DOWNLOADS: (620)

PLAYS: (445)

Embed

Even though I still agree that those who have been damaged by the oil spill in the Gulf getting something from BP right now is better than what we saw happen after the Exxon Valdez disaster -- where those who had claims got stalled for years and our wonderful corporatist Supreme Court decided that if they weren't dead yet ages later they were going to get next to nothing for their suffering -- it looks like Kenneth Feinberg is going back on the Obama administration's promise that taking money from BP now will not prevent anyone who has been damaged and who takes money from the escrow fund now from having the right to sue BP later.

Here's a portion of a press release from the Obama administration on June 16th of this year.

This $20 billion will provide substantial assurance that the claims people and businesses have will be honored. It’s also important to emphasize this is not a cap. The people of the Gulf have my commitment that BP will meet its obligations to them. BP has publicly pledged to make good on the claims that it owes to the people in the Gulf, and so the agreement we reached sets up a financial and legal framework to do it.

Another important element is that this $20 billion fund will not be controlled by either BP or by the government. It will be put in a escrow account, administered by an impartial, independent third party. So if you or your business has suffered an economic loss as a result of this spill, you’ll be eligible to file a claim for part of this $20 billion. This fund does not supersede either individuals’ rights or states’ rights to present claims in court. BP will also continue to be liable for the environmental disaster it has caused, and we’re going to continue to work to make sure that they address it.

Kenneth Feinberg directly contradicted that statement during his meeting with Louisiana residents on July 15th.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (791)

PLAYS: (822)

Embed

Chris Matthews asks former Shell Oil Executive John Hofmeister about how things are going with the cleanup of the oil in the Gulf and whether this supertanker that is going to be skimming the oil off of the surface of the water is working or not.

Hofmeister: Well there's two different ways to use the supertanker and one is skimming which we apparently the results over the weekend were inconclusive because of the wave action. And you could understand why it needs a still body of water if you're going to do skimming off the surface. The part that hasn't been used yet is called the "suck and salvage" method where you're actually putting pipes down into the water and sucking oil out of the water once and for all. It's suck, salvage and separate and that hasn't been tried yet. It's been discussed for over two months, still hasn't happened. I'm glad to see the supertanker and the skimmer out there but I'd rather see more supertankers with the suck and salvage method as well.

He goes on to say that the Saudis have never admitted to using the technology. The footage they're showing is the same footage Dylan Ratigan used when he talked to Super Suck International director Francois Vorster about his company's solution for cleaning up the oil. Even if the Saudis aren't admitting they've used it, it's not like the United States government isn't aware the technology exists. There's lots more in that post on the technology and a couple of articles from Esquire Magazine. on Hofmeister's efforts go get the government to consider using the tankers and what they would cost BP.

Environmental lawyer and Ring of Fire radio host Mike Papantonio goes on to explain why BP has no interest in actually cleaning up the oil with that method and gives us some bad news on the escrow fund BP set up. He says that BP hasn't securitized the fund. BP's Bob Dudley told PBS in an interview on July 1st that they're going to securitize the fund. So what's the hold up? Pap thinks they're still looking at filing bankruptcy and are more worried about their PR campaign than containing and capturing the oil.

Full transcript below the fold.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (645)

PLAYS: (1599)

Embed

As Keith noted before getting into the meat of this interview, BP apparently doesn't understand that they're not going to improve their image by doing things like this.

In another effort to repair its image, BP picks up tab for fireworks show in Colorado:

In struggling to save its brand name from drowning in backlash from the Gulf oil disaster, BP has launched multiple efforts to revamp its image as “part of the community.” Now, the “embattled oil giant” has “stepped forward to pay” for the annual July Fourth fireworks display in Durango, CO. Agreeing to pay for the display five months before the Deepwater Horizon explosion, BP is pitching the display as a community donation.

...Many conservative leaders have jumped on the “shakedown” bandwagon, seeing BP’s $20 billion for an escrow fund as a real danger to the company’s viability. But if the company can pay for fireworks and baseball trophies while launching aggressive media campaigns and funding a front group to downplay the disaster, BP can cover its responsibility to the victims in the Gulf.

Maybe one of these days the idiots that run PR for BP will figure out that actually taking care of cleaning up and containing rather than hiding and dispersing the oil gushing out of that pipe is the only thing that's going to satisfy anyone who's not a complete moron and that is following how they've handled this disaster. They're obviously so used to getting away with this sort of corporate malfeasance that the media generally ignores that they are hoping this won't be any different than business as usual for them.

And then we have Haley Barbour, who again is showing himself to be nothing but a puppet of big oil.

