Sunday, May 30, 2010

In One Reality Or Another.

Larison gets the hypocrisy of Noonan's position:

If a President does not actively “take charge” and is not seen as “doing something,” he is ridiculed as weak and ineffective, when according to any vision of a less activist, less interventionist, less intrusive government the President would not involve himself closely in most events similar to this oil spill. It is a bit more absurd in the conservatives’ case. They are horrified by the tyranny of the individual mandate, but most otherwise seem content to demand the firm smack of a strong executive and the protections of an omnicompetent managerial state. Having mocked Obama’s more enthusiastic supporters for wanting him to be a savior of sorts, some Republicans seem genuinely annoyed that he has not been able to work miracles.
So what do they want? I thought private sector intervention was always the path favoured by these guys? Now, it's Obama's fault that their "drill, baby, drill" mantra has produced a disaster?

They lack coherence.

Click here for full article.

No comments: