Day 39 of the Oil Disaster: Deja Lube

Yikes (4.00 / 1)

But the name top kill inspired such confidence ...

---

by: JimC @ Sat May 29, 2010 at 19:17:41 PM CDT

For me, the most infuriating part of it all (4.00 / 4)

is that there is little sense of urgency to forcing BP to stop using dispersants.

The oil gusher may be a problem unsolved,, but we can stop the use of dispersants now.

I actually don't blame the fed response on that - the blame is much bigger than that, extending to the casual acceptance in American culture of chemical poisons in our environment.

It is so frustrating to see the ocean get poisoned with toxins, with god knows what effects on eventual human health, and BP getting away with it.

The dispersants have modified the oil, keeping it in a form that's "much gooier and much oilier, and that has a lot of us worried, because it means the stuff is not going to degrade very easily," said James H. Cowan Jr., a professor of biological oceanography at Louisiana State University in Baton Rouge. Because of the high pressure deep underwater, it's harder for dispersants to break up the oil, he said.

"A lot of us suspect that we may be dealing with this for decades," Cowan said.

BP's use of the dispersants also is likely to keep the damage hidden.

Larry Crowder, a professor of marine biology at Duke University, said the dispersant, Corexit, had kept much of the oil off the beaches, making it "harder to get 'Film at 11' about the effects." Many species that are killed by the oil in the water will die and sink out of sight.

birch, finch, beech

---

by: Dean Barker @ Sat May 29, 2010 at 19:18:12 PM CDT

Indulging Negative Campaigning: Annie Kuster Knows Better (0.00 / 0)

Checked out your link, and saw this:

Annie is an example of a grassroots activist working with her neighbors on real world problems and then taking it up a notch by running for Congress. She's the polar opposite of the spoiled and entitled insider who's running against her, the daughter of one congressman, wife of another and, to top it off, the former campaign chair of the Joe Lieberman For President campaign. As the Concord Monitor pointed out, Annie's money is all coming in small donations from New Hampshire; Swett's comes in big chunks from the corporate interests salivating to get another corrupt special interests shill into the House Democratic caucus who will do their bidding for nickels on the dollar.

I'll ignore the ridiculous and nonsensical lies about the "corrupt special interests" that are allegedly funding Katrina Swett's campaign.  (The Concord Monitor never said that, because it is not true.)  Ditto the "spoiled and entitled insider" spew, since, to most of us, running a foundation to promote human rights and teaching human rights policy hardly qualifies.

But if Annie wants to stay silent while her introducer throws out this malicious garbage, then it speaks volumes about the type of campaign she wants to run.  On this site, I have spoken out against negative campaign on both sides -- from Jack, JB, Burt, and others who slam Katrina, as well as Peter Sullivan's attacks against Annie.  I do not blame either candidate for the occasional boorishness of some of their backers.

But Annie saw this introduction before she started typing.  She could have asserted her own credentials while discouraging personal attacks against her opponent.  

She knows better.  And I'm getting awfully sick of this garbage.  If it doesn't stop, I will join in.

---

by: Dartmouth Dem @ Sun May 30, 2010 at 07:12:17 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

To be clear (0.00 / 0)

It was this link to Crooks and Liars on your blog, not the oil spill one:

http://crooksandliars.com/howi...

---

by: Dartmouth Dem @ Sun May 30, 2010 at 07:16:34 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Really? (4.00 / 1)

Did this whole S Storm happen be cause you did not like the content on a web page linked from a page that was referenced in the diary???

Seriously I need to know if you have decided that Dean and/or Blue Hampshire is now somehow responsible for all content on the internet. It seems to be what you are saying here and frankly I'm confused.

Hope > Fear




Create a free Blue Hampshire account and join the conversation.

---

by: Mike Hoefer @ Mon May 31, 2010 at 18:59:01 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Mike (0.00 / 0)

The answer is no.  That is not what I said.  I did blame Dean for linking to that screed; when he explained that he only linked to a specific comment, I acknowledged my mistake (see below).

