1. Mediaite
  2. Gossip Cop
  3. Geekosystem
  4. Styleite
  5. SportsGrid
  6. The Mary Sue
  7. The Jane Dough
  8. The Braiser
Advertisement

John Stossel: ‘Thuggish Chicago Shakedown’ Of BP Is ‘Not Democracy’

video
» 20 comments

It seems that every time someone in the GOP expresses some radical libertarian idea, the rest of the party scatters as far from the person as possible. And like a brave firefighter to a burning building, John Stossel rushes in to save the embers of his beloved philosophy. He arrived on the O’Reilly Factor tonight with fistfuls of red-hot free market capitalism, calling the $20 billion BP escrow account a “thuggish Chicago shakedown,” by “Vladimir Obama.”

While Stossel didn’t defend BP CEO Tony Hayward, calling him and his corporation “despicable,” he was equally appalled by the fact that the Obama administration made BP agree to save $20 billion in an escrow account specifically for claims. “I disagree with you,” he told Bill O’Reilly, “that Obama was right to say we go in there with a machine gun. We have rules in America!”

Stossel affirmed that he believed the deal was a “shakedown”– no, a “thuggish Chicago Shakedown”– and despite disapproval from O’Reilly, who had no problem with BP officials being “roughed up,” Stossel was worried that it was a slippery slope. “What if next time, Fox News is evil, and O’Reilly is evil,” he argued, and Fox News was taken off the air? O’Reilly basically responded that he’d cross that bridge when we get to it, and that he didn’t believe the federal government would ever take him off the air. Stossel didn’t buy the argument and concluded that this type of deal “is like Venezuela, it’s thuggish, it’s not democracy,” and called O’Reilly a member of the “liberal media.”

Video from The Factor below:

Follow us on Twitter.

Sign up for Mediaite's daily newsletter.

Email Twitter Facebook Digg Reddit Stumble Upon Yahoo Buzz LinkedIn Tumblr Delicious
  • BatBoy

    Viva La Chicago Shakedown….

    A good Community Organizer is a good Shakedown Artist.

  • http://PoliticalGlutton.com PoliticalGlutton

    Stossel knows that FOX is the last stop in his failed career. So job security mandates that he memorizes the talking points and repeats them dutifully.Repeat5 after me … Chi- cag-go-shake-down… good boy. Oh, the 1970′s called — they want the mostache back too.

  • MichelleF

    Ah Frances, she’s trying to upgrade from a fruit basket to a muffin basket from Rahm. You didn’t even get through the first sentence before inserting the word “radical”. As you pointed out (later in the article and AFTER using the word radical) no one is defending BP, we are just concerned with Obama’s continued power grabs. You are worried because he’s one of you, so of course, he won’t come after you.

    “What if next time, Fox News is evil, and O’Reilly is evil,” he argued, and Fox News was taken off the air? O’Reilly basically responded that he’d cross that bridge when we get to it, and that he didn’t believe the federal government would ever take him off the air.

    That’s a pretty big risk to take, BillO

  • The_Reasonable_Lib

    MichelleF says:
    June 23, 2010 at 9:46 am
    Nothing of substance again. Perhaps you should wean yourself off of the conservapedia kool-aid. It’s bad for your mental health.

  • Thomas G Williams

    …..and JABBA DE AILES said “TOADS’” and Stossel hopped right(wing) in there and got right(wing) busy doing the right(wing) things.

    Yep even now in the midst of crises and calamity Stossel finds that nothing else matters when he can have another chance to nip at the heels of the President.

  • felixw

    Companies make decisions on where to build factories and hire people on the basis of a variety of factors. But the number one rule is don’t put the factory in a country that may seize your assets at some future date. Sad to say, Obama as now joined Chavez and other Third World tyrants in adding the US to that ignominious list.

    The Democrats are kidding themselves if they think this kind of shakedown won’t hurt our economy. And what did they get for it? Twenty billion sounds like a lot, but Nancy Pelosi’s spend that much taxpayer money during her weekly appointment at the botox clinic.

  • lanquihue

    Stossel is correct, there are civil laws and procedures for taking BP to the bank, but Obama saw this as another opportunity to control another private industry. Face it, if Obama thought he could get away with it, he’d put on a cheezy military uniform and announce his dictatorship. He’s such a worthless little racist lying scumbag.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Juanita-Stewart/1330738383 Juanita Stewart

    Spot on, Stossel!

  • m

    Democracy for John Stossel is when babies die form dehydration.

  • ConcernedCitizen3

    Just wondering, what would all of you rather happen? Very seriously I’d like to know what most of you would have rather happened than the “shakedown”. I mean personally I don’t, and I know alot of others much in the say way that would not want to have the money for the clean up and various grievances come out of our own pocket for something we had nothing to do with. Sooooo what would you have done instead of getting the money from BP?