Haley Barbour: ‘No one has more to lose in this deal than BP.’:

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (719)

PLAYS: (2618)

Embed

Well, Chris Matthews has been wanting to get a Republican on his show who was willing to defend Rush Limbaugh for some time now. He decided to put Louisiana Rep. Steve Scalise into that box whether he wanted to be or not. Matthews ripped into him for refusing to distance himself from Limbaugh's comments that the escrow fund the President got BP to set up is a "shakedown". What Matthews fails to note here is that is the Republican leadership's point of view. They were only upset with Smokey Joe Barton for apologizing to BP, not for calling the escrow account a "shakedown".

Maybe one of these days we can see Matthews get this aggressive with Tom DeLay instead of kissing his ass every time he comes on his show, rather than being this harsh with a Congressman who represents a state that has their coastline being drowned in oil right now. If Matthews wanted to inform his viewers about whether Rep. Scalise's criticisms were valid or hypocritical on the response to this disaster, he should have asked him if he thinks offshore drilling can be done safely and how that industry should be regulated rather than playing a game of gotcha' on whether he agrees with Rush Limbaugh or not. Tweety really just looked like he was in the mood to play the bully with someone over his "will any Republicans disagree with Rush Limbaugh" obsession.

MATTHEWS: Welcome back to HARDBALL.

Today, as we reported, a federal judge blocked President Obama’s six- month moratorium on deepwater drilling.

Joining me right now is Congressman Steve Scalise, a Republican from Louisiana.

Congressman, I have to ask you this. Here’s Rush Limbaugh on the Joe Barton comment today.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, "THE RUSH LIMBAUGH SHOW")

RUSH LIMBAUGH: It was a shakedown, pure and simple. And somebody had the audacity to call it what it was, and now everybody is running for the hills.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MATTHEWS: Well, that was yesterday, actually, but it’s been 42 days now since we have been asking Republican members of Congress to stand up and say Rush Limbaugh doesn’t speak for the Republican Party.

Congressman Scalise, here’s your chance. Is it Rush Limbaugh or your leadership that is right on Joe Barton?

REP. STEVE SCALISE: Well, first of all, Joe Barton has apologized. I spoke with him the other day. And I accept his apology.

What frustrates me is that you still don’t see the sense of urgency from this administration. And they have got the legal responsibility to direct the efforts on the ground. And they’re just not doing it. That is what angers people back home in South Louisiana, where I just came back from over just earlier today.

MATTHEWS: Well, my job is to ask these questions. Do you think that Rush Limbaugh is right, it was a shakedown? Is he and Barton right? Or is the leadership right in saying it was wrong to apologize on the part of the Republican Party to BP?

SCALISE: Well, unfortunately, I didn’t get the opportunity to listen to his show. I like his show. I think he offers a lot of good, interesting commentary.

But the bottom line is, when you look at what’s not happening on the ground -- and our local leaders will tell you, just the other day, we had vacuum barges that were sent back to the docks by the Coast Guard, and they gave absolutely no reason why those barges, which would have been sucking up oil, that would have prevented oil from getting into our marsh, were sent back to the docks.

It -- spent over a day where the Coast Guard gave absolutely no explanation. And the federal government, still to this day, won’t tell us who is in charge when problems go on the ground like they’re doing just two, three days ago. I mean, this is inexcusable. We cannot afford these kinds of delays.

MATTHEWS: Well, what about the big news that the federal government has asked BP to set aside a $20 billion escrow account? Some Republicans like Joe Barton have said that that’s a shakedown, that that is wrong, it’s a slush fund.

Rush Limbaugh agrees with that point of view. Your party leadership doesn’t. Who speaks for you, your party leadership on that point or Rush Limbaugh on that point? Who is your leader?

Continue reading »

Rep. Joe Barton's apology to BP and remarks that the $20 billion escrow fund was a "shakedown" received condemnation from fellow members of the Republican Party last week but 114 members of the Republican Study Committee had signed onto the "shakedown" talking point only days before.

Comedy Central's Jon Stewart wondered Monday what to do when mere mortals and God couldn't solve the problem of oil spewing into the Gulf. "Money. Recently minted mortal Barack Obama got BP to put $20 billion in an escrow account to pay back all those impacted by the disaster," reported Stewart.

But not everybody agreed that the BP fund is a good idea.

"The president and I disagree on this escrow fund," Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour said on June 16.

Rep. Michele Bachmann also spoke out against the idea. "There's a misreading of the Constitution and a misunderstanding of jurisdictional limits from this White House. Now it seems that it's all about extortion," she said.

"You broke it, you bought it is not extortion just like give a penny, take a penny is not stealing or philanthropy," quipped Stewart.

