Today’s Q’s for O’s WH 7/27/10
EmailYunji de Nies: Robert, two questions, staying on B.P. for a second. Now that Mr. Dudley will take over, does the president have any plans to reach out to him, to have any one-on-one meetings with him? Has the White House made any effort in that regard?
GIBBS: Well, the president had an opportunity to — Mr. Dudley was part of the negotiations that — that took place here a few weeks ago. The president had an opportunity to talk to the chairman of the board yesterday about their change in leadership. And again, I — our concern is not who heads B.P. Mr. Hayward is — is leaving. The key is that B.P. can't leave and should not leave the Gulf. That is — that is our viewpoint. I think that's the viewpoint of everyone that's involved here, that they have obligations and responsibilities as the responsible party in this instance that have to be met regardless of who the CEO is or who the chair of the — of the company is.
de Nies: Surely the president, though, has an opinion on Mr. Dudley, especially if they've met in person. Does the White House think this is a good choice or a bad choice?
GIBBS: Again, I'm not going to get into and the White House is not going to get into picking who the CEO of this company is. Our opinion of — of the CEO is immaterial to the notion that we're going to hold that CEO, whomever it is, and the chair and the entire board responsible for the damage that's been caused, the obligations that they have to fulfill, the money that they will owe the federal government in penalties, the $20 billion in escrow that they will have to continue to pay into, the $100 million that they put up for rig workers as part of the oil moratorium, and also the natural resource damage assessments which will come a little bit later in that process.
de Nies: Moving on to war funding, we heard the president publicly push for this today. Is he doing anything behind the scenes to try to get more Democrats to vote for this bill? A significant number, it seems, will not vote for this. Why — why does the White House think the party is so divided on this?
GIBBS: I don't think that's a new thing. I don't — I think if you look back at war funding that goes back six or eight years, there have been splits in the Democratic Party. I don't — you know, Chairman Obey announced he was going to vote against war funding today. It's an announcement, quite frankly, that he made quite some time ago.
So I think the president believes that — and talked extensively in the campaign about the fact that we did not have a winning strategy in Afghanistan. Coming into office, we spent a large chunk of time reviewing and creating a strategy that we believed had an opportunity to be successful. Those troops are on their way in and by the end of August, will all be in place.
And as he said in his statement, that's — that's the strategy he believes Congress should in the supplement and will approve funding for this evening.
de Nies: That opposition might not be new, but the strategy is new. Should the president be doing something else to convey the message to people in his own party as to why they should support this?
GIBBS: I — I — I don't — I will say this — I don't — I — I don't know how many of the Democrats that — there are Democrats that have been opposed to involvement in Afghanistan a lot longer than we've been here.
USS Gabrielle Giffords Honors Courage 
Mitt Romney's Full Speech at CPAC 2012
de Nies: That opposition might not be new, but the strategy is new. Should the president be doing something else to convey the message to people in his own party as to why they should support this?
GIBBS: I — I — I don’t — I will say this — I don’t — I — I don’t know how many of the Democrats that — there are Democrats that have been opposed to involvement in Afghanistan a lot longer than we’ve been here.
Wow… does this mean the Democrats are now the party of “no”?? Maybe they could use some of the tax money that John Kerry isn’t paying to dock his big, fat yacht and put it toward the war funding bill. It’s almost like Pay-Go.
Posted by: Shoe | July 27, 2010, 4:16 pm 4:16 pm
[sarcasm]
I wonder how Obama found such an informative well speaking young man to be his Press Secretary. He must have interviewed many thousands of people to get someone as good as Gibbs.
[/sarcasm]
Posted by: Noz | July 27, 2010, 4:21 pm 4:21 pm
de Nies: That opposition might not be new, but the strategy is new. Should the president be doing something else to convey the message to people in his own party as to why they should support this?
GIBBS: I — I — I don’t — I will say this — I don’t — I — I don’t know how many of the Democrats that — there are Democrats that have been opposed to involvement in Afghanistan a lot longer than we’ve been here.
The Democrat Party of 2010. The new “NO” Party
Posted by: DJ | July 27, 2010, 4:27 pm 4:27 pm
GIBBS: Well, the president had an opportunity to — Mr. Dudley was part of the negotiations that — that took place here a few weeks ago. The president had an opportunity to talk to the chairman of the board yesterday about their change in leadership. And again, I — our concern is not who heads B.P. Mr. Hayward is — is leaving. The key is that B.P. can’t leave and should not leave the Gulf. That is — that is our viewpoint. I think that’s the viewpoint of everyone that’s involved here, that they have obligations and responsibilities as the responsible party in this instance that have to be met regardless of who the CEO is or who the chair of the — of the company is.
Good grief. Why can’t they get out of their faux “ass kicking” routine? We’ve heard the screaming and shouting and shock and anger about the spill long enough. Obama needs to talk to the new CEO and build some kind of connection with him. Funny that the president who is more than willing to extend a hand to radical Islam in the sake of ‘bridge building’, can’t even muster up enough to speak directly to a new CEO. Gotta keep the John Wayne image up, I guess.
