• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Obama's Turn to Speak

    The President has been very critical of “talking heads” in the media and tonight he had the opportunity to say his piece in his first Oval Office speech. Sadly, the President sounded more like an analyst and candidate for office than a decisive leader. The presidential address to the nation lacked specifics and was full of promised future action.

    The President started by explaining that he assembled a team of experts soon after the crisis:

    Because there has never been a leak of this size, at this depth, stopping it has tested the limits of human technology. That’s why just after the rig sank, I assembled a team of our nations’ best scientists and engineers to tackle this challenge.

    Then the President said that “as a result of these efforts, we’ve directed BP to mobilize additional equipment and technology and in the coming weeks and days, these efforts should capture up to 90% of the oil leaking out of the well.” Members of Congress and the American people might have raised an eyebrow at the lack of past results coupled with a bold promise to capture 90% of leaked oil soon. Again, the American people are promised future results, but not shown measurable results in the 56 days since the spill.

    The President said that “because of our efforts millions of gallons of oil have already been removed from the water.” That is the type of concrete example that the American people and Congress expect from the President. Members of Congress also should be happy that the President promised aid in cleaning up the Gulf. “As the cleanup continues, we will offer whatever resources and assistance our coastal states will need.” Again, this is a promise that may never happen, yet it should be reassuring that the President is finally committed to offer all resources necessary to clean up the spill.

    The President discussed his plan on “the recovery and restoration of the Gulf Coast.” The President announced that he is finally meeting with BP to discuss a recovery and restoration plan. “Tomorrow I will meet with the chairman of BP and inform him that he is to set aside whatever resources are required to compensate the workers and business owners who have been harmed as a result of this companies recklessness.” This is consistent with BP’s promise to pay for all the cleanup and collateral damage.

    The President discussed a third element of his response plan described as “the steps we are taking to insure that a disaster like this does not happen again.” The President started by making excuses for his actions in approving drilling in the Gulf:

    A few months ago, I approved a proposal to consider new limited offshore drilling under the assurance that it would be absolutely safe. That the proper technology would be in place and the necessary precautions would be taken. That obviously was not the case.

    Instead of the President saying that he made a mistake, he blamed some unnamed party in giving him “assurances” that were not true. We are not informed of the source of these assurances. Again, Congress will look at a President who refuses to take any responsibility for his decisions and shifts blame to others. The President’s solution to this problem is the setting up of a “national commission to understand the causes of this disaster and offer recommendations on what additional safety and environmental standards we need to put in place.”

    A commission may be a good idea, yet to issue a “six month moratorium on offshore drilling” so as to wait for a Commission of bureaucrats to make a decision for the President is not a good idea. Shifting decision making to a commission is not leadership. The President may have a pre-text to halt all new drilling for a long time when he declares that “we need to know the facts before we allow deep water drilling to continue.” This fact finding commission may take a long long time and the President did not set any specific time frame for the Administration to reassess his banning of all new drilling in the Gulf. To all the Gulf Coast Members of Congress with constituents hurting from losing jobs as a result of the President’s ban on drilling, this declaration by the President will cause them anger.

    In the most jaw dropping part of the speech, the President declared:

    One place we have already begun to take action is at the agency in charge of regulating drilling and issuing permits known as the Mineral Management Service. Over the last decade, this agency has become emblematic of a failed philosophy that views all regulation with hostility. A philosophy that says that corporations should be allowed to play by their own rules and police themselves. At this agency industry insiders were put in charge of industry oversight.

    The President appointed the Secretary of the Interior. The President declared a ceasing of drilling in the Gulf. Yet the President claimed that his Secretary of the Interior failed at cleaning up “the worst of the corruption at this agency.” Those are strong words and if corruption is alleged, where is the President’s commission to investigate illegal activities at the Mineral Management Service (MMS)? Yet again, the President seems not to want to take any responsibility for his personal failings in cleaning up corruption in his own administration. He also implicitly adopted the left wing talking point that this crisis is partially President Bush’s fault because President Obama inherited a MMS that viewed “regulation with hostility.” The President did promise action that all can agree is a good idea by announcing “new leadership at the agency.”

    The President ended his call to action with some rhetoric in support of the House passed Global Warming bill. Obama declared that “now is the moment for this generation to embark on a national mission to unleash America’s innovation and seize control of our own destiny.” This is reminiscent of the soaring rhetoric of the Obama campaign that launched Senator Obama into the Oval Office. The President called for a “transition to clean energy (that) has the potential to grow our economy and create millions of jobs but only if we accelerate this transition. Only if we seize the moment. Only if we rally together and act as one nation.” The President admitted costs to the economy with the transition, yet claimed that this transition will magically get America out of recession and lead us away from our reliance on foreign oil.

    The President said that he is “happy to look at other ideas and approaches from either party,” yet made no commitment to any of the ideas he floated. The President said that “some have suggested raising efficiency standards in our buildings,” “some believe that we should set standards to insure that more of our electricity comes from wind and solar power” and others advocate that the federal government “rapidly boost our research and development” spending on alternative energy sources.

    The President dispassionately said that “all of these approaches have merit and deserve a fair hearing in the months ahead.” This evidences one of the troublesome habits of President Obama to vet ideas without advocating for these ideas. If you were looking for evidence of the President’s strong leadership in advocating for any of these ideas, as bad for the economy as they may be, the President put them out there with non judgmental language. This should trouble the advocates of these liberal big government ideas, because the President does not seem committed to pushing these ideas that seem to come right out of the talking points of the Obama campaign for President.

    Americans and Members of Congress hoping for specifics and a President willing to accept responsibility for failings in responding to the crisis in the Gulf were disappointed. Those who wanted a political speech filled with new promises of commissions, blame for the prior Administration, new legislation and new staff in the Department of the Interior can take some solace in his promises. The bench mark of his speech is the specific promise that 90% of the spilled oil will be captured “in the coming weeks and days.” This will be a good test of the veracity the President’s other claims in his speech. Conservatives hope that this speech did not serve merely to exploit the crisis in the Gulf to pass job killing Global Warming legislation.

    Posted in Energy [slideshow_deploy]

    12 Responses to Obama's Turn to Speak

    1. James, Maryland says:

      Mr. Darling,

      I did get the same vibe. President Obama did throw out some lofty words but was unable to give many exact numbers on what the spill has cost people in terms of jobs and money. My greatest concern in this catastrophe is that we, as a nation, will not respond to the strains we are placing on the environment. We have to look at the bigger issue. It is true that the President for causing temporary unemployment in a certain industry. And given the economic circumstances, this seems slightly absurd. Ironically enough, while oil comes gushing out of the well, thousands of jobs are being sucked into a black hole.

      It is horrible to think that on top of the job loss in the tourism and fishing industries, we also have to face job loss in the oil industry itself. But I think we need to ask a few questions:

      1.) What is more important to us? Is it the job itself, or the industry to which the job is attached? In other words, are we willing to concede that the only way to maintain job security is to continue by the same economic means?

      2.) Is there a fundamental disagreement between Republicans and Democrats on whether or not oil should remain one of the staples of our energy consumption?

      3.) Would a return to offshore drilling be a temporary, or a permanent fix?

      4.) In his address, President Obama (in so many words) recognized the fact that oil is a terminating natural resource – meaning that one day, it will theoretically cease to exist. What does this mean to us as consumers and knowledgeable investors?

      5.) If there is any unity in America, can we at least rule in favor of renewable energy? If so, what will be the economic cost (as if we could afford it)?

    2. helvetica font says:

      a question without an answer is a paradox or a rhetorical question, so thats just not funny…..but yea

    3. LEN says:


    4. LEN belfast maine says:

      is the president "natural born"..why will you not discuss this openly…

    5. Bill says:


    6. MrShorty - Arizona says:

      I’m sick and tired of hearing Obama put all the blame on Bush. It’s time to set the record straight and put the blame where it really belongs…on FDR. If FDR had not demanded a state of war against Japan after their attack on Pearl Harbor, just consider what the consequences would have been.

      -The Japanese would control the entire South Pacific except New Zealand and Australia

      - The Japanese would have controlled China and therefore no Communist party which means we wouldn’t have had Vietnam

      -The Nazis would have controlled Europe and eliminated all the Jews so we wouldn’t have Israel or all the issues in the Middle East

      -The Nazis would have crushed Russia and therefore no Communist party and all the nuclear build up during the 50’s and 60’s

      -The American economy would have been isolationist mode and not expanded as rapidly as we did, therefore reducing our dependency on foreign oil.

      -Obviously there would have been no need to invade Iraq or Afghanistan

      - The Great Depression would have lasted another 10 to 20 years since we would not have had the trading partners in Europe or Japan to raise our economy

      With all this said, it is clearly obvious that we would never have been drilling 50 miles from shore in the Gulf if FDR had just kept this mouth shut. All of the world’s woes can be traced back to his recommendation to go to war. Therefore, all the troubles in the world today have been created by FDR.

    7. Lloyd Scallan New Or says:

      There is enough oil and natural gas underground in a few western states, that Obama and the radical environmentalist have put off-limits for exploration and drilling that would supply this country for 100 years. That does not include other areas such as Alaska, East and West Coast, The Gulf, where trillions and trillions of barrels, of easily accessible, oil exist that cound make us energy independent for a hundred generations to come. The notion that oil is a "termating natural resource" is the same theroy used by the same crowd that

      preaches our sun will some day burn out. Absurd.

    8. Pingback: Obama uses the oil spill as a strategy to pass cap and tax

    9. Pingback: Mountain Bike Riding Abilities – What Do You Need To Know? | Bicycle Trainers

    10. Mike In Florida says:

      Look, let's stop tap dancing around the key issue in every challenge this country is facing at the moment. Mr. Obama, although probably the most highly educated president we've ever had, is totally, and utterly incompetent when it comes to decision making and leadership. Some people have it, some people don't, and Obama certainly is in the latter category. Give me a good ole boy with a high school diploma, an inherent ability to generate trust and respect in people via their actions and approach to getting things done, and an unquenchable drive to do what is right and honorable, and that will be the man that a majority of us will get behind as this country moves back to the right path forward….. Until then, we're stuck with a incompetent, petulent child, who is incapable of doing the job he was elected to perform.

    11. Pingback: Mr Blog » Blog Archive » Website News – An Environmentally Friendly & Cost Effective Way to Keep your Customers' Updated

    12. Pingback: ABC News Nightline: Should Marijuana Be Legalized? 17/05/2010 Part 1 / 4 | NORML New Zealand Worldwide for Medical Marijuana Law Reform

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.