Why on Earth Hasn't Obama Spoken with BP's CEO?

Why on Earth Hasn't Obama Spoken with BP's CEO?

By Tom Bevan
June 10, 2010

As it turns out, one of the biggest question marks of Barack Obama’s presidency thus far is not whether he could answer a 3am phone call, but why he didn’t make one. Tuesday’s Today show interview with Matt Lauer garnered an awful lot of attention for the President suggesting he’s looking for some “ass to kick” in the Gulf oil spill, but the real revelation came when the President told Lauer that he hasn’t spoken to Tony Hayward, the CEO of BP, since the crisis began more than seven weeks ago:

Lauer: Have you talked directly to Tony Hayward, the CEO of BP?

Obama: I have not spoken to him directly – and here’s the reason: because my experience is when you talk to a guy like a BP CEO, he’s going to say all the right things to me. I’m not interested in words, I’m interested in action. And we are communicating to him every single day, exactly what we expect of him and what we expect of that administration.

This is not some run of the mill crisis, of course. It is a catastrophic event, the largest environmental disaster in American history. To add even more context, within roughly 48 hours of the sinking of the Deepwater Horizon it became abundantly clear to everyone involved that because of its equipment and expertise, BP would be intimately involved – functioning, in effect, as a contractor for the United States government – in the effort to cap the well.

And yet the President, who is the ultimate authority for the federal government’s response to the disaster and who claims to have been on top of this issue from day one, never picked up the phone to speak directly to the man responsible for running BP’s operation. Not once. In fifty days.

It’s a startling revelation, and Lauer was even taken aback by it:

Lauer: In all due respect, that feels strange to me, that here we’ve got the CEO of a company that’s responsible for the worst environmental disaster in US history, and I think - I’m just curious why you didn’t, why you wouldn’t pick up the phone and in some ways just give him a piece of your mind?

Obama: Look, this has been the main critique of the administration, is “giving a piece of my mind” to these guys. Look, I would love to vent. I would love to just shout and holler because I’m thinking about this day in and day out. But my main job is to solve the problem.

But President Obama hasn’t had any problem “venting” at fat cat CEO’s of Wall Street banks and health insurance companies over the last year in pursuit of his policy agenda. Nor has he displayed any reticence about calling them to the White House to communicate directly with them about what he wanted. And, so far as I know, Obama never expressed any concern that these meetings would be useless because the CEO’s would simply just “say all the right things to me.”

At its core, though, this isn’t about politics, policy, or partisanship. And it isn’t about Obama’s ability to show emotion, or kick @ss, or anything else. It’s about one thing: leadership.

How can someone who says they are seriously engaged in leading the country through an ongoing crisis go more than seven weeks without speaking directly with the person whose company is tasked with a critical part of bringing the crisis to an end? Why would someone who claims to be focused night and day on doing whatever is needed to put an end to the catastrophe not want to have a direct line of communication with Hayward? In fact, instead of not speaking at all with Hayward, wouldn’t a President who was serious about taking charge of the situation and being as well informed as possible do the opposite and demand that the BP CEO provide him with constant direct updates of BP’s efforts in the Gulf, perhaps even on a daily basis?

The reason Obama’s decision not to speak to Hayward felt “strange” to Matt Lauer – and feels the same way to millions of Americans as well – is not only because it simply defies common sense, but because it is an abdication of leadership on the part of the President during a time of crisis.

You really have to wonder how someone who has never run anything, whose resume is still unknown, whose transcripts are unavailable, who has no experience other than being an ACORN community organizer, wouldn't know how to manage a major crisis?

I would feel a whole lot better if he had actually owned a Baskin-Robbins franchise; met a payroll, dealt with supply issues and taken charge of the variety of issues even a small business encounters. Only the "unbiased" press would find his lack of a one on one with the CEO of BP a surprise.

And he's a former law professor! Are you kidding me? Instead, he threatens criminal prosecution and seeks retribution and someone's @ss to kick. What a dope.

This oil spill is a horrible disaaster, and it's really only just beginning. The oil is only beginning to wash ashore and it will be years, if not decades, until it is all cleaned up. In the meantime, many people will be effected by this, so it is only understandable that finger-pointing will happen -- everyone wants to look at someone to blame for this. When something of this magnatude happens the logicical, or common, scapegoat is the President, or other politicians. However, in this case, I cannot see how President Obama bears any blame. Talking with Tony Howard will not stem this leak, and I somehow think that if even President Omama had spent a weekend with Mr. Howard discussing the crisis his political foes would still find some reason to criticize him and claim that he could be doing more to alleviate the situation. This is just desperate another attempt by the right to try to make Obama look bad in light of a crisis that he had absolutely nothing to do with, and cannot effectively do anything about. The blame, and the solution, rests entirely with BP. I think it's rather pathetic and shameful that the right would try to make gains from this environmental and economic catostophe.

I certainly won't blame Obama for the crisis happening. Even in the beginning of this thing, i wasn't looking at him in any particular way regarding the fiasco.

It's been his handling of it in the last 2 or 3 weeks is what i'm getting at. I'm not one to say he should go and plug the leak himself. But ignoring the CEO and taking the shots he has at BP is childish and counter-productive. I saw something on the news this morning that people in the UK are starting to get pissed at him for the way he's bad mouthed BP.

Democats here are now piling on him with his handling... except those who are blind followers... much like the ones on the right who gave Bush a 100% till his last day.

BP has a looooong road ahead of them regarding this whole thing. Dare i say that it could be the end of them in due time? I don't know.

I wouldn't be surprised if this bankrupted BP. Or... they declared bankuptcy and renamed themselves in an effort to reappear (or try to) as a different company.

It's definitely going to cost them in clean up and payments to lives damaged. It's also costing them as we speak in stock which in return affects those who work for and retired from BP.

alland wrote:I wouldn't be surprised if this bankrupted BP. Or... they declared bankuptcy and renamed themselves in an effort to reappear (or try to) as a different company.

Oil is far too profitable for that to happen. It will affect their profitability, but long term they will survive. In their favour they have a lot of renewable energy programmes that a lot of other oil companies aren't investing in.

Only time will tell. I certainly don't wish ill will on them. Just that they pay out for what they're responsible for.

I haven't read any mention of this in articles, so I'm not 100% certain that it's accurate, but -- I heard someone on a radio show say that BP has to pay taxes on all oil that they get from the ground -- which includes what's spilling daily. That will hurt them too, if it's so.

That brings an interesting point. But should they pay taxes on it? It's one thing if they're paying taxes because they're going to make a profit. It's another altogether with what's happening here. Certainly they've got their purse full and ready for payouts to victims and for cleanup.