Enter your email address:
Enter the recipients' email addresses, separated by commas:
Message:
Enter your email address:
Enter the recipients' email addresses, separated by commas:
Message:
Haraz N. Ghanbari / AP Photo The embattled BP exec was pelted by so many inane questions from the mediocrities in Congress they almost turned the oil spill villain into a sympathetic figure.
In days of yore, when boys at British boarding schools were summoned to the headmaster’s study for six of the best, they took care to put on three extra pairs of underpants to absorb the sting of the cane. Judging by Tony Hayward’s expression this morning—that of a cur whipped to within an inch of its life—the CEO of BP made the cardinal error of going into the first part of his hearing before the House Energy Subcommittee with his backside inadequately cushioned.
The opening statements by members of the subcommittee were floggings, pure and simple; in the best traditions of this year’s show-trials of capitalist roaders on Capitol Hill, Hayward was pelted and pilloried by grandstanding politicians. (Recall the hearings in April, if you will, of Lloyd Blankfein and his team from Goldman Sachs.) Thwack-thwack-thwack went Rep. Bart Stupak, swish-swish-swish went Rep. Henry Waxman; not even the balm applied by the Republican Joe Barton—who referred to BP’s $20 billion escrow fund as a government “shakedown” and “slush fund,” words which evoked a collective gasp from Wolf Blitzer & Co. on CNN—was salve enough for Hayward’s welts. It was hard, at this stage, not to feel sorry for the man, not to wince each time the camera panned to his puce-complexioned face.
Clearly, Hayward had decided that since he was already the grotesque devil, he may as well not make any impotent effort to be liked or loved.
And then something remarkable happened. The subcommittee broke for half an hour to vote on unrelated matters. On their return, it was clear that Hayward had not merely slipped on several additional pairs of boxer shorts, but that he’d also decided—in the protective solitude of the powder room—to do some personal and political math on a square of House loo-paper: If you’re on a hiding to nothing, you can either writhe and moan and twist and grovel, thereby inflaming further the blood-lust of your tormenters; or you can muster your stiffest upper lip, your most impassive face, your most noncommittal pedantry, your most stoical absorption of pain, and your most adamant unwillingness to commit to incriminating judgments.
• The BP Cast List • Richard Wolffe: The GOP’s BP Problem • Full Coverage of the Oil Spill That second option was the one elected by Hayward, in a masterful, unlovable, breathtaking display of stonewalling before an increasingly irate panel. Witness the sequence in which Rep. Stupak—eager to demonstrate that his curriculum vitae isn’t confined to the matter of abortion—laid detailed criticisms at BP’s door. Hayward replied: “I think it’s too early to reach conclusions, with respect, Mr. Chairman.” Or the episode where Rep. Waxman offered his catalogue of five major BP errors, effectively exhorting Hayward to bow his noggin and mumble something like, “Mea maximissima culpa.”
Instead, Hayward said: “I’m not prepared to draw conclusions about this accident until such time as the investigations are concluded.” (A frustrated Rep. Waxman responded by saying, “You’re kicking the can as if you have nothing to do with the company.” Frustration was evident, too, in the voice of Rep. Edward Markey, as he tussled with Hayward over the precise definition of a “plume.” It was that sort of hearing.)
Viewers will have lost count of the number of times Hayward said, “I can’t comment,” or “I have no idea,” or “I don’t have enough information,” or “I wasn’t involved in the decision-making,” or that it was “too early to draw conclusions,” in response to the members’ questions.
To be fair to Hayward, how exactly should—or could—he have answered a question like this one, from Rep. Stupak: “Should there be a ban on companies that have miserable safety and environmental records?” Should he have said yes; or no; or it depends; or maybe? And would he have gained anything at all from any one of those answers? So naturally, self-protectively, he prevaricated, especially as he had already made a clear apology for the oil spill in his opening statement, and had expressed BP’s commitment to “make whole” all those who have suffered economic loss.
