I didn't like the speech

[grantcart]

And that is perfectly fine.

You don't have to like every speech the President gives and you don't have to give up hope because some criticism seems to be on target.

When he was running for President he made it clear that he wasn't running for Messiah and wouldn't be pitching perfect games on consecutive nights. Well his opening game throw confirmed that.

Sometimes we can be hyper sensetive to critcism.

My opinion is that Deepwater is causing more angst than people realize because we don't have confidence that in August that this is going to be over.

In any case the President has a strong learning curve. I think that he needs to go bigger on the issue and call for a mobilization of the entire country to start moving away from gas for cars.

But it doesn't lessen my support for him because I know that he is not stuck on any ego trip and continues to listen to a wide range of smart people and is able to get the best out of people.

If the speech was too understated and cautious he will address it in time.

The funniest comment I read on DU today was "He doesn't get it". Nobody gets everything but it would be difficult to find anyone who 'gets' more of what is going on than the President. In fact the problem may be is that he is over processing and taking too much in.

In any case I may not agree with every move he makes during the day but I know that at the end of the day he is going to be bringing it home. And I think he's cool with that too.

Here's what I wanted him to do:

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/grantcart/303

[Cha]

1. Yes, that's okay.. I did and here's why..

I think he was talking mostly to the people who were most affected by BP's gushing disaster and that was more than okay with me.

"Obama Seeking New Ideas on Energy and Climate"

By ANDREW C. REVKIN

President Obama kept the focus of his first Oval Office address on the prime issue at hand — restoring public confidence in his administration’s handling of an unfolding environmental calamity triggered by corporate malfeasance and bureaucratic negligence. He did a workmanlike job, touching all the beats needed in such a speech.

He did not do what some environmental and energy campaigners had hoped — chart a concrete course to a new energy future. There were plenty of allusions to such a future, but — for the most part — he carefully avoided specifics. (To see specifics in an energy speech, have a look at the Oval Office address delivered by former President Jimmy Carter in 1979.)

Obama has left open the prospect of pivoting to energy and climate as a top priority in coming months, but chose (wisely) not to use a moment of national unease, built on a backdrop of unchecked pollution, as a launching pad.

He also signaled that he is leaving open a variety of paths on energy and climate policy and no longer hewing tightly to the idea of a cap and trade system for restricting heat-trapping emissions — which he never wavered from during his campaign. This, too, is wise, given the paralysis in both Congress and international climate-treaty talks over conventional approaches to global warming."

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/15/obama-seeking-new-ideas-on-energy-and-climate/

[sandnsea]

2. I think tonight was the first pitch

I think there is going to be a lot more coming after this. I think there are a lot of people who are completely clueless about the response, especially since all they hear is that there is no response. First he has to let them know exactly what is going on before he tells them life as they know it is over.

My husband worked in a penitentiary and he said you have to do change slow. It doesn't matter if it's good change, somebody will always object if it's too much at once time. So you do a little here, let people adjust, do a little more.

I think he could have opened the door a bit wider for people to rethink their lifestyle, but it's not the right time to go too far down that road.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

3. I thought it was so-so.

I thought that when he laid out the facts on our oil consumption, he seemed much more engaged than when he talked about prayer. I understand that many people take solace in prayer, but I think he focused too much on it. When he was talking about how we must move forward on new energy, I had hoped that he would continue along that path. But then he completely switched gears. It just didn't gel well, IMHO.

[treestar]

4. The problem with this country is that every incident seems to spark

calls for structural change. We truly seem to think we have the right that nothing ever go wrong. Something happens and now we have to have big changes to prevent it from ever happening again, along with a sprinkling of it should not have happened this time either.

Shit happens. Sometimes it just happens.

Look at all the twisting we did over 911. Now this. Or, it gets used for an agenda that's already there.

There's nothing wrong with trying to get away from oil dependence, but that's a long term question not really changed by this particular incident. Even if we do get off oil, other shit will happen.

[yowzayowzayowza]

5. I think the speech was as much about...

wrestling BP to the negotiating table in todays meeting as informing the public generally. No evidence, jus a hunch. He could have been far more hard on BP, so we'll see I guess....

[POAS]

6. Maybe he will present

Hayward with a (figurative) ceremonial Japanese sword at their meeting.

Just showing the BP execs entering the White House on the TeeVee thingy, not a smile in the bunch!

[yowzayowzayowza]

12. Methinkz $20B bought some pulled punches.

Stock price can only take so much abuse.

[POAS]

16. Hope he also let them know

that he still has arrows in his quiver.

[yowzayowzayowza]

22. Float like a butterfly and collect checks from BP.

B-)

[quiet.american]

23. :) nt

[POAS]

26. !...

:toast:

[yowzayowzayowza]

28. I was surprised the speech ...

preceded the meeting to begin with. Were a major change in the organization of the effort afoot, seems you'd wanna settle BPs participation first.

