned up? I know those are both extreme examples, but I'm trying to make a point, which is the same one Fareed made: He can't spend so much time on just one major issue.
The last I heard, the U.S. is still at war in two countries, our economy is still shaky and 9.5% of our labor force is still out of work, Iran might be trying to make nuclear weapons, immigration is in desperate need of overhaul, and the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is perpetually at risk of getting much worse, among other major issues. Should he give less attention to all of those issues just to appear to be doing more about the oil spill?
Fareed's just asking us to be more sensible about this, while Carville is just making emotional appeals. Do you want the president to be sensible, or just emotional? That's what you have to ask yourself.
He's the President of the United States, not just the Gulf Coast.


Well, four or five states have a catastrophe they cannot recover from for years on end, and that is a mighty blow to the United States as a whole. I know you understand this, and I think you make great points. However, living on the Gulf, I can say this--anything Obama or the states do that do help us is a weakness to the entire country. Imagine another calamity somewhere else... Or imagine an invading force (I know, it could never happen...unlike Rome or England...) What would we do? Chickens head cut off? Probably...

The above scenarios are far-fetched, I know. However, they illustrate the point. 9/11 was our best response to a national emergency, but that was one day of pain and hell.

Now, as to two wars and the economy... Was Fareed saying we should handle stuff like that or go to other countries like Indo? And are those other countries directly related to solving our biggest woes?

All and all, well done. I respect your points more than most people's here on the sift. Very balanced.

"Well, for one, they can start using the agencies that regulate safety to actually, um, enforce those regulations to their fullest. If those regs are inadequate, then make new ones. But for Christ's sake, don't make new agencies! Use the ones we have!!! We have 30 billion regulatory entities that do nothing but sit on their own fingers and rotate..."

Regulating Agencies can't do anything to fix the situation now sadly... the non-enforcement or rather the lack of meaningful penalties is something that definitely needs addressed in several industries (Coal Mining has also shown their lack of adherence to safety requirements because the penalties are marginal). Breaking apart the agency to form two so they separate the enforcement from the collections will likely not fix the issue of people being corruptable and willing to look the other way.

"Something else the Federal Government can do--when help is offered, don't have red tape that prevents that help from arriving. I am not sure if the countries that made offers to help were doing so out of pro-bono expectations, or, sans that, reasonable expectations, however, that isn't the point. Let the public know why you turned down much needed help... "

From what I heard recently there are 12 countries actively assisting in the Gulf, 20 had offered to help and I agree that it's lame that we don't know why the other 8 weren't accepted. If their assistance means a quicker recovery, then they should be taken up on their offers.

"Next, don't apologize to BP for "having" to make a fund helping those that are affected by the horror of Oil-Cane BPer..."

I don't recall the actual Federal Government giving an apology to BP, just a politician or two who have contribution ties to the oil industry. If I'm wrong here, please correct me.

"Hrm, what else? Actually have a surplus of money instead of debt out the ass...this way you can actually afford to do something about catastrophes"

Unless we're going to shove dollar bills into the well to plug it, a surplus of Federal Funds isn't going to fix the spill at this point. The economic situation and the circumstances that lead to it, including two wars, are certainly things that the President needs to be working on.

I answer the entire controversy with this awesome cartoon:

http://comics.com/matt_bors/2010-05-24/

This is what liberals, and perhaps the media wanted.

Mostly though, I'm in the camp that says "I can't think of anything he can do to help with the spill that he hasn't already done and not been given credit for".

I'm also at least partially in the camp that says he should be grandstanding and demagoguing this incident until there's a national consensus that we really do need to get serious about all the issues this touches on, including a) the environmental impacts of using oil, b) the need to have effective and strong government regulation of business, c) re-establishing the rule of law and the general sense that no one, not even the mega-rich, are above the law, and d) that getting off oil is a big job -- which is to say that doing so would employ a lot of people, and we happen to have more than a few people who desperately need jobs right now.

But strictly speaking, that's not "doing more about the spill", that's maximizing the political value of a crisis that validates essentially everything about the liberal outlook on, well, just about everything...

*nochannel
*news
*politics
*eco
*controversy
*wtf

This video has been removed from all channels (Wtf, Worldaffairs, Sports, Comedy, News, Eco, Controversy, Blues) due to invalid channel assignment - nochannel invoked by NetRunner. Please review the FAQ to learn about appropriate channel assignments.

Adding video to channels (Controversy, Eco, News, Politics, Wtf) - requested by NetRunner.

>> ^HugeJerk:
"Well, for one, they can start using the agencies that regulate safety to actually, um, enforce those regulations to their fullest. If those regs are inadequate, then make new ones. But for Christ's sake, don't make new agencies! Use the ones we have!!! We have 30 billion regulatory entities that do nothing but sit on their own fingers and rotate..."
Regulating Agencies can't do anything to fix the situation now sadly... the non-enforcement or rather the lack of meaningful penalties is something that definitely needs addressed in several industries (Coal Mining has also shown their lack of adherence to safety requirements because the penalties are marginal). Breaking apart the agency to form two so they separate the enforcement from the collections will likely not fix the issue of people being corruptable and willing to look the other way.
"Something else the Federal Government can do--when help is offered, don't have red tape that prevents that help from arriving. I am not sure if the countries that made offers to help were doing so out of pro-bono expectations, or, sans that, reasonable expectations, however, that isn't the point. Let the public know why you turned down much needed help... "
From what I heard recently there are 12 countries actively assisting in the Gulf, 20 had offered to help and I agree that it's lame that we don't know why the other 8 weren't accepted. If their assistance means a quicker recovery, then they should be taken up on their offers.
"Next, don't apologize to BP for "having" to make a fund helping those that are affected by the horror of Oil-Cane BPer..."
I don't recall the actual Federal Government giving an apology to BP, just a politician or two who have contribution ties to the oil industry. If I'm wrong here, please correct me.
"Hrm, what else? Actually have a surplus of money instead of debt out the ass...this way you can actually afford to do something about catastrophes"
Unless we're going to shove dollar bills into the well to plug it, a surplus of Federal Funds isn't going to fix the spill at this point. The economic situation and the circumstances that lead to it, including two wars, are certainly things that the President needs to be working on.


First point--yes, regulating won't fix anything already messed up. But preventing future failures is more important... This would help if there was a BP2—so, in essence, if we would have started regulating, oh, before BP1, then it would have fixed the problem.

Point 2, glad we agree-ish.

Point 3, the federal government as a whole never answers something completely. However, we can generalize to a certain point in regards to certain things. Americans hate gay marriage. It is sad, but there are a lot, most in fact, of Americans who are intolerant. Does that mean we all are? No… but, what do we all do to curb this behavior? Do we truly try to change beliefs, or do we score cheap political points. Most are in for the points...

Slowly the views are dying off. However, those in inaction are nearly as responsible as those actively causing the harm. A man walks by a traffic accident and does not call for help; he is nearly as bad as the hit-and-run driver because both know that that action will result in harm.

My point is many federally employed republicans have made their support known for BP and refused the "shakedown" of BP. No one raised much of a stink until one republican apologized directly to BP's man... In other words, it was fine until that one guy did it...

4th point, I was meaning that infrastructure should have already been our focus and should start to be our future focus. We squander on two wars, as you say, and have barely any skimmers or science to stop this problem. Invest, invest, invest. We agree here, I am sure. It is all just a matter of whose fault things are.