By Ken Tucci, WBZ-TV

 I’m confused as to why President Obama has not been able to stop the Mississippi River from flooding.   If I recall, the Liberal Democrats that dominate the new media blamed President George W. Bush for not being able to stop the flooding of New Orleans.  How about some fair and balanced reporting? Why don’t you folks in the media report on this terrible lack of leadership by the current President?  I bet you don’t have the guts to ask the tough questions. – John, Wilmington

Hmmm.  John believes there’s a double standard.

I don’t recall Pres. Bush being criticized for not being able to stop the flooding of New Orleans, but rather not being able to marshal federal emergency resources to respond to the flooding of New Orleans (and elsewhere).

Be that as it may…do you think the media treats Obama differently than Bush?  In what ways?

Comments (30)
  1. StanleyRamon says:

    Assuming that the author of this question really doesn’t think that anyone can actually “stop” natural disasters from occurring, I’ll go ahead and give the short answer. President Obama arrived in Tuscaloosa, the hardest hit area of the recent tornados two days after the disaster, while Republican President Bush showed up in New Orleans a full five days after the event. It should also be mentioned that Obama was also in the middle of handling the capture of Bin Laden at the time, while Bush was on vacation during Katrina. Another point in defense of our current is that hurricanes are forecast well in advance and President Bush was aware ahead of time that New Orleans would be needing help prior to Katrina hitting whereas tornados afford no such luxury.

  2. John says:


    I’m talking about the Mississippi River flooding not the tornados. Get it together will you…


  3. John says:


    You are showing your Liberal media bias here if you think that the media’s treatment of the current President does not differ from it’s coverage of our last President.

    I believe that Bush was criticized for the failure of the protective levee system around New Orleans. I also believe that the news media had numerous reports from residents of New Orleans that the Bush Administration had actually blown-up portions of the levee system to make sure that the city flooded.

    Also, regarding the New Orleans flood, why did the residents not leave the city if they had so much warning time? Yes, mostly the news media reported on the human catastrophe after the fact but did not seem to focus too much on the individual responsibility of the residents to listen to the warnings and get out of the city before disaster struck.

    1. graywolf says:

      John, the residents did not have warning time. The evacuation orders were not issued in time. Roads leading into the city were not closed early enough. Buses were not supplied to those who did not have cars. None of that had to do with Bush and I do not recall any of it being blamed on Bush. I do recall people saying Bush was discriminating which was revolting. I also recall Bush being criticized for FEMA’s late and unorganized arrival. If idiots said Bush blew up the levi’s, I hardly think you can blame the news media. Are you kidding? Half the news media has Obama a muslim (for whatever reason they seem to think that is an insult) and non-American. Perhaps your conservative bias is showing because I see no difference and certainly plenty dished out about both.

      Of course the fact that Bush tended to open his mouth and insert his proverbial food didn’t help him either.

  4. John says:

    Ken and Stanley,

    With regard to how the government responds to disasters we will have to see how the response goes this time. My guess is that it won’t be all that much different than it was in New Orleans. Hopefully, the Liberal news media will report on the response if it does not go all that well.

    1. StanleyRamon says:

      My point is that natural disasters caused the flooding in both cases, not our Presidents, as the wording of the question alludes. The response time of their respective administrations is a reflection of their leadership. It has nothing to do with liberals versus conservatives and everything to do with the fact that Bush rightly deserves criticism for his slow response to the Katrina disaster.

  5. graywolf says:

    I had to read the question several times because I wasn’t sure if someone was really suggesting Obama stop a flood or Bush stop the water from rising in New Orleans. I can see why StanleyRamon was confused.

    I can say that I distinctly remember after the flooding in Scituate last winter that Brown jumped in front of the camera and told the residents he would not let “this happen” again. Perhaps, the person who submitted the question was thinking of Brown’s self-proclaimed ability to stop the ocean tides???

    In all seriousness, and in my opinion, Bush was unfairly criticized for Katrina. Yes, FEMA was too slow to respond but the magnitude of the disaster was beyond prediction. Roads were closed too late. Evacuations were ordered too late. And really – who moves residents to a facility below sea level inside the red zone of a predicted hurricane strike.

    In addition, it seems to be the republicans who want to keep Katrina alive by constantly referring to “Bush’s Katrina”

  6. lisa says:

    LOVE this!!!!!! you are SO on target!!!!

