President Steps Up In Louisiana PLUS a Truman Moment

Today, President Obama visited Louisiana and got an earful from local officials. The President also dropped the “in situ” (whaat? Sounds like something on a Suchi restaurant menu) Admiral Allen jargon in favor of the people’s plain talking “on site.” He gets it:

“As I said yesterday, and as I repeated in the meeting that we just left, I ultimately take responsibility for solving this crisis. I’m the President and the buck stops with me. So I give the people of this community and the entire Gulf my word that we’re going to hold ourselves accountable to do whatever it takes for as long as it takes to stop this catastrophe, to defend our natural resources, to repair the damage, and to keep this region on its feet. Justice will be done for those whose lives have been upended by this disaster, for the families of those whose lives have been lost -- that is a solemn pledge that I am making.”

Thank you, Mr. President. Forgive us if we keep holding your feet to the fire. Yay for Zeitgeist! (You read it here first, with the correct historical Truman references to boot.):)

Congressman Charlie Melancon (D-LA) Expresses With Great Eloquence What We Feel

President Steps Up Minus a Harry Truman Moment

In his presser today President Obama sought to allay the growing criticism that the Administration’s response to the disaster unfolding in the Gulf is inadequate, insisting he, not BP, is in charge. We’re not entirely convinced. The measures announced by the President are necessary but prospective and do not address the immediate crisis. The best thing that could happen at this point is for the “Top Kill” maneuver that is underway to force drilling mud into that hole is successful in plugging it.

If not, all bets are off, and the Administration will have to take complete ownership of this catastrophe and move BP aside. Fingers crossed, for the sake of economically devastated residents and our ravaged ecology. Then we can move on to phase II –- the cleanup of this mess –- which should have been concurrent and with resources equal to the enormity of the task. Clearly, this has not been happening.

BP must be held accountable for the deaths of its workers, to “make things right, if they have a heart,” as a grieving father implored. Instead they are feverishly moving on the legal front to limit their losses and liability. This will not do, Mr. President. The Justice Department must start investigating this as a criminal matter. When you visit the region blighted by BP tomorrow, Mr. President, you need to look Louisiana native James Carville in the eye and the thousands of Gulf state residents who are as angry and frustrated as he is, and assure them you’re taking charge of this catastrophe on their behalf:



President Obama, these are the questions and issues that need immediate redress:

1. Where are those supertankers that were so effective in cleaning up an oil spill in the Gulf of Arabia in 1993? The question was asked at the presser, and not answered. Experts, including the former CEO of Exxon, have affirmed the effectiveness of this response.

From the moment this disaster was no longer a search and recovery operation, the federal government should have deployed supertankers to patrol the entire width and breadth of the spill -- as those NOAA maps showed in slow-mo GLOB growth moving inexorably toward our precious wetlands -- sucking up the surface muck, treating and disposing of it, and returning to the fray. At this point in time, the area covering the spill should look like the English Channel on D-Day: ships as far as the eye could see; only this time, they’d not be warships but supertankers dredging the surface of oil. This should be an operation led by the U.S. Navy.

It hasn’t happened. Why? WHY?

2. BP must be made to cease using Corexit immediately. It is a known toxin, banned in the UK, and to subordinate its use to commercial and proprietary reasons is entirely inappropriate and unacceptable when people’s health is at stake. This is not an abstract legal issue, Sir -- as we speak, cleanup workers hired by BP are getting sick with headaches, breathing difficulties, nervous system disorders, and a number of them have been hospitalized. Congressman Jerry Nadler of New York worried that we might have another 9/11 air quality issue at hand, when the EPA made false assurances that the air quality was non-toxic for recovery workers. Today, this repeats itself, aggravated by the fact that BP has sent these contract cleanup workers out without protective gear or respirators. And they are getting sick. As James Carville said, BP “does not wish us well.”

With all due respect, Mr. President, the EPA has been MIA. Director Jackson’s failing leadership is unacceptable. We need someone in charge of the agency who reflects the passion, commitment, and toughness in defense of our environment of Robert Kennedy Jr. My suggestion, Mr. President, is that you ask Mr. Kennedy to step in either as EPA Director or as Special Adviser to the President on the BP oil disaster. I’m certain he’d accept a call to duty. Environmentalists would rest much easier knowing Mr. Kennedy is advising you. And the polluters, including BP and Massey, would be quacking in their boots.

3. Mr. President, you should outright wrest control of the coastal and beach head response from BP. The numbers of personnel cited are clearly inadequate to the task, and BP’s effort here reflects its history of negligence and disdain for the environment. This is directly linked to issue #2, but the resources to hold the despoiling of our beaches and coastal environment have been woefully inadequate.

We need a military response to this crisis and an all-hands-on-deck commitment. People are ready to go to work to clean up their environment. The only thing lacking is leadership.

When Harry Truman nationalized the steel industry on national security grounds to end a strike that was crippling the Korean War effort, he said “these are not normal times.” The union had accepted his administration’s wage increase proposal, a compromise which the steel barons rejected out of hand. So Truman acted, announcing to the nation he was seizing the steel mills. “The President has the power to keep the country from going to hell,” he told his staff.

The steel industry sued and the case moved swiftly to the Supreme Court, which ruled against the President. Given this setback, Truman did not sit pat. He summoned the steelmakers and union to the White House. To the industry leader he said: “You can settle this thing, and you've got to settle it. I want it settled by tomorrow morning, or I will have some things to say that you won't like to hear, and I will have to do some things you won't like.”

The strike was settled. When the national interest was imperiled, Truman acted decisively without regard for legalisms or political fallout, so long as he believed he had the Constitutional authority. There is a lesson in this for President Obama. Republican Senator Lamar Alexander recognized Obama’s authority to “take over” BP if that became necessary.

Truman wouldn’t have hesitated on this question; and perhaps a government takeover of BP won’t become necessary after all. But it sure would be refreshing if President Obama summoned BP CEO Tony Hayward to the White House and gave him a Trumanesque presidential dressing-down. He’s got the script from the president who never trusted the corporations and never betrayed the people’s trust: Either this thing is “settled … [or] I will have to do some things you won't like.”

Take a page from “give ‘em Hell, Harry,” Mr. President. America needs a Truman moment.

A Trip Back in Time to the Streets of San Francisco, Circa 1906

Saw this amazing historic video in a friend’s site. The footage is taken from the front of a streetcar traveling down Market Street in San Francisco at 10 miles an hour, only four days before the Great Earthquake and Fire of 1906. The clocktower at the end, near Embarcadero Wharf, is a local landmark that survived the devastation and still stands today. “It is believed to be the earliest 35mm film in existence and was lost for many years; it is one of the few films depicting San Francisco as it looked before the devastating earthquake and fire … and escaped destruction by virtue of the fact that it had been sent to New York by train for processing.” The music is like you’d imagine music of the spheres to be, guiding you through a time travel portal for a glimpse back in time …

Fascinating film that shows the earliest automobiles when there were no rules of the road, and it was shared with pedestrians, the horse-and-buggy, and cyclists. The people depicted seemed to have a more acute obstacle avoidance radar than we do today. Sit back and enjoy the ride. (For best results, watch it in full screen mode.)

BP “THREE LITTLE PIGGIES” MEMO

Let Mary Landrieu and Jim Inhofe defend/spin this one. An internal BP memo obtained by the Daily Beast argues against building blast resistant shelters for workers because they’d cost more than the workers are worth. (In another memo BP calculates the value of a worker’s life at $10 million.) BP uses the “Three Little Pigs” metaphor to present a cost benefit analysis and asks, “Which type house should the piggy build?”

