Rahm Emanuel: Joe Barton's BP Apology Represents Difference Between Democrats And Republicans (VIDEO)

WASHINGTON - President Barack Obama's chief of staff is warning about what might happen if Republicans -- who have defended BP over the Gulf oil spill -- were to run Congress after the fall election.

Rahm Emanuel says the GOP philosophy is to paint BP as the victim, pointing to Rep. Joe Barton's apology to BP for what the congressman called a White House "shakedown."

"That's not a political gaffe, those are prepared remarks. That is a philosophy. That is an approach to what they see. They see the aggrieved party here as BP, not the fishermen," Emanuel said on ABC's "This Week."

Barton and Kentucky Republican Senate candidate Rand Paul, who recently called Obama's criticism of BP "un-American," are a reflection of the Republican party's governing philosophy, Emanuel said. "They think that the government's the problem."

It would be "dangerous" if the GOP held power in Washington, Emanuel said.

"I think what Joe Barton did was remind the American people, in case they forgot, how the Republicans would govern."

Emanuel says Obama will make clear to voters the fundamental differences in how each party would govern, focusing on energy policy, Wall Street reform and economic recovery.

WATCH:

Comments

[SoCalHotOne]

12:09 AM on 06/27/2010

Sure, Rahm. Big Difference.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2010/06/rahm-emanuel-bp-gul-oil-spill.html

Listen to what is really going on.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkYJDI8pK9Y

[Adam Rodriguez]

12:59 PM on 06/24/2010

I must disagree with you on that. The apology for BP because someone will actually (God forbid) make them help clean up their mess is deeply offensive and I believe that Rahm Emmanuel was right to attack it. I also believe that the escrow fund was the only viable course of action. Yes, the Democrats are more lenient on big business than you or I hoped they would be, but what would you suggest they do? The escrow account was not a fine nor was it really intended to punish BP. The idea was that this spill has done an incredible amount of damage to the Gulf Coast economy; these are all one- or two-industry towns centered on fishing/seafood and tourism. Half of these people are only beginning to pick up the pieces after Katrina; this is the second half of a devastating one-two punch to the region that will plunge them into deep poverty with no way out unless they are provided for? If the governement went in and tried to directly support these families the GOP would have a field day screaming about reckless spending and it would take years for any assistance to actually get through. Allowing BP to handle the claims process on its own means all they would do is lawyer up and it could easily be 10+ years before any money gets through. The families in the Gulf do not have that kind of time; they're already in deep financial trouble.

[Riley74]

08:19 PM on 06/22/2010

Reading the partisan hackery on this site makes me sick.

The difference between Republicans and Democrats: Republicans pat big business on the back while supporting them, while the democrats apologize for big business while supporting them.

Rahm Emanuel offers no hope, we all know that Obama's cabinet is as corrupt as they come. The reason the republicans make themselves look so bad is to give the illusion that there is really a conflict in congress. There isn't. Nobody represents you, why can the average huffpost blogger not conceive of this fact? At what point will you get that this system doesn't work and that neither camp of the corporate party will change anything for the better?

[RealRap]

10:10 PM on 06/22/2010

In my perception, the corporatism of someone like Obama is at least informed with a more reasonable and holistic worldview. The corporatism of Joe Barton plays like a rhetorical recording, it's unquestioned ideology supported and enforced by a rich spoils system.

There is a something to your pessimism though, as we live in a nation that is so vast that it is, perhaps inevitably, governed with a somewhat imperialist mindset. If we must be impersonally governed, at least let us vote out and undermine the social darwinists and raw egotists, and give our support to the more enlightened and compassionate.

[NOJACKPOTBABIES]

06:57 PM on 06/22/2010

Dead fish talking?

[RealRap]

04:08 PM on 06/22/2010

Rahm is right on, every time the Republicans play their hand it's a couple of jokers. I voted third party in 2008, and even though Obama has clear corporatist sympathies (with TARP bailouts, questionable health care reform) the reality is when people like Joe Barton speak they make a strong case for supporting the Democratic party.

[logic123]

01:18 PM on 06/22/2010

Republicans are being so obvious about their true agenda they don't even need Rahm to help spell it out.

Republicans don't want to pay taxes, they think the more a person or corporation makes the higher above the law and the 'little people' they are and they want to guard the border so there will be less brown people voting against them.

[Janetshusb]

02:13 PM on 06/22/2010

After 8 years of self righteous, misplaced patriotism, in your face, rabid captialism it's rather pleasant to rub it in a bit. Go ! Rahm !

[Roger DiPaolo]

12:01 PM on 06/22/2010

FLOWIN’ IN THE GULF

How many roads must a man drive down, before you call him a man?
How many seas must a pelican sail, before she can sleep in clean sand?
Yes and how many times must oil be spilled, before it is forever banned?

Refrain:

The answer my friend, is flowin’ in the gulf,
The answer is flowing in the gulf.

Yes and how many years can an oil rig exist, before it fails you and me?
Yes and how many years can some people exist, in a world of dying seas?
Yes and how many many times can you turn your head, and pretend that you just don’t see?

(Refrain)

Yes and how many times must a man look up, before he can see a clear sky?
Yes and how many ears must one man have, before he can hear seabirds cry?
Yes and how many deaths will take till he knows, that too many creatures have died?

(Refrain)

------
A free gift to the world, sing and spread widely.....
Credit for inspiration to Bob Dylan, and credit for the subject matter to Big Oil.

[Blue Pup in PHX]

12:42 PM on 06/22/2010

SWEET! fanned.

[rougebaisers]

04:42 AM on 06/22/2010

And what exactly is he and his corporately owned boss doing that much differently?

