Palin says Barton position is not mainstream to the GOP

[Dr. Keith]

The real victim is the rule of law; in other words, all of society. If a president can ignore the law to shake down a company, regardless of how unpopular that company is or how stupid the law he ignores happens to be, it weakens the rule of law.

I've been out of the loop on a lot of this so I have a bit of a question:

How did Obama force them into this shakedown?

In other words, what leverage did he use if they were only liable for $75 million in damages?

I ask because if he just asked them to do it and they did, that's not detrimental to the rule of law. That's a smart businessman weighing the impact on his company of different decisions. But if he threatened them with unconstitutional actions of some sort, that could be a problem.

 

[rwguinn]

I've been out of the loop on a lot of this so I have a bit of a question:

How did Obama force them into this shakedown?

In other words, what leverage did he use if they were only liable for $75 million in damages?

I ask because if he just asked them to do it and they did, that's not detrimental to the rule of law. That's a smart businessman weighing the impact on his company of different decisions. But if he threatened them with unconstitutional actions of some sort, that could be a problem.

Not sure.
They publicly stated that they would bear the cost of fixing the problem, I.e., cleanup, but I read an article last week where they were balking (big time) at having to pay for the loss of economy-essentially lost jobs/livelihood and similar economic impacts due to the spill. will see if I can find it.

Her's a little bit of it:
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6573FD20100612
more
http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2010/0...ds-mixed-messages-on-economic-dama-91434.html

 

[MikeMangum]

Yup, it comes in the handbook right after the section on kicking little old ladies down the stairs and eating live babies.

Actually, Rules for Radicals doesn't mention kicking old ladies or eating babies, at least not specifically, but it DOES say that the end justifies the means. That's certainly not the entirety of the left, but for the far left, is it indeed part of the catechism.

Ever heard the phrase "can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs"?

The only people that I've read or heard say that phrase (or anything similar) without irony, and as justification, are Walter Duranty and Robespierre.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Actually, yes, it is a "past" event, at least in terms of liability. BP's actions that give it legal liability happened on or before April 20, 2010. The fact that the consequences continue to accrue does not change that fact.

Since BP has failed to stop the underwater spill, it's my opinion that it's still a current and ongoing event. The fact that it's still happening means that it's a present event.

 

[MikeMangum]

I've been out of the loop on a lot of this so I have a bit of a question:

How did Obama force them into this shakedown?

In other words, what leverage did he use if they were only liable for $75 million in damages?

I ask because if he just asked them to do it and they did, that's not detrimental to the rule of law. That's a smart businessman weighing the impact on his company of different decisions. But if he threatened them with unconstitutional actions of some sort, that could be a problem.

BP was called into the White House and kept there in 4 hour long talks. What do you think? The fund is not going to be handled by the judiciary, it is NOT limited to those with actual, direct economic damages caused by BP, and BP agreed to pay $20 billion into this fund even though the agreement explicitly does not cap damages.

Keep in mind that Congress has been mooting about legislation to force BP to pay essentially all the unemployment benefits of Louisiana, amongst other things. Do you really think that when a situation of this sort is being addressed by the political branches of government, as opposed to the judiciary, that there is no coercion involved? There was at least one state government (Alabama) that was going to bill BP for lost sales tax revenue.

BP, Under Pressure, Woos Congress

BP PLC Chief Executive Tony Hayward met with lawmakers on Capitol Hill Tuesday, advancing the oil giant's campaign to avoid the sort of political backlash that has engulfed companies such as Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and Toyota Motor Corp.

...

Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said Sunday the administration planned to keep "keep the boot on the throat" of BP—a phrase that has since become part of a Democratic fund-raising appeal.

BP shares slump as US presses oil firm to pay laid off workers

The political and financial pressure on BP escalated sharply yesterday as the US government demanded compensation for thousands of oil industry workers laid off as a result of a freeze on drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. The demand sent the company's shares plummeting on Wall Street amid worries over long-term survival prospects.

...

