Hurricanes 'Don't Care' About a President's Approval Rating: Critic Slams WaPost 'Trump Complicit' Op-Ed
- Well, Curtis Houck is themanaging editor of NewsBusters.
He joins us now from work.
Curtis, do you think it's irresponsible
for the editorial boardof the Washington Post
to call the President complicit
with regard to thisextreme weather condition?
- [Curtis Houck] It's stunning.
Well first of all, thehurricane hasn't even
hit land when this editorial was written.
He was still at least, you know,
a day and a half out.
Looking at the forecast,and things change,
hurricanes don't care what aPresident's approval rating is,
and they don't care whostays and who doesn't.
Storm surge doesn't thinkabout whose house they hit
before the surge, and thewater, and the flooding
The hundred mile an hourwinds don't really care
who they're affecting.
So to say that this Presidentis already complicit
in something that hasn't even hit land yet
is just so irresponsible,
and the fact that theymentioned Barack Obama's
environmental legacythat he's going after,
it just shows pettiness on the part
of the news media here,
and it's the Washington Post,
Democracy Dies in Darknessas their slogan goes.
I don't even have words to describe
how ridiculous this is.
And really it's gotten a lot of traction
on NewsBusters because people just simply
cannot believe what they're reading.
That the WashingtonPost would go that far.
- I think you raise a valid point.
The fact that a lot ofPresident's opponents
would criticize his decision to pull out
of the Paris Climate Accord Agreement,
but that was just recently,so to attribute blame
for climate change andthis particular hurricane
might seem a little bit of an overreach.
- Right, okay. So the Paris Climate Accord
is just a piece of paper at this point.
It is a bunch of countries that said,
we will do x, we will do blank,
we promise to in so many years
depending on our part of the Accord,
we will do this much by this time.
And we will fix carbonemissions by this time.
And so I did a little research
looking at hurricanes specificallythat hit the Carolinas.
And going back through, in 1984,
we had a hurricane caused65.5 million dollars
of damage at that time.
Hurricane Hugo, categoryfour storm from 1989,
9.7 billion dollars of damage.
Hurricane Emily, 1993, 35billion dollars of damage.
And moving forward to the present,
Hurricane Isabel, 2003, 5.5billion dollars of damage.
So this is something that happens.
That is part of the weather, you know.
There's a reason that hurricanes
trigger so much fascination among people,
in their minds and why people
tune in to the weather channel,
but to say that thePresident is responsible
for what's going onhere because he withdrew
from a Paris Climate Accord,
and he's loosing restrictions
on natural gas in this countryand parts of the country,
not having to do with the Carolinas,
it's just this level of stupidity.
- The editorial board saidthe President and the GOP
have cemented their legacy when it comes
to climate change.
What are your thoughts on that?
- When you're going this far,
to kind of connect the President
to a hurricane and storm surge,
that Presidents almost wantthese hurricanes to prosper
or something like that,
that's what they're lookingat the President's word
describing this hurricaneas it's coming close to land
and they're saying, oh heseems almost excited about it,
as Jen Psaki formally withthe Obama admistration
said on CNN a few days ago.
So it's this pattern, andit's just kind of building
avalanche of rhetoric coming out
of the news media that thisPresident is responsible,
that he's almost excited about this,
a hurricane that is likely to, God forbid,
but most hurricanes do leave a death toll
in their wake of some sort.
To automatically assign blame here
just shows how blind,
it's not really aboutinforming the public then,
it's not about keeping people safe,
it's about forwarding an agenda
that can lessen thisPresident's credibility,
and eventually cause his partyto lose seats in Congress,
or to remove him from office.
So again, this rhetoricis just so dangerous,
it's so irresponsible, andto use the word complicit,
everybody knows what that word means,
it means that you'reresponsible for something
and that you played a part in it.
And people know that.
And it's just, again,I just run out of words
to describe how absurd this is.
- Well, Curtis Houck, of NewsBusters,
thank you for joining us today.
- No problem, anytime.