  • lanquihue

    m, what a bunch of retarded crap, and typical liberal BS: accuse anyone who doesn’t toe the progressive line as baby killer wannabes, I can’t even begin to tell you what a f’ing retard you are.

    CC3, BP was already paying out claims. Obama had no authority to demand anything. It’s been said that BP willingly agreed to this, so it’s not a shakedown, but in fact, that’s exactly what a shakedown is. Would BP have simply given the US government $20B and said, “here ya go”. No, of course not, they would have continued paying out claims through the mechanisms that civil law currently provides for.

  • ConcernedCitizen3

    I was just asking a question that you failed to answer. I know that BP willingly gave up the money, but past instances show that many times the money put out and the actual cost of the leak do not equal each other, on top of the fact that timely efforts to get this money to the people in the Gulf would probably be the best option being that until recently there were people still waiting to get their money from the Valdez spill. I’m not toeing the line, I wanted to know what people thought should have been done instead of the $20B being set aside. I’m very open to commentary but you didn’t do anything but tell me how stupid you thought my comment was, proving absolutely nothing. I wasn’t criticizing anybody’s rhetoric, but if you have your own personal idea I’d be more than glad to hear it.

  • lanquihue

    CC3, I think perhaps you read my reply to “m”, and thought I was talking to you.

    My point was, BP was already paying claims, there was no need to transfer the payout fund to the federal government. There’s absolutely nothing besides making war that the government does better than the private sector, and demanding a slush fund under federal control just screams for corruption. If the laws are not adequate, maybe we should consider amending the laws.

  • DrFunke

    I love it

    Please keep stating this over and over again….nobody agrees with this idea other than idiotic right-wing douchebags…..so any and all independents (actual independents) roll their eyes at this stupidity

  • lanquihue

    You’ll be loving it in November too, when your beloved “actual” independents vote most of the liberal pap smears out of office. I’m gonna have so much f’ing fun in November, f’ing with the liberals at work. They’re already so defensive it’s a hoot!

  • ConcernedCitizen3

    Um, lanquihue, Kenneth Feinburg doesn’t work for the government…. he’s in charge of the slush fund. So although our President may have asked for it, he specifically called for a third party to oversee the fund. But I still haven’t heard anything that sounds like an idea of what anybody else would have done instead of the fund, other than bringing up elections in November, and obviously you know that only twice since the civil war has the party in power won seats in this situation. I really just want to hear more than bad-mouthing and factless/pointless nonsense.

  • atreyue

    I don’t mean to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but has it occurred to anyone that this $20 billion agreement is not designed to put bp on the hook so much as it is designed to let all oil companies of the hook going forward. I mean, if you asked anyone right now, they would say that the legislation limiting oil co. liabilities to $75 million should be repealed. Will this move now allow them to keep the bill in place under the reasoning that it can always be circumvented in future spills, so hey, no need to worry so much about repealing the law?

    Note: This isn’t about Obama, this is about the untrustworthiness of politicians in general. I believe every single politician still in office that voted for that legislation should be removed from office, as they were obviously bought and paid for by Big Oil.

  • ConcernedCitizen3

    atreyue I definitely see where you’re coming from. I really don’t think there should be a limit to the amount a company should be liable for. I mean we as a society teach that if you broke it, you fix it. I mean if you make the decision to do something on a grand scale like that but don’t do your due diligence and figure out how to stop a problem like this then you should be liable for every penny. To be completely honest I can even see the slippery slope argument that libertarians and conservatives make for this situation. No one wants an all powerful government. But do your research, they’re still finding oil from the Valdez spill in the Prince William Sound and many of the people affected JUST got their money recently. Now take a look at The Gulf and an area thats been hit with natural disasters that been completely devastating. Now we want to put them through more litigation that could take decades to reach the people affected? I believe this is a situation where we would want the government to step up and actually do something to help people for a change.

  • lanquihue

    CC3, it would be really naive to think that Feinburg’s strings are not being pulled by the WH. This is the guy who, after all, set banking executive pay under Obama, which was also done without due process.

  • http://www.thecobraslair.com Cobra

    lanquihue,

    Sure. Just point me to the link of your complaints about Feinburg when he administered 9/11 Victim Compensation Funds during the Bush Administration.

    Point me to them, and I’ll believe you’re coming at this without bias.

    –Cobra

© 2012 Mediaite, LLC | About Us | Advertise | Newsletter | Jobs | Privacy | User Agreement | Disclaimer | Power Grid FAQ | Contact | Archives | RSS RSS
Dan Abrams, Founder | Power Grid by Sound Strategies | Hosting by Datagram