I set up a new diary to address Dean's comment below, as well as other from your fellow editors and contributing writers.  

---

by: Dartmouth Dem @ Mon May 31, 2010 at 19:30:57 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

You are too smart not to know (0.00 / 0)

that any support for Swett among the national netroots when she refused to support the Democratic nominee for CT-Senate in 2006, and then went on to make unprovable statements that other elected Democrats' support for the nominee was phony:

Katrina Swett, who served as national co-chairwoman of Lieberman's 2004 presidential bid, supports Lieberman's decision to stay in the race, though she might feel differently if his continued candidacy were likely to split the vote and lead to a Republican victory. Instead, the general election will be "round two of the Democratic primary,"and it will have implications for the national party, she said.

Swett believes Lieberman lost because of three perceived Democratic "sins": the sin of supporting the Iraq war and being tough on defense, the sin of being bipartisan and the sin of displaying religious faith. Swett said those traits might make Lieberman undesirable to many Democratsbut they could be key for Democrats in winning future national elections.

"Round two in Connecticut is going to be a battle between two Democrats: Joe Lieberman, a centrist Democrat, and Ned Lamont, a pretty-far-left-of-center Democrat," said Swett. "I'm convinced that Joe Lieberman is the better leader . . . and I'm also convinced that he's the better positioned politically for the future of the party that I love."

As a result, Swett said, she thinks many prominent Democrats in Washington - despite their post-primary support for Lamont - would "quietly and secretly" breathe a sigh of relief if Lieberman bounced back.

I made a personal decision not to let the Lieberman thing be a factor in my decision to support for Kuster, but the bad blood between Swett and the national netroots over CT-Senate is no secret.


birch, finch, beech

---

by: Dean Barker @ Sun May 30, 2010 at 07:48:00 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Very well (0.00 / 0)

I'm not talking about Lieberman.  And I'm not criticizing individuals for personally supporting the Kuster campaign.  That's their call.

My issue is with using (or, in your case, linking to) language like "spoiled and entitled insider," and by claiming that "Swett's (funding) comes in big chunks from the corporate interests salivating to get another corrupt special interests shill into the House Democratic caucus who will do their bidding for nickels on the dollar."  The first is bullshit namecalling, and the second is a lie.

You have claimed that both candidates would be huge improvements over Charlie Bass, and that we should support a constructive primary that focuses on our candidates' strengths.  I agree.  But, Dean, that rings hollow when you refuse to stand up to this garbage.

I have done everything that I can do to support a constructive campaign, and have not once criticized Annie during the past year.  But this is going too far.

---

by: Dartmouth Dem @ Sun May 30, 2010 at 08:14:51 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

And, if you think that this is malicious garbage. . . (0.00 / 0)

. . . then don't link to it.

Annie is an example of a grassroots activist working with her neighbors on real world problems and then taking it up a notch by running for Congress. She's the polar opposite of the spoiled and entitled insider who's running against her, the daughter of one congressman, wife of another and, to top it off, the former campaign chair of the Joe Lieberman For President campaign. As the Concord Monitor pointed out, Annie's money is all coming in small donations from New Hampshire; Swett's comes in big chunks from the corporate interests salivating to get another corrupt special interests shill into the House Democratic caucus who will do their bidding for nickels on the dollar.

---

by: Dartmouth Dem @ Sun May 30, 2010 at 08:18:31 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

If you have a problem (0.00 / 0)

with Howie Klein, you should contact him. I cannot directly control or influence people on the internets I do not know.

I linked to a digby comment and Kuster response on blog that isn't BH, because I am a huge fan of digby.

But of course you know this.

birch, finch, beech

---

by: Dean Barker @ Sun May 30, 2010 at 09:21:42 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Gotcha (0.00 / 0)

My mistake - The link came through for the entire diary on my computer. Thanks for the explanation.

Hopefully, this is the last time Ms. Kuster (or any of our candidates) abets this type of false and malicious garbage. Voters deserve better.

Per elwood's comment below, I'm signing off this diary now...