Posted by: Shoe | July 27, 2010, 4:30 pm 4:30 pm
I have some advice for Yunji:
1) nobody cares what Obama “feels” about something or someone. Thats coming from someone who generally supports Obama. Its just not important enough to ask about.
2) Ask questions that get to the heart of the matter – on war funding, the question asks for less than it could. Some context: the Senate sent the bill back to the House without the jobs money the House wanted. The question to Obama is -”does the fact that you are pushing for this Senate bill mean that you have abandoned your Jobs agenda?”
Posted by: Flash Override | July 27, 2010, 5:55 pm 5:55 pm
I have some advice for Yunji:
1) nobody cares what Obama “feels” about something or someone. Thats coming from someone who generally supports Obama. Its just not important enough to ask about.
Posted by: Flash Override | Jul 27, 2010 5:55:54 PM
Actually, it IS important to ask about. I like knowing what is going on in the head of the man who is ‘in charge’ of the country I call home. He can come out to a podium and read big words off a teleprompter, but that may or may not be what he “feels”. I, for one, don’t get much out of teleprompter chat. No wonder his approval hovers around 50% all the time. When people don’t know what he ‘feels’ and ‘thinks’, they become stuck in the middle. Of course, he IS doing the right thing for politics. As usual.
Posted by: Shoe | July 27, 2010, 7:13 pm 7:13 pm
I think Alan Grayson gets it right, “Stop cramming our wealth into the gullet of the military-industrial complex.”
As an aside, did any of the deficit peacocks make sure the bill was deficit neutral?
Posted by: conservatives or con artists? | July 27, 2010, 8:46 pm 8:46 pm
flash, didn’t they pass a jobs bill already? why would money for jobs be in the military spending bill? and if you haven’t noticed Obama’s only interest in jobs is making sure americans stay jobless!
Posted by: whatsgoingonhere? | July 27, 2010, 9:49 pm 9:49 pm
The vast majority of money spent on the military industrial complex is spend here at home and underpins a huge number of jobs… good paying jobs with benefits… union jobs… jobs requiring high levels of education and skill… Go ahead Mr. Obama, whack away…
Posted by: Quo Warranto? | July 27, 2010, 11:29 pm 11:29 pm
… underpins a huge number of jobs.
———–
Oh, I know…. A HUGE, unknown number of jobs… see WaPo’s series called Top Secret America:The top-secret world the government created in response to the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, has become so large, so unwieldy and so secretive that no one knows how much money it costs, how many people it employs, how many programs exist within it or exactly how many agencies do the same work.
And after telling us all about how you support the military-industrial complex, giving our money to it (no questions asked!) and how important it is to continue building and supporting top secret America, tell us all about how you’re a so-called “conservative” despite your love for big government, and its secrecy, etc.
BUT don’t support your local police departments and fire departments. Nah. Whine about the tax dollars that go there. Raise cain about *those* unions (after all they tend to support Democrats.)
Posted by: conservatives or con artists? | July 28, 2010, 12:41 am 12:41 am
I like this thread.. the economics of maintaining an empire.. and the stimulus provided by foreign conflicts.. I’m glad that someone is thinking along these lines. I would say education, healthcare, housing and finance are other examples of government gone wild. I wouldn’t say any one item is a bubble.. I think our whole way of doing things is the bubble.
Posted by: Dontget818 | July 28, 2010, 9:07 am 9:07 am
We should blame a General/President.. Dwight D. who found a way to wage war without wasting lives or ammo.
Posted by: Dontget818 | July 28, 2010, 9:09 am 9:09 am
Did you notice that big government in Bell California populated by many Latinos who make $30,000 or less has fired the CFO who was making $800,000? Why does Ombama think the Latino community is fool to believe his financial drivel leading to big government and this type of abuse? Many Latinos have left dictatorship and oppression in their previous countries to become LEGAL immigrants who are here to pursue the American dream and do not appreciate what the Obama adminstration is doing. Obama’s late term abortion stance alone is contrary to the values of many Catholic Latinos.
Posted by: Downwithsocialism | July 28, 2010, 10:43 am 10:43 am
“Did you notice that big government in “Bell California populated by many Latinos who make $30,000 or less has fired the CFO who was making $800,000?”
Who can blame them?
You have town council members making 30 times what the average worker was when the town was threatening to cut services.
Of course CEO’s make 200 to 300 times the average worker.
Posted by: Ryan C | July 28, 2010, 3:21 pm 3:21 pm
The main difference is that military spending does not increase economic efficiency, the way that spending money on roads, schools, and the rest does.
If successful, military adventures abroad simply lead to another safe place with cheaper labor to move jobs to.
Posted by: Flash Override | July 28, 2010, 4:25 pm 4:25 pm
If you can’t tell the difference from private business owned by free willing shareholders who in turn collect dividends based upon the performance of those CEO’s vs. a government worker who collected an enormous salary from a taxpayer who has no clue as to what the thugs are collecting because of a city charter and…wait for it…GOT NOTHING IN RETURN…WELL…..
Posted by: Parallex View | July 28, 2010, 6:51 pm 6:51 pm