As many as 15 Congressional committees are investigating the oil spill and at one of many hearings yesterday, the US interior secretary, Ken Salazar, said he would ask BP to repay the salaries of workers laid off by the moratorium on drilling.

BP Slumps to 20-Month Low as Obama, Congress Raise Pressure Over Oil Spill

Obama said he has made three trips to the Gulf to find out who to hold responsible, “so I know whose ass to kick.” Lawmakers led by Representative Peter Welch wrote to Hayward urging him to stop paying dividends and cancel an advertising campaign in the U.S. until the cleanup is completed.

“They’re getting a lot of flak from politicians, and that’s raising concerns about the dividend,” said Peter Hitchens, an analyst at Panmure Gordon & Co. in London.

Congressional leaders increase pressure on BP to compensate victims

WASHINGTON -- Congressional leaders stepped up pressure on oil giant BP to fully compensate economic victims of the Gulf spill as President Barack Obama offered condolences Thursday to the relatives of the 11 rig workers killed in the April 20 explosion.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said "every taxpayer in America must know that BP will be held accountable for what is owed." She spoke at the White House after Obama met with congressional leaders of both parties.

...

After meeting with the lawmakers, Obama said the existing law governing oil spills was passed "when people didn't envision drilling four miles under the sea for oil." [so I guess that means it can safely be ignored]

...

Obama met Monday with Cabinet officials involved in the oil spill response and reiterated his earlier warning to the British oil company to not be "nickel-and-diming" business owners who are losing income because of the spill.

 

[MattusMaximus]

Actually, Rules for Radicals doesn't mention kicking old ladies or eating babies, at least not specifically, but it DOES say that the end justifies the means. That's certainly not the entirety of the left, but for the far left, is it indeed part of the catechism.

It's interesting that you mention RfR, seeing as how many on the right have been using those tactics for the last year or so.

 

[Cleon]

It's interesting that you mention RfR, seeing as how many on the right have been using those tactics for the last year or so.

What's with this sudden hard-on conservatives have for Alinsky? I never even heard of the guy until he became this bizarre "Get Out of an Argument Free" card. "Hah hah! That's right out of Alinsky's handbook!"

As if most people have even read Alinsky's book--including the people who keep yammering on about it.

I'm willing to bet this can probably be tracked down to some revelation made by Limbaugh, Beck, or one of those other characters.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Stewart sums it all up here:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-june-21-2010/daily-show--15080-pt--1

 

[elbe]

What's with this sudden hard-on conservatives have for Alinsky? I never even heard of the guy until he became this bizarre "Get Out of an Argument Free" card. "Hah hah! That's right out of Alinsky's handbook!"

As if most people have even read Alinsky's book--including the people who keep yammering on about it.

I'm willing to bet this can probably be tracked down to some revelation made by Limbaugh, Beck, or one of those other characters.

I know the first time I ever heard of Alinsky was from Cicero, so I looked him up and, oddly enough, decided it was too stupid to care a whit about. Apparently I'm not left wing enough.

 

[hgc]

??

Who decides what conservatism is if not a majority of people who self-identify as conservatives?

I'm not trying to define conservatism, except to say that it's a political ideology of some sort. What I meant about the listeners of that radio program who participated in the poll is not that their position isn't conservative, per se, but that it's not the result of reasoning through on ideological grounds.

 

[Lurker]

What's with this sudden hard-on conservatives have for Alinsky? I never even heard of the guy until he became this bizarre "Get Out of an Argument Free" card. "Hah hah! That's right out of Alinsky's handbook!"

As if most people have even read Alinsky's book--including the people who keep yammering on about it.

I'm willing to bet this can probably be tracked down to some revelation made by Limbaugh, Beck, or one of those other characters.

+1. I had never heard of Alinsky and still have not read anything by him. Conservatives use it to marginalize arguments.

 

[MattusMaximus]

I know the first time I ever heard of Alinsky was from Cicero, so I looked him up and, oddly enough, decided it was too stupid to care a whit about. Apparently I'm not left wing enough.

Ha ha, ditto. I hadn't even heard of Alinsky until the stupid Tea Party townhall crap last summer (which failed miserably in it's attempt to kill HCR) where they started talking about using the RfR tactics. Now here we have a conservative on this thread whining about how liberals are pulling that crap. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black

 

[Dr. Keith]

BP was called into the White House and kept there in 4 hour long talks. What do you think?

That 4 hours was not long enough for me to explain a very complex issue to my client last week and we are having a conference call on it later today. I somehow think that the perpetrators of the largest oil spill in our waters should be prepared to talk for at least 4 hours in the White House.

Am I supposed to assume that Cheney left a water board set up in there somewhere?

It is BP's choice to either ignore the president and take their chances in our legal system or agree to the fund. I can see rational arguments either way, but I still don't see unconstitutional assertion of power.

The fund is not going to be handled by the judiciary,

I thought the details were still be worked out.

The courts have no jurisdiction until BP or the victims ask the courts to intervene via a proper pleading. The judiciary is not at the President's beck and call.

it is NOT limited to those with actual, direct economic damages caused by BP,

Nor would any lawsuit be so limited.

and BP agreed to pay $20 billion into this fund even though the agreement explicitly does not cap damages.

Nor would any one lawsuit. They may have seen that as a great way to stop the free-fall of their stock price. It does seem to have bottomed out a bit.

Keep in mind that Congress has been mooting about legislation to force BP to pay essentially all the unemployment benefits of Louisiana, amongst other things.

I assume that "mooting about" does not mean "passing." Politicians say a lot of things to keep their jobs.

Do you really think that when a situation of this sort is being addressed by the political branches of government, as opposed to the judiciary, that there is no coercion involved?

Again, the judiciary is not self activating. A party needs to file a pleading to get in front of a judge. Absent that the judiciary has no power or authority.

I was unaware of the parts of the constitution that prevent the President from discussing possible solutions with parties that have severely damaged our country. If keeping someone in the White House to discuss these solutions for 4 hours is coercion, then that is a very low bar. so far, that is the only evidence you have presented, and doesn't seem "unconstitutional" to me.

There was at least one state government (Alabama) that was going to bill BP for lost sales tax revenue.

Alabama's state government is now controlled by Obama?

 

[thaiboxerken]

Where, in the Constitution, does it say that the government can't have an attorney general present at a meeting?

I find it interesting that the same people who defend water-boarding and other forms of torture are complaining about some supposed pressure from having a lawyer present at negotiation talks.

 

[BenBurch]

Hangonaminit...

Sarah Palin is the arbiter of what is mainstream Republican thought?

Sarah Palin? The "I read all newspapers" and being-close-to-Russia-counts-as-foreign-policy-experience Sarah Palin?

I...I need a drink. And a nap. I feel a little dizzy.

Two years from today, we will be talking about who her running-mate is going to be.

 

[Shalamar]

Two years from today, we will be talking about who her running-mate is going to be.

A moose?

 

[thaiboxerken]

Are there any Conservatives here that still think Barton's position is not the mainstream GOP position after this week?

 

[BenBurch]

A moose?

Alan Keyes. Very similar to a moose.

 

[Cleon]

Two years from today, we will be talking about who her running-mate is going to be.

I have to admit, there's an inner part of me that really wants to see a Palin/Bachmann ticket. I call this part of my brain the "Andy Kaufman Lobe."

 

[leftysergeant]

Alan Keyes. Very similar to a moose.

You insult all ruminants.

Obama gave BP a way out of being the first corporation ever to be placed under arrest for a felony. It was not in the interest of either those dependent on income from BP to stay alive throughj another winter or the government to put them into recievership.

For the time being, anyway. It would probably be best for both the GOP and BP if Barton just clamped his pie hole shut. There is more than probably cause to sieze all of BP's assets now. It were probably best, then, that the GOP not be seen as approving of BP's shenanigans.