[POAS]

30. To continue the boxing

comparison, the fight doesn't start when the bell rings for the first round. Boxers try to get into their opponents head way before the fight starts. Mike Tyson owed at least some of his success to his fierce reputation. You could often see the fear in his opponents eyes as early as the pre-fight weigh in.

Obama gave a national address the night before the meeting from the Oval Office and then those BP execs had to do a pseudo perp walk into that same White House to meet not only Obama but also the Attorney General Eric Holder. Looks like he got a first round TKO!

[Fire1]

7. Well, I liked it b/c it served it's purpose. He focused on the

big picture. Eliminating oil dependence is not a quick fix. It's a work in progress that will take decades.

[Cha]

8. And, I think one of its purposes

was addressing the people of the Gulf who were affected the most by this Gulf eating Gusher. He made a commitment which he will keep.

[goclark]

9. Thanks grantcart and other posters

I truly appreciate your knowledge of the topic and the possible solutions.

This post is DU at its finest. :hug:

[quiet.american]

10. Hey, Grantcart, read your journal post --

-- and was struck by the specific item you're looking for Obama to do -- "Create incentives and taxes that will take petroleum out of the car industry in 15 years."

The reason I was struck by this, is because since you didn't reference them, I wonder whether you're aware of the incentives towards both the consumer and manufacturer areas that have been undertaken towards that objective:

These are just some of the alternative energy items in the Recovery Act:
http://apolloalliance.org/feature-articles/clean-energy-provisions-of-stimulus-are-consistent-with-apollo-economic-recovery-act/

$300 million to help states and cities purchase alternative-fuel transit vehicles.

$300 million to replace older fleet vehicles owned by the federal government with alternative fuel automobiles.

$400 million for grants to state and local governments for projects to develop infrastructure that supports widespread use of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles.

$300 million to EPA for diesel emission reduction programs.

Provides a tax credit of up to $7,500 for purchase of plug-in hybrid vehicles.

Increases alternative fuel and electricity fueling station property tax credit for businesses to 50%.

Creates a tax credit for purchase of electric vehicle conversion kits

---------------------

Article: White House set to increase clean energy tax credits by $5bn
Huge increase in tax breaks proposed for manufacturers in the wind, geothermal and solar sectors in the US as part of wider job creation programme
http://www.businessgreen.com/business-green/news/2255189/white-house-proposes-extending

If Congress approves the initiative, new or expanded factories that make products such as wind turbines, solar panels and electric vehicles would get a 30 per cent tax credit....

In addition to the tax break announcement, Biden's office also released a progress report this week on the US transformation to a clean energy economy.

It stated that by the end of next year the country will be committed to more than 15GW of new wind, solar and geothermal energy capacity, adding that the Department of the Interior has fast-tracked 30 renewable energy projects on federal lands in recent months.

It also said that $16bn of support for the electric car industry will mean three new electric vehicle plants and 30 new battery and other electric vehicle manufacturing plants will be opened in the next six years.

-------------------------------------

FuelEconomy.gov:
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/tax_afv.shtml

"Qualifying alternative fuel vehicles (AFVs) purchased or placed into service between January 1, 2005 and December 31, 2010 may be eligible for a federal income tax credit of up to $4,000."
-------------------------------------


Also, the creation of high-speed rail is part of the effort to take fossil fuels off the road:

VP Biden:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-by-the-President-and-the-Vice-President-on-High-Speed-Rail/

"With high-speed rail system, we're going to be able to pull people off the road, lowering our dependence on foreign oil, lowering the bill for our gas in our gas tanks. We're going to loosen the congestion that also has great impact on productivity, I might add, the people sitting at stop lights right now in overcrowded streets and cities. We're also going to deal with the suffocation that's taking place in our major metropolitan areas as a consequence of that congestion. And we're going to significantly lessen the damage to our planet. This is a giant environmental down payment."

Just including this high-speed rail map because I think it's pretty cool!


Grant, I'm highlighting these things because they're tangible evidence of what it seems you're calling on Obama to do. And as you said, you know he "gets it" and at the end of the day he'll be "bringing it home." I couldn't agree more and just wanted to put out there what already been intiated towards the goal of this country not having to take any more oil deliveries.

One other thing you've said, though -- "In 6 months from now, Mr. President, you will not be judged on your response to this crises based on how well you coordinated the cleanup but how effective you are in making these wells redundant."

I'd have to disagree that within 2 years of taking office that that is enough time to judge the impact of the president's energy policy. However, I do think it would be fair to judge Obama on whether he put his money where his mouth is in keeping his campaign promises to initiate and fund his vision for the country's transition to a clean energy economy.

I actually do think in six months time, the emphasis will be more on the oil well cleanup than overall energy policy, especially since the midterms are within that six months. We know Republicans will do their damndest to make their meme of "Obama's Katrina" part of the American lexicon.

