Obama: He’s Better than Teflon — He’s a Democrat
If you’re one of the twenty relevant liberals on Twitter who believe that the difference between Katrina’s handling by Bush differs from the Tennessee flood and BP spill handling by Obama because “more people died,” you’re crazy and this article is not for you.
If you’re anyone else, you know that something stinks about the disaster coverage and about President Obama’s reaction to the disasters.
Howard Kurtz actually believes that the oil spill has been covered extensively. No it hasn’t.
I’m from Houston and I covered Hurricane Ike, so I know what it’s like to have a disaster the press doesn’t care about. The damage was horrific. Galveston Island was nearly wiped out. An estimated 400 or more people died and 300 are still unaccounted for. Gone.
National media? Crickets.
President Bush was in office. It was his home state. Some in the lefty blogosphere even stated that the people of Texas got what they deserved.
Never mind that Galveston had a Democrat for a mayor; never mind that the area, like many beach towns, is liberal. It was Texas and the people there deserved what they got for voting Republican.
Did the press blame President Bush for his lack of response? No. The leadership in the state of Texas, and in Houston locally, was seamless. The people here had lots of experience, as the city of Houston took on tens of thousands of Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Rita folks.
There was still unimaginable suffering. People are still rebuilding. In fact, only over the last few weeks, roofers have come along giving estimates, because time limits are nearly up to get insurance reimbursement for damage. Our family had seven trees removed a year later because they died as a result of the storm. We had six fall right away.
It takes a very long time to recover from such devastation.
As in Houston in 2008 and Nashville in 2010, there is real bias in the national media against “hick” towns. New Orleans has panache. Yes, it’s a liberal bastion of crime, squalor, and destitution, but all that evil happens on an artsy-fartsy and smug exterior.
Libs love the town, and they loved that a Democrat mayor and Democrat governor blamed a Republican president. The liberal press gorged themselves on the smorgasbord of self-indulgent moralizing while American citizens in the middle of the country — whom they so despise — actually did the job of taking care of the displaced and grieving.
Howard Kurtz concluded:
In Nashville, though, a storied American city suffered a devastating blow and many lives were lost. It’s too bad the news business seems able to juggle only one or two crises at a time.
Baloney. They just didn’t care. It didn’t effect anyone they know.
I jokingly put up a post asking: “Why does President Obama and the media hate white people?” This headline was a play on Kanye West’s outrageous claim that “George Bush hates black people.”
“I jokingly put up a post asking: “Why does President Obama and the media hate white people?”
The leftist community implicitly does “hate” white people. They are allegedly the cause of all evil in the world. White skinned humans relentlessly victimize dark skinned people. The latter are owed big time and deserve reparations of one sort or another. Obama’s existential troubles with whites were patently obvious in the two books released in his name. He also threw his own kind and loving grandmother under the proverbial bus. Strangely enough, it is fair to describe today’s Democratic Party as anti-white. Those white elites who are in leadership roles are often easily guilt tripped over racial matters.
It is interesting how history repeats itself in odd ways. Now it is perfectly acceptable for a (half) black person to make an ugly racial stereotype against all white people, and the liberal white who worship Obama despite his insults are little more than modern day Uncle Toms.
“The leftist community implicitly does “hate” white people. They are allegedly the cause of all evil in the world. ”
Especially us white Zionist Jooos.
Just because you preface the article by denying that the difference in coverage between Katrina and the Deepwater Horizon spill is due to the body count doesn’t make it true. Katrina was a bigger story because 1800 people died and at least some of them wouldn’t have if government (not necessarily federal) evacuation efforts hadn’t been such a cluster****.
Why does government enter into it at all. Yes the local government has responsibilities in a disaster but what happened to personal responsibility. Far too many of these people waited around for the “government” to do something instead of heeding the warnings that a direct hit was highly probable. I live near a dormant volcano. If it started acting up you had better believe I would leave long before an evacuation notice was given by the government.
Many of the people killed in Katrina didn’t have cars or any money to sustain themselves during an extended evacuation. Some of them were nursing home patients you’ll recall. They made a bad decision and stayed put, but I and most other Americans don’t think that they deserved to die for that bad decision. Personal responsibility is great but so is compassion for those who don’t have your resources. If you ignored the warnings about the volcano, most of us wouldn’t begrudge you the tax money we spent to save your life. It’s also worth pointing out that, unless you’re an amateur geologist, you might miss the warning signs if there wasn’t a government agency tasked with monitoring seismic and volcanic activity.
Since you specify “not necessarily Federal [government],” let’s look at the other government leaders during Katrina.
Governor of Louisiana? Kathleen Blanco. Democrat.
Mayor of New Orleans? Ray Nagin. Democrat.
Given that these people were much closer to the disaster and therefore to the place of greatest need than the President, let’s see you criticize their reactions and what they did, Paul.
Or, you can prove the author’s point… that the magic label “Democrat” is better than Teflon for having blame slip off a politician.
First of all I think you missed my point which was that the devastation of hurricane Katrina was so enormous that any comparisons between it and the oil spill is ludicrous to anyone who isn’t a contributor to PJM. 9/11 got more news coverage than the Oklahoma City bombings of 1995 for the same reason.
“Governor of Louisiana? Kathleen Blanco. Democrat.”
Well Blanco lost her job to a Republican, Bobby Jindal, at the first election following the hurricane. So, that sounds pretty fair.
“Mayor of New Orleans? Ray Nagin. Democrat.”
I don’t have a good explanation for how Ray “Chocolate City” Nagin got reelected. New Orleans is pretty messed up.
While these two were closer to the disaster, it doesn’t absolve George Bush of any responsibility. The federal response was poorly organized and mismanaged by Michael Brown, a man appointed by Bush, whose prior qualifications for running FEMA were absolutely nonexistent. Bush also screwed up politically by not cutting his vacation short until after New Orleans was devastated. Obama hasn’t made any of these mistakes and it appears that his response to the oil spill, which I will again point out is far less serious, has been pretty good.
Paul:
It took Obama eight days to start speaking about the oil spill.
EIGHT DAYS.
And lefties like to bash Bush for waiting a few minutes during 9/11.
As for Katrina, Bush was actually in action two days BEFORE it made landfall. Here, see for yourself. Note the date on that statement. Katrina made landfall in Louisiana on 29 August.
You’re entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts.
While I enjoyed reading this commentary, it states the obvious that has been stated for over 20 years now: The MSM has long given up its objectivity; it is part and parcel part of the Demoncrat party; it is biased in its reporting; and it has used its power to wrongly inform the American public about matters that have monumemtal consequences.
So what do we do about it? That is where we should be focusing out attention. I suggest that if we ever get majorities in both houses and the presidency, we need to have what Cass Sustein suggested to the ONE, “Dept. of Informatin.” With teeth so that if the MSM lies we can hold them accountable and there will be consequences. Barring that we need to develop, much like the progressives do very well, campaigns to influence advertisers of the MSM-hit the progressives where it hurts kind of thing. ABC/NBC/CBS/NYT cannot exist without money.
