“Just that this site has been on as relentless campaign to harm the Obama presidency. It will bear a great part of the responsibility if the Republicans take congress. Rarely a day passed that they isn't a headline that grossly misrepresents the content of the linked story, always in the direction against the president and the Democrats.”
xlntcat on Jul 8, 2010 at 13:44:16
“Fanned. You have to remember that Ms HP helped seat Bush/Cheney, courted the evangelicals on behalf of her ex and attended the GOP convention in 2004. Now people do modifying their beliefs systems slightly over time but you are talking about radically diverse ideologies.”
MathIsTruth on Jul 8, 2010 at 11:41:59
“This is not an anti-Obama web site. It is a pro-liberal principle web site. Huge difference.
If you want a web site that only says positive things about a person you support, you have two choices. Either support a perfect person, or go to a web site that is not based on liberal principles. Otherwise you are doomed to reading a mixture of positive and negative comments about the person you support.”
Duppy on Jul 8, 2010 at 10:53:06
“Really ? I think I see more pro Obama than anti Obama on HP otherwise I would surely not be on this site. If that is the case, I may as well start watching Fox if I want to see a bunch of anti Obama stories.”
thehawke on Jul 8, 2010 at 10:12:14
“No, the dems will bear a great part of the responsibility if the rethugs take congress.”
“Jease this place has become disgusting with its twisting of everything to make Obama look bad.
He gave a hugely important speech today on moving the country to clean energy and it is not even mentioned on this site and instead this this garbage is is the lead?
This place now works for Republicans 24/7
This is a scientist being a scientist. If she releases anything prematurely and it proves to be wrong she'll be the next Phil Jones and will be used to discredit science and clean energy just as "climategate" was use to discredit those who are trying to keep us from destroying ourselves.”
TCPITS on Jun 2, 2010 at 20:00:03
“#17. Science is essential -- on the other hand she blew it on camera. Even scientists must be aware of the 24-7 news cycle/bloggosphere”
FairProgressive on Jun 2, 2010 at 19:54:01
“yea, well the thing is.......that is what hussein does, right ? says nice things, gives good speeches
what action do you have that shows same from community organizer ?”
BluebirdofUnhappiness on Jun 2, 2010 at 19:50:17
“Fanned. Methinks you might be a scientist who understands the difference between hypotheses and proving hypotheses”
“I think a criminal investigation should be held into Cheney's meeting. All of this started there.
BP had four people on his energy task force.
Eli Bebout, "an old friend of Cheney's from Wyoming who serves in the state Senate and owns an oil and drilling company", visited in March 2001.
Red Cavaney, "president of the American Petroleum Institute, also met with Lundquist"
Jack N. Gerard, "then with the National Mining Association, had a meeting with Lundquist and other staffers" in February 2001.
Wayne Gibbens and Alby Modiano, U.S. Oil and Gas Association.
Alan Huffman, "Conoco manager until the 2002 merger with Phillips, confirmed meeting with the task force staff."
Kenneth L. Lay, then head of Enron, "came by for the first of two meetings."
Bob Malone, BP regional president, and
Peter Davies, BP chief economist,
Graham Barr BP
Deb Beaubien. BP
Steven Miller, Shell Oil chairman, "and two others."
Sir Mark Moody-Stuart, Royal Dutch/Shell Group's chairman.
James J. Rouse, former Exxon vice president. In 2005 Rouse "denied the meeting took place." In 2007, Rouse was revealed to be "One of the first visitors, on Feb. 14,  ... then vice president of Exxon Mobil and a major donor to the Bush inauguration".
J. Robinson West, "chairman of the Washington-based consulting firm PFC Energy and an old friend of Cheney's" met with Cheney.”
Bloggerrogr on Jun 1, 2010 at 11:15:41
The reason for the secret meeting was not to discuss 'energy policy'. The meeting was for the purpose of transmitting to the VP the exact locations of the oil fields which were to be taken and protected first in the upcoming invasion of Iraq.
“When people claim that oil is cheaper than clean energy they are neglecting the huge subsidies oil gets and the huge external costs it imposes on us. The liability cap is one such subsidy.
Let the price reflect the real cost including the damage done here, health effects, the cost of a military that can secure the supply routes, ocean acidification and climate change and the market would swiftly bring about a shift to cheaper clean alternatives.”
Bloggerrogr on Jun 1, 2010 at 11:20:25
If that were the case, a gallon of gas would cost around $15.
Your point is well taken!
“The problem is that there is no certainty that the first relief well will work. They had great difficulty with this well even before it blew and considered abandoning it. Redundancy is needed so that if the first relief well fails it isn't a situation of starting from scratch and another 3 months”
“The key problem is the liability cap and the resulting incentive structure. As it is BP has to pay for all the clean up done but effectively none of the damage that results from an inadequate clean up. Thus BP's self interest could be thought to be best served by scrimping on the cleanup. I don't think it is but they seem to.
Obama has sought to raise or eliminate the cap. This would be the best solution but Republicans have blocked it.
Now that it is becoming clear that BP is going cheap and Republicans are running their interference Obama should either force BP to hire all available resources- all boats on the gulf coast, all dedicated clean up rigs in the world- or just do it and send them the bill.
At stopping the leak I don't see how he could do better except perhaps by demanding that a couple more relief wells be started to improve the odds now that the odds are that a relief well is the only solution.
A science denialist administration never would have deployed Chu's team. Obama deserves major kudos for that.”
KarateKid on May 31, 2010 at 10:21:29
“They've already started the relief well, but it takes months to finish it. Who knows, by that time, all the oil in that field may have gushed out. It is like pus coming from a carbuncle, eventually the pressure subsides and it just stops coming out.”
“1) it wasn't thought possible until Steven Wu's gamma ray imaging showed that the blow out preventer was sufficiently intact and sufficiently constricted for it to work. So perhaps Obama's guy really did save the day.
There was a huge amount of prep work to be done 5000' under the ocean, including rebuilding and modifying part of the BOP. Normally this work would have taken months.
This describes what was done and includes some great graphics.
Liability caps are just a hidden subsidy. Oil companies and consumers don't pay the full cost of oil and thus clean alternatives appear more expensive when if the external cost of oil- pollution, climate change, ocean acidification and a military capable of securing supply lines- are counted, alternative energy is much cheaper.
Get rid of all liability caps. Then tax oil to pay for the military and its other hidden subsidies. With oil accurately priced the market will quickly force a switch to clean sources.”
The Huffpo headline that directs to this page isn't much better. There are specific resources the government doesn't have that prevent it from doing the deep work by itself. They haven't claimed insufficient resources to do the rest.