There are those who act as though Barton’s choices were to remain mute or say it the way he did. Not so. There was a third way: make the point . . . just don’t make the point stupidly. Emanuel was right about one thing: Barton’s remarks were prepared. He knew full well that they were going to be controversial because he specifically took care to state that they reflected his opinion alone.
And yet he chose to say: “I apologize.” This was stupid.
The fact that you choose to speak a hard truth on a controversial subject does not give you immunity for expressing that truth in a counterproductive manner. Indeed, it confers on you a greater responsibility to choose your words carefully.
To reiterate: Here’s what Barton said in full — which provides the context for the “apology.” Read the whole thing: Is there really any question about what his point is — or about what rhetorical effect he intended with the “So I apologize”?
Thank you Mr Chairman. We have kind of a dual track underway in my opinion, we obviously are trying to gather the facts, what happened in the oil spill in the gulf of Mexico a month and a half ago, trying to find out the causes of that spill, what can be done to prevent it in the future, we’re obviously very concerned about the mitigation and the cleanup; We have a system in America, built up based on the British tradition over two hundred years of due process and fairness where people that do bad things — in this case a corporation that’s responsible for a bad accident — we want to hold them responsible do what we can to make the liable parties pay for the damages.
Mr Stupak and Mr Waxman are doing an excellent job working with Dr Burgess and myself in conducting a very fair oversight investigation we’re going to get into a number of those issues in this hearing and we’re going to ask you some pretty tough questions.
I’m speaking now for myself, I’m not speaking for anybody in the House of Representatives but myself, but I’m ashamed of what happened in the White House yesterday. I think it is a tragedy of the first proportion that a private corporation can be subjected to what I would characterize as a shakedown. In this case a $20 billion shakedown. With the Atty Gen of the US who is legitimately conducting a criminal investigation and has every right to do so to protect the interests of the American people participating in what amounts to a 20 Billion dollar slush fund that’s unprecedented in our nation’s history, that’s got no legal standing, which sets I think a terrible precedent for the future, if I called you into my office and I had the subcommittee chairman Mr Stupak with me, who was legitimately conducting an oversight investigation on your company, and said if you put so many millions of dollars in a project in my congressional district I could go to jail and should go to jail.
Now, there is no question that British Petroleum owns this lease. There is no question that British Petroleum — that B.P. — I’m sorry. It’s not British Petroleum anymore — that B.P. made decisions that objective people think compromise safety. There is no question that B.P. is liable for the damages.
But we have a due process system, where we go through hearings, in some cases court cases, litigation, and determine what those damages are and when those damages should be paid. So I’m only speaking for myself, I’m not speaking for anybody else, but I apologize, I do not want to live in a country where anytime a citizen or a corporation does something that is legitimately wrong is subject to some sort of political pressure that is again in my words amounts to a shakedown. So I apologize.
But on this hearing today, I am with Mr Waxman with Mr Stupak, there are questions that need to be asked that are legitimate because we don’t want another oil spill of this magnitude or of any magnitude in the Gulf of Mexico and if this subcommittee can do things that make it much more difficult for an incident of this type to occur in the future we will have done our job for the American people. And with that, I yield back.
Why is it seemingly so important that those scolding Barton for his remarks remove not only the bulk of the (rather short) context, but also that “So” from the beginning of that formulation? I mean, is it now too much to ask that even an entire sentence be excerpted?
The “so” at the beginning of Barton’s formulation is used to carry over the reason for the “apology” — making it clear that Barton isn’t apologizing to BP because he believes they’ve been unfairly blamed for the spill, but rather because he believes that the procedure — an application of political pressure — for procuring the “deal” Obama claims to have struck is unlawful and problematic in a country supposedly governed by the rule of law.
And yet Patrick Frey argues:
Barton is the guy who gave the other side the opening. Now that they are exploiting it in a dishonest manner, as we all knew they would, it is incumbent on us to point out the truth and call the liars liars. We must also be willing to call a dumb statement a dumb statement.
Yes, he gave them the “opening”. If by an opening, Frey means that, once you whittle down his entire set of remarks to less than one sentence, what Barton said can be used against the entirety of the GOP — again, if we agree to bracket all his disclaimers about his speaking only for himself. Which evidently we can.
Or in other words, Frey is once again arguing for a type of discourse that can foresee every way in which an opponent can spin statements — and counseling that, rather than rejecting such a discursive paradigm from the outset as both illegitimate and impossibly constraining, we get better at operating within it. That our opponents have set up the rules seems never to trouble him.