It isn’t simply that Obama ‘is a Democrat’. It’s his skin color. Yes. Obama has used race as a political manipulative strategy all his life. His ‘ascent’ to the presidency was hardly based on his merit and achievements as a legislator, lawyer or economist, for he has no genuine or even minimal knowledge or experience in any of these fields.
He’s slipped through life by his three tactics of control, which are: misinformation (aka lying); emotional manipulation of fear and hope; and, if you question him – accusations of bias/racism.
Obama maintains race as a key strategy. Criticize him, and you are exposing your racism. BUT, notice his policies – they too are based on race and in this case, it is not YOUR racism but HIS racism.
He’s rejected the reality of Islamic fascist terrorism. He refuses to define these attacks as embedded in one ethnic and ideological population. Instead, he redefines these attacks as ‘man-caused disasters’..and the implication is that it is the American’s imperialist nature that is the root cause of these ‘disastrous intentions’.
He’s constantly apologizing to all non-whites for the America-Before-Obama. That’s Obama’s racism, which is anti-American and anti-white.
Then, how about his refusal to help Arizona secure its borders? It’s HIS JOB to do so – and he refuses. Instead, he informs us that it’s ‘racist’ to confront and arrest illegal immigrants. Racist. Notice that he focuses on their ‘skin color’…and utterly ignores that this is irrelevant. What matters is that they are illegal!
It’s Obama who is the racist. As I said, he’s slithered through his life by embedding himself within racism, daring people to criticize him for his real faults and, if they do…he’ll accuse them of ‘racism’. Notice how he can no longer deal with questions from the Press. That’s over; now, he pontificates and tells you what to do and think. You, the people, have no power in Obama’s world.
Obama, as a pathological narcissist, has only one agenda and it has increased exponentially as his political power increases: Control over other people. His contempt for ordinary people, for Americans, for whites, is increasing. His need to control others is increasing.
Embed this type of person in with a backroom gang who want to insert statism into the US…and deflect any rejection and criticism, as ‘racist’..and you’ve got quite a battle for the soul and essence of America.
Thanks. It never dawned on me that Obama was not just apologizing for America but for “Whites.” It makes perfect sense.
The MSM in this country is epic fail. The trouble is that it’s deliberately epic fail. Once Obama announced his candidacy, they jettisoned any pretense of objectivity and impartiality. The good thing is that people are waking up to it and are turning away from them in droves (note the abysmal ratings of MSNBC, Newsweek up on the block, and the “Gray Lady” in financial straits). It couldn’t happen to better organizations.
Ms. Clouthier,
I would like to disagree with the main premise of your article. Yes the overwhelming majority of the U.S. media is biased. Anyone who gets their information from legitimate news organizations (Washington Times, WSJ, and PBS) and also watches Fox “News” and MSNBC would know this. However, I do not think that the media bias is responsible for the difference in coverage between Hurricane Katrina and the Tennessee floods or the BP oil spill; I think it’s party ideology.
For at least the past 100 years libertarianism (in all it’s many forms) has been part of Republican orthodoxy. Republicans have stated time and time again that not only should government not be part of any solutions but that government is actually the problem. So when disaster strikes, the victims should not expect any help from their government. That’s what happened in New Orleans. It’s not that Bush was evil, or cruel, or hateful; it’s that he believed that it was not the responsibility of government to help.
In stark contrast President Obama responded immediately to the BP oil spill and the flooding in Tennessee. As a Houston native I’ve personally experienced massive disasters. And when those disasters strike, I don’t care if the President or Governor visit Reliant stadium. What I do care about, is if the Coast Guard, FEMA, and the National Guard are sent to help.
If you’re a student of history, you would know that expecting government to be the only part of solving problems almost never works. But if you want to solve problems all by yourself then the end result will very often result in New Orleans after Katrina. Illustrating that difference (which Republicans advocate) is not bias; it’s simply reporting the difference between Democrats and Republicans.
Hopefully that contrast and the failures on both sides will encourage voters to support Independents.
Are you serious? Bush was unable to respond immediately to Katrina because it was legally under state and municipal jurisdiction, both of which were Democrat, and both refused federal assistance!
So, your thesis, that IF a Democrat is in power, THEN, help will be offered is invalid, for the mayor and the governor, both Democrats, did NOTHING to assist the people.
As for Obama and the oil-spill, kindly explain what he has done to deal with it? Hmmm? He’s huffed and puffed how outraged he is, but, what specifically has he done in action rather than his usual rhetoric? He’s set up a discussion panel! More talk.
ETAB,
If Bush was unable to respond because of jurisdictional restrictions, then why did the Coast Guard begin responding immediately? The issued wasn’t that Bush couldn’t respond; the issued is that as a Republican he doesn’t think that it’s the government’s job to respond. He was simply not paying attention because I believe he thought that he wasn’t supposed to. Case in point, do you remember the now famous interview with Ted Koppel (an ABC reporter) and Mike Brown (the former director of FEMA)? In that interview, Koppel asked Brown why the federal government hasn’t responded to NO being under water for the past four days and Brown responded that there has been no confirmation that NO is flooded. Koppel then pointed out that his network and all others (except for maybe FOX) had been reporting such for four days. Koppel then asked Brown “don’t you people watch the news”?
My thesis is actually not what you think it is. What I stated is that Republicans state that government should not be part of the solution and that government is in fact the problem. That mentality was demonstrated by the Bush response to Katrina.
Your recollection of the local and state government’s response to Katrina is also incorrect. I recall seeing thousands of local and state responders in boats, helicopters, and trucks attempting to evacuate NO.
A disaster that massive could only be dealt with by the federal government. Ask yourself, if a nuclear bomb were to detonate inside an American city, would you then say “that problem is the responsibility of local governments and individual citizens; people should be responsible for there own protection in the case of nuclear terrorism”?
On President Obama’s response to the oil spill, was it not the case that the Coast Guard and NOAA responded immediately? The oil workers that weren’t killed in the explosion were rescued within hours and the resources of those agencies and many others began containment operations after the fire was extinguished. Other than outlawing offshore drilling, what else would you have the federal government do?
You simply are incorrect. President Bush was constitutionally constrained from pushing the governor of Louisiana and mayor of New Orleans to the side. He was not a dictator! I am also convinced that the leftist community would have condemned him had he done so. Bush was damned no matter what option he chose.
David Thomson,
I disagree. The constitution does not outlaw the Coast Guard, FEMA, or other emergency agencies. If that were so, why was the Coast Guard allowed to respond?
And avoiding criticism is not an excuse to abdicate responsibility.
Conservative Liberal/
The answer to the question you put to David is the simple fact that the Nat. Guard is under control of the State, and may be “Federalized’ only with the Governors assent. By contrast the Coast Guard and FEMA are purely creatures of the Federal Government and need no sign-off by a State Governor to spring into action.