The answer is a hand-written “optimal” next to the option that offers solid protection (brick house), but not the “blast resistant” trailer, welded steel structures that cost 10 times as much. BP rated the need for a blast-proof house as small and its cost too high, evidently: “Cost + Expectation Value” at $1,010 (“Expectation value of loss” $10 + “Cost of House” $1,000). The “optimal” profit vs. “loss” (of life) is the brick house: (“Expectation value of loss” $100 + “Cost of House” $100 = “Cost + Expectation Value” $200).

From a profit margin perspective, it was cheaper for BP to build the less safe brick house instead of the most costly blast resistant shelters. So much for valuing the lives of so many “piggy” workers with blast resistant structures.

The only inaccuracy in the memo is who or what constitutes “the big bad wolf” -- BP or TH?

Where Are Teddy Roosevelt and Harry Truman When We Need Them

Dear President Obama:
Where is “the fierce urgency of now” when it comes to saving our environment? As President, Sir, you have a solemn duty and responsibility to protect and preserve our natural resources and national patrimony from criminal exploitation and attack. What is happening in the Gulf of Mexico is a crime, not only against Nature but against the American people, our health and economic well-being, our inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

It’s hard to imagine Presidents Teddy Roosevelt, Nature’s most fierce presidential advocate, and Harry Truman, who bucked prima donna generals, corporate scofflaws and epitomized the can-do progressive Democratic creed of “the buck stops here,” ever tolerating BP’s actions. If they sat where you sit now, they’d come out swinging, demand swifter action, twist arms at BP, and take concrete steps to seize control of BP’s operations, federalizing them on behalf of the American people. It’s inconceivable, given their action-oriented presidential character, that they would behave otherwise.

The Republican corporate shills and Big Oil agents are complicit in this crime, having pushed deregulation to the very limits of negligent ineffectiveness. Only days before the BP oil spill, Republicans still railed against a “government takeover” of financial institutions as Democrats passed financial regulatory reform; they howled against a “government takeover” of the healthcare industry as Democrats passed healthcare reform; they wailed against a “government takeover” of the auto industry as Democrats saved our nation’s manufacturing base, enabling Ford to thrive and GM to profit for the first time in more than a year. Now, amid the disaster and devastation wrought by Republican-sanctioned deregulation, Senator Lamar Alexander, who had only recently howled that “increasingly, the majority seems to be doing what they did on health care now to Main Street. It looks like another Washington takeover,” had this to say on Face the Nation:

Alexander: “There’s one thing [the administration] could do. Under the law, they could fire BP and take it over. But the truth is the federal government probably doesn’t have the capacity to do that. [...]”

Q: “But would you favor taking over BP if that became necessary?”

Alexander: “Sure. That’s up to the President to decide…Under the law the federal government can take it over if they choose. And I understand why they might not choose, but that option exists.”

“Sure,” says Lamar without a hint of shame at his 180-degree turn, two-faced Republican to the last. Staring into the black abyss of an ecological tragedy suddenly he says, “the government can take it over if they choose.” I wonder if message guru Frank Luntz gets paid by the frequency with which his buzzphrase “government takeover” is uttered by his clients. But the truth of the matter is, as in 1932 and 1992, Democrats are once more given the responsibility to clean up the damage done to this nation by Republicans. David Axelrod may have apologized for “doing this to [you]” (getting you elected), but the truth is, Mr. President, the ball is now in your court and the American people expect you to act decisively in this crisis.

Long after you’ve left office, for how many more decades will our coastal economy and our fisheries be ruined, for how many generations will our fragile natural habitat and coral reefs, a thriving source of life to so many species of marine animals be irreparably damaged, before you emerge from your Carterite hand-wringing malaise and take decisive executive action? The American people are waiting for presidential action, with all the powers attendant as leader of the world’s vanishing superpower to end the rampant crime against Nature and the United States of America now raging in the Gulf of Mexico.

The spectacle of public enemy No. 1, BP CEO Tony Hayward, shedding crocodile tears while bearing witness to his crime on a beach stained with BP’s oil greed and criminal negligence was surreal. The time is fast approaching that a seizure of BP’s assets and criminal prosecution of its top executives becomes more than an option. Absent federal government action, Mr. Hayward should think twice about setting foot on American soil and walking about like a colonial Maharajah, lest a citizen who is being economically decimated by BP decides to make a citizen’s arrest.

The spectacle of BP agent Senator Mary Landrieu making specific assertions, unconfirmed by either BP or the feds, that if affected persons earned $50,000 or a company $1 million pre-spill BP would cut them a check for that amount, is the height of insensitivity from a politician who will say anything to protect her oil patrons. BP has repeatedly made the legalistic qualification that it will repay only “legitimate” claims. Care to share with us BP’s (and your) definition of what constitutes a “legitimate” claim, Senator?

The likelihood is that many of the claims will end up in court, and be tied up for years by BP’s attorneys and deep pockets. From the very beginning, BP has lied about its responsibility and the size of the spill; now we’re supposed to take their word that the people of the Gulf states will be made whole in a timely fashion? The last claims derived from the Exxon Valdez were settled only last year. That’s 21 years for recovery. That’s the average small claimants’ livelihood and a good portion of their peak earning years.

Mr. President, it has become abundantly clear to the American people and to friendly media observers (Fox and the Republicans might be your best friends now, given their ties to Big Oil) that, in your insular White House surrounded by aides giving upbeat technocratic daily briefings of their efforts to supervise BP’s inept and unacceptable actions to stem its enormous crime, you have lost sight of the bigger picture. As one astute political observer said, you “just don’t get it.”

Interior Secretary Ken Salazar’s repeated assertion that the feds will keep “the boot on the throat of BP” until it fulfills its responsibility to the American people for this oil spill has become a bitter laughingstock in light of BP’s refusal even to heed EPA directives and switch to a less toxic dispersant than Corexit. And then we hear of regulators issuing drilling permits after Salazar’s directive that they stop, giving rise to speculation that the left boot of the feds doesn't know what the right boot is doing.

EPA Director Lisa Jackson’s fawning Senate testimony before key environmental foe James Inhofe, as he coached her on the biodegradability of the dispersants to state “for the record” that dispersants had “improved” since the Exxon Valdez spill -- a dubious claim once BP disclosed it was using Corexit, the same dispersant used on the Exxon Valdez spill rather than newer, less toxic chemicals -- was disgusting. Inhofe’s intent was to mislead the American people as to the toxicity of the chemical dispersant being used by BP, and Jackson was a collaborator.

Days later, after repeated alarms sounded by the media (ignored by the EPA) and then by Louisiana state environmental officials, Jackson finally, and belatedly ordered BP to cease using Corexit and switch to a less toxic dispersant. To date, BP has ignored EPA’s directive and has kept on using Corexit. This, weeks after the public interest media site ProPublica (linked by this blog) reported on Corexit’s long term toxicity to humans, including liver, nervous system, and reproductive disorders. Lisa Jackson is no Robert Kennedy Jr., that much is plain.

It is unbelievable that our government cannot bring the might of the military to bear on this disaster, commandeer every available technological resource, vessel, and aircraft worldwide, cooperatively whenever possible, by force if necessary, to resolve this crisis that is an assault not only on American sovereign territory but the entire planet. A state of war exists between the United States and British transnational corporation, BP, and it is incumbent on our government to take wartime measures to end this disaster. How can the nation that assembled the greatest invasion armada in history, on D-Day, be reduced to Nixon’s “pitiful, helpless giant” in the face of this catastrophe?