---

by: Dartmouth Dem @ Sun May 30, 2010 at 09:29:12 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

There you go again. (0.00 / 0)

Radical Civility
Sat, 05/29/2010 - 11:09 - Ann McLane Kust...

By the way, thank you for having me on today! I'm new to this blog and I appreciate the support you and your readers are giving to our campaign (currently we are #3 on ActBlue!: http://www.actblue.com/). I do want to add something about your post above as well - my primary opponent and I certainly have some very big differences to be sure, but I am focused on running a forward-looking campaign that tells voters what kind of a Congresswoman I will be. Some of the language above about my opponent is pretty vitriolic, and to be completely honest it doesn't really reflect the tone of the type of campaign I am running. I can tell from skimming through it now that your blog is not for the faint of heart, and I salute you for taking on the entrenched special interests with passion - but in this campaign I spend a lot more time talking about my own plans for getting our country back on track than I do talking about my opponent, and I am encouraging all my supporters (including you!) to take that as an example. Anyway, thanks again for having me on and let's get to some questions!

While I heartily support a candidate who is unafraid to call out a blogger who has endorsed her for his tone, on the very post where he is introducing her and trying to drum up support, I do not yet require mind-reading what a blogger will put in his post as a pre-requisite for support.

birch, finch, beech

---

by: Dean Barker @ Sun May 30, 2010 at 12:11:43 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Not Sufficient (0.00 / 0)

If someone put out a statement using equivalent terminology to describe Ms. Kuster, and Katrina Swett merely said that it "doesn't really reflect the tone of the campaign (she) is running" -- and then spent an hour drawing traffic to that site -- folks on this blog would be all over her.  And deservedly so.

---

by: Dartmouth Dem @ Sun May 30, 2010 at 15:55:33 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Hey, asshole - (0.00 / 1)

You said you were gonna stop the hijack.

---

by: elwood @ Sun May 30, 2010 at 17:48:53 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Thanks, Elwood (0.00 / 0)

Always like the praise.  Thanks for continuing the constructive discussion.

As noted below, I'm trying.  But when folks challenge and/or troll rate me, I respond.

I hope you have a nice day.  

---

by: Dartmouth Dem @ Sun May 30, 2010 at 17:50:53 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

TRed for calling me an asshole (0.00 / 0)

Deal with it.

---

by: Dartmouth Dem @ Sun May 30, 2010 at 17:51:45 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

you know what Dartmouth Dem? (0.00 / 0)

You've been asked repeatedly to write a diary describing what a great candidate Katrina Swett is, and why you support her. You've been told repeatedly we would put it on the front page.

You haven't done it.

I'm going to ask you politely to write a diary, instead of trolling and hijacking threads about Ann Kuster.

---

by: susanthe @ Sun May 30, 2010 at 13:50:41 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

You know what, Susan? (0.00 / 1)

I'm going to ask you politely to write a diary, instead of trolling and hijacking threads about Ann Kuster.

Actually, I hijacked a thread about the oil spill.  And I acknowledged my mistake in response to Elwood's note.  I am only now responding to your (and Dean's) comments.  And, last I checked, it is within the rules of this site for non-Kuster supporters to respond to anti-Swett charges on diaries set up to express support for Ann Kuster.  If I am mistaken, please let me know.

As for your request to write a diary, I have posted many comments expressing my reasons for supporting Katrina Swett, as you well know. Here's the most recent:

http://www.bluehampshire.com/viewR...

I choose not to write a separate diary at this time, which would likely be transformed by a small subset of Kuster supporters (Jack, JB, Burt, and others) into another opportunity to toss mud at Katrina, with no effort by "Blue Hampshire" to maintain a positive tone to this discussion.  We have seen that too many times.

---

by: Dartmouth Dem @ Sun May 30, 2010 at 16:06:09 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

You are accusing people (4.00 / 1)

by name of something they did not do. Please refrain from that. I agree with Susan on this. Please write a pro Swett diary if you are passionate about her candidacy, which, judging by your comments, you are.

