In an interview with POLITICO, the president said: “I think it’s fair to say, if six months ago, before this spill had happened, I had gone up to Congress and I had said we need to crack down a lot harder on oil companies and we need to spend more money on technology to respond in case of a catastrophic spill, there are folks up there, who will not be named, who would have said this is classic, big-government overregulation and wasteful spending.”The president also implied that anti-big government types such as Tea Party activists were being hypocritical on the issue.
“Some of the same folks who have been hollering and saying ‘do something’ are the same folks who, just two or three months ago, were suggesting that government needs to stop doing so much,” Obama said. “Some of the same people who are saying the president needs to show leadership and solve this problem are some of the same folks who, just a few months ago, were saying this guy is trying to engineer a takeover of our society through the federal government that is going to restrict our freedoms.”
Teabaggers want problems to be solved before and after they occur by not having and having the government involved. Pretty clear.
1 comment:
Or, just maybe, the so-called Teabaggers prefer limited government, recognize that there are legitimate roles of a limited government, and then have an opinion on whether those running the government should be doing a better job.
Think about your position for a second. You seem to think that your opponents want zero government (anarchy?), and not just a limited government. Does that make any sense?
But the need to play the hyprocrisy card trumps all, because non-liberals can't just be wrong, they must also be secretly malicious if not criminal in their efforts to thwart their opponents.
How did the Obama administration perform its JOB of reviewing, approving and monitoring BP's deepwater drilling project? This seems like legitimate questions to raise, even if raised by a non-liberal.
Post a Comment