Barbour perhaps constructed the most tortured logic about the fund. "It bothers me to talk about causing an escrow to be made which will -- which makes it less likely that they'll make the income that they need to pay us," he said.

"You know, that's not circular logic. That's circle-jerkular logic," said Stewart.

The Republican Study Committee, consisting of 114 members of Congress, put out a statement calling the fund "Chicago-style shakedown politics."

But then Barton came along and ruined a perfectly good talking point by apologizing to BP. "I think it is is a tragedy of the first proportion that a private corporation could be subjected to what I would characterize as a shakedown. So I apologize," said Barton on June 17.

Suddenly, Republicans were stepping all over themselves to disown Barton's remarks.

"The statement that Representative Barton made was wrong," said Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK).

"I think that was a dumb statement," said Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL).

"I couldn't disagree with Joe Barton more," Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) told Fox News' Chris Wallace Sunday.

"The congressman was only speaking for himself. That was not mainstream Republican thought," said Shelby.

At least not anymore, said Stewart. "It was a mainstream Republican thought... It was quoting a memo put out by two-thirds of your caucus," he exclaimed.

UPDATE: (Nicole) The Democratic Party wisely sees this muddled and corporatist message by the Republicans as a gift, and have produced a second ad reminding everyone what governance by the GOP means:

DOWNLOADS: (533)

PLAYS: (461)

Embed

Haley Barbour backtracked from his previous statement that the $20 billion escrow account would make it less likely that BP will pay for everything in regards to the damages from the Deepwater Horizon disaster. Now that he's found out the money will only go out in payments of $5 billion a year, he's much less worried his campaign donor will go out of business any time soon.

GREGORY: Governor, you--Governor Barbour, you've been concerned about the idea of this escrow fund, this $20 billion fund. Why?

BARBOUR: Right. Well, I thought that they were talking about taking $20 billion from BP all at once, and my fear was if you took $20 billion from them all at once, put it in an escrow account, then they wouldn't have the working capital to generate the revenue to pay us. I think the president was smart, and I congratulate him and BP that they reached an agreement. Instead of $20 billion taken out of that working capital all at once, it's actually going to be $5 billion this year, $5 billion the next year, $5 billion the following year and $5 billion the fourth year. That makes sure--as Mary Landrieu says, we want to make sure that BP stays in business, generates the revenues that will pay what they owe the states and our citizens. And I think the--I don't know if it's a compromise or not--the agreement they worked out not to do all the $20 billion, put it in an escrow account all at once, means that we're much more likely to get everything paid by BP, who, by the way, is supposed to pay everything.

I'm still wondering when Barbour will admit that there is a need for the fund in his state and that the oil has washed up on the shores of Mississippi as well.

DOWNLOADS: (583)

PLAYS: (778)

Embed

George Will claims that there is no defense of BP and their terrible safety record and says of course no one wants to make apologies for them when asked about Joe Barton's remarks during the Congressional hearings last week. Then naturally he proceeds to play water carrier for the company and slams the Obama administration for getting them to set up the escrow fund, comparing it to something akin to Hugo Chavez nationalizing the oil industry in Venezuela.

TAPPER: George, I want to start with you. I know you don't agree with what Republican Texas Congressman Joe Barton had to say, but does the idea of this $20 billion escrow account make you uncomfortable?

WILL: It does. Look, there is no defense of BP which has an execrable safety record in this country, from the refinery disaster in Texas in '05, the Morris Slope leak in '06, all of that and so no apology from BP. But if you don't want to live in a Northern Hemisphere Venezuela, you ought to be a little queasy about the fact that a president, any president of any party, using raw political power, without recourse to courts that exist for this sort of thing, under laws, with due process, essentially confiscates $20 billion from a publicly held corporation, about half of its shares held by Americans, to be dispensed, again, with out judicial supervision, as the political branch sees fit. That is worrisome. Even, they have even said that BP maybe held responsible for the lost wages caused by, not BP, but the administration's own moratorium, six-months moratorium, on deepwater drilling. Which maybe more costly to the economy of the Gulf than the spill itself.

Later in the segment Will quotes Shakespeare and compares the President to Caesar and then reads from an article in The Economist which blasts Obama as being “Vladimir Obama”.

TAPPER: Rahm Emanuel seemed to really seize on those Barton comments almost as if President Obama were on the ballot this year, for the 2010 midterms, running against Joe Barton. Democrats argue that Barton's comments are not really out of Republican mainstream. And here are some comments from the Republican Study Committee, in the House; 114 members of the Republican Party in the House saying: "BP's reported willingness to go along with the White House's new fund suggests that the Obama administration is hard at work exerting its brand of Chicago-style shakedown politics. These actions are emblematic of a politicization of our economy that has been born out of this administration's drive for greater power and control." George, it seems like mainstream Republican thought, if that is from the Republican Study Committee?

