ASSUME that authority.

That's what I'd like him to do. Not just act like he was powerless because BP was in international territory.

Heck if that's the case, maybe someone will just go to the moon and blow it up.

IF the president of the USA doesn't have the authority to tell BP they can't ruin our coastline and kill our sea creatures and food supply, then his butt needs to assume some authority someplace....at the UN or somewhere.

Oh he should just take no for an answer....maybe in this case, he needs to take some clues from Israel about how to handle stuff he doesn't like in international waters close to them.

He needs to grow a pair.

Originally posted by indigothefish
If you could travel back to the time of Obama's running for office, with the current knowledge of everything he is and isn't doing in response to the gulf oil leak, would you still vote for him?

Yes, I would and here's why.

People seem to think that the president of the US is some sort of king or holds the power to make things happen and that's not true. He is impotent as regards the real goings on in this country, especially where big business and their money is concerned.

In reality, there are many people FAR above Obama in power and control. We don't know their names, but they are the ones who hold the strings and make things happen.

NO MATTER WHO was in the position of POTUS, it wouldn't make a BIT of difference because the office doesn't have the power it once had and no president could have done anything differently.

Yes, I would vote for Obama again. I think he is doing as much as is humanly possible under the circumstances. The truth is NOBODY knows just what to do with the oil spill, and everyone is pretty much forced to depend on BP to come up with some solutions. Obama has personally called together some of the country's best scientists and engineers to work on a solution and at this point they are stymied.

As Benevolent Heretic has said, presidents don't rule by divine decree. He has to depend on the cooperation of Congress, including Senator Barton, who actually APOLOGIZED to BP because Obama demanded and got billions of dollars to help reimburse the victims of this disaster.

Just consider how much worse the Bush administration would have been if he had to deal with this crisis. The ineffectiveness of BP in even knowing what to do about the spill is largely the fault of the Bush and earlier Republican presidencies, because they are the ones who took off regulation after regulation which would hold the oil companies to a higher standard and demanded more responsibility for their mistakes. In addition they allowed the remaining regulatory agencies to form a "one hand washes the other," cozy relationship with the oil companies.

Thus far, Obama has taken a "hands on" approach to the crisis and personally overseen much of the clean-up effort. Because he cannot be everywhere all the time, and also has the rest of the country to run, he has had to delegate some responsibilities to government agencies and private businesses who have sometimes been imperfect in their judgments. Obama has also made some faulty calls, but in my opinion no more than any other president, or human being, might make.

I would personally give Obama an A on his performance.

[edit on 8-7-2010 by Sestias]

I see no difference between either party. They both obey "not us". I didn't want McCain because no matter how "Maverick" he is, he is still bought & paid for. The same with Obama. What we are doing to the people in Iraq & Afghanistan is "not right". What we are doing to the Southern States is not right.
To those praising Obama - the second BP try with their tower to cap the oil worked. They got their valves frozen and couldn't get the oil out so they let the oil flow again with Obama's blessing. You probably watch the big 4 for your news.