Additionally, from a political PR standpoint Bush was loath to be seen attempting to run roughshod over a female Governor of the opposite party. And from Gov. Blanco’s standpoint, she was equally loath to relinquish the local policing and arrest powers the Guard had while under State control if it became federalized. When federalized, as technically part of the US Army, the Guard loses these powers under the Posse Comitatus Act. Both sides had valid concerns in this matter. Whether the National Guard should be federalized in such situations is not a simple, clear-cut matter, as there are operational pluses and minuses both ways.
Check your facts CL, the Bush Administration response to Katrina was as near text-book as you can get in the real world. FEMA’s expected response time from request for assistance to boots on the ground is 72 hours. FEMA may not even begin to mobilize until local authorities have requested their presence. The reason for this response time is FEMA has relatively few full-time employees and must mobilize them once the request for assistance comes in.
The Coast Guard is a completely different animal. The CG has authority over all US waters and are trained first responders which FEMA manifestly is NOT. The Guard didn’t need a local request for assistance to respond because they already had all the authority they needed.
Moreover, FEMA’s job once they are on the ground is not to take over and fix things but to coordinate the activities of the various federal, state, local and private organizations assisting in recovery.
Stop drinking the Koolaide and do a little basic due diligence. A good place to start would be here: http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/environment/2315076
I disagree with both your definition of the Republican view of government, and Bush and Obama’s role in these two events.
First, it is quite incorrect to claim, as you do, that a Republican federal government rejects governance! I hope you realize how illogical your claim is; you are effectively saying that a Republican win in an election would set up a government that refused to govern!
Second, it happens to be a fact that state and local governance in local affairs have precedence over federal ‘intrusion’ and both the state governor and the local mayor, who were both Democrats, refused to allow the federal govt assistance. The coast guard deals with the coast – and not the internal state domain.
Third, your recollection of local and state attempts to evacuate ignore their flaws in these actions – and the calls for federal help from citizens – which calls could not be answered until the state governor PERMITTED the federal govt to come in.
Oh, and fourth, you still haven’t told us what Obama did about the oil spill! Apart from his usual response to anything, which is either silence or, in this case, empty emotive words…what exactly did he do? Hmmm? Obama’s not in charge of the coast guard, etc, so, you claim that Obama responded immediately. What did HE do? Other than talk.
virgil Xenophon,
Point taken. Your argument is however partially flawed. At the time there were three main instances when the National Guard may be called into federal service without the consent of that state’s governor. However, I should have specified that the active military should have been used immediately for the emergency response efforts. They eventually were.
My point still stands: Bush failed to act with all the resources that were at the federal government’s disposal.
As I stated in a pervious post, the political ramifications of Bush’s actions or inactions should not have taken precedent over saving lives. And with the National Defense Authorization Act of 2008: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:hr4986:
the ability to “federalized” the National Guard is very simple.
ETAB,
You’re not disagreeing with my view of Republican governance; you’re disagreeing with the Republican view of governance. Time and again, it has been the position of the Republican Party that government should not be apart of solving problems and that government is the problem.
In answer to your ‘question’, yes I do understand how illogical that position is. Which is why I reject it.
Your counter-argument against jurisdiction is flawed. If the Coast Guard was able to assist, all federal agencies (like the active Army) should have been sent in. Additionally, you seem to be unaware of the charter of the Coast Guard. Its jurisdiction includes all water ways that have access to the ocean, an international boundary, and bodies of water that include at least two states.
My comment about the response of the local and state officials was not to state if there were any flaws in those responses. It was to demonstrate that your comment “the mayor and the governor, both Democrats, did NOTHING to assist the people” was incorrect. The calls for federal help could have been answered without local approval; as was the case with the Coast Guard. Additionally, I don’t recall the Mayor ever refusing federal assistance.
My response to you did in fact detail how President Obama responded to the BP oil spill. The Coast Guard, NOAA, and many other agencies were tasked with containing the oil spill immediately after it was discovered. Other than outlawing offshore drilling what else do you think he should have done?
Finally, as command-in-chief of the U.S. military, President Obama is in charge of the Coast Guard.
Hey – I’m a student of history so I’ll respond. You have unconsciously identified the whole problem with the libertarian position. Simply put, libertarians believe in magic. They believe that it is somehow possible to create a massive governmental system that will only “spring into action” if certain preconditions are met. Yet this is preposterous. Politicians will always promise voters “more” and they will authorize said massive government to do “more” even when supposedly rigid preconditions don’t exist. Agencies like FEMA, Homeland Security, the Department of Agriculture and you-name-it don’t just sit there lurking in the Batcave waiting for Commissioner Gordon to put up the Bat-signal. They justify their existence and budgets through “mission creep” authorized by Congress. And that requires that they “be active” even when emergencies do not exist. Such activity costs money.
C. Northote Parkinson wryly observed….”In politics people give you what they think you deserve and deny you what they think you want.” Todays political class (which sadly includes many Republicans) believe that the people “deserve more” of whatever happens to be on offer. In the case of disaster relief the government position has evolved from simply providing emergency food, shelter and medical care (as in, for example, the Army’s resoponse to the 1906 San Francisco earthquake) to taking on the entire responsiblity for “rebuilding” a community following a disaster. All of the agencies, bureaus and departments necessary for such a rebuilding remain with us always and are constantly exapanding their reach whether a disaster threatens or not. Put another way, once the genie is out of the bottle you can’t put him back in. That might seem harsh but with our entire economy threatening to be sucked into the black hole of government debt it is something that has to be recognized and dealt with.
“They believe that it is somehow possible to create a massive governmental system that will only “spring into action” if certain preconditions are met.”
You clearly don’t have any clue about libertarianism if you think creating “massive governmental” anythings is something a libertarian would support.
Next time, rather than make yourself look like an ass, maybe you could consider just lifting your fingers off the keys instead?
At the risk of keeping too heavy a finger on the keyboard I was trying to call attention to the fact that the creation of ANY government system leads to an inexorable expansion of functions and “services” to continue justifying the budget for that particular agency. I respect libertarians but they always want it both ways. They want “small” federal government when it suits them but also want it to perform nearly all of the functions once considered the responsibilty of either the individual or local communities. I might be an ass but I am confident that anyone who has seriously studied the working of governmental bodies recognizes that government agencies are “organic” rather than “stuctural.” They ALWAYS tend to grow.
It doesn’t matter if you don’t “intend” to create a massive government agency – particularly one intended to deal with catastophic circumstances. Once it is in place it will simply become larger and increase it’s scope. Homeland Security is a good example. That department was specifically created to deal with external terrorist-based security threats. Now, not even eight years later, “Homeland Security” encompasses natural disasters, “internal” threats (militias, the KKK and those groups on Morris Dees’ watch list) and man-made catastrophes. It is not enough to “get government off our backs.” There has to be a constant roll-back against the inevitable mission creep that besets any government body. So far I personally haven’t met any libertarians who are prepared to go that far.
They want “small” federal government when it suits them but also want it to perform nearly all of the functions once considered the responsibilty of either the individual or local communities.
—
Where did you get the utterly insane notion that libertarians want govt to perform any functions that were once left to individuals and local communities.
