Looks like the Tea Party darlings can't decide which way to hate Obama:
Now, obviously, Sarah "Drill, baby, drill" Palin accusing Obama of being soft on oil companies is the funnier of the two headlines. However, taken together, this is an amazing contradiction. I think there's a nugget of deep insight into the American political process visible here. Not to gratuitously invoke Orwell, but I do not expect Tea Party members to choose sides in this matter. I think we'll see some Grade A doublethink from the hordes of people who support Paul and Palin with equal fervor. Nevermind that in order for one to be right, the other must, ipso facto, be wrong.
I won't even entertain Palin's remarks, because they are steeped in shameless, naked, fuming hypocrisy. I find Paul's position more interesting, because I think he's between a rock and a hard place on this issue. In order to appear a principled libertarian in the media spotlight, he has to say that regulation is bad, free markets are good, and "accidents just happen." However, claiming that BP should not be forced to pay for this spill leaves him no other option than to shift the cost onto the taxpayer. Right? I mean, does he want to just leave the oil gushing out of the sea floor and choking off life in Gulf of Mexico forever? Obviously, that's not what he wants. But if BP isn't going to pay for it, who will, other than the gub'mint?
It seems to me that a real libertarian would say that BP is solely responsible for cleaning up this mess. If they do bad business, they should go bankrupt. Going soft on them is, in effect, bailing them out.
Anyhow, watch as the Tea Party continues to support people whose talking points flatly contradict each other.