POLL: Florida senators disagree on Obama's role in spill

Florida Sen. George LeMieux says President Obama isn't doing enough to help Florida in the oil spill. Is Obama doing enough?

See the results »

View previous polls »

— Florida's two U.S. senators disagree on how President Barack Obama should handle the Gulf of Mexico oil spill.

Sen. Bill Nelson defended fellow Democrat Obama again criticism by Republican George LeMieux during a news conference in Pensacola on Monday as the president arrived on the Gulf Coast for a two-day, three-state visit.

At a similar news conference June 5, LeMieux said Obama shouldn't come down for just a few hours but should stay on the Gulf Coast to manage the situation until the spill is stopped.

Nelson said it's No. 1 on Obama's agenda but as leader of the nation and Free World he's got other things to worry about such as Afghanistan, the economy, implementing the new health care law and energy legislation.

  • Discuss
  • Print

Related Stories

Related Links

Comments » 11

u2cane writes:

All the more reason this should be Nelson's last term. He doesn't have our interests in hand, rather he is in the hand of special interests.

happy6 writes:

let's see...rep/dem....two different views...amazing....what a reporter!

Fossil writes:

U2Crane: And our interests are?

Fossil writes:

U2Crane: While you are at responding to my first question, please identify the "special interests" that you object to. Do you include big oil, our well meaning health insurance and too big to fail financial institutions? If you are anti special interest, have you written to our Supreme Court and objected to their recent ruling that permits unlimited campaign contributions to our elected officials? Do you think these institituions have started putting dollar bill targets on the back of our new Tea Party candidates?

ajm3s writes:

in response to Fossil:

U2Crane: While you are at responding to my first question, please identify the "special interests" that you object to. Do you include big oil, our well meaning health insurance and too big to fail financial institutions? If you are anti special interest, have you written to our Supreme Court and objected to their recent ruling that permits unlimited campaign contributions to our elected officials? Do you think these institituions have started putting dollar bill targets on the back of our new Tea Party candidates?

Fossil: I know your disdain for big oil, health insurance and financial institutions, but you make no call for actual enforcement and monitoring of regulations in place.

Let me start with big oil: It is the MMS (government agency) which had a cozy relationship with industry. So even when we have an office to oversee safety and permitting we notice that in essence, the government was not even doing its job in overseeing the industy but rather accepting favors from the industry it is to regulate.

It takes two to consumate corruption or at least "look the other way".

I could go on to the SEC ...............

The government is to protect its citizens, and when it falls short the answer is more regulation? Its the regulators irresponsibility not the regulations.

I know you are not a Ms. Palin fan but why not take a look at her record in dealing with big oil in the vast wilderness called Alaska. Her mantra "trust but verify". She does not trust big oils assessment but she acknowledges that she needs to work with them. No moratorium in her bag of tricks, but she is not naive in dealing with the oil industry, she simply requires her state agencies be responsible in assessing oil executives in meeting the safety objectives, etc. Again verify. But never mind, she is a dumb, ignorant religiously guided right winger (sarcasm font required).

It comes down to prudent governance, of which I am having trouble witnessing.

As to the Supreme Court ruling regarding "unlimited campaign contributions to our elected officials?", I believe you are referring to the 5-4 decision which was based on free speech in not interfering with a corporations ability to express its views regarding candidates positions.

And to your comment: "Do you think these institituions have started putting dollar bill targets on the back of our new Tea Party candidates? I respond: free speech.

But to your point originally raised regarding "special interest", I shall submit that Labor Unions are also engaged in targeting on the backs of..... Go see the millions poured into attempting to defeat Ms. Lincoln in Arkansas.

You know me and my love of the Constitution. See I believes all "special interests" have protections under "free speech" clause.

So in essense, pick your "special interest" because Mr. Obama has. And I will voice my dissent in his choice of interests because it infringes on my special interest.

Let me see, is Obama (special)interested in cleaning Louisiana shores or Cap and Trade. Now that is a special interest but clearly he is more focused on the latter at the expense of the former.