There is a cleanup solution that was reported in Esquire Magazine and broached by activist attorney Mike Papantonio:

There's a potential solution to the Gulf oil spill that neither BP, nor the federal government, nor anyone — save a couple intuitive engineers — seems willing to try. As The Politics Blog reported on Tuesday in an interview with former Shell Oil president John Hofmeister, the untapped solution involves using empty supertankers to suck the spill off the surface, treat and discharge the contaminated water, and either salvage or destroy the slick.

Hofmeister had been briefed on the strategy by a Houston-based environmental disaster expert named Nick Pozzi, who has used the same solution on several large spills during almost two decades of experience in the Middle East — who says that it could be deployed easily and should be, immediately, to protect the Gulf Coast. That it hasn't even been considered yet is, Pozzi thinks, owing to cost considerations, or because there's no clear chain of authority by which to get valuable ideas in the right hands. But with BP's latest four-pronged plan remaining unproven, and estimates of company liability already reaching the tens of billions of dollars (and counting), supertankers start to look like a bargain.

Only now, two weeks after the supertanker solution was reported is it being seriously considered by BP. This is where the federal government should have been proactive, doing what BP cannot do, mobilizing the supertankers and prepositioning them for rapid utilization:

The Politics Blog has learned that, over the weekend, BP's technical staff began to give serious attention to the supertanker strategy to attempt to recover some of the oil already in the Gulf of Mexico. … We also have learned that since the blowout in April, BP has received some 17,000 ideas for how to stop the flow or protect the coasts, and that it has taken the company considerable time to process the ideas, separating the good from the bad, the feasible from the impossible.

In addition to feasibility when it comes to implementing any of these ideas, BP is “bumping up against EPA concerns, NOAA concerns,” according to one BP official, who added that “BP can't put a boat in the water without Coast Guard approval.”

Between EPA, NOAA and the Coast Guard, it seems there isn’t a single decisionmaker in the federal response, who can cut through the red tape and say, “this is what we’re going to do.” The same can be said for allowing BP to use toxic dispersants banned in the UK -- reported here and elsewhere early into the spill -- for so long, inflicting incalculable damage on the fragile Gulf ecosystem before EPA Director Jackson reluctantly stepped in, only after complaints from Louisiana state officials and Democratic Congressmen and Senators sounding the alarm on Corexit, despite Senator Inhofe’s best efforts to keep it quiet.

Significantly, this information was available to the federal government in the media weeks –- WEEKS -– before the government finally considered the repeated, constant warnings on toxicity and proposed supertanker solutions with any degree of dispatch. It has not escaped notice that the Administration has come out against retroactive unlimited liability that would apply to BP, and that BP is a major fuel supplier for the U.S. military.

Who is calling the shots in this crisis, BP or the feds, is the question people are beginning to ask.


President Obama, your legacy is in the balance. Like it or not, history will judge the ultimate failure or success of your presidency by how you responded to this unfathomable disaster. It is your solemn responsibility to protect our nation and to put an end to this crime against Nature and the American people, and bring those responsible to justice. You’ve said before that you studied your predecessors, and sometimes hang out in the White House library reading their words for guidance and inspiration. In this environmental crisis, the most destructive man-made ecological disaster in our nation’s history, it’s perhaps fitting to read and commit to memory the words of America’s pre-eminent environmental president, Teddy Roosevelt:

The conservation of our natural resources and their proper use constitute the fundamental problem which underlies almost every other problem of our national life. … As a nation we not only enjoy a wonderful measure of present prosperity but if this prosperity is used aright it is an earnest of future success such as no other nation will have. The reward of foresight for this nation is great and easily foretold. But there must be the look ahead, there must be a realization of the fact that to waste, to destroy, our natural resources, to skin and exhaust the land instead of using it so as to increase its usefulness, will result in undermining in the days of our children the very prosperity which we ought by right to hand down to them amplified and developed. The government has been endeavoring to get our people to look ahead and to substitute a planned and orderly development of our resources in place of a haphazard striving for immediate profit.

Optimism is a good characteristic, but if carried to an excess it becomes foolishness. We are prone to speak of the resources of this country as inexhaustible; this is not so. The mineral wealth of the country, the coal, iron, oil, gas, and the like, does not reproduce itself, and therefore is certain to be exhausted ultimately; and wastefulness in dealing with it today means that our descendants will feel the exhaustion a generation or two before they otherwise would.

Theodore Roosevelt's Seventh Annual Message to Congress Dec. 3, 1907.

“The conservation of our natural resources and their proper use constitute the fundamental problem which underlies almost every other problem of our national life.”

Jamestown, Virginia June 10, 1907

“Conservation means development as much as it does protection. I recognize the right and duty of this generation to develop and use the natural resources of our land; but I do not recognize the right to waste them, or to rob, by wasteful means, the generations that come after us.”

Osawatomie, Kansas, August 31, 1910

“It is entirely our power as a nation to preserve large tracts of wilderness...as playground for rich and poor alike, and to preserve the game...But this end can only be achieved by wise laws and by a resolute enforcement of the laws. Lack of such legislation and administration will result in harm to all of us, but most of all harm to the Nature lover who does not possess vast wealth.”

Theodore Roosevelt excerpt from essay on Yellowstone National Park

Pat Buchanan’s “Culture War” Is Alive and Well in Texas and Arizona

When the Texas Board of Education approved its politicized history curriculum on a straight party-line vote, 10-5, the fanatical revisionism of the Board’s right wing faction went beyond the foolishness of one member’s insecurity over the branding of an economic system. One of the absurd changes adopted was to replace the word “capitalism” with “free-enterprise system.” Apparently, a member of the Christian Right faction led by dentist Don McLeroy (who has no wisdom teeth and takes his history from the Tooth Fairy) worried that capitalist has negative connotations as in “capitalist pig.” Perhaps we should embrace “free-enterprise pigs” to describe BP, Transocean, and Halliburton –- it’s got a nice ring to it. (Parenthetically, socialists could raise a similar and more valid grievance, given the Teabaggers’ signs, over the distortion of their ideology.)

The battle lines were drawn even before the debate began when Board member Cynthia Dunbar led the opening prayer by affirming her inaccurate belief that we are “a Christian land governed by Christian principles,” in the name of “my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.” That’s all well and good, except that we are a secular nation governed by secular laws, with no Christian state religion, but rather a “wall of separation” between church and state, as most famously enunciated by deist Thomas Jefferson.



One of the Board’s most galling changes was to rebrand “Slave Trade” as “Atlantic Triangular Trade.” This goes to the heart of what is most disturbing about ideological right wing historical revisionism –- the introduction of half-truths, distortions, and vexing omissions to textbooks in an effort to “whitewash” 246 years of slavery in America. From its beginnings in 1619 when African slaves were first brought to America, captured like animals in their native lands and chained in the holds of slave ships to be sold as chattel in colonial Jamestown, to slavery’s official end in 1865 coinciding with the end of the Civil War and beyond, slavery has been a dark and tragic narrative in our nation’s history.

What the Texas Board of Education has done is to compel the writing of a parallel history of America, one in which slavery is concealed, and its central role as the cause of America’s bloodiest internecine conflict claiming more than 600,000 lives, discarded. Not only does this fantasy entertained by white Christian fanatics violate the history of our nation –- for to disregard truth and facts is to empower lies and violence -- but it deeply disrespects the history and contributions of African Americans.

