Is Race a Factor in Obama’s Tepid Response to Gulf Oil Spill?

By John W. Lillpop
Independent Columnist

During and after hurricane Katrina, liberals were relentless in trashing President Bush and his administration for allegedly acting with insufficient urgency.

Driven by their searing hatred for Bush after the 2000 election, the left converted Katrina into a personal vendetta against W., while essentially ignoring the poor performances of Louisiana Governor Blanco and New Orleans Mayor Nagin, both, coincidentally, card-carrying Democrats.

It was even suggested that W. deliberately dragged his feet because so many of the victims in New Orleans were poor, old black folks.

Night after night, it will be recalled, the media showed images of suffering blacks sloshing around muddy, vile waters long after the storm had passed.

The not-so-subtle message conveyed to the American public was, “This is happening because W. hates black people!”

This distortion of the news and the hatred it provoked against a sitting president is a sad commentary on the sorry state of American media, which is supposed to provide objectivity and accuracy.

Nothing even remotely resembling the lynching of W. is taking place in the media coverage of Obama's response to the Gulf oil spill.

One wonders why the media have not seen fit to question the possible impact of race in the president’s action, or inaction to be more precise.

After all, the offending enterprise is British Petroleum, managed by mostly Caucasian males. Would Obama have moved more swiftly and decisively were that were not so?

Moreover, the majority of the oil spill victims are Caucasians whose pristine beaches have been sullied, and white business owners driven into the abyss by gobs of crude muck.

Would the president have acted before fifty days had passed if the victims were poor and old blacks?


Just asking.