Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

How would a Republican president and congress have handled the gulf oil crisis differently?

Would they have applied less regulations leading up to the spill to prevent it?

Would they have sit back and let BP fix it's own mess?

What Would The Republicans Do?



?
?
?

Invade Uzbekistan to take the spotlight off of the Gulf...only kidding but I couldn't resist.

SDHornet wrote:Invade Uzbekistan to take the spotlight off of the Gulf...only kidding but I couldn't resist.

Sadly, it's a good answer.

BlueHen86 wrote:

SDHornet wrote:Invade Uzbekistan to take the spotlight off of the Gulf...only kidding but I couldn't resist.

Sadly, it's a good answer.

That's what I was thinking.

We're gonna run out of countries to invade!

Ladies and.............well ladies.

I present to you the democrat party

kalm wrote:How would a Republican president and congress have handled the gulf oil crisis differently?

Would they have applied less regulations leading up to the spill to prevent it?

Would they have sit back and let BP fix it's own mess?

What Would The Republicans Do?



?
?
?

Dick Ride the BP CEO

kalm wrote: ...What Would The Republicans Do???

1. Promptly declare a state of emergency... as gulf state Republican governors have already done, as GW Bush did before Katrina hit New Orleans and as Obama failed to do

2. Communicate with and offer genuine assistance to on-scene elected leadership and businesses... as gulf state Republican governors have already done, as GW Bush did one day before Katrina hit New Orleans and as Obama has refused to do

3. Waive the Jones Act to allow acceptance of immediate foreign assistance... as G.W. Bush did after Katrina hit New Orleans and as Obama steadfastly refused to do for two months

4. Encourage and coordinate helpful volunteer activities from quasi-governmental organizations, as George Bush did after Katrina hit New Orleans

5. Respect the authority of local governments and get the hell out of their way, as G.W. Bush did following Katrina, and as Obama has refused to do

6. Use the Constitution and the law to prosecute corporate misconduct, as Bush did for crimes ENRON committed largely on Clinton's watch, and NOT use extra-Constitutional dictatorial fiat, as Obama has done

In short, Republicans have been and would be responsible, proactive problem solvers, like Bobby Jindal, Jeb Bush, Haley Barbour, Charlie Crist and to a certain extent even George Bush have been, and not whiny, blame-shifting, ineffective carnival clowns - like Ray Nagin, Kathleen Blanco and the Obama administration.

Good question, kalm!

native wrote:

kalm wrote: ...What Would The Republicans Do???

1. Promptly declare a state of emergency... as gulf state Republican governors have already done and as GW Bush did before Katrina hit New Orleans and as Obama failed to do

2. Communicate with and offer genuine assistance to on scene elected leadership and businesses... as gulf state Republican governors have already done and as GW Bush did one day before Katrina hit New Orleans and as Obama has refused to do

3. Waive the Jones Act to allow acceptance of immediate foreign assistance... as G.W. Bush did after Katrina hit New Orleans and as Obama steadfastly refused to do for two months

4. Encourage and coordinate helpful volunteer activities from quasi-governmental organizations, as George Bush did after Katrina hit New Orleans

5. Respect the authority of local governments and get the hell out of their way, as G.W. Bush did following Katrina, and as Obama has refused to do

In short, Republicans have been and would be responsible, proactive problem solvers, not whiny, ineffective carnival clowns - like the Obama administration.

In other words - the Republicans would make pretend they were doing something when they really aren't doing anything.

Obama = fail on oil spill.
Bush = fail on Katrina.

All politicians = fail on disasters.

Some may talk a better game than others, but when it comes to actually getting anything done, none of them are capable. There are too many competing interests, all of which are pulling on the strings of future campaigns.

danefan wrote:

native wrote:
1. Promptly declare a state of emergency... as gulf state Republican governors have already done and as GW Bush did before Katrina hit New Orleans and as Obama failed to do

2. Communicate with and offer genuine assistance to on scene elected leadership and businesses... as gulf state Republican governors have already done and as GW Bush did one day before Katrina hit New Orleans and as Obama has refused to do

3. Waive the Jones Act to allow acceptance of immediate foreign assistance... as G.W. Bush did after Katrina hit New Orleans and as Obama steadfastly refused to do for two months

4. Encourage and coordinate helpful volunteer activities from quasi-governmental organizations, as George Bush did after Katrina hit New Orleans

5. Respect the authority of local governments and get the hell out of their way, as G.W. Bush did following Katrina, and as Obama has refused to do

6. Use the Constitution and the law to prosecute corporate misconduct, as Bush did for crimes ENRON committed largely on Clinton's watch, and NOT use extra-Constitutional dictatorial fiat, as Obama has done

In short, Republicans have been and would be responsible, proactive problem solvers, like Bobby Jindal, Jeb Bush, Haley Barbour, Charlie Crist and to a certain extent even George Bush have been, and not whiny, blame-shifting, ineffective carnival clowns - like Ray Nagin, Kathleen Blanco and the Obama administration.