  7. MattG says:

    Obviously this is another conservative playing the victim card. The media just isn’t fair to us. Blah, blah. To set the record straight, the Bush administration was criticized for a lack of response to Katrina, not for it happening. State and local government was also criticized. And to be “fair and balanced” Katrina was orders of magnitude more destructive than the current floods.

  8. ENUFF says:

    Instead of spending taxpayer money on rebuilding Afghanistan and Iraq, spend it on Mississippi flood control.

    1. Cinque says:

      ENUFF, isn’t it amazing how so many people are concerned with deficits and taxes yet rarely complain about the trillion dollar fiasco in Iraq & Afghanistan? We will have to leave some day and when we do, both countries will descend into the chaos once again and all those lives and all that money will have been for naught. Remember the “Domino Theory” in Vietnam? A million lives lost, no Dominos falling and now we have McDonalds in HoChiMinh City.

  9. John says:

    Yes, Bush was criticized for lack of response to Katrina but he was also “blamed” for the flood itself which was wrong. To deny that is to deny years of biased reporting in the news media.

    To claim that we Conservatives play the “victim card” is insane. Only in Boston….

    To my “Liberal” friends out there; are you government employees?

    To take this a step further, why are U.S. troops still in Iraq, why are U.S. troops still in Afghanistan, why are U.S. troops involved in the bombing of Libya, why is the U.S. Military involved in Pakistan? Seems to me that the Liberals were all against war when Mr. Bush was President but I have not seen any public demonstrations agains U.S. Military actions being undertaken by the current President. Why is the news media not reporting on the hippocracy of the Liberals on this matter? Why is the news media not pestering Cindy Sheehan to find out why she has not camped out in front of Obama’s home in Chicago.

    You Liberals can try to defend the news media that builds you up all you want but, believe it or not, beyond the confines of Boston, Cambridge, Arlington and Somerville, some of us can actually see what is going on.

  10. John says:

    For another example of the media’s bias all you have to do is look at how they treated Mitt Romney whenever he was out of the state and compare that to how they treat Deval Patrick whenever he is out of state. The coverage of the two Governors differs greatly. Mitt Romney was portrayed as an “Absentee Governor” while Deval Patrick is protrayed as a “nice, pleasant, caring” man just out trying to sell his book. Seems to me that we have plenty of problems here in the Commonwealth that the current Governor should be attending to rather than be off on road-trips pitching his book.

  11. graywolf says:

    John it seems you have a serious case of conservative bias. Romney (whom I voted for) was out of the state campaigning for President from the time he took office as Governor of MA. I have yet to see Duval throw his hat in any ring other than being our Governor. Where did you EVER get the impression anyone blamed Bush for the hurricane. That is simply absurd. Why are troops still in Iraq?? Why were they there in the first place? Why are they still in Afghanistan? Perhaps Bin Laden would have been caught long ago if we had not shifted our military focus to Iraq for no reason. I’m not sure you can actually see what’s going on since you only seem to be able to look with only one “eye” open.

  12. John says:


    I recally many news broadcasts regarding New Orleans where residents were interviewed stating that the levee’s were purposely destroyed by the government to flood the city. I guess you forget those stories.

    So, why is Deval Patrick out of the state so much? I really don’t care if he’s running for something else or not. We’ve got plenty of problems for him to deal with. His book tour can wait until his term ends.

    I also remember the U.S. Congress (Democrats included) authorizing use of Military Force in Iraq. Do you recall that or do you only see what you want to see? You are probably in favor of Obama tring to get rid of Khadaffy, right? He is a terriby evil man. Wasn’t Saddam Hussein an evil man as well. Didn’t Saddams son’s torture people, put people through wood-chippers, etc. Didn’t Saddam use chemical weapons agains the Kurds? We did not find any nuclear weapons in Iraq but at the time the fear existed and we already knew of his willingness to use chemical weapons. Why do the Liberals seem to think its a wonderful thing to go after Khadaffy but not Saddam Hussein? Regarding Bin Laden, it is likely that he escaped to Pakistan very early on after our invasion of Afghanistan. Do you not think that George W. Bush wanted him to be caputred or killed on his watch?

