No, but someone is saying he shouldn't get all that much blame for it....
Let's not try to change the context of the conversation at a whim....
Then again, don't put words into my mouth, either. You always point this out when I do it to you.
As for the context of the conversation, this thread started with someone blaming Bush, not Obama. The first comments attacked this point. It then became an issue of who deserves the most blame. I agreed with Phin when he pointed out a lack of government oversight and BP were to blame, NOT Bush.
The aftermath has been a downright disaster for this White House.
Of course, it has. I said before, this isn't Obama's finest hour. I will also say that no matter who lived in the White House (Bush, Obama, McCain) I don't see this situation as being better or worse than how it played out. You can disagree with me if you like, but since we are dealing with nothing but pure speculation, let's already agree to disagree if that is the case.
And quite frankly, the fact that this White House received the most money from BP . . . doesn't reflect all that well either.
That's a pretty misleading statement from you. Completely lacking in context.
Here is a politico article: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0510/36783.html
Obama got $77,051 dollars from BP. McCain got $44,899. What difference does 33,000 dollars make in an election cycle that saw hundreds of millions spen? None.
Obama raised 750 million (according to the article) for his campaign, so we are talking about 0.01% of his campaign came from BP. Are you really trying to say that he...what? Ignored his better judgment in this situation because he got 0.01% of his money from them?The greater context here is that BP spent 15.9 million in lobbying Congress last year. Big oil as a whole spent $174 MILLION.
The bigger picture is that McCain's campaign doubled the amount of money from big oil compared to Obama's. I could make a blanket statement based on that fact alone. See, if he would have won, I could have made a similiar statement about him. Like: "Well, of course this disaster happened: big oil gives sooooo much money to Republicans... they gave McCain 2 million alone last year." That doesn't make me right at all. It just becomes a useless meaningless attack.
Since 1990, 3/4 of big oil money went to Republicans. The other 25% went to Dems.
and gave this rig an award for a safety inspection just a year ago . . .
Are you contending that a McCain White House would have put a red flag on this rig? If so, based on what? Why did this rig get a good safety rating? See the bolded print above.