[Robert Cantor]

02:17 PM on 06/22/2010

oh .. i dunno, getting bp to commit 20$B to an escrow account?

[Outofnowhere]

12:04 AM on 06/22/2010

Love how Tapper's head snapped when Rahm said one administration had just the minerals extraction people in the room when developing policy, and the other had other interested parties like environmentalists. Shame how he had to bring out something the so-called probing reporter never would.

[FearNovember]

12:01 AM on 06/22/2010

Rahm. Leave. Go play with blago.

[Outofnowhere]

12:06 AM on 06/22/2010

You don't have to fear November. You'll get over it just like you did 2 years ago.

[thegreatdaveo]

12:17 AM on 06/22/2010

And 2 years before that.

[ThirdSection]

01:35 AM on 06/22/2010

I think FearNovember fears Rahm.

[tre 03]

11:37 PM on 06/21/2010

Actually...the GOP isn't defending BP as far as the oil spill goes. They are against the President going overboard on his response so as not to look like Bush with Katrina. Obama's first address to the nation about the oil spill was almost two months after it happened. And he has only started talking tough recently.

The facts are that there are already laws in place that are going to force BP to be responsible for this spill. They are required to pay for the cleanup and to pay people who have been effected. The GOP is against Obama standing behind those law that already exist and making it seem like his idea or that BP is only doing the cleanup and paying people because he said so.

BP screwed up. No one is defending them on that point. They are responsible for the cleanup. No one is defending that either. So I guess I don't really see what the problem is.

[bobbyO]

05:46 PM on 06/22/2010

Wrong "03" by saying you're sorry for the government "shake down" you are taking their side against the people of LA> and the rest of the Gulf.

[tre 03]

11:32 PM on 06/22/2010

I'm not really sure where you got your degree in logic, but you should consider returning it.

[RealRap]

10:15 PM on 06/22/2010

Actually the laws limit BP's liability in cleanups. You can find this all over the news as of now, as multiple people and groups are suggesting changing it. Additionally, the escrow fund offers a potential source of immediate financial support so these people do not go bankrupt while the crisis is ongoing.

[Rapier]

11:30 PM on 06/21/2010

See last two items at http://ofthisandthat.org/LettertoPresident.html

Quite informative.

[Rapier]

11:28 PM on 06/21/2010

Especially when records show your boss got more oil money than McCain ... and opened up off-shore drilling after ten years.

[MonaLisa65]

09:37 PM on 06/22/2010

BP already had plans to drill in the Gulf before Aug. '08.

[matteroftruth]

11:25 PM on 06/21/2010

Rahm Emanuel is only stating the obvious. The republicans always are the first in line when it comes to protect the Constitutional rights of their very powerful and very rich friends. However, when it comes to protecting the rights of the ones whom the Constitution was written for -- the poor, sick, old, oppressed, disenfranchised -- you would find them on the opposite side, you know, the name calling, harassing and oppressing line.

[rabidbadger]

11:43 PM on 06/21/2010

The Constitution was written for everyone, including the rich and powerful. Rights are not means tested. While I agree with your representation of the Republican party, vilifying the rich just for being rich is unfair and counterproductive. I think the administration's treatment of BP in response to the spill has been completely fair and appropriate, and I think politicians on both sides of the spectrum are doing this country a huge disservice by taking cheap political shots in a desire to appear more tough on BP.

[Irishman40]

10:41 PM on 06/21/2010

Joe Baron's point was this: We are supposed to be a ruled by laws, not ruled by one man (the President). There is existing law to cover the extraction of damages from one party that injures another. BP WILL pay. They WILL be hauled into court and made to make restitution and that will be on top of the $20B the President demanded from them. However, President has neither the right nor the authority to demand that an organization pony up money for damages caused. That is the COURT's job. It does not matter that in this particular case, BP is guilty as hell.


If the President isnt bound to follow the rules, why do even bother a constitution? Just declare him King and be done with it.

[j0em0mma]

10:42 PM on 06/21/2010

Can you explain how he forced them? What, specifically, did he do? There was going to be a criminal investigation anyway, there are whistle-blower statements and the negligence deaths of a large number of rig workers.

[Irishman40]

10:52 PM on 06/21/2010

Oh sure, they could have said no and then been crucified in the court of public opinion even more than they are now. The President made the demand knowing they couldnt say no. It was an improper act.

It's like claiming that someone who gets cited for a traffic violation he didnt commit can go to court and fight it. In most cases it will cost you more in the long run to contest it than to just pay the fine and move on.

[j0em0mma]

10:45 PM on 06/21/2010

And don't you feel slightly ironic supporting Barton, who along with his party, ran roughshod over the Constitution for 8 years? Where were you then?

[Irishman40]

11:01 PM on 06/21/2010

Ok ill make several responses to this point.

1. Assuming your accusation that President Bush ran roughshod over the constitution is true, how does that exonerate President Obama when he does it?
2. Please point out which specific acts President Bush performed that were not vetted by congress? I'll save you the trouble and lay to rest the most common rejoinders right now:

1. Iraq war: Authorized by Congress. Therefor no constiutional laws broken
2. Waterboarding: Briefed to the congressional oversight committee. No objections raised at that time.
3. Guantonomo: Only personnel housed there were foregn terrorists who by dint of their status as enemy combatants can be held indefinitely without trial until hostilities cease. We did the same with captured German and japanese soldiers in WWII. Its their bad luck that they have chosen a method of warfare against the United States which exposesthem to the risk of being confined for the rest of the natural lives.

Which other consitutional "violations" have I missed?