The history of racism in this nation, which parallels slavery’s beginnings in 1619, is alive and well in the deliberations of the Texas Board of Education, circa 2010 –- 391 years later, and counting. It is a festering wound that is further infected by the lies of white ideologues on the Board who would dismiss the civil rights movement as creating “unrealistic expectations of equal outcomes” among minorities and remove any reference to race, sex or religion in discussing what different groups have contributed to the national identity. The same thing is happening in Arizona with another law signed by its lily white governor outlawing “ethnic studies” as somehow antithetical or divisive, when in fact it constitutes part of the multicolored fabric that built this nation and its capital, brick by brick.

Anyone who fails to see the ideological connection between the Texas Board vote, long in the making, and the Arizona curriculum slam of nonwhite Americans, has not been paying attention. There is much cause for alarm, not only for parents who wish for their children to receive a well-rounded and truthful education that teaches facts and unbiased, objective history and science, but for all citizens who thought the struggles for civil rights and the ongoing fight to keep Christian religious dogma out of science and history textbooks were settled history. For those who were there at the start of the troubles, there must be in all of this a sickening, familiar odor of déjavu, from Texas to Arizona to Rand Paul revisiting the Civil Rights Act of 1964, like Robert Duvall’s glorification of war in Apocalypse Now: “You smell that? Do you smell that? Napalm, son. Nothing else in the world smells like that. I love the smell of napalm in the morning.” Pat Buchanan framed its current context:

“There is a religious war going on in our country for the soul of America. It is a cultural war, as critical to the kind of nation we will one day be as was the Cold War itself. And in that struggle for the soul of America.

My friends, even in tough times, these people are with us. They don't read Adam Smith or Edmund Burke, but they came from the same schoolyards and playgrounds and towns as we did. They share our beliefs and convictions, our hopes and our dreams. They are the conservatives of the heart. […]

And as they took back the streets … block by block, so we must take back our cities, and take back our culture, and take back our country.”

This speech at the 1992 Republican National Convention was the high point of Pat Buchanan’s political career. Ironically, it is known as the “culture war” speech, and even though Buchanan mellowed, it lives on in the hearts and minds of Christian conservatives such as Don McLeroy, Cynthia Dunbar, and their allies in Texas and Arizona like a secret covenant that informs their radical right ideological agenda. The Christian Right’s culture war isn’t just a bumper sticker –- it’s real and it’s on the march.

"Ayn" Rand Paul Opines on BP and Massey Mining: Too Regulated

After his self-inflicted wound, declaring opposition to Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, “Ayn” Rand Paul, Kentucky Republican nominee for the Senate, tried to walk back his remarks by saying he would have voted for the Act. This is a new position. Stoking the fire, Dr. Paul confirmed his extremism with more sophistry, characterizing the explosions in the Massey Mine and BP rig as “accidents happen” even though preliminary reports point to negligence, probably willful and criminal in each instance, coupled with the devastating failure of a lax regulatory regime to prevent corporations from placing profits above appropriate worker safety protocols. He would oppose any increase in the minimum wage based on the groundless right wing talking point that it’s a job killer. Keep digging, Dr. Paul:



The common thread among these corporate CEOs and their champion, Dr. Paul, is (1) corporations know best and can self-regulate; and (2) regulators are the enemy to be kept at arm's length, bought off at the source (MMS), and in Congress, with campaign contributions to ease regulatory burdens. Deep pockets transnationals will push back with threats and dilatory tactics, including endless appeals (Massey) and lawsuits to lock in limited liability (Transocean). These operators and their proxies -- Dr. Paul, James Inhofe, Mary Landrieu, and Lisa Murkowski among them -- are so brash they believe any calamity can be overcome with enough money flowing through Congress, high-powered lawyers, and public relations.

They may be right.

Dr. Rand Paul (Opthalmologist), insistently pressed by Rachel Maddow, still refused to say whether he would have voted for the Civil Rights Act. Instead he clung to the life preserver that he never said he would repeal the law. Pure semantics. One can reasonably infer from what Dr. Paul says that, given the opportunity, he would repeal Title II of the Civil Rights Act. Opponents of laws repeal specific provisions, if they have the votes, without actually repealing an entire law. Amendments give and they taketh away.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

So, the correct question is: If Dr. Paul has no problem with 9 out of 10 sections of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, what does he propose to do with Title II, the section he is on record as firmly opposing? If given the opportunity, would Dr. Paul vote to repeal Title II of the Civil Rights Act -- Yes or No? (See below, with relevant sections emphasized.) It prohibits discrimination in a place of public accomodation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin. Interestingly, Dr. Paul celebrated his primary victory in a private club. That’s his right. It’s also their right to discriminate against persons on the basis of sex, color, religion, national origin, party affiliation, attire, whatever. Section 2000a(e) provides that:

The provisions of this title shall not apply to a private club or other establishment not in fact open to the public

But not for private commercial establishments serving the public. It's pretty clear and unambiguous:

TITLE II OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT (PUBLIC ACCOMMODATIONS)

42 U.S.C. §2000a

(a) All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.

42 U.S.C. §2000a(b)

(b) Each of the following establishments is a place of public accommodation within this title if its operations affect commerce, or if discrimination or segregation by it is supported by State action:

(1) any inn, hotel, motel, or other establishment which provides lodging to transient guests, other than an establishment located within a building which contains not more than five rooms for rent or hire and which is actually occupied by the proprietor of such establishment as his residence.

(2) any restaurant, cafeteria, lunchroom, lunch counter, soda fountain, or other facility principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises, including, but not limited to, any such facility located on the premises of any retail establishment, or any gasoline station;

(3) any motion picture house, theater, concert hall, sports arena, stadium or other place of exhibition or entertainment; and

(4) any establishment (A)(i) which is physically located within the premises of any establishment otherwise covered by this subsection, or (ii) within the premises of which is physically located any such covered establishment and (B) which holds itself out as serving patrons of any such covered establishment.

42 U.S.C. § 2000a(c)

(c) The operations of an establishment affect commerce within the meaning of this title if ... For purposes of this section, “commerce” means travel, trade, traffic, commerce, transportation, or communication among the several States, or between the District of Columbia and any State, or between any foreign country or any territory or possession and any state or the District of Columbia, or between points in the same State but through any other State or the District of Columbia or a foreign country.

42 U.S.C. § 2000a(e)

The provisions of this title shall not apply to a private club or other establishment not in fact open to the public, except to the extent that the facilities of such establishment are made available to the customers or patrons of an establishment within the scope of subsection (b).

42 U.S.C. § 2000a-6(a)

Whenever the Attorney General has reasonable cause to believe that any person or group of persons is engaged in a pattern or practice of resistance to the full enjoyment of any of the rights granted by this title, and that the pattern or practice is of such a nature and is intended to deny the full exercise of the rights herein described, the Attorney General may bring a civil action in the appropriate district court of the United States by filing with it a complaint (1) signed by him (or in his absence the Acting Attorney General), (2) setting forth facts pertaining to such pattern or practice, and (3) requesting such preventive relief, including an application for a permanent or temporary injunction, restraining order or other order against the person or persons responsible for such pattern or practice, as he deems necessary to insure the full enjoyment of the rights herein described.

42 U.S.C. § 2000a-6(b)

* * *
It shall be the duty of the judge designated pursuant to this section to assign the case for hearing at the earliest practicable date and to cause the case to be in every way expedited.

