Monday, June 21, 2010

Answering that 3am call

Here's Obama exploiting another Gulf crisis for political points, August 2009:

In his weekly radio and Internet address, the president noted that the Bush administration's response to the killer storm raised questions among people in the U.S. about whether the government "could fulfill its responsibility to respond in a crisis."

He said he wanted to ensure "that the legacy of a terrible storm is a country that is safer and more prepared for the challenges that may come."
Question answered! Well let's hit the golf links.


The spill is Ray Nagin's fault said...

The right's desperation to equate British Petroleum's oil spill with Hurricane Katrina is facile and inaccurate. That the right previously cheered Bush's Katrina response makes it ridiculous. There's a reason the acronym IOKIYAR appears on so many webpages.

Eric said...

Let me be clear (to borrow a phrase): I don't equate it with Katrina. I'm simply comparing the criticisms of a freshman Senator - who has never held a real job - criticizing the federal response to a calamity in the Gulf region.

C'mon, that's delicious.

Anonymous said...

But is that inexact and unironic "parallel" more, or less, delicious than a party that's built its last 30 years on "Government is the problem!" now trying to score with "Obama's response is lacking!"?

Is it as delicious as a party trying to appear as if they're really mad at their BFF BP, but being unable to give up Luntzisms like "Chicago-style" and "bailout" and "shakedown"?

As delicious as a party clearly suffering from its need to control its "Drill, baby, drill" Tourettes... at least for a little while?

Silly! said...

If the oil rig had been off the coast of Santa Monica, California, there wouldn't even be the specious resemblance to Hurricane Katrina.

A map does not a powerful analogy make. Was the attack on the World Trade Center "even worse than" the 1977 New York blackout?

Anonymous said...

BP is the Republicans BFF? Guess that's why the Republicans got all that money from BP.....oh, wait, that went to Obama.

"Facts have a well-known liberal bias." said...

British Petroleum's PAC contributions:

Total Spent (to date) - $173,781
Contributions to Federal Candidates - $75,550 (42% to Democrats, 58% to Republicans)

Total Spent - $619,255
Contributions to Federal Candidates - $198,500 (41% to Democrats, 59% to Republicans)

Total Spent - $601,696
Contributions to Federal Candidates - $219,500 (34% to Democrats, 65% to Republicans)

Total Spent - $678,337
Contributions to Federal Candidates - $220,499 (38% to Democrats, 62% to Republicans)

Eric said...

Who was #1 in the last election cycle?

CNN: "Obama was top recipient of BP-related dollars in 2008."

"Facts have a well-known liberal bias." said...

Golly gosh jeepers, what ever could have happened in the last election cycle to make BP so generous to Obama out of the blue?

Fun Fact #1: BP had previously given Barack Obama $1,000 in 2004, and $0 in 2006.

Fun Fact #2: John McCain collected more money from Exxon Mobil, Hess, Chevron, Andarko, Moncrief, and BP during the 2008 election cycle alone than the Arizona Senator had received from them in 1990, 1992, 1994, 1996, 1998, 2000, 2002, 2004 and 2006 - combined. The mystery deepens!

Fun Fact #3: Of those other nine election cycles, McCain's previous high total in oil money came in 2000. Inexplicable!

Fun Fact #4: Obama, who got the most BP money of any candidate, received a little under $900,000 in contributions from the entire oil industry during the 2008 election cycle. The McCain campaign received $2.4 million.

Fun Fact #5: Since 1990, Republican candidates have gotten about 75% of the oil industry's PAC money.