I sure can't see how assigning blame to the companies responsible for the damage currently being created after a fair investigation is conducted is a "Liberal approach". Even after such an investigation is completed, responsibility for the explosion and resulting damages absolutely lies with the owner and operator of the rig. It might be determined that it was an unavoidable accident, sabatoge or even an Act of God, but the responsibility for the accident is crystal clear. Someone has to be responsible and I can't see any other party than the two companies mentioned.

I hadn't forgotten the responsibility of the federal government for coastal security, but that responsibility raises another issue. If it is the responsibility of the federal government to "react responsibly and timely to protect the coast and coastal waters of the country" as you say, that means we need to be prepared to do that against any kind of threat. That means threats ranging from a military threat to weather, rising sea levels causing erosion, one such as we are experiencing along the gulf coast right now, and even others that we haven't thought of yet.

To expect the government to be both manned and equipped to deal with any threat to our coastlines is probably an unrealistic expectation. It would certainly be an expectation which would be extraordinarily expensive. The feds might have been slow to react by a day or so to this threat, but even now we don't have either the hardware or the manpower to deal with this kind of problem. We can try to use military hardware such as deep water submersibiles and military planes to drop chemicals in the oil slick, as well as the knowledge we have of the ocean and the ocean floor. But the government doesn't have the hardware on hand to deal with capping off the leaking well, containing or disbursing the floating oil, or dealing with the damage caused when it hits the shoreline. If you listen closely to the various government representatives, we're doing a lot of talking and advising, but we have neither the capability nor the legal authority to completely take over the response to the threat of the oil leak. Does anyone think that the government should be prepared to deal with any and all such threats?

I doubt that anyone would argue that the government should be prepared and equipped to deal with any threat to our coastlines. If we had such an expectation, the associated cost would certainly seem to work against any argument that federal spending should be minimized.

I will predict one way where the federal government will become more involved as the result of this disaster. The federal regulations for "U.S. flagged" oil rigs have substantially fewer requirements for blowout protection and mediation than rigs in virtually every other part of the world, particularly off the coasts of other developed countries. Why are our regulations so less restrictive than those of other countries? Might it be the effect of lobbyists for big oil on our elected and appointed officials? It's been noted that the safety requirements on foreign rigs add substantially to their cost--costs which owners and operators of rigs authorized by the U.S. Department of the Interior don't have. I'm predicting those regulations will be changed to become as restrictive as those in the rest of the world. I trust no one will argue against that sort of increased government involvement.