    Once again, where is the outrage from all of you Liberals regarding he involvement of the U.S. Military in foreign nations? You never answered that. Obama has been President for about 2 1/2 years now. If he want to end U.S. involvement in these conflicts he can bring the troops home whenever he wants. I suspect, however, that he is realizing that he can reap political gains from U.S. Military actions. Where are the demonstations of “peace-nicks” beating the drums on City Hall Plaza in Boston?

    Wake up…

  13. John says:


    I’ve got a serious case of viewing things in a realistic manner.

    For the record, I voted for Mitt Romney. If he ends-up being the Republican candidate for President I will vote for him again but I really hope that someone else tops the Republican ticket in 2012.

    I also voted for Scott Brown and I will never vote for him again. But, you Liberals should be very happy with our new Junior Senator. I suspect that many of you will even vote for him as he has a tendancy to vote in favor of some of your issues. His wife seems to be adjusting to the Washington party scene very well.

  14. John says:


    I realize that I’m not going to change you viewpoint. Please be assured that you will not change mine either.

    What I’m suggesting is that most of the media in the U.S. has a very left leaning bias. We Conservatives have talk radio and sometimes Fox News. Of course, Fox news, which you Liberals love to bash has its share of Liberals on it such as Juan Williams and Geraldo Rivera.

    All of the other TV networks are solidy Liberal. Look at MSNBC for instance. Sometimes I will watch Rachel Madow just to see how warped the Liberals are. All I ever hear from her is pure hatred of Republican’s, Conservatives and Americans.

  15. MattG says:

    Sorry John, but conservatives have been playing the “media hates us” victim card for years now. Not that I can blame them. It works. It rallies the troops into thinking it’s majority good Americans against liberals and their media friends out to destroy the country. But that doesn’t make it so. Certainly I’ll give you MSNBC as way to the left. But that is the exception and not representative of all the media. And I submit MSNBC is less left than Fox is right. While prime time MSNBC is ultra liberal, daytime MSNBC is much closer to the middle. As opposed to Fox whose anti-Obama anti-Democratic slant is obvious 24/7.

  16. graywolf says:

    John – did you notice I specifically said that Bush did NOT deserve any of the criticism that he received during Katrina except for some with regard to the slowness of the response and even that can be attributed to many factors. I also do not think we should go after Gaddafi (sp?) although notice that McCain and many right wing conservatives have been pushing for it from the start.

    You do not have a serious case of seeing things realistically since you have even misread what I have said and somehow have missed the push from the right to put troops on the ground in Libya. I didn’t miss that congress voted to go to Iraq. Did you miss where Bush LIED in order to give enough evidence to go. Have you ever heard of Colin Powell? That’s rhetorical by the way.

    If you are going by comments made by people under stress during a horrible natural disaster in our country when you mention comments about Bush causing Katrina or if in your wildest imagination actually think anyone would blame a human for causing a hurricane, then there is a lot more evidence that you have anything but a grip on realism.

  17. John says:


    We don’t play the “media hates us” victim card.

    They do hate us.

    MSNBC is far more left-wing than Fox is right-wing. Who does MSNBC have that is a Conservative or even a Moderate?

  18. John says:


    I used to get a kick out of it when Hillary Clinton used to talk of the “vast right-wing conspiracy” and the news media would report on this. Believe me, if there was a “vast right-wing conspiracy” I would have loved to have been a part of it. Her comments were often implied be the media to be something that was really going on.

  19. John says:


    I’m glad you don’t think Bush deserved blame for Katrina. I don’t think Obama deserves blame for the Mississippi River flood. Things happen and they are not political and should not be reported as such.

    I’m glad you didn’t group McCain in with the right-wingers. He’s much more of a Liberal Democrat than he is a Republican of any kind. Sure, some “Conservatives” are for killing Khaddafy. I think we should probably go after him to but partisan politics gets in the way. How can anyone be in favor of killing Khaddafy and not Saddam Hussein?

    Whatever legitimacy you had tried to build up here you lose it when you state that Bush “LIED”. You have not idea or proof that he intentionally lied or misled the American people. At worst, he received bad intelligence largely due to the fact that the nations intelligence capabilities suffered greatly during the Clinton Administration. Like any President, he made decisions based on the best information available to him.

