I don’t think any of the consevatives here missed the irony of the piece at all.

What we are finding quite humorous, however, is how quickly people like you rushed to make sure your Obama was defended, this while he and Sasha played hoops on the WH basketball court. He adores his daughters, and that’s why he loves his job, so he can hang around them all day. Or, haven’t you heard?

Perhaps next time the crisis will strike in your neighborhood, and you can join the worshiping crowds laying palm fronds at the Messiah’s feet when he visits.
If he visits, I mean. He’s awfully busy right now, you know, checking out the bowling alley with Malia.

First, and totally free of irony, thanks for the reply; though we obviously have some different political beliefs, I think it’s important that we keep conversation open. (Otherwise I never would’ve posted in the first place.)

Second, as for the point of your original post (which, without its irony, I take to be: if it is ridiculous to lambaste Obama now, then it must have been ridiculous to lambaste Bush then–hence, liberals who attacked Bush are hypocrites for defending Obama), two things:

1) you did not point out the irony of your post to people here who said conservative things that missed your irony, so I decided to take your post on face-value: as a thought-experiment to see what happens if we compare these two scenarios; and

2) in order to make the case for hypocrisy you have to make the case for the comparability of the two scenarios (i.e., people feel different ways based on who is in charge even though they are confronted by the same scenarios); now, not only did your original post not make the case that these scenarios were similar, but you made the case that they are very different (which you emphasized in your response to me, on how Katrina is so much worse than a harsh winter).

(And as several of your commenters have pointed out, there’s a further incompatibility in comparing a 2-week old administration with a 250-week old administration (those numbers are rough, but help to point out that the difference is an order of magnitude).)

So, at the end of the day, we seem to be left not with a demonstration that liberals are hypocrites for supporting Obama even though he hasn’t responded aggressively to winter, but with an argument demonstrating that the two scenarios are totally different, and that comparing them only points out how different they are.

Which is to say, you go an awful long way to point out that two different things are different.

If, however, I’ve missed some of your irony, I’d be happy to be corrected; I admit that recognizing irony–especially over the internet–may not be my strong suit.

Like I said: show me where Obama said the equivalent of “Nobody could have foreseen that snow is cold.” You talk about other peoples’ “hypocrisy,” yet the whole point here is that Bush’s intellectual emptiness and cronyism made an already-guaranteed-bad problem just that much worse.

I think we should take all the money allocated in the stimulus plan for STD prevention, the Obama re-election campaign (I mean, ACORN), etc. and give it all to Louisiana.

They can build the biggest big-ass big huge hurricane wall ever built in the history of man! A freakin’ Tower of Babel it could be. Think how many jobs could be created!

The downside to this idea, however, is I’m not sure if people in New Orleans actually want to work…….they are good dancers and make cool tombstones, though.

Until Obama says the equivalent of “Brownie, you’re doing a heck of a job,” comparing the two is only going to legitimate the idea that the federal government should’ve been more involved in Katrina relief.

Now, I might agree with the idea that the federal government could’ve done more right off the bat–after all, Bush could fly home from vacation to try to intervene on the state-level in the case of Terri Schiavo, but was willing to sit back and merely complement his failing subordinates in the case of Katrina–but I don’t think that you would want to legitimate the idea that the federal government should be more involved in disaster relief because it just makes the Bush administration look more like a failure in that respect.

It appears that grasping irony is not one of your strong suits. Of course there is little to compare between the two - except the legions of lefties like you who have suddenly discovered that the feds have little business in the initial stages of disaster relief and that FEMA’s response is predicated on the condition of roads and bridges that would allow their massive relief efforts to reach the people most affected.

And the very nature of Katrina also disproves your point about Bush. No modern industrialized city has ever suffered the kind of destruction suffered by NO. None. Not London during the blitz (about 20% destroyed) or Tokyo during the fire bombings (about 30% gone) and not even Berlin (about 50%). More than 80% of NO was under water at one time. Katrina affected more than 570,000 structures with almost half - 225,000 - destroyed or condemned.

To believe Obama or Bush or any president with any level of a competent FEMA in existence could have dealt with that kind of disastser either in its immediate aftermath or even 3 years running is irrational (it took more than a decade to rebuild London and parts of Berlin in East Germany were NEVER rebuilt until reunification). But that doesn’t fit your tidy little narrative about Bush. Hence, the heavy handed, over the top irony of my post, showing your hypocrisy and the hypocrisy of those who used Katrina for political purposes.

ed.

But, hey, sure, let’s talk about those poor frozen people in Kentucky. Why don’t they have power? Because the iced-up tree limbs fell down and snapped the hanging powerlines. You know how you prevent that? With massive infrastructure programs to construct an underground power grid, which is what Obama proposed, but apparently it’s “socialism”, so conservatives would prefer people continue to die.

Very nice try - admirable spin. You should get a job at the DNC.

The “underground power grid” will take two decades to complete. How something Obama has only proposed could possibly be used to justify his inaction and apparent unconcern with the people of the Midwest who are suffering is beyond belief. Changing the subject won’t save Obama from being held to the same standard that Bush was held to - especially since the levies were ignored under both Democratic and Republican congresses and administration.

Why can’t you admit your man is blowing it his first shot out of the box?

ed.

Obama loves non-tax paying citizens huh?

WTH is going on here? He is “Deeply Embarassed and Disappointed’??? How about irresponsible, deceitful and a dumb@$$

He keeps picking people that haven’t paid their taxes to ruin, I mean run our country. Throw in Janet Reno, I mean Janet Napalitano for Homeland Security???? This is gonna be a long 4 years…if he makes it that long!!!!!!

January 20th was the beginning of a new ERROR!!!!!