So far, nobody has.

---

by: Jennifer Daler @ Sun May 30, 2010 at 16:30:53 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I am calling out negative campaigning -- and here are some examples for you to chew on (0.00 / 0)

Sorry elwood -- I tried to kill off the hijack, but I need to respond to this. . . .

You are accusing people (0.00 / 0)
by name of something they did not do

Do you want examples?  Of the repeated negative campaigning against Katrina Swett on this site over the past year -- almost all of which has met with little or no protest by official "Blue Hampshire"?  That would be my pleasure.  Here are a few:

* Here's one citing a "distortion-filled attack ad by the Swett campaign" that never existed.  Also included a pleasant (but proven false) comment that Ms. Swett "basically has the worst approval ratings in the state of New Hampshire?"

Written by an ex-Kuster staffer, and 4ed by Elwood and four others.

http://www.bluehampshire.com/v...

* Here's Jack's diary to criticizing Katrina's husband.  We all remember this one!

http://www.bluehampshire.com/d...

* Here's a diary in which Jack and JB repeatedly cast aspersions on Katrina's opposition to the Stupak amendment.

http://www.bluehampshire.com/d...

* Here's a comment from "ref" asking:  "Can we just finish Katrina 'I Love Joe Leiberman' Swett's polical career for good?"  No BH managing editor or contributing writer TRed that comment, and Dean questioned why anyone would.

http://www.bluehampshire.com/v...

* Here's one in which Burt called Katrina's human rights foundation "an obvious political stunt."

http://www.bluehampshire.com/v...

I could keep going for a little while, but these are only those that come to mind.  I guess I could also trot out about 500 examples of Kuster supporters criticizing Katrina's fundraising or disavowed Lieberman support -- neither no more legitimate than an analysis of Annie's lobbying activities, which probably would take a few minutes for me to research, but I am trying my hardest to keep my end positive, even when "Blue Hampshire" makes it awfully difficult.

If you want to create a community that encourages useful debate about this primary, then call out the sleaze.  If you don't, then you're in no position to complain about Swett supporters who are reluctant to engage a forum that has done little to create a constructive environment for discussion.

---

by: Dartmouth Dem @ Sun May 30, 2010 at 17:27:57 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

TR (0.00 / 0)

Given the evidence just provided, I fully expect that you will un-troll my previous comment.

I also expect that Elwood will "4" me, since he has made it clear that he opposes TRs (not just for anti-Kuster comments) and uses "4s" to offset them.

http://www.bluehampshire.com/v...  

---

by: Dartmouth Dem @ Sun May 30, 2010 at 17:36:07 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

No - because you are a lying hijacker (0.00 / 0)

who has done exactly what trolls do: steal a topic that others were trying to discuss for your own hobbyhorse.

You already admitted you hijacked and said you would stop. That was a lie.

---

by: elwood @ Sun May 30, 2010 at 17:51:52 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Hell, Elwood (0.00 / 0)

Stop calling me names, and I'll stop responding!

---

by: Dartmouth Dem @ Sun May 30, 2010 at 17:53:33 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Agreed. (0.00 / 0)

Beth, are you out there?  Will you write a pro-Swett diary we can front-page?  I thought Rep. DeJoie would but I haven't seen anything.

It is bordering on the ridiculous the number of times Kuster supporters here have requested a pro-Swett diary to put on the front-page.

birch, finch, beech

---

by: Dean Barker @ Sun May 30, 2010 at 18:20:26 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Why? (0.00 / 0)

Dean, I respect your leadership (and that of several of your "Blue Hampshire" colleagues), as well as your many contributions.  So this isn't personal.

But seriously, Dean.  You guys have already issued an endorsement for "Blue Hampshire" (yeah, I know, I read the fine print, but media members sure didn't when they touted the public endorsement from the entire community).  And you and your fellow managing editors have done absolutely nothing to stand up to repeated negative attacks on Katrina Swett, some of which are documented above.  Saying "go post a diary" doesn't exactly give folks the impression that this is an appropriate forum for constructive discussion on NH-2 -- or, for that matter, anything but a hostile one.  It's a cop out.

