Katrina Who?
Fascinating article explains how full of it Dems were on Katrina reconstruction $$$, how they seem to have gotten over it now that their guy is in, and aren’t even squawking about no Katrina cut in the economic porkfest. The fascinating part isn’t so much the content. No big surprises there. What’s fascinating is the part at the very top that says:
Your go-to wire service for objective, just-the-facts Bush-bash, gently chiding the people whose water they’ve been carrying lo these many years. The one thing that is missing is an analyst or GOP type pointing out what flaming hypocrites the Dems have been, though there are a couple of diplomatic comments from a GOP rep turned lobbyist.
As for the AP and its own historic flaming hypocrisy, while this is a startling new direction, it hardly has the “when did you stop beating your wife” quality of the news agency’s average Bush coverage, and seems to be expressing more a sense of approval and relief at how reasonable everyone can afford to be now that you-know-who isn’t around to provoke an entirely understandable derangement.
As a side note, the article states as fact that the Republican president “bungled the initial response to the disaster” though it’s pretty well established that the initial bungling was done by Lousiana Democrats. Again, can’t have everything.
Meanwhile, Reynolds catches the AP analyzing the Dem “culture of corruption.” It’s admirable that they aren’t so adrift they’ve forgotten that the people in power are at the top of the target list, though the Democratic congressional leadership did get a two-year pass on that. But I’m not feeling the love … the passion … that they put into the Bush-bashing.
Surber cruelly infers this no Katrina thing means Obama doesn’t like black people. Surber, you dolt, you know that only applies to the white Republican guy who looks like a chimp!
Welcome, Instapundit, etal, always good to see you. Up on the latest chimp news? Maybe something was lost in translation, but this just sounds like so much mumbling in Mumbai. I guess that isn’t actually a new development, but it’s formal now. Henceforth you’ll have to try to figure out what the New York Times really means with its, you know, headlines and articles and so forth.
Posted by Jules Crittenden at 3:01 pm Comments (3) on Thursday, February 19, 2009
3 Responses to “Katrina Who?”
Leave a Reply
Trackback URLYou must be logged in to post a comment.
February 19th, 2009 at 6:00 pm
Those Demo-rats may be hypocritical, but you have to admit they are consistently so.
February 19th, 2009 at 6:27 pm
Not sending any more money to New Orleans may be the first thing this Congress has done that I agree with. So thanks, I guess.
February 19th, 2009 at 6:51 pm
It is a pleasant surprise to see such articles from the AP writers.
I even see a way to construe the “bungled the initital response” part as a statement that this allegation was also made by the people who are now quiet.
The article says: “…the Bush years, when any perceived slight of Katrina victims was met with charges that the Republican president who bungled the initial response to the disaster continued to callously ignore the Gulf’s needs….”
The “charges” about initially bungling and continuing to callously ignore are attributed to the Democrats who now quietly accept that there’s enough money in the pipeline already.
If that’s how the writer intended it, then bless his heart!