How does the Republican Party find it in their self interest to run interference for BP, trying to keep Obama?

and the Democrats from lifting the $75 Million cap on economic damage for BP?



The Gulf Coast if a heavily Republican area. Most of these fisherman, business owners and ordinary working citizens which are being impacted from the disaster are Republicans and their party is working for BP.



How does this make sense? Maybe a couple of unemployed shrimpers who are about to lose their livelihood should drive up and have a little chat with Mr. Inhoff?



I am happy to say that I do not share most of these people's political views and would not vote Republican under the threat of death, but why do the Republicans think these hard working people will continue to support them after this pathetic dog and pony show the Republicans are putting on for BP?How does the Republican Party find it in their self interest to run interference for BP, trying to keep Obama?
Meanwhile.. Obama polls lower in Louisiana today than he did before the accident. MUCH lower.



But hey, we understand.. golf is more important than doing your job.How does the Republican Party find it in their self interest to run interference for BP, trying to keep Obama?
They're expecting some nice campaign contributions. Also remember that now in America, corporations have all of the same rights as individuals, without the personal responsibility, so now they can donate as much as they like to win back political support.
They'll continue to support Republicans because they are aware of the alternative.
Hard working people in the area affected are not buying the Senator' and congressmen, the people and corporations the gold will write the rules. Politicians are born to lie and Corporations are make profit at any cost!
It's because It is Obama. Anything from Obama is not up for discussion. They hate his man with such a passion it supersedes logic. How dare he... do this. How dare he do that. He is the president of the United Stated for crying out loud. I oppose some of this views but at least some of us are open to hear and make our own educated conclusions before jumping to any conclusion.
Im sorry but it didnt take the republicans 9 days to speak out against bp and the oil spill. it was obama.
If I understand the objection correctly it is that if the federal government eliminates the liability cap or imposes an updated liability cap in the amount of $10 billion, some GOP Senators fear that either of those measures would effectively put small oil drillers out of business. I don't know if that hypothesis is accurate or, if it is, whether that should be the concern which drives the policy for determining how much or how little a responsible party may be assessed for the economic damages which occur as a result of an oil leak or spill.



You could take the approach that liability for economic damages may not exceed the annual gross revenues of an oil driller (as determined by averaging gross revenues for the five or ten year period prior to the oil spill/leak in question) for those oil drillers whose average annual gross revenues do not exceed some pre-established amount like $1 billion. For those oil drillers whose annual revenues exceed that amount, then liability could be limited to $10 billion or unlimited, whichever served to achieve an appropriate balance between the nation's interest in domestic off-shore and deep water oil exploration and the nation's obvious interest in deterring oil spills and leaks which despoil the environment, cause great economic hardship to innocent parties and, not so incidentally, and which are often the result of unsafe practices which cost lives as is the case in the BP-Mississippi Canyon explosion.



There is no reason to subsidize oil drilling operations for huge operators like BP beyond the actual millions/billions in tax subsidies we throw their way. There is no economic justification for limiting liability for any of the big oil producers whatsoever. And if there is a rational case to be made for protecting smaller players from unlimited liability, then that interest can be accommodated in new legislation which updates oil spill/leak economic damages policy and which closes any loopholes for responsible parties which might now exist.



Otherwise, you will continue to enable companies like BP to cut corners and place at risk the safety of the men and women who work on oil rigs and the fragile environments in which drilling/pumping/transport occurs because the cost/benefit analysis will not require/justify a safety first and always approach to oil drilling/pumping and transport.



So to answer your question, it is not in the GOP's interest to thwart Congress from adopting a rational oil drilling policy concerning the overall liability for economic damages to which responsible parties must be exposed in order to further minimize the number and severity of oil leaks and spills on America's land and waters.



That's my opinion as an American citizen and taxpayer and a constant consumer of oil byproducts.