SUNDAY,MAY 30, 2010
KLMNO
Sunday OPINION
DANA MILBANK
A passivity spill in the East Room
F
or eight years we had a president who refused to ac- cept blame. Now we have one who seems to enjoy it. In the hour President Obama spent at the podium in the East Room last week holding a news conference on the Gulf oil spill, he practiced every form of self- flagellation short of bringing out a cat-o’-nine-tails. “The culture had not fully changed in MMS”— the agen-
cy that polices oil drilling — “and absolutely I take respon- sibility for that,” he said. “There wasn’t sufficient urgency.” The administration, he explained, “was in the process of making these reforms. But the point that I’m making is that obviously they weren’t happening fast enough. If they had been happening fast enough, this might have been caught.” He decorated the East Room with wuddas, cuddas and shuddas: “We should have busted through those con- straints. . . . pre-deploying boom would have been the right thing to do . . . I do think our efforts fell short. . . . They should have pushed them sooner. . . . I think that it took too long. . . . Where I was wrong was in my belief that the oil companies had their act together.” No wonder Americans are growing dissatisfied with his handling of the spill. Even his daughter holds him respon- sible. “When I woke this morning and I’m shaving,” he said, “Malia knocks on my bathroom door and she peeks in her head and she says, ‘Did you plug the hole yet, Daddy?’ ” “In case you were wondering who’s responsible,” he add- ed, “I take responsibility.” That’s very clear, sir. But why not share some with the
guys at BP who actually are responsible for the spill? In a sense, it’s refreshing to have a president who is can- did about shortcomings. Yet Obama’s news conference may have been the weakest hour of his presidency. As I sat in the fourth row on Thursday, I was struck by the weirdly passive figure before me. He delivered lawyerly phrases and spoke of his anger about the oil spill but showed none in his voice or on his face. He was, presumably, there to show how aggressively he has handled the disaster, but he seemed cool, almost bloodless. CBS’s Chip Reid asked about the resignation hours earlier of Elizabeth Birnbaum, head of the MMS, or Minerals Man- agement Service. “I found out about her resignation today,” Obama replied. Interior Secretary “Ken Salazar has been in testimony throughout the day, so I don’t know the circum- stances in which this occurred.” An incredulous Jackie Calmes of the New York Times wanted to know “how it is that you didn’t know about Ms. Birnbaum’s resignation/firing.” “Come on, Jackie, I don’t know,” Obama said with a
smile. He also retreated from the tough talk his administration has used on BP. Asked about the White House’s vow to keep its “boot on the neck” of BP, Obama replied: “I would say that, you know, we don’t need to use language like that.” Yes we do! And we need tough deeds to match the tough
talk. Louisianan James Carville exploded Wednesday on
“Good Morning America” about Obama’s “political stupid- ity” in the spill. “He could be commandeering tankers and making BP bring tankers in and clean this up. They could be deploying people. . . . It just looks like he’s not involved in this. Man, you got to get down here and take control of this.” Instead, Obama rhetorically took the boot off BP’s
throat. His Republican critics like to call him a socialist, but in this case he hasn’t been enough of one. True, Obama needs BP’s technical expertise to plug the leak. But questioner after questioner at the news confer- ence pressed the president on why he doesn’t take on BP. “How do you explain that we’re more than five weeks into this crisis and that BP is not always doing as you’re asking?” inquired the AP’s Jennifer Loven. NBC’s Chuck Todd skipped the usual “thank you, Mr. President” before asking, “Why not ask BP to simply step aside on the onshore stuff?” In reply, Obama was passive. “If BP’s contractors are not moving as nimbly and as effec- tively as they need to be, then it is already the power of the federal government to redirect those resources,” he argued. “I guess the point being that the Coast Guard and our mili- tary are potentially already in charge.” Potentially in charge? Maybe it’s time to put them actu- ally in charge.
danamilbank@washpost.com
TOPIC A Political fallout from the gulf
R
A15
The Post asked experts about the political winners and losers of the Gulf of Mexico oil spill.