Republicans/conservatives need to be in charge of more media outlets…control of the media is key.
FOX..is the “lone wolf” of media news stations..we need more.
What is there to cover? Nobody expects the Democrats to be competent. Obama wasn’t elected because anyone thought he actually knew how to run things. And I don’t think he hates white people (although Michelle probably does). Obama is too much in love with himself to have any energy left over for hating anybody else.
David Thompson hits dead center on the cultural tgt. The only thing missing from the leftist oeuvre is a life-time subscription for the magazine “Race Traitor” by the DNC.
As does ETAB. Taken together these two posts pretty much cover the proverbial waterfront as explanatory power short of text-books on pathological narcissism and sociopaths.
I’ve noticed this for years. Pick any Democrat controlled area of the country. Detroit is an example. No matter what the crime, unemployment, murder, tax (pick any quality of life) statistics are, it’s still presumed a better, more enlightened place to live than any “fly over” area of the country. Fly over areas are presumed run by Republicans and hence populated by hicks that don’t know any better anyway.
By whom is Detroit presumed to be a better place to live than anywhere in flyover country? Seriously, find me one person who isn’t the mayor of Detroit who thinks it’s a good place to live. BTW the term “flyover country” generally includes the Midwest, where Detroit is located.
A good piece from the AP about the Obama administration’s response to the Deepwater Horizon explosion, and the resulting (and ongoing) environmental disaster. Just to educate some of you out there. Be well.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iGw5j_drnBauWXcnC9-obnID4GNAD9FILHSG0
Ummm….for one, Katrina was a complete clusterf*ck in terms of what the feds were suppose to do, and when they finally got around to doing it, with Bush and his lying clown posse out to lunch for the critical early stages. As far as the Nashville flooding goes, in case you haven’t been paying attention, there have been odd massive storms and flooding all over the place the past couple of months, and the feds have been doing what they’ve been suppose to be doing.
In other words: the article is no more than the same old, same old idiotic and malicious Obama bashing that we’ve come to expect ad infinitum from right wingers.
What is your background in Emergency Management of Disaster Preparedness that you think the FED’s screwed up on Katrina?
If it’s both so predictable and so terrible that we’d criticize His Exalted Obamaness, BC, why do you keep coming back here?
Could be mental instability… you know, doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result is one symptom of insanity.
And please, don’t try to charge me with the above. I don’t expect you to be anything except an Obamatron.
To ConservativeWanderer: What can I say — I just like seeing right wingers get all foamy mouth when I refute their utterly unsupported, malicious rubbish with facts backed up with comprehensive links and hard-to-twist logic. I guess my problem is that when I hear someone make accusations that I happen to know is malicious gossip at best, I don’t keep quiet about it.
To chemman: What part of this link didn’t you understand? There was a plan in place in advance of Katrina, and the feds had a big part in it, and not only did they fail miserably, but that Bush, Chertoff and the rest of the gang that couldn’t shoot straight had no clue about what was going on.
I forgot to bring up the oil spill issue in my original post: it was decided long before Obama took office that fixing those types of deep water drilling mishaps was best left for the oil companies who supposedly — at least in theory — would have the best expertise as well as the very expensive and highly specialized equipment to handle stuff like that. This wasn’t exactly a situation where you all had to do was order in troops and supplies for evacuation and rescue in a timely manner.
That you believe lies constitute proof of anything just proves that you are a liberal.
You haven’t proven anything. Just spouted the same old, long disproven talking points that liberals have been dragging out forever.
How about the aftermath of the ‘racist’ floods in Iowa a few years ago which make the Nashville thing look like nothing. No racism, looting and whining so I guess no story.
Despite the racist nonsense about New Orleans, check out this link: http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/01/18/opinion/edyoung.php It’s the International Herald Tribune.
The article reports that, even though approximately 61% of the city was black and 36% white at the time of Katrina, only 51% of the dead were black as opposed to 41% of the dead being white.
You won’t see that in the American media nor Spike Lee apologize for his incredibly racist HBO documentary about Katrina where he has a women stating that whites blew up the levee while later footage on National Geographic showed the actual moment on video. And can you believe blacks from New Orleans sat in front of congress and stated that the Federal effort was racist, even while television coverage was showing non-stop white helicopter pilots pulling blacks from roofs? InUnbelievable. Apologies coming? Don’t balance plates on your head waiting for one. Kanye West and Lee are revealed for the racist, profiling idiots they are.
Dont forget doc, its all about perception. As we know, Bush inherited a country that was doing great, no real problems, virtually no unemployment, great prospects and budget surplus’s. The Republicans took over in 2000 and of course, the country went downhill in a hurry, wars, economic collapse..etc etc…. And that is what Obama inherited, so folks(the center left anyway) are more understanding. That is what most people think, though, those in the know…know that is just simply not the case. The facts show that the Clinton years had their own share of problems and that the economy actually grew for a few of the 8 years of the Bush presidency. …however, its all about the perception and in politics, perception can mean a whole lot. Good article, thanks.
Gee, Mr. Citizen, do ya think that maybe 9/11, the murder of 3,000 of our citizens, the paralysis of our air traffic for a day or two, the disruption of the financial markets because companies had lost key personnel, do ya think all that might have had a little bit of an effect on the economy?
Not to mention the cost of fighting two wars at the same time?
By the way, if you look at this chart you’ll note that GDP rose every year from 2000-2009, when it began to decline.
Gee, what happened in 2009? Who was in charge of Congress and the Presidency in 2009?
Try subtracting government expenditures and you’ll see that GDP started decreasing in 2007. This shouldn’t be surprising since the recession started in the fourth quarter of 2007 and continued until the first quarter of 2009. Gosh, who was in charge of Congress and the Presidency in the first quarter of 2009?
And who took control of Congress in 2006?
Thanks for strengthening my point.
Poor Citizen, as you well know, perception is not reality.
When Bush took office, the country had already fallen into a moderate recession. Then 9/11 happened.
When you decide to deal in reality rather than perception, give me a call.
Watch how the media goes after that hapless Governor Brewer of Arizona now. Since it would require to much effort to find any personal foibles to slay her with, they will turn to the same methods they used on Sarah Palin. Gotcha questions from so-called journalists and fun making of her mannerisms by so-called comedy groups is coming soon. Media is always so biased that even the various story lines don’t make sense. We are expected to believe, simultaneously, that Republicans are both moronic clowns and diabolical evil doers. Did you ever fear the sinister plots of a moron?
Obama and all of his handlers are communists, plain and simple. Media love communists because all power becomes centralized and so-called journalists need only look in one place for a big story. They want a story that is completely provided to them with all the good guys and bad guys already well known. How easy for the lazy f— media! God help us.
How about Obama’s comment regarding the Bill named after journalist Daniel Pearl?
‘..and obviously the loss of Daniel Pearl was one of those moments that captured the world’s imagination..’.
‘The loss’ and ‘captured the world’s imagination’?
What an egregious, emotionless remark. And in front of Mrs. pearl and her child to boot. Unbelievable..
