By The Right Scoop


Wow, this was interesting TV. I’m sure some of you will have alot to say about the opinions expressed in this focus group.

I will say one thing. I agree with the man who suggested that Obama could have stopped the oil from reaching the shore line. If he had implemented the emergency policies they had setup already, accepted help from the Dutch, made more effort to buy booms from the Maine organization, and approved Bobby Jindal’s plan weeks sooner, I think all the oil will be held at bay out in the ocean. But instead, he did everything else under the sun. I don’t know why Frank insists that this wasn’t possible, but I would ask him where are the photos of all the ships with booms out there burning up the oil. I’m sure he’d have a great answer for that.

Enjoy!

About 

Blogger extraordinaire since 2009 and the owner and Chief Blogging Officer of the most wonderful and super fantastic blog in the known and unknown universe: The Right Scoop


Comment Policy: Please read our new comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.


NOTE: If the comments don't load properly or they are difficult to read because they are on the blue background, please use the button below to RELOAD DISQUS.

  • RedDogReport

    Its just misstep after misstep with the oil spill, especially the golfing.

    Brian O'Connor
    http://www.RedDogReport.com
    @RedDogReport

  • Jojode

    And of course it is Bush's fault.
    Wow must be hard to do nothing and be so terrific.

  • http://twitter.com/ozziecastillo Ozzie Castillo

    It is amazing!

    I'm glad Sean stepped in with the facts- the liberal statists, of course, ignored that and went back to Bush-

    What a tragedy that we have Americans that are so stupid. They are so blinded by their own ideology that they would choose a failing path just because it made them feel “safe and secure” in their identity.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1658327439 Gary Chapman

    Hipster douchebag at the end.

  • http://twitter.com/GulfCoastTider David L.

    “I will say one thing. I agree with the man who suggested that Obama could have stopped the oil from reaching the shore line. If he had implemented the emergency policies they had setup already, accepted help from the Dutch, made more effort to buy booms from the Maine organization, and approved Bobby Jindal’s plan weeks sooner, I think all the oil will be held at bay out in the ocean.”

    Obama didn't have a WTF moment until a full week after oil was discovered leaking from the wellhead. In that time, “in-situ” burns could have taken place.

    He didn't declare this a spill of national significance for nine days after the incident.

    He didn't appoint an incident commander until 11 days after the incident, and he didn't make his first visit until 12 days after the incident. But by that time, assuming today's estimates of oil flow are correct, at least some 17,640,000 gallons of oil had already spilled.

    http://www.ibleedcrimsonred.com/p/deepwater-hor

  • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/U7LQAHKQMWAXNV3PT4SPJ4ZKTY Danny

    The administration could have done more but it's extremely unlikely that we could have prevented the oil from reaching the shore.

  • http://twitter.com/ozziecastillo Ozzie Castillo

    I'll give you that one, but having said that- the focus should be on where they failed, not on deciding where the outcome may have been.

    It reminds me of the continuing argument about drilling here or nuclear power. There is always an excuse, not a desire to pursue a remedy. The only remedy some are willing to accept is to do nothing but limit- I say that if foreign oil is a problem, lets find our own. If not oil, then nuclear power- but do not make excuses or point fingers (not saying you Danny) if you choose to do nothing.

  • KeninMontana

    So instead of Democrats and Republicans they're “Obama” and “McCain” people? Sometimes I wonder about Luntz's objectivity in these groups, I will say this the spill is not Obama's fault any more than it was Bush's fault. The real issue is these deepwater rigs are pushing the envelope of technology running a precarious line between tenuous success and utter catastrophe. The reason they're out there? Frivolous lawsuits by environmentalist groups and special interest groups that are worried about their seaside views, thats why we are drilling out there instead of within the safer limits of our technology where we can actually act quickly to prevent disasters like this one. Here is a link to a fairly balanced and reasonable look at this situation.
    http://themoderatevoice.com/76543/the-great-gul

  • http://twitter.com/GulfCoastTider David L.

    Could have prevented any of it from reaching shore? No. Could have prevented most of it from reaching shore? Absolutely.

    Look, this regime didn't have it's WTF moment until after millions of gallons of oil were already in the water. The explosion, fire and sinking of the rig was BP's and Transocean's fault. They cut corners “down hole” to save money and it kicked them in the teeth. But the ineptitude of the response is a square responsibility on the shoulders of this regime.

  • KeninMontana

    He's got his “Che” on, doesn't he?

  • liquidflorian

    More Pinko-douche-bag-chic….

  • http://twitter.com/wbcsaint Sam R

    I would like to know how Obama “inherited” this problem? Is it likely that with the help of the British and the Dutch as well as getting the booms from Maine we could have prevented some if not a good portion of this oil from getting to the shores? ABSOLUTELY. To sit back and not do anything for weeks is just ridiculous and borders on insanity. The only logical explanation is that we are going to not let this crisis go to waste and wanted to play it up for all it was worth, so that Cap and Tax…oops I mean Cap and Trade… oops I mean the American Power Act can get rammed down our throats. Palin hit it on the head when she was talking to Bill O and said that stopping our drilling for our OWN oil just forces us to bow at the feet of foreign countries and be beholden to their whims.

  • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/U7LQAHKQMWAXNV3PT4SPJ4ZKTY Danny

    “Sometimes I wonder about Luntz's objectivity in these groups”

    Well, duh, Luntz is by no means objective or non-partisan, that's why these focus groups are always so ridiculous, because they're essentially designed to feed into a specific Hannity-approved outcome.

    And, let me state outright and up front that I'm not accusing anyone here of racism, but I do find it interesting that Frank Luntz' Obama-supporter demographic is almost always African-American in every focus group. I understand that Blacks generally support Obama more as a group, but they are not his exclusive base.

    As for the thrust of your argument, I would agree that the environmentalist movement has driven oil rigs out further into the sea, but I think that we need to get off of foreign resources for our oil, and doing that is going to require huge investments (including a lot of R&D funded by tax money) to get us over to something else (yes, we should also consider nuclear power) more than it will come from more drilling, simply because we don't have enough oil resources to drill for it to make fiscal or environmental sense.

    To put it in some perspective, assuming that the oil has been flowing out at 60,000 barrels per day (which is on the higher end of the scale), there still wouldn't be enough oil in the gulf to power the US for 2 days.

  • Rose

    Poor Frank is a Democrat, and there are times when you can see the strain on HIM, thanks to all the tips he shows us! LOL!

  • KeninMontana

    The Luntz remark was sarcasm or do we need to tag it like they do at Hot Air? I agree we need to look at alternative energy sources, as well as going back to working deposits on land as well. Were you aware that there are thousands of capped wells in the midwest just sitting idle? My family owns about fifty in Oklahoma that were ordered capped by the Feds during the Cold War as Strategic Reserves. No we are not oil barons the ownership has been spread by shares to over a hundred relatives the last yearly dividend check was about nine dollars, I kid you not, wells that aren't pumping generate no income to speak of or oil. I assume that the figure you posted is from the total of wells operating in the gulf? Of course not many are still operating, for how long no one knows.But yes we need to look at all energy options,but you and I both know it will be a tough row to hoe in the land of eternal litigation.

  • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/U7LQAHKQMWAXNV3PT4SPJ4ZKTY Danny

    I'm glad you were being sarcastic – the internet can make sarcasm tricky, but I should have given you the benefit of the doubt. The Frank Luntz focus groups are part of what makes Sean Hannity's show the most dishonest propaganda hour on television, but that's another argument for another time.

    In terms of energy independence, yes it will be tough but it needs to get done, and if that means a carbon tax in the near future to fund research, then so be it. People chant for energy independence, but to be honest the Democrats (at least the ones I listen to) have been talking about this since at least the 90s (well, actually, the 70s, and you remember how popular it was then), and I don't think people realize how difficult – and costly – it's going to be to accomplish, and part of that's going to mean making sacrifices.

    As for oil, I meant literally the oil that is floating around in the Gulf of Mexico from the blowout. I'm sure that there are many capped wells around the country, but I don't think people appreciate just how much oil we use every day – I don't have any data in front of me, but I remember a number of reports stating that even if we were to drill the country dry it would make a pretty negligible difference in terms of moving towards “energy independence” (I believe that we have grand total less than a year's worth of oil resources).

  • Pingback: Moe Lane » Plug the hole.()

  • Pingback: Plug the hole. | RedState()

  • http://www.facebook.com/TheArchitectMattFoster Matt Foster

    I could tell right off who would be the Pro-Obama voices.
    The guy with the dreadlocks is a stone cold lock.
    The cray atheist lady wearing sun glasses should have her right to vote taken away.
    The “hipster” 20 year old communist is always Pro-Obama.
    And statistically Black females are more supportive of President Obama than other Black Americans.

    I love the “Obama inherited the problem” quote… That's pure comedy.. This spill happened 57 days ago.. Not 557 days ago.

  • KeninMontana

    Saw this link posted all by it's lonesome on the earlier Mark Levin thread. I don't know much of anything about the guy in the interview,just haven't had the time to research him much, aside from him being an advocate of “nuking” the hole, he brings up a Wood's Hole Institute ship doing a bottom survey around the well finding a “lake” of heavy oil on the bottom covering (he claims 40% of the Gulf bottom) the sea floor.Does anyone know anything about this guy? Is he legit or a crackpot?
    http://beforeitsnews.com/story/79/432/Video:_Nu

  • KeninMontana

    Here's a relevant article from American Thinker on US oil reserves.
    http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/06/the_pres

  • Sonny D

    Obama Doctrine: Never let a tragedy go to waste. I believe that if Obama could exploit the Gulf Oil Spill tragedy in order to advance his Cap and Trade agenda he would do just that. That is a grave concern that I have about Obama. I am the man in the panel that stated that if Obama could have take reasonable steps to prevent the oil from reaching the shore lines by excepting the help from 15 nations that have to ships and offered the much need help but ;Obama never accepted any such help. Remember it was foreseeable in any reasonable mans eyes thought process, that the oil from the rig would eventually reach the shore if a lack of action is not taken.