Frey rather pointedly frames his argument in such a way that it would appear people like me suggest there are only two choices: shut up or speak bluntly (and inartfully). That isn’t the case, naturally. Again, you can choose to be especially careful if you think that is your best rhetorical strategy; or you can choose to be blunt knowing that you’ll get a reaction. It depends on what you are trying to accomplish. In the latter case, what Frey refers to as an “opening” for the other side would be reframed as an opportunity for you to make your case forcefully, knowing as you must that your opponent will take that bait and widen the audience for the comments.
But that only works if your side treats it as an opportunity. Behaving like guilty cowards rather than principled leaders? Not so much.
Frey, like other GOP pragmatists and populists, has again premised his argument on the effectiveness of the opposition at using a truncated line removed from its context — and not on the more important premise that removing it from its context is dishonest, and completely changes the meaning, making the proper response clarification, expansion, reiteration, and reaffirmation, not retreat and apology.
Sanctimony. Scolding. “Pragmatic.”
In retrospect, it is always easy to counsel that someone could have made the point better, hindsight being 20/20 and all. But as I said elsewhere, as a kind of intellectual m.o., this counsel requires a time machine for it to ever be effective.
Well, for our side, that is.
But I guess we’ll never learn.
So if an egret gets a law degree then walks across the sand, is it still tasty with hoisin sauce?
We know how to force a deal.
And it is not domestic violence.
The upcomin’ will answer the question regarding “we will never learn” quite nicely.
If a borderline sociopath can be elevated to the presidency, spend two years shredding the Constitution to the applause of the American Socialist Party, and then avoid being obliterated in the midterm elections, then it will be quite apparent that there are some lessons we will be learning the hard way.
And than all those people for whom “roughing it” means going without a triple shot skinny latte in the morning are in for quite a surprise. We have the benefit of almost 100 years of redistributionist history to draw on to establish a aseline of just exactly how bad it’s going to get; its just a question of how far the communists take it.
Will it be Cuba bad? $16 a month?
Will it be Venezuela bad? Can’t keep the power on more than six hours a day?
Will it be USSR bad? Standing in line for rotten meat?
Will it be European bad? The food tastes good, but nobody really gives a shit about anything.
Will it be Che Guevera bad? Heaping helpings of incompetence with occasional violent slaughter of the peasants?
Will it be China bad? If you don’t think China’s bad, I can’t help you.
Will it be North Korea bad? Malnutrition, no lights, no cars, no work… actually that sounds pretty much like a leftist Disney World now that I think about it.
Cambodia bad? Stacks of bones of the intelligentsia, and yes that is a bad thing.
Barack H. Obama bad? I’m thinking he’s following a mix between the Che Guevera and the Hugo Chávez model, in that when the lights are working. you might get some food, but when the lights go out they will probably kill you.
Tkae your meds, meya.
As with the entire post, this paragraph exhibits a confidence born of reason and surety. Which leads one to ask what moves someone to make the argument Frey thinks is an argument?
Yeah, that’s right – shakedown is what I said and shakedown is what I goddamn meant. You got a problem with callin’ a spade a spade?”
callin’ a spade a spade?
Denounced.
Denounced and condemned. Racists.
To save time, here’s the last iteration of this debate. Anyone has something to add, they can amend the previous or link to it to spare us all much egrettable pain and discomfort.
Besides, Jeff, Krauthammer said it was stupid of him to say it, and I can raise you nuns in bumpercars. Your argument is invalid.
You know…
If Barton would just get the dinner on the table on time, I bet those beatings would stop.
Pragmatists attack?!? That would involve going on offense, and the offensive OFFEND! We can’t have that, now, can we?
Better to keep playing defense. Defending Mom ‘n apple pie. It’s what pragmatic conservatives do.
If a borderline sociopath
He’s not borderline (which has a clinical meaning), he’s a garden-variety narcissist, and may or may not have sociopathic tendencies, which are on the same spectrum as narcissists.
And yes, I know by “borderline” you meant that he bumps up against sociopathy a bit too often, but I rarely pass up an opportunity to be pedantic.
Which leads one to ask what moves someone to make the argument Frey thinks is an argument?
He’s a lawyer. He doesn’t care what the rules are, so long as the rules are there.
Well, they attack their own, Ernst — or rather, the ones that piss off their enemies.
There’s perhaps a parallel in there with terrorism, Israel, and other such things, but nobody is going to make me say anything like that.
Iowa Republican Steve King showed his OUTLAW! sensibility yesterday when he defied those who accused him of racism on Laura Ingraham’s radio program. From her website:
“Rep. Steve King on those who he says took his race comments out of context: ‘We really should just ridicule them for trying to run with emotions and no logic. I think Socrates and Plato would have laughed themselves silly if [they saw] these people were leading thought in America.'”