Owners of private establishments that serve the public cannot discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, or national origin. Title II makes reference to “a place of public accommodation within this title if its operations affect commerce, or if discrimination or segregation by it is supported by State action,” meaning that the federal government’s constitutional authority to enforce civil rights against private and state-backed discrimination is grounded in the commerce clause of the Constitution:

Article I, Section 8, Clause 3:
“[The Congress shall have power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes;”

This is settled law. It's not an abstraction, as Dr. Paul has tried to insinuate, or a college pow-wow at 2 a.m. in the morning, as dismissed by Senator John Kyl of Arizona. Thousands of racial discrimination lawsuits are filed annually. One of the more notorious involved Denny's restaurant denying or refusing to serve African American patrons. Under Dr. Paul’s worldview, this would be perfectly acceptable. But it’s not. The vast majority of the American people are repulsed by such discrimination and find such parsing views abhorrent. We have moved on, Dr. Paul. And so should you. Either voluntarily, or rejected by the electorate at the polls.

[Update: Citing “exhaustion” “Ayn” Rand Paul has cancelled his appearance with David Gregory on Meet the Press. To quote a fellow libertarian radio host for Dr. Paul, “take a pill and lie down.” Rachel, don't feel bad, no long-winded apologias on your show ... but you might want to stay out of Gregory’s way for a couple of days. Rachel, you’re eeeevil!]

Liberated, D.C. Douglas Bitch-Slaps Freedomworks

From the Huff Post:

D.C. Douglas may have lost his gig as a voice over announcer on Geico commercials, but he's found another use for his time and talent ... making a tongue-in-cheek PSA warning people, "don't drunk dial FreedomWorks."

One Day Later, Where Is the GOP Triumphalism About November? *CRICKETS*

John Boehner must have been working on his tan; he was nowhere to be seen after last night’s election results. Mitch McConnell issued a muted statement which was the equivalent of a full-bore run for the tall grass. Eric Cantor drew the short straw and was trotted out to say: “I do think that we’re going to win the majority. But last night is evidence that we can’t take things for granted and we’ve got our work cut out for us.” This is what’s known in parliamentary parlance as a “vote of confidence” in the party’s success which, by dint of being invoked, actually means a vote of no-confidence.

Things didn’t get any better at the Ministry of Truth, a.k.a. Fox ‘News’, where mini-brother Neil Cavuto informed RNC Chairman Michael Steele that “everybody hates you,” wondering whether there’s “bad blood” between the Teabagger Proles and the GOP. This is the context: Yesterday’s elections in Pennsylvania, Kentucky, and Arkansas were the idiot punditocracy’s last chance before the November mid-terms to pontificate, prognosticate, and extrapolate on the national implications of local elections. In Kentucky’s Republican Senate primary, Teabagger candidate “Ayn” Rand Paul, son of Ron Paul, trounced what’s-his-name handpicked by GOP Caudillo Mitch McConnell, in a clear repudiation of so-called Washington “insiders.”

The fact that Paul lives up to his namesake was a little-known semi-secret (the national media wanted the Teabagger candidate to win, it helps the bottom line, so they’re ecstatic) that when revealed instantly made Dem opponent Jack Conway a tough competitor and put the seat in play in ways a conventional Republican candidate might not. You see, Mr. Paul favors eliminating the Departments of Education and Agriculture, privatizing Social Security and Medicare, and repealing the civil rights protections that make it illegal, say, for a private diner not to serve African Americans at the lunch counter, or for that matter, to discriminate against any person on the basis of race, sex, religion, or national origin. Whoops. Mr. Paul might have Glenn Beck in his corner but has anyone checked Beck’s ratings lately?!

Onto Pennsylvania, where the idiot punditocracy and the RNC were having premature orgasms in anticipation of a Republican pickup of deceased John Murtha’s 12th Congressional District, which went for McCain in 2008 and where the well-financed Republican candidate Tim Burns polled ahead of former Murtha aide Mark Critz. The RNC nationalized the election, running anti-Pelosi, anti-Obama, anti-healthcare ads while Critz focused on jobs and local issues. Critz won going away. Oops.

In the Democratic Senate primary, Joe Sestak running as a genuine liberal Democrat bucked the party machine in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, as well as the entire Democratic Party establishment from the President to the Governor on down to ward leaders. Sestak beat party switcher Arlen Specter, who became a Democrat because he could not beat ultra-conservative Pat Toomey in the Teabagger-packed Republican primary. Despite the President’s arm-twisting to make him drop out, Sestak hung in there and beat Specter going away. Uh-Oh. Sestak polls closer to Toomey than Specter did. In the 12th, the conservative Republican lost badly to a Democratic moderate. Sestak was the liberal alternative preferred by Democratic voters as the “genuine” Democrat, despite Specter’s liberal leanings to appeal to primary voters. In the end, the perceived genuine Democratic brand won resoundingly statewide.

Finally in Arkansas, a progressive grassroots-funded campaign got behind Lt. Governor Bill Halter and dealt corporate shill Blanche Lincoln a near-fatal blow, forcing her into a runoff after neither candidate received 50 percent or more of the vote in a three-way race. Halter finished a point or two behind Lincoln (mid-40s) and figures to finish her off in the runoff, despite her backing by the hated, corporate-identified Chamber of Commerce, Big Oil, and Wall Street. Even Bubba Clinton can’t save her. This was a victory for progressive Democratic politics and a message to President Obama that he’s strayed off-course by turning his back on the people who got him elected. The infuriating spectacle of Senate Democrats, in particular, selling out to corporate interests and watering down healthcare, jobs bills, financial reform, mobilized progressive forces to defeat those who betrayed core Democratic principles. Lincoln was up first. If and when Mary Landrieu, Ben Nelson, and Joe Lieberman stand for election they will face the ire of the progressive-labor coalition, and will go down to defeat.

The Republican establishment, in the person of Mitch McConnell, was a big loser in these contests. They have been co-opted by the Teabaggers in a schism that is reminiscent of the chaos afflicting the Democratic Party in the 1860 election, pitching a fractured Southern party against an organized Union Northern “Republican” Party united behind Abe Lincoln. In that election, the Democrats fielded three slates of candidates against Lincoln, one being a semi-independent party, the Constitutional Democrats, older, similar to the Tea Party movement. They also advertised themselves as a movement to save the party and the nation by harking back to our founding principles.

Stephen A. Douglas, the “establishment” Democratic candidate was incapable of uniting the party, after their philosophical and policy differences surrounding the issue of the day, slavery, became irreconcilable. The Republicans were the liberal, even radical party of its day -– (sorry “Party of Lincoln” GOP dreamers, that’s not been happening since Teddy Roosevelt bolted and ran for president under the Progressive [third] Party banner). Lincoln’s Republicans were much like today’s Democratic Party, with its north-northeastern base, its Blue Dog-DLC and Progressive-Labor wings in a constant tug-of-war to pull the party in either direction. The radical (liberal) Republicans represented by Lincoln rival William H. Seward, a fiery abolitionist from New York, caused tension within the ranks. But the party united behind Lincoln and ran a national campaign in which Lincoln’s proxies were matched to the local electorate. Seward campaigned among the radicals while others popular with more conservative voters emphasized those Lincoln policies that would best appeal to them. The result was never in doubt. The fractured Democrats were crushed and Lincoln was swept into office by his Republicans.