In other words - the Republicans would make pretend they were doing something when they really aren't doing anything.

Obama = fail on oil spill.
Bush = fail on Katrina.

All politicians = fail on disasters.

Some may talk a better game than others, but when it comes to actually getting anything done, none of them are capable. There are too many competing interests, all of which are pulling on the strings of future campaigns.

As is now recognized by voters, danefan, there are substantial and documented differences in leadership, transparency, honesty and success between the two approaches, just as there are substantial differences between a win, a tie, losing by a single point, and losing by ten touchdowns.

Apparently, you could not recognize substance if it were sqeezing your private parts. You have already lost this debate in the polls and on this board. But thanks for reminding us of the insubstantial witlessness of your arguments.

native wrote:

danefan wrote:
In other words - the Republicans would make pretend they were doing something when they really aren't doing anything.

Obama = fail on oil spill.
Bush = fail on Katrina.

All politicians = fail on disasters.

Some may talk a better game than others, but when it comes to actually getting anything done, none of them are capable. There are too many competing interests, all of which are pulling on the strings of future campaigns.

As is now recognized by voters, danefan, there are substantial and documented differences in leadership, transparency, honesty and success between the two approaches, just as there are substantial differences between a win, a tie, losing by a single point, and losing by ten touchdowns.

Apparently, you could not recognize substance if it were sqeezing your private parts. You have already lost this debate in the polls and on this board. But thanks for reminding us of the insubstantial witlessness of your arguments.

Seriously? Are you somehow trying to defend the Bush Administration's response to Katrina?

"Bush is good because he wasn't as bad as Obama has been."

That's what you consider wit?

Both responses suck. Its not a partisan issue. Its an issue with all of our current politicians - Republican, Democrat, Independent or otherwise.

And please, do point me to the point where I've ever commented on this before, or "lost this debate" as you say.

danefan wrote:
In other words - the Republicans would make pretend they were doing something when they really aren't doing anything.

Obama = fail on oil spill.
Bush = fail on Katrina.

All politicians = fail on disasters.

Some may talk a better game than others, but when it comes to actually getting anything done, none of them are capable. There are too many competing interests, all of which are pulling on the strings of future campaigns.



Seriously? Are you somehow trying to defend the Bush Administration's response to Katrina?

"Bush is good because he wasn't as bad as Obama has been."

That's what you consider wit?

Both responses suck. Its not a partisan issue. Its an issue with all of our current politicians - Republican, Democrat, Independent or otherwise.

And please, do point me to the point where I've ever commented on this before, or "lost this debate" as you say.

Where is the substance in any of your above "arguments," danefan?

Your summary of my points is grossly inaccurate and yes, witless. You have not refuted any of the six substantial differences I posted in a good faith response to kalm's question.

Do you not grasp that declaring a state of emergency, waving the Jones Act, and prohibiting the EPA and Coast Guard from interfering with sensible local actions, for example, are substantial actions, not pretend actions? Obama impotently looking for some arse to kick, on the other hand, is an insubstantial pretense.

I consider SDHornet's "wag-the-dog" scenario to be both substantive and witty, but your posts are still all hat and no cattle, danefan. While substance may be beyond your shallow and transparently partisan grasp, it is not beyond the grasp of the voting public:

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/ ... LA_615.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

native wrote:

danefan wrote:
In other words - the Republicans would make pretend they were doing something when they really aren't doing anything.

Obama = fail on oil spill.
Bush = fail on Katrina.

All politicians = fail on disasters.

Some may talk a better game than others, but when it comes to actually getting anything done, none of them are capable. There are too many competing interests, all of which are pulling on the strings of future campaigns.



Seriously? Are you somehow trying to defend the Bush Administration's response to Katrina?

"Bush is good because he wasn't as bad as Obama has been."

That's what you consider wit?

Both responses suck. Its not a partisan issue. Its an issue with all of our current politicians - Republican, Democrat, Independent or otherwise.

And please, do point me to the point where I've ever commented on this before, or "lost this debate" as you say.

Where is the substance in any of your above "arguments," danefan?

Your summary of my points is grossly inaccurate and yes, witless. You have not refuted any of the six substantial differences I posted in a good faith response to kalm's question. Do you not grasp that declaring a state of emergency, waving the Jones Act, and prohibiting the EPA and Coast Guard from interfering with sensible local actions, for example, are substantial actions, not pretend actions? Obama impotently looking for some arse to kick, on the other hand, is an insubstantial pretense.

