A SCOTUS hearing?
by Khan
The hearing so far is coming to resemble a Supreme Court confirmation hearing–
When asked for judgment & opinion on specific matters of the Macondo well’s construction (read: when asked about a specific case), Hayward responds that he is "not prepared to speculate" until the ongoing investigations are completed (read: "not appropriate" to comment a matter that may come before the Court).
When asked about the "culture of safety" at BP, about the internal nature of BP that led to the drilling of such a flawed well (read: when asked about judging philosophy), Hayward responds vaguely, saying that there have been "systematic changes" since the beginning of his tenure to focus "like a laser on safe and reliable operations" (read: practice "fidelity to the law", judging each case based on the facts and then applying the law).
Hayward and his lawyers seem to think, like several recent Supreme Court nominees, that the easiest way to get by a hearing unscathed is to respond vaguely and generally, saying as much you can to say absolutely nothing.
The problem, of course, is that Hayward is at the hearing with fundamentally different goals. Supreme Court nominees want to do everything they can to avoid giving Senators a reason to vote against them–winning over the public isn’t a priority. Hayward’s goal as the face of BP, however, ought to be to win over the public. Unless Hayward feels strongly that by answering questions thoroughly BP’s public perception will drop even lower than it is right now (which is certainly a possibility), Hayward’s testimony should be honest, forthright, and emotional. The anger is missing. The sincerity is missing. The answers, more or less, are missing.
On the other hand, there is the legal question. Given the prospect of criminal and civil charges, as this NYT piece details, it seems most likely that Hayward is being forced to do this due to legal concerns of saying anything under oath that may add more culpability to BP than is necessary. Regardless, the net benefit of winning over the public may help BP in the long run–the short term legal costs of an honest and sincere testimony may pale in comparison to the long term economic losses incurred by a disgusted public unwilling to consume BP products.
In a conversation with a high-ranking committee staff member during the hourlong recess, the staffmember said to me that while the Congressmen were incredibly frustrated with the way the hearing had gone so far, Hayward’s demeanor means that Hayward & BP are the only ones that are losing today.
I have to agree.