ED ROGERS
White House staffer to Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush; chairman of BGR Group
So far there are no political winners from the gulf oil spill debacle. And there probably won’t be any winners, just various degrees of losers. I was working at the White House during the Exxon Valdez spill, and I appreciate the challenges of many of the players. President Obama’s political
managers are all being told that the president needs to “do something.” But when he does he becomes more closely associated with the ugly problem and more responsible for the nearly impossible task of stopping the flow and managing a cleanup that will leave most people unsatisfied. The governors of the affected states
have to be busy and make demands of BP and the feds, yet they must not appear to be ineffective when not much happens. In Washington, among those with no real responsibility, there is a contest to see who can kick BP the hardest and promise the most restitution to all those affected by the spill. Ultimately, there will not be enough money to make everybody happy, much less quiet. So we are entering a political cycle of blame, promises and poor results, which leads to more blame and another layer of promises. All the while, the results of the spill get worse, and the pictures of the failure appear on every TV in America several times a day. Using contrived criminal and civil tools, Obama may decide that the death of BP is his best political cover; governors will do what real work can be done and hope for the best; Congress will no doubt commission a study, release a report and pass new laws whose effects, intended and unintended, are hard to imagine. This is a great American tragedy whose political consequences will linger for years. No one will emerge as a hero, savior or indispensable leader. Instead, the revelation of the limits of our technology, leaders, laws and energy options will leave us all frustrated and in a mood to blame everybody involved.
SCOTT KEETER
Director of survey research at the Pew Research Center
Until now President Obama has
avoided serious political damage from the government’s handling of the spill, but this may be changing. Recent
polling finds pluralities or majorities of the public disapproving of the administration’s response or giving it low marks for its handling of the situation. Even among Democrats, ratings of the administration’s performance have been tepid. The spill is unfolding at a time of exceptionally low levels of trust in government, which may make the public even less forgiving. Still, unlike Hurricane Katrina, where the government had primary responsibility for dealing with the crisis, until now its role has been secondary to that of BP. And the public has been far more critical of BP for its handling of the crisis. Although the spill may cause Obama political damage in the short run, it could help him in the longer run with key legislative priorities for his administration: the passage of a comprehensive energy bill and efforts to address environmental protection more generally. The spill has spurred an increase in support for environmental protection, which had declined over the past two years as concerns about the economy pushed aside many other public priorities. While polling by Pew Research and other organizations continues to find at least plurality support for offshore oil drilling, the level of support is much lower than before the spill.
DOUGLAS E. SCHOEN
Democratic pollster and author
With President Obama’s approval
rating dropping to close to 45 percent, driven in large part by his handling of the worst oil spill in U.S. history, the Obama presidency is facing a real crisis. And while it was certainly welcome news Thursday that the president took full responsibility for the situation, that will do little to stem the ever-increasing political fallout from both sides of the aisle — from James Carville to Sarah Palin. The president has to stop seeking to both blame and distance himself from BP, all the while asserting federal authority and responsibility. He needs a fundamentally different approach. He has to make it clear that we are all in this together — not as corporations or populists, not as Democrats or Republicans, but as Americans working to solve the problem collectively. This would be similar to how, in his National Defense Review, Obama spoke of the need for developing and enhancing alliances around the world to confront common enemies and solve common problems.
RADIUS IMAGES/ALAMY
He must emphasize results and outcomes — not partisanship, populist bashing, or divide and conquer. This is how he ran his campaign, how he said he would govern and how he has to govern now. If he doesn’t rally Americans, no amount of rhetorical parsing or political gamesmanship will solve a problem that has the potential to undermine the credibility and perceived competence of the Obama presidency.
DONNA BRAZILE
Author and political commentator; manager of Al Gore’s 2000 presidential campaign; served on the Louisiana Recovery Authority from 2005 to 2008
Even if some good comes out of BP’s oil flood, it still looks like a lose-lose situation for everyone involved. Not only has the spill caused a substantial loss of marshland for the gulf and the livelihoods of residents, it will have lasting effects far into the future. The unlikely result? Both Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal (R) and President Obama may still emerge as political winners. Jindal may already have won as much as he can, politically. The perception had been that Jindal cared more for a national office than the governor’s mansion, but the perception has changed. His handling of this crisis has made him look competent, concerned and in charge. But since Louisiana must rely on the feds, Jindal is in a dilemma he can’t control. Things are up to the president now. Jindal may claim he energized Washington, but winning big in his state may make Jindal less attractive nationally. To be a “winner,” Obama must accomplish, then publicize, the following:
(1) Emphasize the flood and the plug
—that he fixed what BP’s greed and big oil’s conceit broke. (2) Change the regulatory culture, and not just at the Minerals Management Service. Make regulation effective at all agencies. (3) Take charge, make BP pay — and
make sure the public knows both. (4) Aggressively push for the progressive energy policy he campaigned on — no more spill, baby, spill or mine, baby, mine.