I consider SDHornet's "wag-the-dog" scenario to be both substantive and witty, but your posts are still all hat and no cattle, danefan. While substance may be beyond your shallow and transparently partisan grasp, it is not beyond the grasp of the voting public:

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/ ... LA_615.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The substance is in reality not hack political polls. Live outside the internet for a minute. Are actually defending the Bush Administration's actions related to Katrina? If there is anything partisan in this thread its that.

Keep in mind that I'm not defending the Obama Administration in anything they do, especially not for their actions surrounding the Gulf oil spill. I'm saying there is absolute zero evidence to support the notion that a Republican administration would handle the situation satisfactorily. And that is considering the points you've already cited above.

And just so its clear, I don't give a crap if you think I'm witty. And now I'll let you have the last word on the subject. My opinion is pretty clear.

danefan wrote: The substance is in reality not hack political polls.

Well then, we agree. The substance I posited was not in the referenced poll, rather in the six concrete actions I listed. The poll merely verified that voters recognize the differences between Bush and Obama in handling crisis. By the way, the hack poll in question was conducted by a Democrat polling firm.

danefan wrote: Are [you] actually defending the Bush Administration's actions related to Katrina? If there is anything partisan in this thread its that. .

Defending all of Bush's actions would be partisan. I do not defend all of Bush's actions. I defend some of Bush's actions, but picking out his correct actions is not a partisan exercise, just as picking out Obama's correct actions would not be partisan. I am sure even you could tell the difference if you tried. The partisanship is in ignoring the substantive differences between Republican and Democrat responses to the Katrina and BP disasters.

I have already pointed out some of the concrete steps taken by Republican governors. Some of the steps taken by the Bush administration were indeed appropriate and substantial, for example:
-27 August: Bush declared a state of emergency, two days before the hurricane made landfall.
-28 August: Bush spoke with Governor Blanco to encourage her to order a mandatory evacuation of New Orleans. (Per page 235 of Special Report of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs)
-28 August: New Orleans mayor Ray Nagin was urged to evacuate (per the standard hurrevac plan which calls for evacuation 48 hours prior to landfall).
-28 August: United States Northern Command established Joint Task Force (JTF) Katrina
-30 August: 58,000 National Guard personnel were activated to deal with the storm's aftermath, with troops coming from all 50 states. The Department of Defense also activated volunteer members of the Civil Air Patrol.

In stark contrast,
-Democrat Nagin delayed emergency evacuation until 19 hours before landfall, which led to hundreds of deaths
-Democrat Governor Blanco rebuffed President Bush's overture in favor of her own state National Guard, a third of which was deployed overseas

danefan wrote: Keep in mind that I'm not defending the Obama Administration in anything they do, especially not for their actions surrounding the Gulf oil spill. I'm saying there is absolute zero evidence to support the notion that a Republican administration would handle the situation satisfactorily. And that is considering the points you've already cited above.

Nobody including me made the case that anyone could handle the situation perfectly. Satisfactory might be debatable. Certainly Bush took some of the correct steps. My unrefuted assertion is that Republicans do a better job, and in some cases have done a satisfactory job at the state level. The evidence appears to show that it is impossible for anyone to do a perfect job. Perfection should not be the standard. If satisfactory is to be the standard, perhaps we should define "satisfactory."

danefan wrote: And just so its clear, I don't give a crap if you think I'm witty. And now I'll let you have the last word on the subject. My opinion is pretty clear.

Your opinion is clear, danefan, but your facts and analysis are not. Just so it's clear, I don't give a crap if you are witty, either. What I said was that your arguments are witless, not that YOU are witless. You should not allow yourself the indiscipline of being disingenuous and insubstantial.

You are of course entitled to your opinion, but is opinion without honest engagement, analysis or facts the best you wish to do? Some posters are complete partisan cheerleading blowhards. Nothing wrong with cheerleaders, but you pretend to be something more. On this thread, however, your expressed opinions are not worthy of kalm's excellent question, your own purported professional and educational achievements or your faux-moderate political stance.

One obvious difference is that it's not likely that a Republican administration would've declared a moratorium on all deepwater drilling; thereby making a bad situation worse.

I thought the title of this thread meant What Would Teddy Roosevelt Do?

But then I realized that could not be the case, since if Teddy was still around there wouldn't be unions (or super-large corporations) in the way of fixing the problem.

CID1990 wrote:I thought the title of this thread meant What Would Teddy Roosevelt Do?

But then I realized that could not be the case, since if Teddy was still around there wouldn't be unions (or super-large corporations) in the way of fixing the problem.

Good alternative question and reasonable answer, CID.

CID1990 wrote:I thought the title of this thread meant What Would Teddy Roosevelt Do?

But then I realized that could not be the case, since if Teddy was still around there wouldn't be unions (or super-large corporations) in the way of fixing the problem.

True.

Of course you wouldn't need unions with a Republican, progressive, strong government, Roosevelt administration.