    I do not mean that people blamed Bush for the Hurricane’s existence but they did blame him for the damage it caused (and the aftermath).

    But, keep in mind that when Liberals such as yourself resort to the “Bush lied” argument you really do lose all credibility.

    Did Roosevelt cover-up the truth or “lie” when the U.S. was trying to sink German U-Boat before we were actually at war with Germany? Did Kennedy lie about his intentions of using U.S. troops in Vietnam (not withstanding all of the money that the Kennedy family has spent on public relations over the last 50 years to make you think JFK would never have sent in combat troops? Did LBJ lie about things to get us more deeply involved in Vietnam?

    This type of thing goes both ways and accusing a President of lying because the liberal media thinks it is a good thing to do for its ratings is harmful to the nation.

  20. John says:


    With regards to a current issue: is Obama “LYING” when he says that we are not trying to kill Khaddafy? I mean, be serious, we are bombing his house ever few days here.

  21. John says:


    Did Obama “LIE” when he commented just a few days ago that the border fence with Mexico was “complete”?

    I wonder how many people in the U.S. are killed by illegal immigrants each year. I don’t know the answer but I bet it would be interesting to know. How much money do we as a nation spend to incarcerate some of them in our prisons?

  22. John says:


    How was Clinton’s bombing of the Serbs vital to our national security interests. Of any military operation in my lifetime I would say that one was the one that was of the least importance to our nation. We indicated that we were doing it to help the Moslems in the former Yugoslavia and in the end the Moslems of the world gave us no credit for our efforts.

    All Presidents have to make important decisions on international matters. Some decisons they make are good and some turn out to be not so good. I think the only cut and dry military victories in my lifetime of 48 years is that we did seem to win in Grenada and Kuwait but other than those two; U.S. military operations usually get bogged-down in long-term quagmires.

  23. John says:


    With regard to Iraq, Bush’s big mistake was not so much that we went in but that we went in without a strategy for victory and a strategy to occupy Iraq once we had achieved victory. Unfortunately, our Liberal news media asks the wrong questions during war time. Day two of any U.S. military operation the Liberal Media is asking “what is our exit strategy”. This is all a result of the Vietnam war. Instead of asking “what is our exit strategy” they should be asking “what is our strategy for victory”. When the question of exit strategy comes up the moment we begin an operation that operation is likely to be something less than a complete success. During WWII I don’t think the news media was asking about our exit strategy.

    You don’t get a free pass on the “Liberal” stuff from me; even if we are in Massachusetts. Sorry…

  24. graywolf says:

    John, you are clearly an ultra right. I don’t give any credence to either ultra wing since neither can ever see more than one side of an issue and always thinks there is only one answer. That is exactly the attitude that has torn our country apart and will continue to do so. To repeat so you do not feel I am targeting only you poor, picked on conservatives – the ultra left is equally to blame. Best of luck and thanks for working with those who may have differing opinions to get us back on track.

  25. John says:


    I’m happy to help explain things to people whenever I have the chance.

    Interestingly, you would find me to be an extremely fair person if you knew me. I am always the person who is selected for Jury Duty and among other things I am the Chairman of a committee at a large condo development where I own property and I often have to turn down requests that other owners make. Many of them have told me after the decision is made that they respect the decision I made because I always back-up what I say. All I’m doing here is to point out a bias in the news media that even some of my “ultra-Liberal” family and friends would have a hard time denying. Believe me, I’ve got relatives who are public school teachers so I know about and am used to dealing with the “Liberals”.

    Have a great weekend.

    Perhaps I will be able to post other concerns here in the future to help stimulate the minds of my fellow Americans


  26. jzsmith1965 says:

    the biggest problem with bushes response to katrina was he put fema under homeland security so fema director had to go thru the homeland security head before he could do anything plus people should have been evacuated to higher ground when it was apareent the storm would hit

  27. Joe says:

    Obviously, no president is directly responsible for a natural disaster. Bush was criticized for the response to katrina and rightfully so. However, if anyone with an ounce of objectivity can’t honestly see the difference in the media coverage, portrayal and overall objective reporting between President Bush and President Obama then you are incapable of being objective. If you are so biased that you demand examples of said differences, then liberalism truly is a mental disorder. However, this is just my opinion. A nonpartisan, common sense opinion from a truly objective and independent voter.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s