WILL: Well, among those asking, upon what meat doeth our Caesar feed that he has grown so great?, is "The Economist" of London, which I think we have all accept as a mainstream publication. They say, in a section of their lead editorial, called "Vladimir Obama", "The collapse of BP's share prices suggest he has convinced the markets that he is an American version of Vladimir Putin, willing to harry firms into doing his bidding. If the president does not stand up for due process he will frighten investors across the board. The damage to Americans environment is bad enough, the president risks damaging the economy, too." That's not a partisan outfit, "The Economist".

Phoenix Woman at FDL has more on that. UK, US Tories and their Media Circle their Wagons to Protect BP:

The intense propaganda campaign to protect BP at all costs is heating up. The wagons are being circled and the propaganda flows like a busted oil well.

The current meme in the Tory community, both here and across the ocean, is that Obama’s an evil Brit-hating Socialist out to destroy business.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (551)

PLAYS: (827)

Embed

On Fox’s The Journal Editorial Report, while discussing whether the panel believes that BP really had a choice as to whether to put up the $20 billion for the escrow fund to pay for the claims from the Deepwater Horizon disaster rather than the victims being tied up in the courts for years or waiting for BP to decide who to pay claims to, John Fund opines that BP being prodded by the Obama administration to put up that fund is going to turn the United States into a “banana republic” and repeats the Republican meme of the week that it was a “shakedown”.

It’s too bad Mr. Fund isn’t quite so concerned that years of conservative governance have turned us into a plutocracy or an oligarchy already, either of which would better describe what has happened to our government as our middle class in the United States continues to disappear and the gap between the rich and the poor grows even wider.

Expecting companies to clean up their mess does seem to suddenly get the right wingers worried about the expansion of government power; those same companies socializing the losses onto the taxpayers… not so much.

Fund: It’s almost as if we have different models of how you nationalize a company. There’s the original model with General Motors and Chrysler and now there’s a new model which is if you get into any kind of trouble, you know, the next Toyota for example, you’re going to basically face such liability that the Federal government is effectively going to own your future.

Gigot: Well does this mean that in any… is this setting a precedent that in any future large scale industrial accident that this kind of pubic trust fund where a company is obliged to put money into the fund and then the government will decide who gets paid and when; is that what we’re going to see from now on?

Fund: That’s a danger. Remember one of the reasons so many investors overseas have contributed to the American economy for so long is we have a rule of law here. It’s due process. Well this effectively says to foreign investors, forget the rule of law. Joe Barton basically, you know, came out against this $20 billion….

Gigot: He called it a shakedown.

Fund: …a shakedown, and…

Gigot: Is that what it is? Is this a shakedown?

Fund: You’d better believe it’s a shakedown. This completely goes around the legal process. The message this sends to foreign investors, be careful here because the United States can resemble a banana republic overnight with the wrong President in charge.

Of course all of them are very concerned about the rule of law being followed, as long as that rule of law makes sure that claims are slow walked through the courts and as long as we have the kind of justice where huge companies end up paying next to nothing once their friends on the Supreme Court finally take care of them decades later.

Fund's assertion that making BP fork out $20 billion is "nationalizing" them is completely ridiculous as well. As Think Progress noted, "in the first quarter of the year, the London-based oil giant’s profits averaged $93 million a day".

And for a little reminder of what these hacks are advocating for from the same post:

At $93 million a day in profits, BP makes $350 million in about 3.8 days. The Washington Post noted that Exxon, through a decision by the Supreme Court, was able to pay only $507.5 million of the original $5 billion in punitive damages that it had been assessed for the 1989 Valdez disaster.

There's the kind of "rule of law" that they would prefer.

h/t Media Matters

DOWNLOADS: (630)

PLAYS: (913)

Embed

Pat Buchanan previously defended Smokey Joe Barton for apologizing to BP and calling the escrow fund for victims of the oil disaster in the Gulf "a shakedown".

Pat Buchanan: Barton's Apology To 'Universally Loathed' BP Was 'Very Courageous':

Not everyone's criticizing or running from Rep. Joe Barton after the Texas Republican apologized to BP today.

...Here's what Buchanan had to say about it:

"Barton made a very courageous statement in my judgment, when you consider that BP is probably universally loathed and despised and even hated for what is happening, that horrendous tragedy down on the Gulf."

