Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT) took his fellow partisan Barbara Boxer (D-DailyKos) to task for grandstanding on the oil spill, rushing to pass legislation that would “send a Big Oil-bashing message“:
But I do have some concern about a total removal, a total unlimited liability. I mean, there was a reason for Price Anderson [nuclear industry liability limits]. I don’t know if those policy reasons are still applicable today or not, but there was a reason, and it was passed. I’m going to vote against this amendment, but I just hope that in the future we know what the heck it is we’re doing. This amendment may have the effect of driving out some smaller companies, I don’t know. It may have the effect of allowing foreign outfits come in, I don’t know.
Emphasis added. (Read the whole thing.)
In her rush to pass a bill, any bill, to show that she is doing something, anything to punish BP, Mrs. Boxer has not really considered the consequences of the legislation she has crafted. Given the impact of the recession on small companies (which Mrs. Boxer could see if she spent any time in the state she officially represents in the Senate), she would know just how severe that impact has been.
In her zeal to look like a knight in shining armor astride a white horse, Mrs. Boxer is once again paying little heed to smaller enterprises, you know, those her beloved president says creates two-thirds of the new jobs.
Ever eager to do the Obama Administration’s bidding, Boxer has earned the ire not just of her colleague from the Treasure State, but is also operating at cross purposes with her own state’s senior Senator, a Bay Area Democrat like herself. Dianne Feinstein believes we must first fix the leak.
While some Democratic Senators are trying to do their jobs, Mrs. Boxer just can’t let go out of her partisan ideology. Ma’am, that’s not a good way to respond to a crisis.