12 June 17, 2010 | 4:46pm Twitter Emails
Enter your email address:
Enter the recipients' email addresses, separated by commas:
Message:
I like Tony Haywire just where he is, sounding like one of Nixon's men in his inability to recall anything and always putting his foot in his mouth. That's why I call this scandal BP-Gate. I like all the Republicans defending BP and hope they keep it right up until the November elections--following Lush Limbaugh right over the cliff. Like I said, if they are going to be true to their conservative principles at all, then they MUSY support a big corporation like BP against the governmnet, and MUST oppose all compensation to the "small people". That's their entire political ideology, so how can they walk away from it now?
I'm still trying to get the psychology of Tunku Varadarajan, conservatives like David Brooks I somewhat get, but Varadarajan comes off as guy who would cheer for the Emperor when watching Star Wars.
Anytime Rep. Henry Waxman and his hideously misshapen nose appear on TV badgering some witness, its hard not to feel some sympathy for the witness who has to look at that apparition for hours.
Exactly, Plant. To us (i.e., sane Americans), there are few things more loathsome than a pontificating Liberal. Especially one with a schnoz that could eat Boston. case1234, in order to get Tunku, you have to be able to view the world from the sane side. What he says makes perfect sense. I actually thoroughly enjoyed watching Hayward stonewall those fools. mcmc, your logic is as flawed as your intellect. I'm sure in your fantasy world what you say makes sense to you, but in reality there is virtually no "there there" in anything you say. But don't stop on my account. HA!
If Republicans win control of The House, as ranking member on the House Energy Committee, Rep Barton will be Committee Chairman. If he was Chairman would there even be a public hearing or would it be ANOTHER Cheney-esque Secret Energy Task Force? In other words a vote for ANY Republican in November is a vote for protecting BP from their negligence.
Oh! Tony,Tony, Tony! There you go again, you are conjecturing again.
Musy support, surely you jest.
You want the big bucks; you want the top responsibility, don't go crying like a baby, be a man and take your lumps. Heads of companies can dish it out (particularly British bosses can be my way or the highway types), but they can't take it. If he is not sure about what happened and the role they played in this debacle, then he needs to go cuz he is a lame duck recklessly leading his company.
mcmchugh99: How many inches is your cot from the computer? How was mom's mac and cheese at lunch today? I hope her knees hold out through your midlife crisis. There are a lot of steps up and down from the basement. You will see this seconds after I post it, so a swift reply will be appreciated.
Banjo1, Your posts just get creepier and creepier.
Re Banjo: We're all going to be flagging this turkey. Enough is enough.
socialworklady: Has word reached Canada yet about the utter uselessness of diversity training? There was a Yale study.
Banjo is projecting again, only thing he/she left out was his/her confederate flag draped behind the computer.
Clearly, we suffer from a dearth of sarcasm in our culture. LOL.
Banjo, has it ever occurred to you that you only encourage me to post even more often every time you tell me not to? Now run along and play some square dance music like a good instrument....
Banjo, I like your posts. They are very entertaining. Please keep them coming. socialworklady, aaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh (that's me runknniing away at the sight of you) khepri, try to make some sense. FLF, please try to come up with some new material. How come leftists only have one song each? It's like my theory about Country and Western Songs: There's only one, and they all take turns singing it.
I really enjoyed Tunku's whining about CNN showing pictures of what this a-hole's company did to the Gulf of Mexico. God forbid they show footage of what's actually happening! I certainly wasn't aware of the fact that in order to support capitalism you are not allowed to show visual evidence of the destruction a company has wrought. If Hayward doesn't have the stones to take some tough (if repetitive) questions from the United States Congress than BP should find a new CEO. I watched quite a bit of the hearing today and don't feel sorry for the poor billionaire in the least. I especially don't feel the need to genuflect when I say Hayward's name like Barton and Tunku apparently do. A "measure of sympathy?" You've got to be freaking kidding me!