Today’s Tea Party movements have much in common with the fractured Democrats of 1860, especially the Constitutionalists. Their failure to run fusion tickets spelled ultimate doom for the party. Today we see the same kinds of eruptions and schisms in the ranks: In Florida, Governor Charlie Crist was forced to run as an independent by Tea Party Marco Rubio’s insurgency from the right. Crist is likely to win that contest, especially in light of the Gulf oil spill catastrophe, where as governor he can be much more proactive in dealing with the crisis. Given the cold shoulder rejection of the Republican establishment, Crist will likely caucus with the Democrats as an “independent” along with two other “independents.” The Dems will take these “independents” under their big tent, any time. In Kentucky, Ron Paul is so out of the Republican mainstream, never mind American politics in general, that his presence in the race against a strong Democrat makes that seat a better than 50-50 chance of a Democratic pickup. In Utah the Teabaggers rejected a distinguished conservative senator, Bob Bennett, in favor of no-name backbenchers backed by the Teabaggers who took over a nonrepresentative party convention. Sure, it’s a one-party state, but the defeat of a senator with decades of seniority weakens the party’s effectiveness nationally.


These are but the tip of the iceberg in the Tea Party movement’s Astroturf/corporate-bankrolled/grassroots-funded assault on the traditional Republican Party establishment. Not to speak of the open divisions within the Tea Party movement itself, which is a loose agglomeration of groups with common, general goals, but very different internal dynamics and beliefs. For one thing, the libertarian faction of the Tea Party has little in common with the corporate-backed Astroturf Freedomworks of Dick Cheney, whose principal aim is to be a boots-on-the-ground corporate counterforce to the genuine grassroots that elected Barack Obama. Already, tensions have bubbled to the surface between the disparate Tea Party groups. Finally, these loose Tea Party factions, and their uneasy, often hostile, association with the Republican Party, have not shown the kind of organizational structure that wins elections. The evidence is slim to none. And that does not portend well for Republican Party prospects in November.

It’s likely, given historical trends, that the Democratic Party will lose seats and see their majorities diminished in the House and Senate. It’s unlikely, however, that the Democratic Party will lose control of either chamber, unless outside events intervene. The Republicans are more worried about survival under intense pressure from the Tea Party on their right flank, which threatens an establishment rout.

The Democrats are poised and well-positioned to capitalize from the volcanic divisions in the Republican Party caused by the Tea Party, bubbling just beneath the surface, threatening to erupt in a major way this November. The end result might not augur well for the Republican “brand,” much less for the future of the Republican Party itself.

Arizona's "Show Me Your Papers" Law Claims an Innocent Victim

Heartbreaking consequence of Arizona’s “show me your papers” law, this little girl’s fear that President Obama is going to take her mommy away. Kids have a way of cutting right to the heart of the matter.

Top Environment Foe in Congress Takes the Point Blocking Bill to Raise Liability Cap As Outrages Mount

After the withering criticism faced by Senator Lisa Murkowski (that will not soon go away), as she stepped up to block a bill that would lift the oil industry's liability for spills from $75 million to $10 billion, notorious global warming denier and top industry shill James Inhofe stepped into the breach to replace her. Inhofe took a slightly different tack. Not only did he repeat the absurd argument that limiting Big Oil's liability was to help so-called “independents,” i.e., you can’t afford the bill, don’t worry, the taxpayers will pay the cost for these companies’ reckless behavior.

But then Inhofe blatantly misrepresented what President Obama said by suggesting that the President opposes the bill because the appropriate cap has yet to be determined. Watch Inhofe try to portray his and Murkowski's refusal to allow the legislation to be voted on as sanctioned by President Obama:

Inhofe added:

“I don't very often agree with President Obama. Right now he is unsure what that level should be, I'm unsure what that level should be," Inhofe said. "Maybe it should be the level we're talking about right now, and it may end up there, we don't know that.”

And the President’s response:

“I am disappointed that an effort to ensure that oil companies pay fully for disasters they cause has stalled in the United States Senate on a partisan basis. This maneuver threatens to leave taxpayers, rather than the oil companies, on the hook for future disasters like the BP oil spill. I urge the Senate Republicans to stop playing special interest politics and join in a bipartisan effort to protect taxpayers and demand accountability from the oil companies.”

Meanwhile, as the owner of the rig, Transocean, sought to limit its liability in a Texas court to $27 million, it was making a $1 billion stock dividend distribution to shareholders. The outrages mount. The Gulf oil spill is already a distressing global phenomenon. The only difference is that the industry's criminality was out of sight, out of mind for most Americans. Until now. As was noted in this blog early into the crisis, independent analysts had already determined the oil spill was bigger than the Exxon Valdez, and the dispersant Corexit (used in the Exxon spill) has serious toxicity to humans and wildlife. BP is using it in the Gulf spill on a widespread and unprecedented basis, despite the existence of other, more effective and less toxic dispersants. Corexit is banned in the UK. In hearings today, Democrats noted that BP has a contractual relationship with the manufacturer of Corexit, suggesting that its use was determined by factors other than which dispersant is safer, most effective, and less toxic. The outrages mount.

A CBS News crew was told to turn around threat of arrest by the Coast Guard -- “It’s BP’s rules, not ours” -- as they tried to film the extent of the encroaching spill:


Watch CBS News Videos Online

The outrages mount. BP CEO Tony Hayward dismissed the oil spill as “relatively tiny compared to the very big ocean.” Hayward’s glib attitude is reminiscent of a warlord or colonial master of his domain. The BP oil spill contaminating our waters and beaches and wildlife and economy is United States property under lease to a foreign corporation. Those waters are United States sovereign territory, not under the jurisdiction or “rules” of BP or any other corporation. And BP has told local fishermen working on the oil cleanup to forgo safety precautions, despite air quality exceeding safe levels. I’m reminded of an old but ever so relevant Buffalo Springfield song:

There's something happening here
What it is ain't exactly clear
There's a man with a gun over there
Telling me I got to beware

I think it's time we stop, children, what's that sound
Everybody look what's going down

There's battle lines being drawn
Nobody's right if everybody's wrong
Young people speaking their minds
Getting so much resistance from behind

I think it's time we stop, hey, what's that sound
Everybody look what's going down

The outrages mount.

Gimme An H-Y- ... What's It Spell? H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-T-E

This is Republican Rep. Mark Souder of Indiana, one of those “family values” guys, giving an “interview” on abstinence. The young woman interviewing him is staffer Traci Jackson, that he was boinking on the side. Field research? Souder resigned yesterday. His wife was not at his side.

Rapid Fire Election Night Impressions

Joe Sestak beat party-jumper Arlen Specter handily in Pennsylvania. This was a setback for the White House, but not entirely unexpected. Matthews described Sestak as "the little engine that could" and Big Ed Schultz, who's given to occasional hyperbole, said he's a "diamond in the rough," predicting he's not done yet.

I'll say. First Sestak needs to beat Toomey. And Eddie, next time you talk to your buddy Joe, please tell him to hire a speech coach STAT, because his speaking style -- the long pauses, the whiny delivery, the rambling -- won't cut it in the general. It's just too annoying. It doesn't even come close to Chris saying CHEE-KNEE -- we just ignore that. Just sayin' Eddie, advise your guy to hire that speaking coach and start talking in front of a mirror -- pacing, pacing, no more long pauses, and work on some more emphatic hand gestures -- or he'll lose on the cosmetics.

Seriously. Man, what an awful podium speaker. Gave me agita. Sestak needs to develop a strong stump speech -- he's got the slogans and the talking points -- and then deliver it in a way that doesn't have people tearing their hair out at all the pregnant pauses.