(5) Dam the flood and clean up the marsh. Prioritize the wetlands and the coast, promising restoration and restitution for both. Even more, turn “Obama’s Katrina” into a success story, by finally recompensing New Orleans and the region. Show how the federal government should work.
OMBUDSMAN ANDREW ALEXANDER
A noisy union protest — met by silence at The Post
afternoon calm was shattered when 14 buses showed up without warning and about 700 protesters descended on the home of Gregory Baer, a deputy general counsel for Bank of America. They chanted and jeered as speakers, using a bullhorn from Baer’s front porch, railed against the bank’s policies and its role in home foreclosures. Baer, away when the protests began, was booed when he returned and edged through the crowd before entering his home, where his teenage son was alone and frightened. Neighbors complained about the dis- turbance, organized by a grass-roots group called National People’s Action and the huge Service Employees Interna- tional Union (SEIU). Montgomery Coun- ty police officers appeared as participants returned to their buses, which whisked them to another protest at the Chevy Chase home of a lobbyist for J.P. Morgan Chase. There was no mention of the protests
T
here was quite a noisy scene in a peaceful Chevy Chase neighbor- hood two Sundays ago. The mid-
in the next day’s Post, prompting calls from perplexed readers. Several had read a full account on
HuffingtonPost.com and wondered why The Post had noth- ing. Journalists for The Nation and Mother Jones also reported from the scene.
Bank demonstrations continued downtown that Monday and The Post ran an online-only story. But it made only passing reference to Sunday’s Chevy Chase protests and offered no details. At midweek, with Post readers still in the dark, news of the protests got nation- al attention after Nina Easton, Washing- ton editor and columnist for Fortune Magazine and a Fox News contributor, wrote a firsthand account for
CNNMoney.com. Easton, a neighbor of Baer, asserted, “When hundreds of loud and angry strangers are descending on your family, your children and your home, a more apt description of this as- semblage would be ‘mob.’ ” Soon, Fox News Channel was pumping the story with protest video and on-air debates. Had D.C. police improperly ac-
companied the buses to and beyond the District border into Maryland? Had pro- testers violated trespass laws as police stood by? These and other questions also were raised by Andrew Breitbart’s influ- ential conservative
BigJournalism.com Web site, which wondered: “Why is the Washington Post ignoring the SEIU pro- test?” Liberal Web sites also weighed in, defending the protesters and attacking Easton’s objectivity by alleging that her husband, a media consultant, had in- direct ties to Bank of America. Easton says the claims are false.
With more media writing about the protests, readers contacted the ombuds- man to ask about The Post’s silence. “Why is the Post not covering this
story?” e-mailed Catherine Murphy of Earlville, N.Y. “I have a feeling if this was a Tea Party
event targeting a congressman . . . The Post would be running front-page sto- ries,” wrote Brendan DuBois of Exeter, N.H. The Examiner newspaper joined in with an editorial titled: “No more police
escorts for union thugs.” Finally on Tuesday, nine days after the protests, The Post’s online “D.C. Wire” carried an item in which District police insisted they had not “escorted” the pro- testers’ buses, but had merely monitored their movement.
Still, not a single word about the pro- tests had appeared in the printed Post. How could this be? “We clearly dropped the ball on it,” said Emilio Garcia-Ruiz, The Post’s top editor for local news. “We didn’t know about the initial story.” In fairness to The Post, all local media seemed unaware. George Goehl, exec- utive director of the Chicago-based Na- tional People’s Action that spearheaded the protests, said, “We didn’t call any me- dia in advance.” But HuffingtonPost reporter Arthur
Delaney said he learned of the protests from SEIU sources, which raises the question of whether The Post is suffi- ciently plugged into the nation’s most po- litically active labor organization. Beyond that, there were numerous
ways The Post could have gotten back in the game on the story. For example, how did Chevy Chase neighbors react? Did protesters break trespass laws? When does First Amendment expression in- fringe on residential privacy? Does Presi- dent Obama, who enjoyed SEIU electoral support, sanction these types of pro- tests? And is a blitz on private residences a new protest tactic? To survive, The Post needs to own its local audience. Readers lose faith when there’s news in their backyard but not a word in their newspaper. And not writ- ing about raucous liberal protests feeds the perception that The Post is overly ea- ger to write about raucous Tea Party protests.
“If 700 people show up on anybody’s
lawn anywhere in the Washington area, we would cover it,” said Garcia-Ruiz. Let’s hope so. Regardless of who’s pro- testing, that’s news.
Andrew Alexander can be reached at 202-334-7582 or at
ombudsman@washpost.com.
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156 |
Page 157 |
Page 158