How unpragmatic of him.
This was predictable to a degree that might actually disprove quantum mechanics.
If Barton would just get the dinner on the table on time, I bet those beatings would stop.
First he needs to learn how to cook just like Mom. He’s got all those sisters to show him how.
Barack H. Obama looks at the history of the United States, compares it to the hundred of millions of corpses left behind by the various attempts at enforcing social-justice, and he decides that Socialism is the way to go.
That is borderline psychosis, blended with cognitive dissonance, and served with a little twist of narcissism just to make things interesting.
Bipartisanship: “A state of affairs in which Republicans betray their supporters in order to mollify their political enemies and the editorial boards of The Washington Post and New York Times. Cf., capitulation, professional suicide.”
-Tony Snow
That is borderline psychosis
If it were actual psychosis, we could cure it with The Wonders of Modern Medicine.
It’s actually old-fashioned corruption and evil.
Yes, I said evil. Good people do not attempt to amass that much power unto themselves, nor do they tell lies to enable said amassing, nor do they lack the ability to empathize.
That’s very unhelpful dicentra, The President is a Good Man. John McCain said so.
OT, but…..
On ABC news I just saw the most blatent appeal to racial prejudice that I have ever wittnessed when Nikki Haley “could pass or Caucasian”, “but was born Nimrata Nikki Randhawa”
Fucking MSM.
Laz – worry not, soon it will be that she isn’t passing as, but actually serving as, SC’s Governor. Last laugh and all.
From Ace.
So what? Ace isn’t bothered by it because he’s a cynical political “realist,” so we don’t have to be bothered by it?
It’s odd that Joe would link a piece that refers to “corruption”, “shakedown” and “mobsters”.
It’s also just a little odd that these descriptors wouldn’t give Ace a moment or two of pause.
Don’t worry, Lazarus. The democrats have a secret ray that allows them to commit flagrant racist acts within the cloak of MSM invisibility.
Except that we can all see them.
Quite plainly.
Jeff, you are definitely entitled to be bothered by it. Ace’s realist sensibilities aside, he points out that this sort of thing is well entrenched and relatively common. That does not make it right.
Unconstitutional? That is a stretch on due process. Illegal? It depends on the treats, promises and quid pro quo of the thing. You need someone to challenge it in the courts or you need to pass laws that make it clear this sort of thing is not allowed.
bh, why are you surprised by that. I agree with you all that the Obama administration is generally corrupt. I think BP is corrupt too. Unfortunately for your arguments, what Obama and BP did does not not appear to be illegal (at least in the sense that you can challenge it legally). That does not make it right, that is just the way it is.
After reading the comments of ‘Joe’ over several threads I am identifying an evolution!
The threads dealing with President Obama and his administrations’ reactions to events can be described as follows:
(a) ‘Obama is not Bush!’
(b) ‘Obama is doing the same things that Bush did!’
(c) ‘I heap scorn upon Obama because he is just like Bush!’
Our naturalists await the evolution of the species that will create the being that says ‘ObamaHitler!’. We will report when that happens, no matter the casualties we may take getting a recording of something so rare out of the jungles of media.
Whomever ‘Joe’ may actually be. Meya? Actus? Whatever?
The handles change, but the assholery remains the same.
Mikey NTH what the fuck is wrong with you.
I never said Obama is the same as Bush. I never said I criticize Obama for being Bush. That is a little too broad and general, don’t you think? I do note that what Obama did with BP bears many similarities to what Paulson and Bush did with TARP. Do you disagree with that?
Mikey NTH, I want Obama out of office, same as presumably you. I want more conservative candidates in Congress. I want conservatives to take control of House and Senate.
If you want to attack Obama on the BP escrow fund, go for it. I am not stopping you. You do not need my approval. Buy some BP stock and bring a derivative suit.
I do not agree. TARP arm-twisting was because it was thought that the program would be undermined if people could make guesses as to which institutions were the most teetering, and there was no political gain for Mr. Bush in enacting TARP. It consumed political capital like nothing else really.
President bumblefuck mugged BP to make his bumblefuck ass look like it had a purpose. Very very different.
That is a good point happy. Seriously. Paulson and Bush thought they were doing the right thing, they just did it in a bad way. Paulson actually threatened banks that were balking on going along, so they all went along.
The BP Obama deal is different than that. And you are correct it was done nefariously to give Obama political clout. I guess it is an example why prostitution really isn’t a victimless crime. Unfortunately, there does not appear to be a law on the books for that particular type of infraction.