In Kentucky, "Ayn" Rand (it's gotta be, like father like son like Ayn) Paul, the guy with the ass-backward name in more ways than one has just made Kentucky competitive for the Democrats. His race -- AGAINST REPUBLICAN LEADER MITCH McCONNELL's HANDPICKED CHOICE -- sucked all the punditocracy oxygen away from the Democratic contest, which actually featured two strong and attractive candidates.

Gotta love those Teabaggers. I find it hard to believe that, even in Kentucky, voters will go for someone who wants to repeal the Americans with Disabilities Act, and privatize/destroy Medicare and Social Security. Wrap that one around your pea brains, you old Teabagger farts. It's not the black guy who's going to take your (MINE MINE MINE) benefits away; it's the Ayn Rand candidate you backed.

The Pennsylvania 12th, for the late Rep. John Murtha's seat was a walkover for Murtha's aide, Democrat Mark Critz over Republican Tim Burns. The Republicans nationalized the election, put up a pretty young face, dumped lots of money into the race and got their asses burned. AGAIN. Woot! Losers. So much for the punditocracy's hope this contest would go Red so they could make all sorts of idiotic assertions about national trends.

In Arkansas, Blanche Lincoln went down to an excellent candidate, Lt. Governor Bill Halter. A REAL Democrat. A CENTRIST, but that's OK, it's Arkansas. Listen carefully, Chris, I'll say this only once: Blanche Lincoln is NO "centrist." She's a CONSERVATIVE DEMOCRAT, just like you are. Progressives who watch Hardball have not forgotten or forgiven you for using your platform to actively campaign against the public option and "those netroots people." Poetic Justice.

Lincoln is a nice lady, but a traitor to core Democratic values. Progressives are fed up with the sellout of the Progressive agenda, from the public option to watered down financial reform to protecting Big Oil. Lincoln was on the wrong side of every single one of these good public policy issues, and her deathbed conversion as a financial reform crusader fooled no one. One final point: The "netroots" Matthews was so disdainful of poured tons of money -- $20, $30 contributions -- into Halter's campaign to take CONSERVATIVE Democrat Blanche Lincoln down. So much for our waning strength at the polls, if we listened to the idiot punditocracy.

The pundits (as usual) are all wrong. This was a great night for the Democratic Party, with a nod to the Teabaggers. They're the Republicans' problem. November's looking good for the Dems.

Matthews, you lose. Big win for Big Eddie. And Howard Fineman's mom, too.

Quote of the Day: Chris Matthews on Today's Elections

I know it’s early yet, but nobody beats this zinger from MSNBC’s Chris Matthews on the mood of the electorate:

“People are banging on the pipes. They want hot water. They want the Super to deliver.”

This guy says hilarious things, especially when he doesn’t mean to. Give up telling people you’re not trying to be funny, Chris. By the way; you and Smerconish and the rest of the idiot punditocracy are wrong on Blumenthal. Stop being so damned trigger-happy with your snap judgments.

Big Oil’s Call Girls

When Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska rose to the Senate Floor to “object” to a unanimous consent request by Senator Bob Menendez of New Jersey that the bill he and Senator Bill Nelson of Florida introduced, raising liability caps for polluters like BP from an absurd $75 million to a still inadequate but more realistic $10 billion, was Murkowski committing a crime? Technically, no. Any more than BP, Deepwater Horizon, and Halliburton are corporate criminals that would be found criminally negligent in any court of law in the land for taking the lives of eleven workers on that rig that exploded into a human and ecological catastrophe in the Gulf of Mexico.

And not unless the Justice Department were to conduct an investigation into influence peddling, perhaps record conversations between senators and congresspersons in which oil industry executives direct them to take to the Senate floor to block legislation that expands the corporations’ criminal liability in cases already before the courts. Unfortunately, it doesn’t work that way. Corruption is very hard to prove in such cases. The Justice Department has limited resources, and its criminal investigations division was under the thumb of the most corrupt and politicized administration in modern times: eight years of deregulation and wanton corruption under Big Oil men Bush and Cheney.

Remember those mass firings of U.S. attorneys by Bush Attorney General Alberto Gonzales? Nothing like a sledge hammer from the top to put a freeze on prospective criminal investigations into “sensitive” areas. (Democrats, Rove-sanctioned political probes were OK, though.) By the time the OIG report came out detailing a “culture of ethical failure … a pervasive culture of exclusivity, exempt from the rules that govern all other employees of the Federal Government,” well, it was September 10, 2008. Guess what was happening on November 6 of that year.

To be fair to the Inspector General, the report took so long to complete (it began in 2006) “primarily due to the criminal nature of some of these allegations, protracted discussions with DOJ [emphasis mine] and the ultimate refusal of one major oil company -- Chevron -- to cooperate with our investigation.” If anything, President Obama understated his PG-13 characterization of an X-rated “regulatory” culture existing between the federal government and Big Oil. He called it a “cozy relationship”— free-flowing sex, drugs, and phony permits between the industry and its regulators, the Minerals Management Service (MMS). The place was a real den of iniquity; and it was still issuing drilling permits after the new boss, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, said he was putting a stop to them!

Nope, it doesn’t work that way. Lisa Murkowski and Mary Landrieu –- let’s call them agents prostitutes, Big Oil’s call girls –- made Crew’s list of ‘The Most Corrupt’ members of Congress in recent years, and will most likely be back on it this year. In Congress, House and Senate, (the polls show people instinctively know this) money talks and bullshit walks. Straight to the Senate floor where Senator Murkowski “argued” that the legislation:

is “not where we need to be right now” and would unfairly advantage large oil companies by pricing the small companies out of the market. Murkowski did signal that she would be open to "look at the liability cap and consider raising it.” Just not at this moment.

Interesting. So Murkowski concedes she is willing to consider lifting the caps, just “not right now … [it’s] not where we need to be.” Why not, Senator? Coincidentally, the very same day Murkowski was making her utterly specious and illogical argument, the owner of the oil rig that exploded in the Gulf, Transocean, was filing a petition asking a (presumably friendly, considering the venue) Houston federal court to limit its liability for the spill to $26.8 million, a microscopic fragment of the anticipated damages. With this legal maneuver, Transocean was seeking to consolidate all lawsuits from the spill “before a single, impartial federal judge” [and to] “establish a single fund from which legitimate claims may be paid.”

Right. Plaintiffs’ lawyers saw right though this maneuver, claiming that the company wanted the more than 100 lawsuits adjudicated in Houston, heart of Texas oil country, because juries there would be most sympathetic to the oil industry. Instead, they will try to consolidate the lawsuits in New Orleans (watch Senator Landrieu try to block cases being heard in New Orleans) or Washington, where they could get a fair hearing.

I’ll bet the following imaginary conversation between Big Oil and Senator Murkowski could very well reside in that sinister black building where the NSA eavesdrops on millions of phone conversations. If only we had a progressive version of J. Edgar Hoover, who could dangle these personal secrets over politicians’ heads and compel them to be honest public servants. It’s easy to imagine a phone call from Big Oil to their girl, Lisa. This is how it would go:

Big Oil: “We’re calling in our chips, Senator. We need you to block, delay, obstruct, kill if you can, the Nelson-Menendez bill. We don’t care how you do it, or what arguments you use.”

Murkowski: “You don’t understand the pressure we’re in to do something in Congress. After all, your people are poisoning the Gulf and ruining the coastal and tourism economies of four states. Nelson and his crowd are royally pissed at me. They’re threatening a recorded roll call vote, instead of a voice vote. I just don’t know how long Mary and I can hold them at bay. And now our friends are getting pissed at me because they don’t want to be outed voting against this thing. They, all of us, just love your money, but this is big, really big. You gotta understand!”

