Monday, May 24, 2010
Good reads of the day (late edition)
• Glen Thrush of Politico highlights for us liberal criticism of Obama's handling of the BP oil spill crisis. Hey, when you're losing James Carville and Chris Matthews, you know there has to be something wrong, right?
I found the end of the article to be particluarly interesting:
At the White House Friday, Chip Reid of CBS asked Gibbs why the federal government was standing by "as a spectator" as BP tried various strategies to block the spill. Gibbs bristled.
"Chip, there’s nothing that would denote that the federal government has stood there and hoped for the best. I mean, the premise of your question doesn’t match any single... action that our government has undertaken since the call came in that this rig had exploded in the Gulf."
But a half dozen reporters chimed in peppering Gibbs with questions — questioning if the government had done everything in its legal power to force BP's hand, including nationalization of the effort. Gibbs said the administration was doing everything legally — and "humanly" possible — to stop the leak.
I don't know, but when you start saying things that at least seem to be patently false, you might be getting yourself into some trouble. But maybe that's just me.
On a final note, I already talked about Obama's potential Iraq. Well, could this BP oil spill be Obama's potential Katrina? And he's had more than 30 days to get his act together, too. For Bush, it was more like 30 hours. But he was supposed to be the slow one, wasn't he?