‘The loss’, as if the hideous act were an accident. ‘..captured..’ is a comment reserved for accomplishment, not sorrow.
This guy NEEDS to lay off the teleprompter. And the cigs. I’d rather hear the ‘uhms’ and ‘ahhs’ accompanied with some sort of decorum than this robotic response..
Dear 15. Poor Citizen:
Indeed, young grasshopper.
If Clinton ‘inherited’ a ‘good’ economy from the works of the ‘RIGHT’, all of the kudos goes to the ‘LEFT’ and more importantly, Clinton’s welfare reform did incredible good for the negroid people of this Country.
Alas and Ahoy, matey! When a bad economy is inherited from the Left powers-that-be, the panty-waist, lost-in-a-worm-hole minded Leftists cry foul and blame the RIGHT.
Tell me, ‘poor’ cit-zit, what caused the ‘housing bubble’? What caused that to ultimately ‘collapse’?
Redistribution of wealth anyone? Anyone?
The sqeaky wheel gets the ‘GREECE’?
Socialism: FAIL.
“these two posts pretty much cover the proverbial waterfront as explanatory power”
Truly, just brilliant writing.
For the umpteenth time:
Lies and double-standards are the essence of progressivism, not just some occasional aberration progressives would recant if it were only patiently explained to them during rational discourse. The guiding principle of the progressive secular religion is equality of results in all things, both economically and culturally. Progressives must drag down anything that they deem “unfairly” successful, and elevate that which they view as “oppressed”. Equality of results can only be pursued by treating people, cultures, religions, and societies unequally.
Now do you really find it strange that this administration is coddled by the corrupt Old Left Media?
Hail Obama, the lizard king (Peace Be Upon Him) !!!
Actually, Conservative Liberal, I do indeed continue to disagree with you. I disagree with your view of Republican governance; there is no way that a political party can have a view that nullifies its existence. What’s the point of a political party if it has a view that rejects its being the government?
You state that Republicans reject the notion of ‘governance’. I disagree; they support ‘limited governance’ not ‘no government’.
Second, the calls for on-site land assistance by the federal govt in Katrina could not have been met without the prior approval of both the state and the municipal authorities. Ever heard of Amendment 10?
As for Obama’s actions on the oil spill – I repeat, what actions? The coast guard is there everyday and doesn’t need any executive order to show up. Obama did nothing for 12 days. That’s quite the rapid response, isn’t it? What has he done to stop it? To insist on accurate data and measure the amounts? To stop the spread? Why has he allowed BP to control all data and actions? Obama has done nothing.
ETAB,
You’ve actually now come to the inherent flaw in Republican governing philosophy. Why should voters support a party that does not intend to make government work better but instead wants limit its effectiveness? If you believe in libertarianism, ok. But then if you get what you vote for, it’s very disingenuous to then complain about the lack of government intervention when needed. As I’ve stated before the GOP has for the past several decades stated that government should not be part of the solution and is in fact the problem. That’s not my view; it’s the view of the GOP. I appreciate how that position is very uncomfortable when events like the response to Katrina are discussed but as Democrats are so fond of saying ‘elections have consequences’. The people of NO didn’t die because of malice but because of a flawed governing philosophy.
Once again, I haven’t stated that Republicans reject governance; what I have stated is that the GOP has stated that government should not be part of the solution and is in fact the problem.
Concerning the calls for assistance to the federal government, the National Defense Act of 1947 allows for the use of the military in emergencies situations. Granted, the authorization for that being allowed is very vague but in an emergency flexibility is a necessity. The problems with that vagueness were resolved later with the Defense Authorization Acts of 07 and 08. But to continue on with your line of reasoning; if a nuclear bomb had been detonated in NO, should the federal government not have respond to the needs of its citizens because the local leadership was dead? After Katrina, the city government was almost completely incapacitated.
On your reference to the 10th Amendment, I think most citizens would agree with the position that the 10th Amendment was intended to protect the rights of the people that were not expressly indentified in the Constitution; not provide for an excuse for bad governance.
Concerning the BP oil spill I’ve repeated informed you that the Coast Guard and NOAA began containment operations immediately after the leak became apparent. Contrary to what you stated the Coast Guard is not “there everyday”. In case you are unaware, the Coast Guard is responsible for protecting tens of thousands of miles of coastline, and hundreds of thousands of square miles of water. They are expected to perform that task even though the Coast Guard is only about the size of NYPD. The problem I think you’re having is that you don’t seem to have accurate information concerning this event. The Coast Guard was on scene within hours of the explosion. Not twelve days. NOAA and the EPA were on scene of the oil leak within hours of the fire being extinguished, not twelve days. The containment operations began immediately after search and rescue efforts were halted, not twelve days. I asked you in a previous post what you would have liked the President to have done (other that banning offshore drilling). You choose not to respond.
Finally, I’d like to offer a suggestion to you. If you are interested in informed debate about issues, you need to have accurate information about those issues. I don’t say that to be smug but there have been several statements in your previous posts, which were completely false. I’m always in interested in listening to the opinions of the right and the left but I think any dialogue must be based on accurate information.
Thank You
Conservative Liberal – you have a Teflon way with words; you slither out of their meaning, change meanings, and avoid responsibility for your comments.
To assert, as you do, that Republicans reject ‘government as the solution’ is semantically the same as claiming that they reject governance.
To claim, as I do, that the Republican agenda is for ‘limited government’ does not mean, as you assert, that this ‘limits effectiveness’.
Who is complaining about the ‘lack of government intervention’? I’m not; you are. Kindly get your facts straight.
Speaking of facts, the city governance was not officially or unofficially incapacitated. The mayor, Nagin, was very busy, informing the world of hundreds of thousands dead (untrue), of non-existent rapes and murders, and ignoring parked city buses that could have been used in transport, refusing a special Amtrak train to evacuate. Equally, the governor of the state, Blanco, was refusing federal help. Your analogy of a nuclear strike is false; again, you are slithering out of factual accountability.
FEMA has been strongly criticized in how it operated and from the facts, this criticism is valid. But, though you might try to link their incompetence directly to Bush, this would be factually yet another false link of yours. Equally, the time-line of their actions; the fact that Blanco refused their assistance at first, is not due to Bush but to Blanco.
As you know or don’t know, the federal guard is, by law ,not permitted to interfere in state issues. The key agent in the failure of governance in Katrina rests with Blanco and Nagin, the two local officials.
Your attempt to slither out of the meaning of the 10th amendment – along with your use of the false ‘ad populum’ argument of ‘most people’ is a red herring. The FACTS are that the 10th amendment gave Blanco the authority to reject federal assistance, and that’s what she actually did; she rejected it. It tookk her days to accept the IMMEDIATE help that was offered by Bush.
The coast guard’s task is to deal with the coastal waters; they don’t need a federal order to do so. Obama had zilch to do with their presence or actions, and your pathetic attempt to somehow link the two, to substantiate your personal support for Obama, is factually empty.