“…that particular type of infraction.”
Don’t you think you’re assuming an awful lot that you don’t know Joe, that for that matter, no-one who wasn’t present actually knows? Seems that way to me, anyhow.
yo joe don’t go bp, gm, chrysler, aig dude
sdferr, spot on. So there is not a whole lot to do about it other than change the law since BP and Obama are not about to start telling you the truth about it. As for gm, chrysler, aig that newrouter brought up. Yeah. bad ideas. Is it illegal? Apparently not.
Deep Watergate is probably not about Obama being a thug to BP, but Obama and BP trading favors for political gain.
So there is not a whole lot to do about it other than change the law since BP and Obama are not about to start telling you the truth about it
What law were they operating under that you would suggest changing, sockpuppeteer?
Looks like Joe crapped in another thread.
Yippeeeeeee!
For the record, I’m with Levin and Sowell, legally speaking. You can stick with Ace, Patterico, and AJB/meya/et al.
Heh. @jstrevino nails Patterico.
Just so everyone knows? Joe doesn’t think there’s anything wrong with the deal, unless BP goes to court. If it turns out BP gets something out of it, the fact that they didn’t go to court makes that okay, as well.
I know all this because Joe has written the same thing 800000000x over the last day plus. And though it hasn’t changed anyone’s opinion here, it sure has clotted up these threads with repeat links and the same assertions made again and again.
But hey. Ace says so. So, like, end of discussion.
Don’t laugh, serr89d. Pat knows where the bread is buttered in the world of conservative blogging. The pragmatists rule the roost.
I would like to buy both of you a meal involving both shrimps and beefs as well as many saketinis and also red velvet cake but that’s just for me you can’t have any.
I wonder if Joe even remembers his original position on this … n/t bh.
Joe, you haven’t succeeded in convincing me that Rep. Barton did anything wrong. If a politician can’t speak his mind and mean exactly what he says, then he’s in the business for the wrong reasons. It’s Tuesday, and I’m still saying I wish he represented my district, because he certainly represents me.
Perhaps Joe thinks that if he repeats his message often enough, we’ll finally “get it.” The fact that most of us “got it” the first time doesn’t seem to be a barrier to repetition.
In short, assertion monkey asserts.
And on McChrystal, it’s a damned shame. He’ll have to resign or leave, because of the UCMJ prohibits what he’s done (even if the asshole who wrote the story, Michael Hastings, is a True/Slant blogger of the Charles Johnson – Barrett Brown ilk who followed the General and his staff around for months to get this Rolling Stone crappy story).
serr8d — on the other paw (with claws extended) Michael Yon is looking like a prophet.
Every silver lining has a big black cloud, right?
Regards,
Ric
I liked Krauthammer’s take on the McChrystal kerfuffle. He suggested that McChrystal prepare a letter of resignation, and give it to Obama, and then Obama makes a show of the thing but keeps him on. I think that would be a really good idea, but I think serr8d is correct and McChrystal’s resignation will be accepted.
The only real flaw I find with McChrystal is that he voted for Obama in the first place. Then told others that he voted for Obama.
But to see Michael Hastings get credit for bringing him down is saddening.
can someone distill the Yon is a prophet story I think Mr. Reynolds alluded to that too
Yon felt like McC’s staff had his embedding ended early because they didn’t like what he was writing on the Afghan scene. Yon expanded that when he decided the war was ill conducted and that McC was largely responsible, and hence had to go, which he began calling for a month and a half or so ago, maybe a little longer.
oh. I guess Yon will get to have his theory tested.
I suppose we should hope he’s right.
You know best Jeff.
Rumor already being that he’s offered his resignation, I have a suspicion that Obama will decline to accept it. To paraphrase Admiral Allen, replace him with who?
I also suspect that Obama underestimates the significance of what McChrystal did in the realms in which that sort of thing matters.
With all respect to Mr. Yon, there were some feelings at Blackfive that the common factor in Michael’s many disembeddings is Michael. Which, when you’ve been doing what he’s been doing for as long as he’s been doing it, it isn’t hard to envision how that could happen. That’s a problem I’d really like to see worked out.
Yon is a gadfly. He’d like to be Ernie Pyle, but is too poisonous a personality to manage it.
That doesn’t make him wrong. It does make him hard to take, and thus easy for the PA officer to downrate.
Regards,
Ric
I don’t follow Yon, so thanks for the filler, Ric.
Michael Hastings had better start covering different topics now. Maybe a story on professorial cat serenading in Murfreesboro would be a safer way to get through a day.
someone let me know when frey posts his mind-numbing hypothetical proving he is once again right.