Big Oil: “Calm down, Lisa. We’re working on a “friendly” judge (if you know what I mean) to limit liability, as we speak. Perry’s office promises to cooperate, anything we need, the Texas delegation is mostly behind us, Barton’s screaming at that little radical punk in the House, Henry Waxman, that he wants “fair and balanced” hearings. Haha … Fox has their seat at the table. Not much we could do about Ed Markey’s grandstanding with that jar of oily Gulf water and “hole-in-one” shit … Just be thankful we threw so much money at Scott Brown we discouraged Markey from running. Brown’s in our pocket. He’ll play ball. And you’ve got that all-important 41st vote to filibuster …

Murkowski: “No. That’ll look bad … This isn’t healthcare, you know. Even the Teabaggers, I mean Tea Party people … might think critically once that black ooze and dead animals start washing ashore in their backyards … and they won’t like it when their shrimp cocktail, gas pump prices gets more expensive and the seafood restaurants go out of business … They might blame us, not Obama this time! I don’t know how long Dick Armey can control those crazy old coots, and Sarah, well she’s just out for herself. Loose cannon, she’ll say something dumb, I know her well. (Snort)”

Big Oil: “Listen Lisa. You do the talking, we’ll do the thinking. Okay? Play your cards right and we won’t need a filibuster. We just need you to delay for now, until we can get some favorable rulings in court. We’re very close. Just delay, obstruct …”

Murkowski: “But what do I say? They have a point, you know. And the politics of this has gone TOXIC. It’s not simply the Gulf, you know. Everyone here is calculating how this will impact our political futures. We’ve got political and lobbying careers to think about. You didn’t do us any favors with all that finger-pointing at the hearings …”

Big Oil: “Minor setback. Tony’s not happy but he’s got Lamar on a short leash. And we’ve got Tony by the balls, too. He’d better hope it’s us and not the feds. Lamar’s gone after this is all over, but if he fucks up again … No golden parachute. He knows it. They all do. In the meantime, tell them anything, just stall stall stall. Say it hurts small business operators … Haha … Total nonsense, but a standard Republican talking point.”

Murkowski: “Hmm … That might work. But only for so long … I mean, it makes no sense to say this hurts small operators (do they even exist?) if they can’t cover the cost of the clenup … that means the taxpayers will be stuck with the bill and the Teabaggers will be all over me. (Whines)”

Big Oil: “It’ll be all right. They’re too dense to catch on, they still think the rig was blown up by ‘environmentalist wackos’ … Hahaha … Couldn’t ask for better media boosters than Rush and Glenn. (Note to self: make sure they get their stash of drugs.) If all goes as planned we won’t keep you hanging out there too long. We won’t forget this, Lisa. We reward loyalty, you know, and we really appreciate your courage, standing up for the right thing and all.”

Murkowski: “Right …”

Big Oil: “Remember … just as Henry Waxman and Barbara Boxer, and the rest of those tree-hugging alternative energy (snorts) radicals opened their hearings, we held our own little grease-the-wheels confab with your Republican colleagues. Sorry you couldn’t make it, but we understand. Don’t worry, you’ll get yours too. (Joke! Haha.) You’ll be happy to know message guru Frank Luntz was in attendance. We told Luntzie, ‘this is your biggest career challenge! We want you to make us come out the other end smelling like roses and sweet perfume’ … Someone told him taking a dip in the Gulf might help his complexion. He said, ‘no thanks.’ Not much of a joke guy.”


“Speaking of jokes and swimming in these waters, Haley Barbour should really stop telling people it’s OK to go to the beach. Truth is, we really have no idea what effect the tons of dispersants we’re dumping in the Gulf will have on humans, long or short term, and we don’t intend to find out! The last thing we need are more lawsuits from a bunch of Haley’s Mississippi constituents who went swimming because he said it was safe and got a bunch of skin lesions for their trouble.”

Murkowski: “Gotta go. The bill’s coming up shortly. I’ll think of something, for now, but you’d better get me those Luntz talking points STAT! (I know, we said it during the healthcare debate, too.)”

Big Oil: “Go get ‘em, tiger! One more thing, Lisa, before I forget. Make sure you coordinate your message with Mary. We want this thing to look bipartisan. Optics are very important; it’s the only thing keeping the public from the reality of what’s going on in the Gulf.”

Murkowski: “Landrieu? She’s great! You don’t have to worry about her, why, she’s a true believer. Did you catch that interview she had with Ed Schultz over at MSNBC? She rolled that fat man like he was the tarp coverin’ the baseball infield during rain delay! Haha … I think she set the ground rules for the interview, ‘cause he said the ‘floor is yours.’ Talk about how not to conduct an interview … not that I’m complaining, but we need more places to get our message out than just Larry King and Fox News … And when the Ed Show inflated your contributions to her (I should be so lucky!), Mary got them to retract it, not once, but twice! Poor Lawrence, he was just sitting in while Ed’s off playing golf somewhere. Ed got so flustered that he didn’t even mention Mary was the top Senate recipient of campaign contributions from BP in 2008. Didn’t you just love it how she lectured fellow Democrats, her own party, not to ‘retreat’ or ‘react with fear’? She sure showed Eddie, she fears no one. I’m good, but honestly, you couldn’t have a better girl in your corner!”



Big Oil: “We appreciate Mary’s commitment and enthusiasm, and her single-minded pursuit of our money, heh, but she’s got to bring it down a few notches. All those intemperate statements, while they could be good at rallying our rank-and-file troops, we can take care of our own. They know we’re the only game in town, and they need us. But Mary’s sanguine cheerleading, I must say Lisa, is beginning to backfire. I can understand her refusing to return our contributions, you don’t bite the hand that feeds you, but all this talk, what did she say … “I mean, just the gallons are so minuscule compared to the benefits of U.S. strength and security, the benefits of job creation and energy security, so while there are risks associated with everything, I think you understand that they are quite, quite minimal.”

I watched that hearing, and the look Chairman Barbara Boxer gave Mary, hell, that woman’s glare even scared me … but Mary was unmoved. The point is, it’s one thing to roll big Eddie over at MSNBC, and Mary’s one tough lady –- that’s why she’s on the payroll, so to speak, hehe –- but she’s gotten the attention of the President. And he’s furious, Lisa. Fuming. We’ve gotten an earful. It’s bad for business. It’s bad for you, me, Mary, Joe, Blanche, all of us. You know the drill. (No pun intended.) This week what with Massey Mining’s Don Blankenship testifying, before you know it, it could be open season on CEOs!

Did you catch that part where Mary said, let me get this straight, that Transocean person ‘was impressive, and that’s not just from advocates but from critics as well’… I think that rubbed President Obama the wrong way. Next thing you know, he comes out and says: ‘I did not appreciate what I considered to be a ridiculous spectacle during the congressional hearings into this matter. You had executives of BP and Transocean and Halliburton falling over each other to point the finger of blame at somebody else. The American people could not have been impressed with that display, and I certainly wasn’t.” Seems like the President was saying to Mary, ‘I’ll call your “impressive” and raise the American people’s,’ ya think? Not good, Lisa. Not good at all …

Murkowski: (frowning) “I’ll set Mary straight, but the President, that’s above my pay and contribution scale.”

Big Oil: “We’re counting on you. (Click.)