You are the one who claims that Obama responded immediately to the oil spill. So far, all you’ve done is talk about the coast guard, which as I said, do not require a single word from him to do their job. Therefore, so far, you haven’t come up with a single action by Obama that has a thing to do with a post hoc act re the oil spill. Remember, Obama the talker, can talk all he wants; it’s useless. What about actions?
And no, don’t ask me to come up with what he SHOULD have done; you are the one who is praising him for his ‘immediate response’. I’ve asked you what this ‘immediate response’ actually was, and all you can come up with is the coast guard – which requires not a word from Obama to do their job. Try again, this time stick to facts.
ETAB,
Actually I’ve been consistent with every single statement I’ve written. Contrary to the false accusations you made in your last post I have not ‘slithered out of their meaning, changed meanings, and avoided responsibility for my comments’. If you feel that I have, you have a responsibility to point out where I have specifically done so. For example: you wrote in post 21(a) that I stated “Republicans reject the notion of ‘governance’”. That was false. I’ve never wrote that.
Additionally, I disagree with your position that Republicans rejecting government being part of solving problems is “semantically the same as claiming that they reject governance”. Believing in the false virtues of libertarianism is not the same rejecting governance. What I do believe is that there are consequences to that philosophy.
Furthermore I also disagree with your position that the Republican agenda for limiting government does not limit the effectiveness of government. For example, can you think of any way to limit the capabilities of our military (the largest part of our government) without limiting its effectiveness?
In post 6(b) you wrote “As for Obama and the oil-spill, kindly explain what he has done to deal with it? Hmmm? He’s huffed and puffed how outraged he is, but, what specifically has he done in action rather than his usual rhetoric? He’s set up a discussion panel! More talk.” Are you now trying to say that the above comment was NOT intended to be a criticism of the Obama administrations response to the oil spill? If it was, then your complaint in your previous post asking me to “Kindly get your facts straight” is dishonest.
Speaking of facts, if the city government of NO was not incapacitated, then why did law and order break down? Returning to my question concerning a nuclear attack on NO (which you refused to answer), could you explain why that was a ‘false analogy’? This is an issue of common sense. The idea that any local authority could have the resources to deal with such a disaster is absurd. If a city is attacked with a nuclear weapon, the federal government should assist. Likewise, if a city is literally underwater the federal government should assist.
It is you who refusing to be accountable in this discussion.
Concerning you attempt to shield Bush from the actions of Brown; that individual was appointed by Bush. Additionally several days after the storm devastated NO, Bush famously told Brown that he was doing a great job. Additionally it was Bush who didn’t send in the active military until later.
As you apparently don’t know, there is no such thing as the “federal guard” that you referred to in your last post. The National Guard is a state agency that can be federalized by the President in certain circumstances. It was the National Guard that the former governor of Louisiana had control over. It was not the case that the governor had the authority to refuse federal assistance. She had no authority over the active military, FEMA, or any other federal agency. If that were the case, the why was the Coast Guard allowed to assist. Under your (apparent) opinion that is a violation of the 10th Amendment.
Speaking of the 10th Amendment, my comment in my last post was most certainly not a red herring. Contrary to what you believe, it is not the 10th Amendment that grants control of the National Guard to the governor, it was the National Defense Act of 1947. Nothing in that legislation gives the governor the authority to ‘refuse federal assistance’. That legislation has a specific provision that allows the active military to be used in a domestic capacity when U.S. laws are not being enforced. If you were a student of history you would recall the instance when the 82nd Airborne Division was used to enforce the desegregation of U.S. public schools. With the passage of the Defense Authorization Acts of 07 and 08, Bush signed into law legislation that creates even more opportunities for the President to use the active military for domestic disturbances. Do you think that these pieces of legislation are unconstitutional? The Republican party doesn’t.
On your misunderstanding of the Coast Guard; their tasks are to deal with more than just coastal waters. Don’t let their name fool you, they are the sole agency tasked with federal law-enforcement on the seas. On your assertion that the President had “zilch” to do with the command and control of the U.S. military is absurd. Were you in the situation room when the orders were given? The President’s in command. If the Coast Guard and NOAA had done nothing, President Obama could not say “I didn’t do anything wrong by not doing anything”. If you really believe that is an appropriate attitude then that would explain your defense of Bush. With that line of thinking you must be blaming the troops for not responding instead of their commanded-in-chief. Are you blaming the troops? I don’t.
Also, to correct another one of your false assumptions, I’m not a supporter of President Obama; I actually voted for Bob Barr. That assumption among many others you have made should illustrate the need for you to ask questions and not make assumptions. Again, I don’t write that to be smug but to encourage you to be more honest.
To continue on with that point, I should point out that your comment “So far, all you’ve done is talk about the coast guard” is false. I’ve repeatedly mentioned the involvement of NOAA. Also suggesting that the Coast Guard does not require orders from their commander-in-chief is absurd. Was the Iraq war ordered without Presidential approval?
Concerning your refusal to answer my question concerning President Obama’s response to the oil spill; why shouldn’t I ask you? And more importantly, why have you refused to answer? If you feel that the President should be doing more, what is it?Contrary to what you falsely wrote in your last post, I’m not praising President Obama; I’m simple commenting on the difference in media coverage between Katrina and the BP oil spill.
Finally, if you do decide to respond, I expect you to do so honestly. As I stated earlier, I am interested in intelligent debate, but that requires you to tell the truth.
To Mr conservative liberal,
The flaw exists in your belief that more government must be better for us. Concerning the BP oil spill, you don’t have a clue what you are talking about. The government has sat around like a bunch of the puffed up blow fish that they are, pontificating about what BP should do next to solve the problems. Meanwhile, the only people you will see trying to stop the leak are people who work for the private oil industry. This is the same refrain we got from the vaunted government for six months after the oil tanker spill in Alaska 20 years ago. Exxon’s employees did the damned cleanup, and British Petroleum’s employees will do this damned cleanup before the government deploys anything beyond a few helicopters and some hot air. The government is absolutely incompetent in these situations because they are incompetent in any situation that requires any real effort.
Jim Baker,
You apparently do not understand the concept of my position. I do not think that more government is necessarily better for us. At no time have I made that statement. You appear to be drawing conclusions that are based on your own opinions rather than on facts. All that I have commented on in this thread is that there are consequences to Republican governance. Those consequences were demonstrated during the rescue efforts after Hurricane Katrina. Perhaps instead of making assumptions about my beliefs you should ask.
Concerning the BP oil spill, the Coast Guard and NOAA have done what they were supposed to with the resources they have. They responded immediately. Unlike the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, there was not a four day delay in the federal government’s response. That response’s main objective was to attempt to contain the spill. Has it been completely successful? No but the federal government is the only entity with the resources to attempt to due the job. BP doesn’t have the equipment or personnel to even attempt such a response.
I asked a previous poster what specifically they would have the federal government do to respond to this disaster, that poster refused to respond. So I’ll ask you; what would you have the federal government due in this situation?
Additionally, BP should be responsible for cleaning up this mess. They are the ones who created it.