Fossil writes:

The "special interests" you have identified have immasculated all federal regulations. The last administration clearly changed the "rules". Business was not to be stymied. After all, the Republican Party believed Ronald Reagan when he claimed that profits would result in more jobs. The recent past has proven that profits became bonus checks and jobs went overseas. Big companies bought out small ones and fired all the workers and cashed in on the sale. Economic theories like trickle down economics sound good, but human greed makes it unworkable. The government put enviornment on the back burner. It was not going to be a hinderence to making money. Regulations that inhibited business and enforcement was to stop. Agencies were populated with Republicans that believed what was good for business was good for the country. When GW left, he made them all career employees that could not be fired. It was as if the zoo Chairman had made a decision to allow the lions to go free within the confines of the zoo. Now all the other animals are dead and gone. That is what has happened to jobs, competition and now to our gulf. I do not blame the corporations for doing what they do when not contained anymore than I blame the lions. The policy is wrong headed, it was bought and paid for by the corporations and the country has been led by the business community to believe they are responsible and care about the nation and other things more then they care about profit. That's like telling the lion he cares more about making friends with a deer then he does eating it. You may believe it but I know when the king is naked and GW was clearly riding around town with no clothes. The same goes for the SEC and EPA. They are bought and paid for and as worthless as all the politicians that are funded by these special interests. The country must and I predict will rewrite those enforcement regulations and business will be caged again as it was prior to RR, BC and GW. Free speech must not translate into dollars. That was not the intent of the founding fathers. No one anticipated that corporations and the rich would evolve into super citizens with extraordinary access to our leaders. It is wrong on every level and anyone that thinks otherwise believes selling out the country and it's institutions is a moral act. As for the queen idiot, representitive of all that is silly and short sighted; I really won't waste anytime on her. Ask the people of Alaska what they think of her. They are tired of being laughed at.

ajm3s writes:

"Free speech must not translate into dollars. That was not the intent of the founding fathers."

I guess I need translation. I chose this comment to try to get a handle on the issues at hand. The founding fathers were very clear, intent is very clear. If dollars and freedom of speech were to be limited the founding fathers would have said such. Since no mention of limiting dollars as a qualifier for freedom of speech were never written in the Constitution or Bill of Rights, I have to dismiss your statement as extreme (left or right) or a desire or wish to regulate that which was never regulated since its infancy.

Sorry Fossil, but you tend to overreach. Freedom of speech was to protect those regardless of funds to speak freely in public without retribution or harm from government or those trying to control ideas from being said.

The beauty of the Constitution is its simplicity in language and to have the Federalist Papers to provide the ruminations and discussions that lead to its final draft.

If you claim Ms. Palin is a "queen idiot", I suspect your reading list must be of "high" standards to come to that conclusion. Unless of course, she is a queen. The idiot part, I am still researching. But then again, I know you do your own independent research.

Suggestion: Try reaching out a little further for the truth. It is within your grasp, but you are clouded with villains.

Fossil writes:

ajm3s: Let me get this straight, because the Constitution does not specifically prohibit the use of dollars to get ones message across, that would be free speech? Come on, that gives a rich man far more enfluence then any "small man". You honestly believe that was the intent of the founding fathers? Do you think they never considered the moral implications of that arrangment? I thought you were a religious man. Using great sums of money to support a Senator in his effort to gain office certainly brings about the question of graft and bribary and enfluence peddling on the part of the Senator. Not to mention all the job offers they get upon retirement. Now, multiply that by 100 Senators, we have corruption on a great scale. Was it the founders intent to develop a corrupt government from the git go? Did they honestly intend candidates for public office, spend 30 to 40 percent of their time in office begging on bended to knee to rich people for money so that they may give power to their benefactor and not be vulnerable to making decisions that were not in the best interest of the general good? What kind of people would these be? This is ALL the people's business, not just the business of the rich and well off. This is not about stopping the wealthy from using their right to vote. This is about stopping them from buying influence, practicing legalized graft and bribary? It has nothing to do with free speech. The Supremes have legalized the crimes and the term shake down; they dressed it up to look like free speech and you bought it. You people (the right) need to leave our consititution and our government alone. We who were brought up to understand the difference between right and wrong resent your efforts to change our country. It is the best in the world and doesn't need your warped ideas.

ajm3s writes:

Fossil:

The intent is clear. The pursuit of happiness is an expression describing the ability of every person in America to to acquire things, seek God or eternal balance, to privately create wealth based on his/her potential or to those who are brought into this world with wealth to distribute as they feel fit, or whatever is fulfilling.

To your insistence that wealth creates influence, so what, is that bad. I guess it is if you are anti-union and you hate the monies they pour in to defeat certain political candidates, but its not bad if you wish more labor influence in Congress.

But since you hate wealth influence, let me remind you that the wealthy of today are typically newcomers based on new innovations and industries that did not exist 20,30 or 40 years ago.

The giants of industry for the most part earned that wealth by "influencing" consumers of the benefits of their goods/services. The founders of Google, Facebbook, Talk show hosts, software developers etc whose names and industries that they created. And whose parental line did not include inheritance.

Essentially, the wealthy are a fluid group, people coming in and other leaving. The beauty of America is an Opray Winfrey can rise from poverty and rape and be an example of self-determination. And yes she can buy influence, but if the message is not resonating all the money in the world will not do justice.

And you assume all wealth dollars are of a single mindset.

So pick your "special interest" or lobbyist and send them money if you feel for the cause.

Fossil, it is not about morality or religious conviction, it is simply a constant reminder that freedom of speech will be eroded if we do not remind ourselves of how we got here and why we need to constantly uphold the Constitution.

See people want to be heard, left/right, fascist/racist/evangelicals, from all spectrums of the populace. Some may in fact be abhorrant but to place a dollar qualifier on free speech is WARPED becuause it stifles messages because you are wealthy. Free speech should not be stifled on any group that does not cause harm. Are there not "special interest" that represent the "small" people. Do you wish to stifle Sierra Club, community organizers, SEIU, America for Social Justice, Trial Lawyers Association. They all represent the "small" disadvantaged people in America.

Fossil: you are blinded. You would stifle free speech because the Congress we elect is influenced through greed and corruption. I believe you need to stifle greed and corruption and censorship misses the mark.

Fossil writes:

ajm3: Your view of morality appears based on gold and the justification for it's acquistion and accumulation. Mine is based simply on deeds. Being wealthy can certainly make your life easier but can it buy true happiness? I think my starting point is a lot closer to those of the founding fathers then yours are. I guess our generation gap is much wider then I first thought. Didn't your mom ever tell you that it's not how wealthy you are that's important, but it's what you do with your life that will be judged. I give when I can to those in need and would never consider a politician to qualify. I will just go to the polls and vote like the rest of us in line and hope for the best. That's what the founding father's intended and that is what has kept our country great for so long, not money. God bless.

ajm3s writes:

Again you miss the mark, I simply made the argument that wealth is not a single coordinated mindset, and that those of wealth today were not necessarily so when they were born. Consequently, most wealth is earned.

Your claim is that wealth corrupts and wealthy folks have "special interests", but you fail to recognize that all "special interest" use money to create a power base to influence. And if you list all the influence brokers, you will find a myriad of influences, some diametrically opposed. So my claim is that wealth is simply not a singlular mindset with a defined agenda other than to influence, from labor unions to trail lawyers to enviromentalists to oil companies to alternative energy companies etc. Quite a mix. Not a moral issue.

You painted wealth as bad and I simply say why? My parents taught me that all men are created equal and we are free to find our potential and to treat all with civility, regardless of wealth, And our founding fathers basically did not frame the Constitution limiting wealth, they limited government.

You really confuse me because your last posting could be that from an evangelical. Another 'special interest".

Is a government to dicate morality through legislation? Then I want a higher income because Mr. Gates of Microsoft makes gazillions of dollars. Lets spread the wealth (Obamaism).

I typically see Social Justice and Economic Justice in socialist and communist periodicals and pamphlets. And I still gravitate to the Constitution, a document limiting powers of governance.

And I too will vote, and I love the new grassroots groups or is it "special interests" that demand fiscal balance and limited government. Like those crazy Tea Pary people.

Share your thoughts

Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.

Comments can be shared on Facebook and Yahoo!. Add both options by connecting your profiles.

Features