[Cha]

11. Thanks for this detailed response, QA..

That's quite a list of incentives.

[grantcart]

13. The problem isn't the policy provisions -its mobilizing the country to a specific

goal.

We are at a point that the President needs to stake out a bold goal and convince the country that is where we are going, along the lines of Kennedy's specific statement of going to the moon by a specific date.

The incentives and policies you list are all good but what is needed now is an absolute line in the sand about the future of petroleum use for personal transportation, especially communting.

We know that we have the capability to make all close home communting petroleum free what we lack is the political will to achieve it.

Your thoughtful reply also, in a sense, confirms my criticism of the speech. If people weren't aware of all of these incentives its because he didn't include it in the speech.

He needs to start the same kind of broad based mobilization on energy and climate issues that he did for health care reform.

[quiet.american]

14. Yeah, given the current environment, I wonder if JFK's "to the moon" speech would've worked today

Have to wonder sometimes! :)

If I'm hearing you correctly, what you're talking about is a much-needed "branding" of the administration's efforts, because the big goal is certainly there - to end this country's dependence on oil. And I have to agree, if I have one bone to pick with them, it's that WH Communications cannot seem to get a handle on getting out in front of the MSM craziness OR "defining the debate." HCR was certainly a testament to that. It is a miracle of persistence that it passed. But as my mom likes to say, "the turtle won the race."

But the "turtle strategy" leaves way too much room for opponent damage to be done (on the left and right side) and I don't like it either. Ideally, I'd like to see about twenty more David Plouffes and David Wade's (remember when Wade coined the term "porcine, political operative" to describe Karl Rove, lol), and at least twenty big-mouth deputies for each of them. I love Robert Gibbs, but all too often at press conferences, he's got a deer-in-the-headlights look and none of the press corps seems to be terrified of him, which would be helpful. :)

One thing I do notice about Obama is that he gives his opponents plenty of time and rope to whale away, and then BOOM!, he comes in and when the dust is cleared, the thing is done.

But, in the meantime, god, I'd love to see the WH bring in a branding "czar."

[Cha]

15. "A branding czar" ! He sure got us a good Pay Czar..

To oversee the BP OIL Gusher compensation fund of $20 Billion that isn't the end of it.

Kenneth Feinberg.

[quiet.american]

18. Hello, Cha - I certainly have personal evidence of that.

Long story short -- I got caught up in the economic aftermath of 9/11. Was down to the wire financially around Christmas of that year (I've had way too many "down-to-the-wire" episodes in my life, come to think of it) -- and out of the blue came a compensation check from Kenneth Feinberg two days after the holiday that was enough to get me through the next two or three months (I had been working at the World Financial Center on 9/11 and my freelance job was eliminated in the aftermath).

So, good choice on President Obama's part.

[Cha]

20. OMGoodness!

You've been right in the nitty gritty. A personal testament.:hug::)

[quiet.american]

21. Thanks for the hug!

:hi: :hug:

(And just to clarify, I was working nights at Merrill Lynch at the World Financial Center, and rushed off that morning to an appt. mid-town, so I ended up missing the actual impact of the planes by sixteen minutes. I thank goodness for that every day.)

[Cha]

24. Thanks for more

of the story..that was such a shattering time.:hug:

[quiet.american]

25. It sure was, Cha....

And to add insult, Pataki, the governor at the time (R-Useless)...renaming our beloved WTC, "The Freedom Tower." :puke: (Thank goodness, the site is now officially named "1 World Trade Center.")

[Cha]

27. Yeah, it was gag reflex time with ghouliani

and pataki prancing around spewing Orwell when such a tragic attack called for reality.

I like that.. 1 World Trade Center. Got a reggae touch to it.

[quiet.american]

29. Hello! How could I have even forgotten about that "genius" Giuliani.

Don't get me started.

How long do you think it'll take before we see a Glenn Beck batpoop-crazy conspiracy over "1 World." :crazy:

(And it does have a nice reggae sound to it!)

[WeDidIt]

17. See, if this sort of critical post was the norm on DU, there would be no problems here

This is good legitimate criticism.

[Born_A_Truman]

19. My thoughts ...

I was talking to DH after the speech last night and I don't think any speech would have satisfied everyone.

First, the Gulf disaster is monumental and I think we all feel helpless watching it.

Unlike Katrina, where we could donate to help residents, we are all staring at our tv sets waiting for BP to fix the damn leak and watching the oil spoil the ocean, killing birds and mammals and destroying livlihoods of gulf residents. We felt like we could DO something. I know I did.

We sure aren't going to donate to help BP! Yes, volunteers are there trying to save wildlife but you know what I mean.

This isn't going to get fixed overnight and that's what we want to hear. My opinion.