In closing, I’d like to comment on the statement you made “The government is absolutely incompetent in these situations because they are incompetent in any situation that requires any real effort”. If that is truly the case, how was the Coast Guard, National Guard, local and state emergency services able to rescue the tens of thousands of hurricane victims in New Orleans after Katrina?
I’ll tell you the biggest difference. When Bush proved to be an abject failure at handling a national emergency, with all the implications for national defense that entails, the Democrats were there eager to exploit the failure. Where are the Republicans? Nowhere to be found, of course, because they are just as indebted to companies like BP as Democrats are. That’s the biggest difference, though one well beyond your two-dimensional analytical powers to perceive, lizard-brain.
The Bush administration couldn’t wave it’s magic wand and instantly repair all the damage done by one of the most devasating storms in U.S. history.
The Obama, administration, on the other hand, can’t even stop one little oil leak.
Dave Surls,
I wasn’t suggesting that Bush waive a magic anything. But he didn’t commit the full resources of the federal government to respond to “one of the most devastating storms in U.S. history” until four days had passed.
In your closing, you seem now to defend the efforts that the Republican administration made in the aftermath of Katrina. This is not the argument you were making earlier.
In regard to your assertion that BP should pay for the clean-up, I believe I pointed out that that it is BP who is paying. In fact, that was my argument with your opinion. BP is the only entity out there trying to solve this problem. As was Exxon after that disaster. It ahould also be pointed out that you could make the same argument for any entity which causes any accident to happen. I would leave you to ponder the outcome of that as a policy.
That I do not understand the concept of your position is incorrect because I actually never thought you were expounding on a concept. In fact the only concept that I read was found in your moniker.
Jim Baker,
Actually, no I was not defending any Republican adminstration. Contrary to what you wrote in your previous post, I never made that argument. What I did do is disprove your claims of incompetence concerning the Coast Guard, National Guard, and other emergency responders.
In regards to your changing position on what exactly is your ‘argument’; I never stated that BP shouldn’t pay for the cost of the cleanup. If that is your argument with my opinion (as you stated in your previous post), then you are actually agreeing with me.
The issued being debated here is the difference in media coverage of Hurricane Katrina and the BP oil spill. I pointed out earlier that the reason Bush waited four days to respond to Katrina and President Obama responded immediately is philosphy. Republicans have stated time and time again that government should not be part of the solution and are in fact the problem. The rescue efforts after Katrina demonstrate that.
Additionally, if you don’t actually believe that I am “expouding on a concept”, why did you state that you have an argument with my opinion in your last post?
Finally, I asked you in a previous post what more you would have the federal government do to contain the spill. You chose not to answer; why?
Are you now arguing that there isn’t much the government can do? Are you arguing that the Bush administration did less of not much work than the Obama administration has done? Your discussion has become so loopy it is hard to follow.
My point was that, rather than pointing the finger at BP for all of this, you should maybe research who is actually getting their hands dirty by trying to fix their mistake. It is the BP employees. The safety record of the American oil industry in providing gasoline, home heating oil, and natural gas to you and me is exemplary when it is compared to the safety records of nearly every other industry and our government. It has been over 20 years since the last oil spill accident. Do you even have a concept of how much fossil fuel has been extracted and transported around the world since then? Are you this good at mistake free work on your job? I couldn’t care less about Obama and the Democrats, I am defending the oil company. Is that clear?
Jim Baker,
It looks like you’re confused by your own statements. How can you claim that disproving your belief that “The government is absolutely incompetent in these situations because they are incompetent in any situation that requires any real effort” by illustrating the efforts of the government after Bush was embarrassed into action somehow justifies you stating “Are you now arguing that there isn’t much the government can do”? That doesn’t make any sense.
Furthermor your original ‘point’ was to state “The government is absolutely incompetent in these situations because they are incompetent in any situation that requires any real effort”. I disproved that.
Additionally your comments about BP are irrelevant. This discussion is not about BP, it’s about media coverage of the current and former presidents.
I would respectfully suggest that you pay attention. Not just you’ll stop making irrelevant comments but so that you’ll stop contradicting yourself.
You really got to me with all those withering insults this time. I cannot find a proof of anything in any of your commentary. I am addlepated. I’ll see you in the funny pages, Con Lib.
And here’s more Obama non-action:
http://www.necn.com/05/23/10/Jindal-tired-of-waiting-for-approval-to-/landing.html?blockID=240006&feedID=4215
“Gov. Jindal was critical of the amount of boom his state received to ward off the oil seeping toward the coastline. But his major gripe comes at the expense of the Army Corps of Engineers, who have yet to give the go-ahead for the building of sand booms to protect the Louisiana wetlands. He used photographic evidence of oil breaking through hard booms, soft booms and another layer of protection, before being finally being corralled by a sand boom built by the National Guard.
“It is so much better for us. We don’t want oil on one inch of Louisiana’s coastline, but we’d much rather fight this oil off of a hard coast, off of an island, off of an island, off of a sandy beach on our coastal islands, rather than having to fight it inside in these wetlands,” Gov. Jindal said, making the case for sand booms.
The governor said he has been forced to protect Louisiana without the approval of the Army Corps of Engineers, which is weighing the ecological impact of the construction of more sand booms.”
So much for Obama-Action. Heh.
ETAB
Yeah, that’s a completely disingenuous statement for you and the governor to make. Building those sand booms could take between six and nine months.
Did you not understand my previous requests for you to be honest with your responses?
Jim Baker,
Actually I didn’t make any insults. What I did do, was disprove your statements and illustrate how you have contradicted yourself.
What statements did you disprove, con lib? You don’t know anything about the oil business and all of your pontificating won’t help BP fix the problem just like Obama’s government won’t help fix the problem, because incompetent politicians don’t fix problems. Do like the rest of us must do and stand on the sidelines and hope BP can fix this mess. Do a lot less blaming George Bush for problems he couldn’t have fixed either. Please do not re-state anything you think you have stated to me before or whatever you think is a proof of your superior argumentative skills because, believe it or not, I can read. Your superiority complex has gotten real tiresome, Con-Lib.
Jim Baker,
Concerning your question from your last post, I specifically disproved your staement in from post 26(a) “you seem now to defend the efforts that the Republican administration made in the aftermath of Katrina”. That statement was false. I never stated that. Additionally you stated in post 22 that “The government is absolutely incompetent in these situations because they are incompetent in any situation that requires any real effort”. I disproved that statement as well by illustrating the government’s response to Katrina after Bush was forced to respond.
On my knowledge concerning the oil buiness, I’ll remind you (again) that this debate is not about condemning BP or any other oil company. Yes BP is responsiible but that is irrelevant to this discussion. The topic being debated is the media coverage of this disaster versus the aftermath of Katrina.
On your defense of Bush, it is your opinion that he couldn’t “have fixed”. If that statement was supposed to mean he didn’t delay in responding for four days, then once again you are wrong.
