It’s one thing to hide it. We’re used to that and pretty much expect it. But there just ain’t nothin’ like the theater of a politician exposing his and his fellow pol’s corruption on live TV.
When Rep. Joe Barton, R-Arlington, apologized to BP chief executive Tony Hayward on Thursday and accused the Obama administration of conducting a “shakedown” of the oil giant, he drew quick denunciations from members of both parties.
Barton, under pressure from fellow Republicans, retracted his remarks hours later.
But the statement, while politically indelicate, is not a far aberration from the pro-industry positions that Barton has pursued in his 25 years in Congress.
“The attitude behind the remark is not a surprise,” said Jim Schermbeck, a North Texas clean-air advocate who has long clashed with Barton. “That he actually said it out loud gives me pause about his political radar these days.”
And @ glass half full, you are an idiot, far worse than most. BP is mostly owned by AMERICAN investment bankers, and not the brittish taxpayers.
Republican apologizes to oil companies are to be done behind closed doors and away from the sheeple.
Barton broke the secret rule and he must be punished.
“Is it becoming clear who’s actually in charge, now” Yes, yes it is, absolutely nobody not the white house, congress, or BP. It a certainty that its not the public as they change priorities depending on the news cycle. I spent the day in court, what I discovered is that Lenin was right kill all the lawyers every damn one.
I’m watching Rumpole of the Baily: The Sporting Life. He demolishes the expert testimony of a coroner who testified there was a single shot gun wound to chest. Rumpole asked him how many pellets he removed and the said 420. Rumpole then asked how many pellets are in a standard shotgun shell. The coroner did not know. Rumpole then suggested the standard shell has from 25- to 300 and asked if the presence of over that number plus the number of pellets that missed would presume at least two shots had been fired. For some reason that was a very important factoid and the expert was destroyed on the stand to good effect.
I once visited our Appeals Court. Walked in and spent 20 minutes listening to whether ‘s indicated possessive case or plural. I decide then I never wanted to be a lawyer, but kill them?
Why more specifically?
Typical business in Texas, with attitudes like this. Another candidate to line up against the wall. This is a common and growing attitude in general large businesses today and so much business has ended up in Texas over the past few decades. It bodes badly for the average citizen, and I blame Texas for most of it.
The word is out in the Republican Party. DON’T side with BP. Too late, the Democrats will milk this and the Republican stalling of raising the liability limit.
Let it be dealt with in a manner that it is not under Obama’s control who gets the money. The regular court system has been proposed. I’m open to other suggestions.
Another naysaying, is when Obama claims it will go to reimburse people out of work on the other oil rigs. Obama’s the one who put them out of work, and it is part of the ‘don’t let a crisis go to waste’ agenda.
#27, Lyin’ Mike,
The regular court system is not set up to deal with claims of this sort. There are still claims from the Exxon Valdez that haven’t been settled. Those being injured need the help NOW.
In case you didn’t notice, there is a terrible oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Yes, oil rigs are being shut down because of the BP incident. This is not Obama’s fault, it is the fault of BP. We know you will still blame Obama though, for no other reason than because you like to blame him for everything.
Cripes, you guys are picking on one of the few honest politicians* in DC.
*An honest politician is one who stays bought, no matter what.
Barton later apologized for his “shakedown” remarks, saying if anyone had misconstrued his apology to BP he was truly sorry.
Meaning that if you misinterpreted the thrust of his BP apology (Your Fault), then he, Barton, regretted it.
In other words, it’s not my fault you didn’t get what I was saying, and for that I’m so sorry, you idiot.
Bought. Sold.
bobbo, I used to watch perry mason as a kid, as well as rumpole and even law and order. The perceived idea is that lawyers seek the truth. The true reality is that a lawyer will argue that water runs uphill unless you specifically observed it running down hill and tested that water to make sure that the water you saw was actually the water that was running. This was the argument that was actually made. The fact that this idiot was polluting the environment and knew it because he had received multiple site visits and documentation, and agreed that he was polluting didn’t stop the lawyer from stating that he wasn’t polluting as know one actually saw the water enter the creek, or could prove that the water observed was actually his. By the way this was not during a trial, this was during the penalty phase after he had been found guilty. The law is not about justice or truth, guilt or innocence. Its about padding the hours and appearing to represent your client to get your fee. Look at any frivolous lawsuit over hot coffee. And if you don’t agree with me I will sue you.
sorry that’s, no one.
Clancy==I agree being involved in a lawsuit can be very discouraging. The problem, as I constantly post, is devising a different system?
It would make a nice experiment to charge lawyers with actually being “an officer of the court” and require them (how?) to present only credible arguments they actually competently believe?
I think penalizing the lawyer PERSONALLY for bad arguments would be one way to do this.
As with any system, there would be pro’s and con’s, winners and losers. But I agree “justice” and not the game is the goal.
Yes, I think some changes could be made==doesn’t appear to be any real interest in doing so however.