Who Is The Real Hypocrite Exposed in the Washington Post?
May 4th 2010 15:28
A headline in the Tuesday edition of the Washington Post read, “Through Oil-Fouled Water, Big Government Looks Better and Better”. The point being made was “conservatives are asking for government intervention” (i.e. bigger government), now that the oil spill off the Louisiana Coast is spreading at an alarming rate. An example the author of the article used to prove his point was an excerpt from a statement by Sen. David Vitter (R-La.), who opposes big government which said, "I strongly believe BP is spread too thin…." An entire premise was built proving the hypocrisy of conservatives using these words, which could be interpreted to have many different meanings, depending upon the purposes and mindset of the one making the interpretation.
Vitter’s full statement posted on his web site reads, “Based on the latest briefings I have received and first hand view of the situation in the Gulf, I strongly believe BP is spread too thin in trying to both cap the well and remediate the damage along our coastline, producing an ineffective response. In my meetings with top Cabinet officials, I have urged all involved to allow BP to focus all of its efforts on building a dome and drilling a relief well at the source of the spill so that federal and state officials can focus on protecting and cleaning up the coast. Our prayers continue to go out to the families and co-workers of the victims of the explosion.”
Is Vitter calling for bigger government through his statement? Or, is he simply calling on the government to fulfill its “already owned” responsibility? There are three key issues not included in the Post article. The first is the spill is spreading from state to state in the gulf south and has the potential to become a national disaster. The second is the spill is located on outer continental shelf, which is federally regulated under Title 43, Chapter 29 of the US Code. The third is there is no single private/public entity such as BP who has the resources to plug the well, clean the spill from the water and restore the shorelines – that is reality. All three of these issues add up to federal involvement and participation without the need to politicize it.
Dana Milbank, the author of the Post article went on to write, “About an hour later came word from the Pentagon that Alabama, Florida and Mississippi -- all three governed by men who once considered themselves limited-government conservatives -- want the federal government to mobilize (at taxpayer expense, of course) more National Guard troops to aid in the cleanup.” Are the leaders of these three states calling for bigger government? Are they hypocrites for opposing the stimulus money and bailout programs as many liberals are now accusing them? Or, are they simply calling on the government to meet its federal responsibility in a disaster that is quickly becoming federal in scope?
Milbank wrote of Vitter and his peers, “The poor dears. He thinks it would be a better arrangement if federal and state officials would do the dirty work of protecting and cleaning up the coast instead of BP.“ Milbank is only thinking politics and taking advantage of a terrible disaster to make a political point that really has no basis when taken into context in light of the facts. Vitter and his colleagues are acting in light of the facts, with the knowledge that BP is incapable of dealing with the enormity of this disaster with its own limited resources. They also understand the magnitude and scope of the disaster does make it a federal responsibility.
While Milbank does make several legitimate arguments concerning “big government vs. little government” and the “liberal vs. conservative” approaches to it, his primary point is bogus and the timing of his divisive article is ill-advised.
It is disconcerting to listen to a progressive liberal who sees this as another opportunity to exploit yet another “us vs. them” political competition. Whether we are liberal or conservative, right or left; it is a legitimate government mandate to protect our National Waterways and shore lines. The real hypocrite exposed in the post article is Dana Milbank.
The "small government conservatives" are simply calling on the government to do what a government is supposed to do, protect its citizens and look out for the welfare of its people. No one is calling for the expansion of the government to deal with this problem, or for an expanded bureaucracy full of regulations and controls that go beyond the safety codes and inspections that are necessary to avoid a repeat of such a disaster in the future.
The government is simply being asked to do what it is directed to do by the Constitution and nothing more.
Vitter’s full statement posted on his web site reads, “Based on the latest briefings I have received and first hand view of the situation in the Gulf, I strongly believe BP is spread too thin in trying to both cap the well and remediate the damage along our coastline, producing an ineffective response. In my meetings with top Cabinet officials, I have urged all involved to allow BP to focus all of its efforts on building a dome and drilling a relief well at the source of the spill so that federal and state officials can focus on protecting and cleaning up the coast. Our prayers continue to go out to the families and co-workers of the victims of the explosion.”
Is Vitter calling for bigger government through his statement? Or, is he simply calling on the government to fulfill its “already owned” responsibility? There are three key issues not included in the Post article. The first is the spill is spreading from state to state in the gulf south and has the potential to become a national disaster. The second is the spill is located on outer continental shelf, which is federally regulated under Title 43, Chapter 29 of the US Code. The third is there is no single private/public entity such as BP who has the resources to plug the well, clean the spill from the water and restore the shorelines – that is reality. All three of these issues add up to federal involvement and participation without the need to politicize it.
Dana Milbank, the author of the Post article went on to write, “About an hour later came word from the Pentagon that Alabama, Florida and Mississippi -- all three governed by men who once considered themselves limited-government conservatives -- want the federal government to mobilize (at taxpayer expense, of course) more National Guard troops to aid in the cleanup.” Are the leaders of these three states calling for bigger government? Are they hypocrites for opposing the stimulus money and bailout programs as many liberals are now accusing them? Or, are they simply calling on the government to meet its federal responsibility in a disaster that is quickly becoming federal in scope?
Milbank wrote of Vitter and his peers, “The poor dears. He thinks it would be a better arrangement if federal and state officials would do the dirty work of protecting and cleaning up the coast instead of BP.“ Milbank is only thinking politics and taking advantage of a terrible disaster to make a political point that really has no basis when taken into context in light of the facts. Vitter and his colleagues are acting in light of the facts, with the knowledge that BP is incapable of dealing with the enormity of this disaster with its own limited resources. They also understand the magnitude and scope of the disaster does make it a federal responsibility.
While Milbank does make several legitimate arguments concerning “big government vs. little government” and the “liberal vs. conservative” approaches to it, his primary point is bogus and the timing of his divisive article is ill-advised.
It is disconcerting to listen to a progressive liberal who sees this as another opportunity to exploit yet another “us vs. them” political competition. Whether we are liberal or conservative, right or left; it is a legitimate government mandate to protect our National Waterways and shore lines. The real hypocrite exposed in the post article is Dana Milbank.
The "small government conservatives" are simply calling on the government to do what a government is supposed to do, protect its citizens and look out for the welfare of its people. No one is calling for the expansion of the government to deal with this problem, or for an expanded bureaucracy full of regulations and controls that go beyond the safety codes and inspections that are necessary to avoid a repeat of such a disaster in the future.
The government is simply being asked to do what it is directed to do by the Constitution and nothing more.
| 75 |
| Vote |
subscribe to this blog
Comment by S.L.
The Political Brief
Comment by Anonymous
Politics Realm
rightsidepolitics.com
PostModernChristian
Really Long Link