The Obama Care roll out is so bad that there is panic on the Democrat side of the aisle.
Over at the US Senate, "red state Democrats" are desperately trying to explain their vote for ObamaCare to very angry constituents in places like Arkansas, Louisiana, North Carolina, and others.
Political reality aside, The NY Times has the latest and silliest explanation. They are comparing Katrina to ObamaCare:
"The disastrous rollout of his health care law not only threatens the rest of his agenda but also raises questions about his competence in the same way that the Bush administration’s botched response to Hurricane Katrina undermined any semblance of Republican efficiency.
But unlike Mr. Bush, who faced confrontational but occasionally cooperative Democrats, Mr. Obama is battling a Republican opposition that has refused to open the door to any legislative fixes to the health care law and has blocked him at virtually every turn. "
What are they smoking over at The NY Times? Cooperative Democrats?
I am happy that Professor Althouse has fired an excellent response. This is so good that I want you to share it with your friends::
"1. Bush's political party didn't design and enact Hurricane Katrina.
2. Bush didn't have 5 years to craft his response to the hurricane.
3. Bush didn't have the power to redesign the hurricane as he designed his response to it.
4. The Republican Bush believed he could not simply bully past the Democratic Mayor of New Orleans and the Democratic Governor of Louisiana and impose a federal solution, but the Democrat Obama and his party in Congress aggressively and voluntarily took over an area of policy that might have been left to the states.
5. The media were ready to slam Bush long and hard for everything — making big scandals out of things that, done by Obama, would have been forgotten a week later (what are the Valerie Plame-level screwups of Obama's?) — but the media have bent over backwards for years to help make Obama look good and to bury or never even uncover all of his lies and misdeeds.
6. If Bush experienced a disaster like the rollout of Obamacare, the NYT wouldn't use its front page to remind us of something Bill Clinton did that looked bad."
Last, but not least, let's not forget the total and incomplete incompetence of the mayor of New Orleans and the governor of Louisiana.
Of course, we are really watching something more profound than a comparison between Katrina and ObamaCare. The NY Times, and others in the left, are in a panic because the incompetent roll out has dealt liberalism a potentially fatal knockout, as Charles Krauthammer wrote yesterday:
"The damage to the Obama presidency, however, is already done. His approval rating has fallen to 39?percent, his lowest ever. And, for the first time, a majority considers him untrustworthy. That bond is not easily repaired.
At stake, however, is more than the fate of one presidency or of the current Democratic majority in the Senate. At stake is the new, more ambitious, social-democratic brand of American liberalism introduced by Obama, of which Obamacare is both symbol and concrete embodiment."
The NY Times is going to get more hysterical, specially as the collapse of ObamaCare becomes inevitable.
Tags: Katrina, NY Times, Obama and Bush To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the My View by Silvio Canto, Jr. Thanks!