Libtalker Pleads With Obama To Take Action On Oil Spill
Libtalkers Worry Public Outrage Shifting Toward Obama
Can blame for gross inaction on the Gulf oil spill be shifted away from Obama indefinitely? Some on the left are clearly beginning to realize the anti-BP OUTRAGE (!!!) machine has begun to lose its effectiveness.
While that won't stop many "progressives" from continuing their relentless tirades against Big Oil, there is increasing worry that the president's mishandling of the situation has become difficult to defend.
That has the state-run media desperately searching for new ways to cover for him, including attacking Sarah Palin and other Republicans. But none other than Official White House Apologist Chris Matthews has now raised the question of Obama's "eventual" responsibility.
Making the case in blunt terms is MSNBC libtalker Ed Schultz, who used his television program to plead with the federal government for quick action (though it now seems much too late):
SCHULTZ (4:52): Our government's not doing enough. We have how many millions of Americans that are unemployed? Would it make sense to, maybe, offer a job to people who want to go down to the Gulf and get accommodations and get meals and just help with the cleanup? Could BP write that check? Is there anything we can do to save our beaches? Is there anything we can do to keep the oil offshore?
SCHULTZ (5:57): Mr. President, I'm a huge fan, but this is now your oil spill. It's on your watch. We need to come up with some kind of huge plan on what we're going to do, because we've spent thirty days waiting for BP, waiting for Transocean, who've done a great job of just washing their hands of all of this.
Let me just say this, Washington: It's time to get it on. It's time to get real serious about this.
The real question: why the left waited 30 days to challenge the White House on its chronic laziness when it's clear Bush wouldn't have been given 30 minutes before being subjected to a full-scale partisan attack. Is protecting Obama really worth the cost?