Rep. DeJoie, Beth, Chris Pappas, and many others have expressed support for Katrina on these pages.  Our expressions of support speak for themselves, just as yours do for Ms. Kuster.

---

by: Dartmouth Dem @ Sun May 30, 2010 at 18:34:51 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Well, it would let me use your Swett diary (4.00 / 1)

to post about the frigging oil disaster, for one thing.

---

by: elwood @ Sun May 30, 2010 at 18:40:17 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Point, Elwood (0.00 / 0)

Once again, just responding to comments from others.  If they stop challenging me, I'll stop responding.

---

by: Dartmouth Dem @ Sun May 30, 2010 at 18:42:36 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Somebody get the Swett campaign (0.00 / 0)

a new media director, and stat.

That is not snark - I am being serious.

This current tactic  is not a viable online strategy for 2010, and if she gets the nomination, I (obviously) want her to win.

birch, finch, beech

---

by: Dean Barker @ Sun May 30, 2010 at 20:37:36 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

To be clear (0.00 / 0)

I don't represent the Swett campaign, am not paid by the Swett campaign, and do not know anything about the Swett campaign's strategy.  If your reference concerns me, I have to make that clear.

That said, I can't blame them for not engaging a blog that (a) endorsed Katrina's opponent a week after her announcement, and (b) has sat quietly while others use Blue Hampshire to hit her over and over and over again.  You guys have no problem slamming Peter Sullivan (for good reason), but do nothing when a small number of Kuster supporters use this site to make the case that Katrina entered politics as an alternative to stealing hubcaps (see multiple examples above).  I know that I'm getting sick of rebutting the negative campaigning.  It seems like I'm alone most of the time.

Seriously, if you were her campaign manager, would you waste time on Blue Hampshire?  As I pointed out last week, this site has ceded its value as a forum for the CD-2 primary.  It is what it is.

---

by: Dartmouth Dem @ Sun May 30, 2010 at 20:47:12 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Tired of the games, DD. (4.00 / 3)

In your first game of "attack the messenger" on the Kuster endorsement, it was because we don't represent the community of readers.

(Of course you know that any reasonable person would understand that a site endorsement, like a newspaper endorsement, does not Include subscribers or readers.  But that was hardly the point, was it?)

Now in your second game of "attack the messenger" on the Kuster endorsement, we are at fault because I allegedly fully represent the community of readers, especially the ones who once said mean things about about  Swett on BH, and even off of BH.

(Of course you know that games number one and two are contradictory, and that our community rating system does a great job of weeding out poor comments about anyone, be they Swett or Kuster or Obama or Clinton or peanut butter or jelly.  But that is hardly the point, is it?)

Part of me admires the lengths to which you will go for your candidate.  You are a most worthy electoral warrior, which is rare on the left.  But another part of me is disappointed, because in a way these games are worse than the obvious drive-by trollish comment.  What you are in essence doing is trying to delegitimize this site through the site itself.  And that is really a very low thing to do.  

(How much better it would have been had you or someone else, immediately after the endorsement, written a separate diary extolling Swett's candidacy on the issues.  That would have made me go "Wow - I hope I didn't make the wrong decision!")

Here's the thing.  Game number one or two or whatever game is coming next is not going to get me to go negative on your candidate so that you can then go and declare this site hostile, illegitimate terrain for good.  I will continue to express my presonal liking for Katrina Swett, I will continue to advocate that Swett supporters express their support here, and I will continue to encourage people to work as hard as they can for Swett if she wins the nomination.

And this is the last time I will abuse this poor, hijacked diary.  Instead, I will put the energy wasted in these games into more positive, pro-Kuster pieces.

birch, finch, beech

---

by: Dean Barker @ Mon May 31, 2010 at 18:11:03 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

let me get this straight (0.00 / 0)

You won't write a diary because you're afraid of what other people might do?