We wouldn't expect you to understand, but don't worry, it's the mental disorder.
The Obama and Congressional grandstanding, plus the lawless extortion of BP were all disgusting and I commend Congressman Barton for making a courageous and honest statement. That he retracted it under tremendous pressure is understandable but reflects poorly on Republicans who caved in and joined the mob scene. We used to have laws and contracts in this country but we seem to have acquired Chicago style gangster government the past year or so. If BP cut corners and neglected some safety steps, and I think they may have, they will have to pay the penalty. There is no need for this ugly display of mob rule. And if you think this will help Democrats this fall, you are either sadly mistaken or the country is lost beyond salvation.
Thanks for your opinion, I actually enjoy the grandstanding. Give these pricks an inch they take a foot.
Shouldn't that read give these pricks an inch and they will make it a foot.
Tunku's defense of Hayward is truly a despicable whine. Hayward showed himself to be way in over his head--an incompetent CEO who had never developed a principled stand on industry practices that he could ADVOCATE for, DEFEND, or EXPLAIN. Tunks: I agree with the contempt you feel for legislative grand-standers. They all deserve copious amounts of spittle heaped upon them--for this occasion and for others where they have demonstrated their insincerity and irresponsibility. But Hayward, glib, callow, ill-informed, has presided over a disaster that will enter the record books. He is a fraud, has led a comfortable life with perks and, it seems, little responsibility. Payback is in order. I enjoyed seeing this legislative gang of thugs and ne'er do wells verbally mauling him. He deserves all the rough treatment he can get. And then, when it is all over, we will focus on the legislative know-nothing poseurs and deal with them via the ballot box.
I was hoping (praying) that Hayward stood up and said, "Get the hell out of my way." But his way was probably better.
why are you defending a criminal????
If one was able to trace the genes of those congressmen at today's hearing back into history, one may very well find those same genes in the bodies of those who condemned 'The Maid of Orleans'. I am not talking New Orleans here you understand but the connection is unmissable.
Are you really comparing Hayward to St. Joan of Arc?
Right on, Satch.
'leftistmenace' don't be rediculous? Where do I compare Hayward to Joan? If you read it with both eyes, I compare those on the Congress Committee to the English Occupation Government that tried her case. Do shape up!
Satch, leftists are not strong in logic. As a matter of fact, they have twisted logic into something that is almost unrecognizable. It goes something like this: All animals have fur. Dogs have fur. So you don't like clean air.
I believe you're right on that reardone! But I think you left out the point, that because they are suppose to have fur and some don't we should set up a fund and tax those that have too much fur and redistribute it to those that don't have enough.
Aren't we the "elitsts"...the educated...the rational.... Who is Not strong on Logic here
ah, don't you love the theater of the self-important and self-righteous. Doesn't matter what the issue is or who runs the show; it is always a show with a predictable format and cast of characters: -there must always be the villain, and Tony Hayward, with his palpable discomfort at being out front, was an easy mark. -you must have protagonists, to carry forth the voice of the people, the mortal outrage at whatever evil is being perpetrated on the unsuspecting and gullible citizenry. -there must be comic relief, as in Joe Barton - and, remarkably, for a man his age - managed to swallow his leg to kneecap level and continue talking. -and there is a sense of long-seeded animosity between villain and hero, something from the past that resonates deeply with either one or both, say Henry Waxman's 30 year House career devoted to putting obstacles in productive people's way. In the end, of course, there was real conclusion. Hayward didn't say anything and only a fool would expect him to. The man and his company are under criminal investigation; the committee is lucky it got more than name, title, and 5th amendment. And so the curtain closes on this month's Congressional kabuki. See you next time.
I actually think FarLeftFist best illustrated what the uninformed see as government at its best - "I actually love grandstanding". And worse, they probably learned exactly how this accident happened and what should have been done to prevent it. That was the intent and now they will be able to inform us. Can't wait to see what you and I missed during Thursday Afternoon Live.
Read Full Article »