[grantcart]

31. Except that Obama is absolutely capable of blowing the roof off

Compared to his Race Speech in Philadelphia or his Speech in Egypt or a dozen others this was very modest.

They are deliberately trying to lower expectations for policy reasons.

I believe that they should go the other way but they may be right.

[RoyGBiv]

32. I wonder ...

I wonder how much the relative calm of this speech was related to the meeting with BP today. Was a quid pro quo involved? I don't rip you to shreds right now, and you do what I'm telling you to do without forcing it down your throat ...

Someone on GD posted a message comparing this speech and Obama's general approach to corporations in general to Kennedy's dealings with the steel industry raising prices after Kennedy had gone to bat for them previously. I think it was an apt criticism generally if not specifically in the context given. However, after the events of yesterday, I'm left wondering whether Obama and Kennedy did take similar stances with a different approach. Then too, during the so-called steel crisis, Kennedy had actually done a lot of "behind the scenes" work before it came to a head and produced his public smack down.

Obama, being an intelligent person, would know of the differences in the circumstances involving the two scenarios. Kennedy had a basically friendly press, for one, and that was a big deal with how things turned out. The press was largely responsible for the public backing his line in the sand. With the current state of the press, Obama can count on a very large and loud contingent of the press framing anything he says or does negatively, which leads one to question just how deeply Obama can get into a one-on-one with a major industry.

I'm not sure, but I think Obama's somewhat tepid remarks may be at least partially a recognition that he's got to take a different approach than Kennedy had the luxury of taking, and he's pretty much having to wing it to try to find the right one.

[Cha]

34. Well, he did have success with BP yesterday

and I thought he was very straighforward on calling out BP in The Speech.

I liked his speech because I felt it was more directed towards the people who were affected by the oil gushing tragedy..and I believe he got his strength of commitment across.

So many people(and I don't mean grant) were offended because he talked of prayer and the Blessing of the Fleets..amazing lack of empathy, imv.

The punditheads who were so frothingly against the speech on Tuesday night..backtracked a little and were called out by names in an online Newsweek article.

"Pundits Steal the Speech"..facinatingly accurate..

<just a few snips..but worth the whole read>

"First the talking heads work themselves and their audience into a fit about what the president must do. A sort of collective narrative takes shape—with heroes and villains, successes and reversals—building as it goes. Thus Chris Matthews and Wolf Blitzer both referred to onscreen clocks counting down to the speech, like the Super Bowl kickoff. Suzanne Malveaux told CNN viewers, “He’s going to try to convey that he gets it.” John King caviled a little, saying that actions would matter more than words.”Without a doubt,” confirmed Anderson Cooper from a photogenic corner of the gulf. “What the president is going to do tonight is hold BP accountable,” added Gloria Borger.

By the time Obama appeared, CNN and MSNBC had done a thorough job of telling the audience how to judge what he said. (I imagine Fox did the same, but it’s so riddled with its own pathologies I didn’t check.) Did the president “get it”? Well, he studded the speech with the language of war, referring to his “battle plan” and describing the spill as “a siege.” Was BP “held accountable”? He failed to use the head of a BP executive as a paperweight, but he did say in plain terms that the company “will pay for the impact this spill has had on the region.” Characteristically, he seemed most engaged not during the backward-looking stuff about assigning blame, but the forward-looking stuff: offering a big-picture look at a clean-energy initiative. “We cannot consign our children to this future,” he said, neatly evoking a kind of inverted Mad Max scenario, with oil spills everywhere.

In the postgame show, the pundits judged Obama’s success by how well or poorly he fulfilled the expectations that pundits like themselves had set earlier. On MSNBC, Keith Olbermann knocked him for “not addressing what many expected tonight: a bigger picture for America’s energy future, not even much of a pitch for his own energy bill . . .” The more Olbermann talked, the more disgruntled he grew. First he said the president aimed low, then he bid himself up, declaring that the president “didn’t aim at all.” He asked, “It’s startling to have heard this, isn’t it?”—which is the sort of question that has only one answer."

<more>
http://www.newsweek.com/2010/06/16/pundits-like-that-are-the-only-people-here.html

[TicketyBoo]

33. Rachel didn't like the speech either…

so she gave one of her own last night, which I hope you all heard.

He should hire her as a speech writer, damn it. She gave the rip-roaring speech we'd have all liked to have heard.

But maybe that speech wouldn't have been as successful at wringing the $20 billion commitment out of BP? I have to think the President knows what he's doing, even if we don't see him raging as we might like.

[ismnotwasm]

35. Honestly?

I didn't even listen to it. Just because I am who I am, I'll need to follow legislation and action as much as I can. Speeches almost never are truly impressive to me. I have to then remember he is the president of the entire country, not just DU. (Kidding)


He between the proverbial rock and a hard place, but he's young, he's on fire and he's growing and learning as you say. Thanks for the good read.