Instead, you prefer to sling mud, hijack threads, and get into name calling. That's an interesting strategy - but I'm not sure it benefits your candidate.  

---

by: susanthe @ Sun May 30, 2010 at 18:46:13 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I think my comment speaks for itself (0.00 / 0)

And I have never once "slung mud" at Ms. Kuster.  Never once.  She is one of two potential candidates to run against Bass/Horn, and I don't want to do Charlie's homework for him.  I just wish that some of Ms. Kuster's supporters -- including folks like you -- recognize that this applies to both sides.

And, when challenged, I provided numerous examples of anti-Swett negative campaign on this site, almost all of which have been ignored by "Blue Hampshire" leaders.  For this reason (and others), this blog is hostile terrain for any constructive discussion or debate about the NH-2 primary.

And, I'd like to point out, that you are now hijacking this thread as much as I am.  How could I not respond to you?

---

by: Dartmouth Dem @ Sun May 30, 2010 at 18:53:13 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Actually, no (0.00 / 0)

I'm not hijacking this thread as much as you.

There have been 32 posts, counting this one. Of those, 4 were actually on topic. One of those four posts was mine. 0 of them were yours.

There have been 28 posts that were not on topic. 16 of those were yours. Three of them were mine.

I admit to failing remedial math in high school, but even so, it's clear that no one has hijacked this thread as much as you have.  

---

by: susanthe @ Sun May 30, 2010 at 19:43:03 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

One of me, four of you (include in your math) (0.00 / 0)

It's hard taking on "Blue Hampshire". . . .

I guess the easy thing would be to accept the uniform will of the blog editors and contributing writers.  But, in the spirit of many of your past comments, I won't do that.

---

by: Dartmouth Dem @ Sun May 30, 2010 at 20:23:32 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

cry me a river (0.00 / 0)

I've gotten piled on plenty - and you've often been part of the group doing the piling.

---

by: susanthe @ Sun May 30, 2010 at 20:50:03 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Hijacker. n/t (0.00 / 0)

---

by: elwood @ Sun May 30, 2010 at 09:12:44 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Yes, I'm on the hook for that (0.00 / 0)

A few of these have been open threads, and I should have looked closer.  Did not mean to take away focus from this critical issue.

But that doesn't mean focus isn't warrented on the issue I raised.  It is.  And I will keep raising it as long as negative garbage soils this primary.

---

by: Dartmouth Dem @ Sun May 30, 2010 at 09:18:54 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

We keep hearing, "But nobody knows whether (4.00 / 3)

this technique will work under 5000 feet of water."

That would have been a good reason to have said, "FIND OUT FIRST, YOU GREEDY MORONS."

---

by: elwood @ Sat May 29, 2010 at 19:24:16 PM CDT

we do know (4.00 / 2)

that it's not all gloom and doom for everyone:

Transocean Ltd., the owner of the Deepwater Horizon rig leased by BP, has been flying under the radar in the mainstream blame game. The world's largest offshore drilling contractor, the company is conveniently headquartered in corporate-friendly Switzerland, and it's no stranger to oil disasters. In 1979, an oil well it was drilling in the very same Gulf of Mexico ignited, sending the drill platform into the sea and causing one of the largest oil spills by the time it was capped... nine months later.

This experience undoubtedly influenced Transocean's decision to insure the Deepwater Horizon rig for about twice what it was worth. In a conference call to analysts earlier this month, Transocean reported making a $270 million profit from insurance payouts after the disaster. It's not hard to bet on failure when you know it's somewhat assured.

---

by: susanthe @ Sat May 29, 2010 at 20:24:35 PM CDT

See this is why private businesses are so much more effective than government (4.00 / 4)

It's worth considering an alternate reality where the Government was unable to stop an oil gusher for over a month. How many cries would there be from the Right that this just proves Government is nothing but a bunch of bumbling free-riding bureaucrats, and we should pass this off to industry which could have done this PRONTO...

---

by: Mike Caulfield @ Sun May 30, 2010 at 21:51:29 PM CDT