Some good comments on the Joy Behar show last night ~
BEHAR: Well, let`s just hope the next time Malia says daddy, did you plug the hole she isn`t 47 years old. So was this was speech enough to please his critics or did it just give them more material? Here with me to discuss this are Ron Reagan, liberal commentator, and actress and comedian Janeane Garofalo, her comedy special premieres on Epix, June 26th at 10:00 p.m. Janeane, start with you, did you like the speech?
JANEANE GAROFALO, ACTRESS: No, I didn`t feel that it was a strong speech and I felt the prayer thing he did was pandering and anti- intellectual and just sort of a waste of time.
BEHAR: Anti-intellectual or overly intellectual?
GAROFALO: He himself is.
GAROFALO: When politicians use that prayer stuff it is anti- intellectual. It has nothing do with what has happened, it has nothing to do with any real way to solve a problem. You know I felt this speech was not very effective. You know fighting — fighting it with all that they`ve got, what would had been good is to undo the Bush policies that brought this. You know, Ken Salazar should not have been the interior secretary.
BEHAR: I agree, right.
GAROFALO: That people from mineral management services should not still have been able to work. BP has a terrible track record. It`s amazing that the Bush policies were allowed to still flourish, that the drill, baby, drill policy was still going. That any of these disasters could had been avoided because it wasn`t — it wasn`t unknown what could have gone wrong.
BEHAR: OK. Well, he did blame a lot on the agency that was still in place. He did say that it was ineffective.
GAROFALO: Right so why did he not take care of that when he got into office?
RON REAGAN, LIBERAL COMMENTATOR: Well, too little too late I agree with Janeane, he did bring up the mineral management services of course, and that is really the crux of this, to me. You know, BP was doing what BP could be expected to do. Cut corners, act recklessly, all in the name of profits. But mineral management service is supposed to be regulating them and overseeing this had fallen asleep on the job, actually that`s not even the right way to put it. Fallen asleep on the job suggests they actually wanted to do the job somehow in the first place, but they didn`t of course because they`re all former or you know, perspective oil company employees there. That`s the criminality here, it`s not just BP it`s the MMS.
BEHAR: A good question. Ron, what do you think?
BEHAR: Do you think it would had been any different if a Republican was in office now? Do the same thing or worse?
GAROFALO: No the exact same thing because these are these type of Conservative anti-regulation policies and also all of this kind of culture of oil cronyism and I will not say that Democrats don`t partake in that. Obviously they do. But it might be worse if Bush was in office in maybe more hiding in scientific facts or maybe they would do that thing. They always say about no fingerprinting. Now`s not the time for the blame. They always say that.
BEHAR: Oh yes, yes. Whenever they are to blame.
GAROFALO: But the policies are still the same unfortunately. The same Bush policies that we`ve been laboring under have been continued. There is no reason why MMS has been allowed to thrive the way they have. There`s no reason Ken Salazar should be the department of the interior and there`s no reason that BP should still be doing what they`re doing right now as we speak with other rigs.
BEHAR: Uh huh, so the Left is very hard on them, though, I think. The Left is going very hard. Part of the frustration I think with — on the Left and the Right, probably is that he can`t fix it. He can`t do it. People say, he should do it. What do they want him do.
GAROFALO: Well there are many, many things a president could and should do to make sure these types of things —
BEHAR: Isn`t he doing some of it?
GAROFALO: I would hope so but there should had been regulation. You know I mean, there should had been regulatory reform as he came into office.
BEHAR: When he came into office.
BEHAR: Yes, Ron, why didn`t he do that?
REAGAN: Well, because [Obama]`s a corporatist like all our other presidents have been for a long, long time. That`s what`s being revealed here. Barack Obama is just as much a corporatist as George H.W. — or George W. Bush was. He`s a little less obvious about it. I think maybe not hard as in. He`s not an actual oil man himself, but listen he`s between a rock and a hard place here. He just propose that we open up a lot of our coastline to deepwater drilling. Offshore drilling. Completely ignoring the fact that any independence on oil by America is dependents on foreign oil. That`s the think I think a lot of people don`t understand here.
BEHAR: It`s kind of shocking in a way. It`s kind of shocking to me.
REAGAN: Well, of course but you can drill all that you want for oil on American territory. It goes into a global market. We`re going to sell it to China just as much as we`re going to sell it to you know American drivers here. There`s no such thing as American oil. It`s all fungible. It`s all global so any dependence on oil is dependence on foreign oil.
BEHAR: Well he used the opportunity to bring up energy policy, do you think he was effective at all? Because I was a little disappointed in that. You know we need alternative energy and there`s no and about it and the American people are so lackadaisical about it that even now no one seems to see the urgency of the situation.
GAROFALO: I think that there are many people who are seeing the urgency. There are many people who are very concerned about this. There should had been clean energy reform made many, many years ago. There`s many people who have tried to do this and because oil runs everything it keeps getting thwarted. There`s no reason why we shouldn`t have more clean energy and more reform in that area too. It`s just — it`s one of those things it just keeps business as usual, it just keeps going and going and going.
BEHAR: I know. He met with BP men today. Ron, do you think that he kicked their butts at all today.
REAGAN: No, I don`t think it`s about kicking their butts. No, of course not about. It`s nice a$20 billion fund to pay people off.
REAGAN: But who says when the people actually get the money. There are people who are still waiting for a pay off from the Exxon Valdez.
REAGAN: I mean, you know, just because there`s money in a fund doesn`t mean it`s actually going to be going to people. I will imagine that BP will litigate every claim.
BEHAR: He said — originally he didn`t want to meet with them because he didn`t want to hear their talking points. That is so Bush — so bushlike. It`s shocking that he`s behaving this way certainly.
GAROFALO: I don`t know who is giving him the worst advice in the world. I don`t know — I don`t know why this presidency has been as disappointing as it has been. I really feel like he`s being advised terribly. Now, there`s the critics that will always criticize him and I don`t think it`s even valid to entertain the tea party kind of nonsense and also they don`t like government, now they want government to intervene.
BEHAR: Oh I know, hypocrisies.
GAROFALO: So the hypocrisies of some of his critics is not even really worth discussing.
BEHAR: And also what scares me too is that you know he`s getting attacked from the Left and the Right. He`s really being attacked I think a lot. And who`s going to take place? Who are we going to get instead of him? Some Sarah Palin clone, or she herself? It`ll be even worse.
GAROFALO: Well, there`s a difference between attacking and criticizing.
REAGAN: That`s dilemma.
BEHAR: Isn`t that`s a scary thought.
REAGAN: That`s the dilemma for liberal. That`s the dilemma for progressives and dilemmas if you get someone worse than President Barack Obama.
BEHAR: So what are we suppose to do about it.
REAGAN: What are we going to do? Keep lighting the fire under him. Keep doing what we`re doing, talking about it. That`s all we can do really.
GAROFALO: And we need – I think we need reform is important. That people really do get more, fair information and more news about what`s going on and more transparency.
BEHAR: How much more news do we need? Every station is news.
GAROFALO: Oh yes but it`s not good — it`s not well presented. There`s not context and history and nuance and complexity. They have all this he said she said nonsense. As if there is two sides to every story which there isn`t. It would be great if these news source would tell the truth once in awhile. That would that be interesting.
BEHAR: Well, we try to do our best here.
GAROFALO: Yes, you guys are good, you got that Miley Cyrus thing all wrapped up.
BEHAR: OK, you won`t be back. Thanks a lot.