Finally, if you feel inferior to me, then you should take some time to make more informed comments about this topic. Unlike you, all of my posts have been on topic and courteous. One of the purposes of debate is to arrive at answers through arguments that are based on facts. In the future, I would suggest you try that.
Con-Lib, My father-in-law lives in Metairie and his first hand account of what was happening down there differed from your left leaning historical account by a long shot. According to him, it was the local government, specifically Mayor Nagin, who were completely unprepared for the aftermath of Katrina. They are the ones who did not evacuate the city because they had no plan for what to do when half of the police department and most of the bus drivers just left town instead of stay to do their part. As, I am sure with your superior reading skills, you already know, the Mayor’s evacuation plan for the indigent population was to load them on school buses at previously assigned pick-up spots and ferry them up to Baton Rouge. But things didn’t work because Mayor Nagin had no communication with those people until his bus drivers had already split and helped to clog traffic from NO(as you like to call it)to all points North, West, and East. Nagin was asked by BUSH’S government, four days before the storm came in, to evacuate his city. He did not order the evacuation until 3 days later. The people who were responsible for helping in the immediate aftermath turned out to be the OIL companies who managed to get all of the refineries and rigs back up and running at full capacity long before any other services were restored and church groups of almost every kind. My father-in-law was homeless for nearly a month and had to rely on the help of a couple of these shelters in the aftermath. The Red Cross was too busy trying to use Katrina for a money grab to be of any real use for several days. The FEMA boys were too busy trying to set up photo ops to get the clean up services and tent cities set up in time. The state and local politicians had already squandered billions of dollars in federal funding for improvements to the levy system that could have prevented the whole debacle in the first place. MOST of the federal monies that had been given to Louisiana for the levies had been provided over the previous 12 years and that was pretty much the Republican congress that did that and much of the money was provided during the BUSH administration with the full blessings of George Bush. Democrats, on the other hand, obfuscated about any federal dollars being spent in Haley Barbour’s Mississippi for political reasons only they and our illustrious media understand. My father-in-law never once blamed BUSH for anything that went wrong in the aftermath. Instead, he went back home and went to work restoring his home and he was happy it could be restored.
It was the Democrats and their megaphones in the media who ceaselessly bashed BUSH for everything that went wrong. The times were politically charged, you know, with BUSH having just beaten the moronic Democrat liar John Kerry and BUSH out trying to actually reform the social security system which they wanted nothing to do with, as long as the big business Republican would get any credit for it. But I digress, like you.
In fact, the only government entities that my father-in-law complained about were the completely corrupt local politicians. It was all politics, son, and if you weren’t so damned dumb, you would have already discovered that by now. I didn’t have to wait five years to be informed enough for this intelligent debate, but I will be damned if I haven’t already forgotten more of the details from that time than you know. Move on, BUSH can’t hurt you anymore and whatever he did or didn’t do is water under the bridge now. Your problem now, is the pontificating Democrat charlatan, who occupies the White House and spends all of his energy on the success of his collectivist ideology at the expense of any of the remaining semblance of real liberty in our country. I don’t give a tinker’s damn whether Obama deserves any criticism for the situation out at BP’s oil well because that is the least of my worries with this monster.
As to your proofs, the operative word in my sentence seems to have been “seem”. Your answer that you were, in fact, not defending the Republican efforts in the aftermath of Katrina. However, when you said in post #23 “If that is truly the case, how was the Coast Guard, National Guard, local and state emergency services able to rescue the tens of thousands of hurricane victims in New Orleans after Katrina?” I took that to mean you were defending the BUSH administration(since the Coast Guard was run by the Bush administration at that time). I used the word ‘seem’ because I was wondering how that could be. Now say again what you disproved when you told me that my inference was unfounded?
In post #23 you said this, “No but the federal government is the only entity with the resources to attempt to due the job. BP doesn’t have the equipment or personnel to even attempt such a response.” How does that jive with you continuing assertion that discussion of BP’s role is irrelevant to this discussion? I took exception to that comment and thought it was relevant to you or you wouldn’t have included it in your post. My bad, I guess.
From my post 22 comments, you haven’t even proved that “BUSH was forced to respond” as you say, and you have never proved that any kind of a good job was done even after this “forcing”. FEMA still hasn’t got the thieves sorted out from the needy in south Louisiana, so I don’t know where you have proved nothing, you have only provided me with your contrary opinion that a good job WAS done by the government when I believe that this is not the case. In your defense, it is true that my comments represented my opinions and that I never showed proof of my opinions. But then, why would I be writing proofs in an opinion forum anyway. It should be understood that we are both merely spouting our own opinions and that neither of us has proof of anything. This may have been why I take umbrage with your attempts to call your opinions proofs of my ignorance.
I hope you were able to find my position on the subject of media bias hiding in this diatribe because I don’t need to be told how off subject I am with my discussion, Con-Lib.
Patrick Richardson,
I reviewed your “source” of information concerning certain beliefs about the rescue efforts after Katrina. It’s interesting that you cited an article that backs up my claims. For example, the 50K National Guard troops that assisted in the rescue didn’t arrive until the end of the week.
My main point on this particular issued has always been that Bush did not respond with all of the available resources for over four days. If you had paid attention to this discussion in full, you should have noticed I specifically cited the lack of an immediate response by the active-duty military. As you should also know, the active-duty military could have been ordered to assist on the first day NO became flooded but it wasn’t.
Concerning my references to the Coast Guard, again if you were paying attention you should have noticed that my reference to them was to disprove the claim made by others that the 10th Amendment of the Constitution prevented Bush from sending in the military to assist with such an unprecedented disaster. The response effort of the Coast Guard disproves that myth.
Finally, as I’ve stated earlier I’m always interested in intelligent debate with the right and the left; but that requires you to be honest and informed. You were not so with your last post. Instead of making childish insults, I would suggest that you should read the article that you were referencing. If you had, you would have realized that it supported my position.
Personally, I think Obama should’ve put on an air tank and just stuffed the hole by now. Why doesn’t he just do it ?..ahaha
This is insane; it is possible to send the national guard and other agencies to a disaster like Katrina, but exactly what is Obama supposed to do about an oil spill ?…Maybe he could send the navy since obviously they’re experts on oil disasters. OR maybe big government really doesn’t have the assets available to fix the problem ? One minute it’s “big government bad” the next its “why doesn’t big government solve the problem ?”. I think maybe just maybe deregulation of big oil MIGHT HAVE HAD SOMETHING TO DO WITH IT. For some reason, those oil rigs don’t have an accoustic shut off value like they do near most countries that give a damned about preventing such disasters. Now, does anybody have any idea who built those rigs and why they weren’t inspected more often ? Remember, all of the oil rigs in Iraq were fixed by contracts and not the military ? How dumb is this, you really think that Obama decided to allow the worst oil spill in our history because he was too busy drinking lattes ?
Anyway, I think that we’ve reached a state in american politics where it’s not about politics, it’s about politicians. And if your mind is made up that you hate a particular politician there is no honest dialogue about the issues. Don’t even get me started about the bush administration ahaha..