Father's day edition.
Frank Rich:
The speech’s pans were inevitable, but in truth it was doomed no matter what the words or how cool or faux angry the performance. The president had it right the first time — this is a 9/11 crisis — and only action will do. The sole sentence that really counted on Tuesday night was his prediction that "in the coming weeks and days, these efforts should capture up to 90 percent of the oil leaking out of the well." He will be judged on whether that’s true. The sole event that mattered last week was his jawboning of BP for a $20 billion down payment of blood money — to be overseen, appropriately enough, by Kenneth Feinberg of the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund.
The speech is a speech. Stopping the spill is more important than anything (and it will take time to accomplish.) Once the spill is stopped, there's time for rhetoric.
USA Today:
White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel says BP CEO Tony Hayward has made another gaffe by going to a yacht race in England while oil continues to spew into the Gulf of Mexico, the Associated Press reports.
Emanuel, speaking to ABC's "This Week," said Hayward had "got his life back."
Digby:
If you've been confused, as I have, about the bizarre statements coming from the usual suspects about the oil spill being a natural disaster, I think perhaps Rick Perlstein has cleared it up. He tells me this is actually a right wing redefinition of the term itself. It now means a disaster that happens to nature. Isn't that clever?
Greg Dworkin (that's me):
Both the NYTimes ("Donations Create a Tricky Balance for Oil-State Politicians") and Washington Post ("Gulf oil spill puts industry-friendly Republicans in tight spot") have had stories up about how Joe Barton and other oil-soaked Republicans are going to have a hard time reconciling their campaign contributions and their "energy independence." The last thing America needs to do is pay attention to bought and paid for industry shills, even if they happen to be elected to Congress. The amazing thing is that Barton's words ("shakedown") were verbatim from the Republican Study Committee, putting the lie to the claim that Barton was out on his own when he apologized to BP. Far from it. Other Republican members of Congress feel the same, and have said similar enough things in defending BP. Now, to their credit, some Republican members of Congress have called for Barton’s head. I applaud them for their good sense, but I’ve yet to see Barton step down. Until he does, he is the face of the Republican response to the spill.
Karen Tumulty/WaPo:
As political gambles go, it's a big and risky one: $50 million to test the proposition that the Democratic Party's outreach to new voters that helped make Barack Obama president can work in an election where his name is not on the ballot...
There does not seem to be a similar effort within the GOP. A spokesman would not discuss its operations and scoffed at the bet that Democrats are making this year. "When that announcement was made, it just wasn't taken very credibly," says Republican National Committee spokesman Doug Heye. "Those voters just aren't going to be there this time."
He's not alone in thinking that.
Seems to be instead of, rather than in addition to, the base. If so, bad move.
David Broder:
For weeks, it has appeared increasingly likely that voters will use the midterm elections in November to signal their unhappiness with the lingering effects of the Great Recession, the threat of uncontrolled deficits, the stalemate in Afghanistan and the continuing tragedy in the Gulf of Mexico by inflicting serious losses on Democratic candidates.
Unless.
Unless one Republican after another steps into the limelight, apparently eager to show that however bad the Democrats look, the opposition could be worse.
The question is control of the House and not whether the Dems will see losses ( i.e. , define 'serious'.) Still, while I am never confident about the Dems (see Tumulty) I am always confident about the Republicans (see Peter Fenn on Joe Barton and Dean Baker on Alan Simpson.)