[jeffkrol]

Republican, Under Pressure, Backpedals From Apology to BP - NYTimes.com

Representative Joe L. Barton had to be truly sorry by the time he apologized for his apology on Thursday.
Luke Sharrett/The New York Times

Rep. Joe Barton during a hearing on Tuesday before the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
In the four hours between his televised apology to BP — for what he called a $20 billion “shakedown” by President Obama for loss claims in the gulf oil spill — and his apology for that apology, Mr. Barton, a Republican from Texas, had been pummeled in the blogosphere, assailed by Democratic Party operatives and Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., and, in the blow that landed, threatened by Republican leaders with being yanked from the party’s top seat on the powerful House energy committee.................Of the five Gulf Coast states, Mr. Barton’s Texas is the only one whose beaches, fisheries and tourist haunts are not threatened by oil spewing from BP’s ruined well. Republican lawmakers from Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Florida quickly disavowed Mr. Barton’s apology to BP, and one was the first to call for stripping Mr. Barton of his committee seat..........................

The Democratic National Committee quickly produced a YouTube video that repeatedly shows Mr. Barton, in a split screen with the BP chief, saying, “I apologize.” The White House piled on. The press secretary, Robert Gibbs, issued a statement calling Mr. Barton’s comments “shameful” and later wrote on his Twitter account: “Who would the G.O.P. put in charge of overseeing the energy industry & Big Oil if they won control of Congress? Yup, u guessed it — JOE BARTON.”

good job Joe..............
Love the fox spin..........
http://video.foxnews.com/v/4244377/bp-stands-for-bully-pulpit-on-capitol-hill?playlist_id=86858

might as well throw this one in:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/right-now/2010/06/the_case_against_the_bp_escrow.html

---

Last edited by jeffkrol; 06-17-2010 at 09:42 PM.

[wildman]

He was only saying what most on right really feel - That giant corporations and their operations and decisions and their officers are or should be beyond any public control or oversight.

His mistake was political not factual.

[gokenin]

maybe I missed the part of the Constitution that gives the PPresident of the United States or for that matter even congress the power to demand a private corporation put aside money for a something. I would also like to see the clause that gives them the ability to demand that they no give out dividends to the shareholders as well? Before you say it I have no affiliation with BP nor am I a stockholder of BP and yes I know what I ask is your typical " big business loving" atitude from a Republican so lets please avoid making thost comments if we can.

[Oldschool]

The President and Congress can demand anything they want. There was no law passed, no confiscation of property. This was a voluntary decision by BP with a lot of pressure from both federal and state governments.

BP decided this was in their best interest to set up this fund. I've seen estimates that legal fees alone for BP could run into the billions of dollars. This was a move by BP to improve their image, stabilize their stock price and start to get a handle on the costs of cleanup.

The President and Congress can demand anything they want. There was no law passed, no confiscation of property. This was a voluntary decision by BP with a lot of pressure from both federal and state governments.

BP decided this was in their best interest to set up this fund. I've seen estimates that legal fees alone for BP could run into the billions of dollars. This was a move by BP to improve their image, stabilize their stock price and start to get a handle on the costs of cleanup.

Isn't that what the Mafia use to do? Doesn't that violate RICO laws?

So in today's terms they chicagoed BP.

[Nesster]

So, let me understand this - because of a deeply held political principle, that the Prez and Congress should not be allowed to coerce BP into anything, BP should be held liable only for the legally set $75M.

In which case, what if anything can be done about the effects of the oil spill on businesses and people around the Gulf, and the environmental clean up? Surely not a Government Bail Out? Surely not more Tax and Spend to help these people out?

Therefore, the only honest and correct policy is this: it was an accident, accidents happen, the region should act locally to their best ability, i.e. they are on their own. Any further BP liability must be determined through ligitation, civil, or criminal if criminal activity is found.

Oh, and we must pass tort reform so that BP's liabilities will be capped!

Meanwhile, in the real world, the results of this are predictable: the lawyers get wealthy from the endlessly dragging law suits, the businesses and people (and wildlife) of the region suffer without recompense... and the states economies sag some more, putting pressure on their safety nets, with calls for Federal assistance... and eventually, when and if medical issues related to the spill start to surface, more law suits and more pressure on the states.

Meanwhile, a major hurricane or two will hit.

This is all a Good Thing, as Obama will be blamed and he will be voted out in favor of a conservative Republican.

[Oldschool]

Isn't that what the Mafia use to do? Doesn't that violate RICO laws?

So in today's terms they chicagoed BP.

So you would rather we (US taxpayers) pay the tab for this?

So you would rather we (US taxpayers) pay the tab for this?

Never said that at all. But legally…

[Driver3]

"wildman;1080741]He was only saying what most on right really feel - That giant corporations and their operations and decisions and their officers are or should be beyond any public control or oversight.

His mistake was political not factual."

Yea, let the corporations police themselves...great idea.

[reeftool]

Whether or not this was a shakedown by the President is open to debate. After all, it was BP who plastered our TV sets with ads which promised to fix everything and clean it all up with no cost to us taxpayers. I wonder what Rep. Barton's comments will be once that oil starts coating the beaches in Texas? I guess the congressman is upset because he won't be getting the same campaign contributions this election from a certain foreign oil company because somebody else shook them down first.

[Oldschool]

Never said that at all. But legally…

Well, what are you saying?

[Parallax]

If the law says they're responsible for 75 million and they are now putting 20 billion into a fund after a meeting with OBO there are only three possible reasons:

1. They have seen the error of their ways and have graciously and benevolently,
out of the kindness of their hearts, donated the money.
or
2. The president made a deal with them in which they, as well as who knows how many of the president's cronies,
will somehow profit from the whole mess in the long run.
or
3. The president coerced them in some way.

I think we can safely eliminate the first possibility. Given that there hasn't been a president in recent history (with the possible exception of Carter)
who cared anything about the law or ethics, the odds are evenly split on numbers 2 and 3; but the safest bet is that it was a combination of the two.

[shooz]

But,but?
Republicans love paying corporate taxes for them.
They think it's the way it's supposed to be.
It's what we "little people" are supposed to do.

But,but?
Republicans love paying corporate taxes for them.
They think it's the way it's supposed to be.
It's what we "little people" are supposed to do.

Just a question for you. When you file your income tax do you take the exemptions? Do you take every deduction you are legally entitled to? Does your adjusted income match your gross income or is it less?

[shooz]

I've paid my taxes for 40 some years.
I don't like paying theirs too.
You just accept it.