Children's Hour

Politicians are infantile. How else to explain diatribes like "our boot on the neck of BP", "unlike the prior administration's MM services cosy relation with the industry", the One being "outraged at BP" , "so I know whose ass to kick" and on and on.... Surely, it can't be a political ploy to change Obama's nickname from "no-drama" to something more positive while appealing to populist anger on the Gulf coast? As of June 13th, Obama has yet to meet with BP personnel, could it be that's too close to the fire? He has preferred long range bomb throwing.

What kind of reaction is he looking for by repeatedly calling BP by its former name British Petroleum? Surely this most well briefed of executives has been made aware that there are almost as many American shareholders as there are British? Populism again? Blaming the foreigners for our ills? Giving Pelosi the microphone to lecture BP on priorities for its cash payments gave us some insights to her novel philosophy ... suddenly spill claimants take priority on cash flow over employees, suppliers, tax liabilities. Even better, Nancy lectures on BP's integrity! Marvelous. Keep talking US Government, you will be in danger of bringing this company down. This company makes 30 billion in operating profit and could no doubt afford to meet its obligations, talking the company shares down is akin to shooting yourself in the foot.

As for firing Haywood, he may get his wish. Haywood has demonstrated a tin ear at times in this mess. BP would have been better off putting the US executives up front, at least they know the ground better. I can't wait for the political theater in the inevitable congressional hearings where once again its redeeming humanity is best illustrated by its nearly total lack of sophistication and often circus like behavior. If memory serves, the BP Chairman is not English mother tongued. Perhaps it will be more entertaining than the Toyota hearing was ... it was clear congress had no idea of the role of a large Japanese company CEO; it will be equally amusing when they try to "fathom" the role of a non-executive chairman of a PLC vs the CEO!

Yes, it seems very clear BP wasn't prepared for something of this magnitude and perhaps for any thing significant at this depth. Their contingency plans for a spill were vague at best and they are paying the price. Should it be established that BP was seriously negligent or more importantly criminally negligent the government should take them to the wall.

I haven't seen an explanation for how this administration for all its talk about professional vetting and hiring practices wound up appointing such a lightweight to a mission sensitive position to oversee offshore drilling ... no industry experience or technical grounding, and a resume that appeared more staff than line. Frankly, whoever proposed and whoever agreed her selection; those are the heads that should roll. How about the Sec of Interior, isn't he the senior man below Obama? Off with his head!

While on the topic of competence, how did the congress support the announcement of opening up off shore drilling when the administration knew "under the earlier administration the industry had a cozy relationship with the regulator"? Hm-mm. The administration did a year long study prior to the announcement... must be a helluva study. And with all those czars and other experts they couldn't get it right? And now we have a 6 month moratorium and the US expects BP to pay the resulting unemployment costs for 000's of people employed by the entire industry? Good luck.

Increasingly, it is clear Obama is all that I feared; elitist, very partisan, thin-skinned and controlling. Did I overlook unprepared for the management challenge of his job? Most importantly he has demonstrated real zeal only for big government solutions and all too often given us the impression that "capitalism is something unpleasant he found on the sole of his sneaker".

Now, if we only had some credible Republican alternatives.