Well now he decided to one up his hackery by comparing US Attorney General Eric Holder being involved in the negotiations with BP to the fictional hit man Luca Brasi from The Godfather. I guess Pat Buchanan thinks this is what happened during the meetings with BP.

Michael Corleone: My father made him an offer he couldn't refuse.

Kay Adams: What was that?

Michael Corleone: Luca Brasi held a gun to his head, and my father assured him that either his brains or his signature would be on the contract.

But then what else would you expect from Buchanan and the rest of the Republicans who are trying to paint the administration as a bunch of Chicago "gangsters" and "thugs"? Quite frankly Pat, considering the way most Americans feel about BP right now, I don't think too many of them would be upset if their CEO's were threatened to get them to fork over the money for that escrow fund. I would assume either losing government contracts or threats of criminal prosecutions going to the top were the leverage that was used.

You know, Pat it's too bad we can't get some good honest politicians into the White House again like that Nixon guy you used to work for.

DOWNLOADS: (539)

PLAYS: (946)

Embed

Does the congressman that apologized to BP and called their $20 billion escrow fund a "shakedown" have a point? Fox Business Network's Stuart Varney appears to think so.

Rep. Joe Barton shocked fellow Republicans Thursday when he told BP he was sorry that the government was forcing them to pay up for a spill they were responsible for.

"I'm not speaking for anybody else, but I apologize. I do not want to live in a country where any time a citizen or a corporation does something that is legitimately wrong and is subject to some sort of political pressure that is, again, in my words, amounts to a shakedown. So I apologize," said Barton.

Republicans quickly distanced themselves from Barton but at least one conservative commentator at Fox News revealed why he thought the congressman was right.

"One congressman calling the BP compensation fund a shakedown. Does he have a point?" wondered Brian Kilmeade while introducing Varney.

"In that White House meeting, reportedly Vice President Biden says pay up or else we'll bring the full court press of the United States government to bare on you and you will pay," explained Varney.

"The administration wins politically by beating up on BP and taking $20 billion off them. It also diverts attention from the administration's own failure to clean up this mess. But look, what happens if BP can't come up with this $20 billion. Let's suppose that the administration does indeed drive them into bankruptcy," said Varney.

"Essentially, BP becomes nationalized because part of this $20 billion deal is if you can't pay, we get your assets," Varney continued.

"So, we are going to essentially own a British company," asked Fox News' Gretchen Carlson.

"It would. It would own BP North America if BP can't come up with this $20 billion and remember, that's not the limits of their liability. There's all kinds of other stuff," Varney warned.

"It did not cap BP's liabilities at $20 billion. There's still the gulf cleanup to be paid for by BP. There's still the numerous lawsuits outside of this $20 billion. They could yet be forced into bankruptcy. And if they are, then BP is semi-nationalized by the American government. You want that?" Varney asked.

(Nicole:) The focus has been on Barton, but he's only the convenient face of a larger Republican meme. Media Matters did a nice round up of how the right wing media has continued to use the "shakedown" rhetoric while keeping everyone focused on Barton. As Steve Benen points out:

For weeks, much of the criticism of the White House was centered around the idea that the administration wasn't pushing BP hard enough. But on Wednesday, the president went into a meeting with the company's executives, told them how it was going to be, and BP quickly agreed. The result: a $20 billion pot of money that will bring much-needed help to workers, businesses, and families who've been victimized by a devastating oil spill. This was no small task for Obama, and Americans have every right to be pleased. (One poll this week found 82% of the public supports the creation of the escrow fund.)

And yet, Republicans seem to be outraged. We talked yesterday about GOP officials and candidates sticking up for BP, and today, ThinkProgress put together this compilation video of Republican media figures doing the same thing. It's all quite breathtaking, and the result of a strategy the party really hasn't thought through.

Indeed, the rhetoric is almost comical. Fox News' Brian Kilmeade suggested this morning that Obama is being "too tough" on BP. Talk of a "shakedown" is ubiquitous in conservative media circles. Some Republican media personalities have described the president's securing of funds for the Gulf Coast as "illegal" and "unconstitutional." Even after party leaders said Barton was "wrong," leading party voices, including Rush Limbaugh, continue to insist he was right.

Now, it's possible that Republicans in Congress and in the media are simply offering a knee-jerk response -- Obama secured funding for spill victims, so the funding must be bad -- but there seems to be more to this. Republicans on the Hill and in the media just want BP to be treated with kid gloves. A foreign oil giant is responsible for the worst environmental catastrophe in American history, and the GOP would prefer that Obama go easy on the company. In Rand Paul's words, for the president to even criticize BP is "un-American."