But first, Obama’s National Debt.

Ahem.

That out of the way, what have we here?

Remember when the Democrats and the mainstream media raked the Bush Administration over the coals over the government’s response to Hurricane Katrina and her tragic aftermath?

When Dubya obeyed The Law and allowed then Louisiana Governor Blanco to put him off, which is within the authority of a governor to do in the event that the federal government offers or requests permission to act when a disaster befalls a state? When the Democrats and the liberal propagandists in the media, for purely political reasons, ignored that little tidbit of The Law in order to accuse Bush of sitting on his hands while Nawlins “drowned”, even going so far as to make a racist incident out of it (the left never loses the chance to milk every last political point out of an event, whether it be flood, fire, famine or any other disaster)?

Well…

There were some odds things in Saturday’s New York Times. Not only was President Obama criticized over his administration’s failure to react faster to the massive oil spill in the Gulf caused by a BP America drilling rig, the paper even compared his dilatory response to…that of George Bush and Hurricane Katrina.

My first thought was that while Katrina was sort of an unprecedented action on the part of nature, one that took an unexpected toll on the levy system down yonder, there have been oil spills before and it’s “kinda’ funky” that this being the case, the Obama Administration has a lot less ammunition with which to fire up a ready excuse, if any excuse for that matter, for the spill’s being neglected, from a government point of view, for so long, only to have the government’s response, late but evident, come along with what can only be termed a paucity of rapidity.

There’s a world of difference between the impact of an oil spill and a deadly hurricane. And the White House hopes it stays that way.

As President Obama, who will visit the Gulf region on Sunday morning, has stepped up his administration’s response to the oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico, ordering a moratorium on new offshore drilling leases and dispatching cabinet secretaries and cargo planes to the region, the White House is also trying to avert the kind of political damage inflicted on former President George W. Bush by his administration’s slow response to Hurricane Katrina.

The shoe, as they say, is now on the other foot.

A Saturday editorial, “Unanswered Questions on the Oil Spill,” made the same Bush-Obama comparison:

There are many avenues to pursue. Here are two: the oil company’s response, and Mr. Obama’s. The company, BP, seems to have been slow to ask for help, and, on Friday, both federal and state officials accused it of not moving aggressively or swiftly enough. Yet the administration should not have waited, and should have intervened much more quickly on its own initiative.

A White House as politically attuned as this one should have been conscious of two obvious historical lessons. One was the Exxon Valdez, where a late and lame response by both industry and the federal government all but destroyed one of the country’s richest fishing grounds and ended up costing billions of dollars. The other was President George W. Bush’s hapless response to Hurricane Katrina.

Now we have another disaster in more or less the same neck of the woods, and it takes the administration more than a week to really get moving.

So where are the leftie members of the Fourth Estate, asking “tough questions” and filling the papers and evening newscasts? Where are the environmentalists to substitute, during the oil spill festivities, a “nature-hating president” for the “racists” at Katrina’s media dog and pony show?

Guess there is none, since as we know, it’s a one way street.