SAN DIEGO -- Something just doesn't smell right in the aftermath of the brouhaha on Capitol Hill over a congressman's pointed criticism of White House efforts to coax BP to set up a $20 billion relief fund for victims of the Gulf oil spill. And before we close the chapter on this story, Americans ought to think long and hard about what it really teaches us.
We have three branches of government for good reason. Shouldn't one be able to challenge the conduct of another, even if that criticism is piercing and personal?
President Obama does this all the time. He has repeatedly chided Republicans in Congress for what he believes to be their misplaced priorities and criticized members of the Supreme Court--to their face, during a State of the Union address--for a campaign finance ruling with which he disagreed.
But somehow, when the criticism is flowing in the opposite direction -- either by spontaneous outbursts (i.e., "you lie") or prepared remarks in a congressional hearing -- it's time to take names and demand punishment.
The problem is not just that Obama has a thin skin. It's that, for all the complaints from Democrats during the George W. Bush administration about brazen power grabs by the executive branch, the Obama White House seems even more determined to dominate the other branches.
ADVERTISEMENT
Don't misunderstand. This is not to excuse the insensitivity and ineptness of Rep. Joe Barton of Texas, an energy industry darling and the ranking Republican on the House Energy and Commerce Committee. Last week, Barton stunned a congressional committee hearing by offering a full-throated public apology to BP chief executive Tony Hayward for the Obama administration's efforts to establish the relief fund, which the congressman characterized as a "tragedy" and a "shakedown."
Later, after being admonished by both Republican leaders and Democrats, Barton tried to dig himself out. While he didn't apologize to the White House, or retract his criticism of the tactics that led to the creation of the fund, Barton did clarify that he didn't mean to absolve BP of its responsibility to clean up its mess in the Gulf of Mexico. That he wanted to make clear.
The backtracking was no surprise. Barton quickly realized that he had his own mess to clean up. He couldn't risk -- and more importantly, Republicans in Congress couldn't risk -- being seen as unconcerned about the suffering along the Gulf Coast and eager to absolve BP of its responsibility to alleviate at least some of it through financial compensation. That wouldn't play well with voters -- even Republican voters -- in Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and other states directly impacted by the spill.
It certainly didn't help Barton that, as the media rushed to point out, he has long been a good friend to the oil industry, collecting in the last two decades more than $1.4 million in campaign contributions. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, the figure puts him above all other House members for industry donations.
However, none of this changes the fact that Barton had every right to say what he did, however clumsily he said it. He was raising legitimate concerns about where an administration gets the legal authority to strong-arm a company to surrender assets and whether there was some coercion here. Other Republicans have said or implied much the same thing, pointing to the fact that Attorney General Eric Holder -- having already threatened legal action against BP -- was sitting at the table during the negotiation with Hayward. We can be assured that this was not because the nation's top law enforcement official has some special expertise that we don't know about in deep-water drilling and the cleaning up of oil spills.
Even if Barton is correct in his assessment and this was a first-rate shakedown, don't expect many Americans to rally to BP's defense -- and for good reason. The company has been even more tone deaf than its defenders in its handling of the cleanup. In fact, you can bet there are a lot of people out there who would like to see more shakedowns of companies that put profit before the environment and the welfare and safety of others.
But just because something is popular doesn't make it right. Someone has to be willing to say that. Thank goodness someone did.
Ruben Navarrette's e-mail is ruben@rubennavarrette.com .
