Monday, September 05, 2005
White House joins blame game
And some of y'all thought it was just a bunch of lefties pointin' fingers! Bah! Rove rides again! Thanks to B for the heads up.
--ER
From the New York Times
September 5, 2005
White House Enacts a Plan to Ease Political Damage
By ADAM NAGOURNEY
and ANNE E. KORNBLUT
WASHINGTON, Sept. 4 - Under the command of President Bush's two senior political advisers, the White House rolled out a plan this weekend to contain the political damage from the administration's response to Hurricane Katrina.
It orchestrated visits by cabinet members to the region, leading up to an extraordinary return visit by Mr. Bush planned for Monday, directed administration officials not to respond to attacks from Democrats on the relief efforts, and sought to move the blame for the slow response to Louisiana state officials, according to Republicans familiar with the White House plan.
The effort is being directed by Mr. Bush's chief political adviser, Karl Rove, and his communications director, Dan Bartlett. It began late last week after Congressional Republicans called White House officials to register alarm about what they saw as a feeble response by Mr. Bush to the hurricane, according to Republican Congressional aides.
As a result, Americans watching television coverage of the disaster this weekend began to see, amid the destruction and suffering, some of the most prominent members of the administration - Richard B. Myers, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; Donald H. Rumsfeld, the secretary of defense; and Condoleezza Rice, the secretary of state - touring storm-damaged communities.
Mr. Bush is to return to Louisiana and Mississippi on Monday; his first visit, on Friday, left some Republicans cringing, in part because the president had little contact with residents left homeless.
Republicans said the administration's effort to stanch the damage had been helped by the fact that convoys of troops and supplies had begun to arrive by the time the administration officials turned up. All of those developments were covered closely on television.
In many ways, the unfolding public relations campaign reflects the style Mr. Rove has brought to the political campaigns he has run for Mr. Bush. For example, administration officials who went on television on Sunday were instructed to avoid getting drawn into exchanges about the problems of the past week, and to turn the discussion to what the government is doing now.
"We will have time to go back and do an after-action report, but the time right now is to look at what the enormous tasks ahead are," Michael Chertoff, the secretary of Homeland Security, said on "Meet the Press" on NBC.
One Republican with knowledge of the effort said that Mr. Rove had told administration officials not to respond to Democratic attacks on Mr. Bush's handling of the hurricane in the belief that the president was in a weak moment and that the administration should not appear to be seen now as being blatantly political. As with others in the party, this Republican would discuss the deliberations only on condition of anonymity because of keen White House sensitivity about how the administration and its strategy would be perceived.
In a reflection of what has long been a hallmark of Mr. Rove's tough political style, the administration is also working to shift the blame away from the White House and toward officials of New Orleans and Louisiana who, as it happens, are Democrats.
"The way that emergency operations act under the law is the responsibility and the power, the authority, to order an evacuation rests with state and local officials," Mr. Chertoff said in his television interview. "The federal government comes in and supports those officials."
That line of argument was echoed throughout the day, in harsher language, by Republicans reflecting the White House line.
In interviews, these Republicans said that the normally nimble White House political operation had fallen short in part because the president and his aides were scattered outside Washington on vacation, leaving no one obviously in charge at a time of great disruption. Mr. Rove and Mr. Bush were in Texas, while Vice President Dick Cheney was at his Wyoming ranch.
Mr. Bush's communications director, Nicolle Devenish, was married this weekend in Greece, and a number of Mr. Bush's political advisers - including Ken Mehlman, the Republican National Committee chairman - attended the wedding.
Ms. Rice did not return to Washington until Thursday, after she was spotted at a Broadway show and shopping for shoes, an image that Republicans said buttressed the notion of a White House unconcerned with tragedy.
These officials said that Mr. Bush and his political aides rapidly changed course in what they acknowledged was a belated realization of the situation's political ramifications. As is common when this White House confronts a serious problem, management was quickly taken over by Mr. Rove and a group of associates including Mr. Bartlett. Neither man responded to requests for comment.
White House advisers said that Mr. Bush expressed alarm after his return to Washington from the Gulf Coast.
One senior White House official said that Mr. Bush appeared at a senior staff meeting in the Situation Room on Friday and called the results on the ground "unacceptable." At the encouragement of Mr. Bartlett, officials said, he repeated the comment later in the Rose Garden, the start of this campaign.
Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company
--ER
From the New York Times
September 5, 2005
White House Enacts a Plan to Ease Political Damage
By ADAM NAGOURNEY
and ANNE E. KORNBLUT
WASHINGTON, Sept. 4 - Under the command of President Bush's two senior political advisers, the White House rolled out a plan this weekend to contain the political damage from the administration's response to Hurricane Katrina.
It orchestrated visits by cabinet members to the region, leading up to an extraordinary return visit by Mr. Bush planned for Monday, directed administration officials not to respond to attacks from Democrats on the relief efforts, and sought to move the blame for the slow response to Louisiana state officials, according to Republicans familiar with the White House plan.
The effort is being directed by Mr. Bush's chief political adviser, Karl Rove, and his communications director, Dan Bartlett. It began late last week after Congressional Republicans called White House officials to register alarm about what they saw as a feeble response by Mr. Bush to the hurricane, according to Republican Congressional aides.
As a result, Americans watching television coverage of the disaster this weekend began to see, amid the destruction and suffering, some of the most prominent members of the administration - Richard B. Myers, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; Donald H. Rumsfeld, the secretary of defense; and Condoleezza Rice, the secretary of state - touring storm-damaged communities.
Mr. Bush is to return to Louisiana and Mississippi on Monday; his first visit, on Friday, left some Republicans cringing, in part because the president had little contact with residents left homeless.
Republicans said the administration's effort to stanch the damage had been helped by the fact that convoys of troops and supplies had begun to arrive by the time the administration officials turned up. All of those developments were covered closely on television.
In many ways, the unfolding public relations campaign reflects the style Mr. Rove has brought to the political campaigns he has run for Mr. Bush. For example, administration officials who went on television on Sunday were instructed to avoid getting drawn into exchanges about the problems of the past week, and to turn the discussion to what the government is doing now.
"We will have time to go back and do an after-action report, but the time right now is to look at what the enormous tasks ahead are," Michael Chertoff, the secretary of Homeland Security, said on "Meet the Press" on NBC.
One Republican with knowledge of the effort said that Mr. Rove had told administration officials not to respond to Democratic attacks on Mr. Bush's handling of the hurricane in the belief that the president was in a weak moment and that the administration should not appear to be seen now as being blatantly political. As with others in the party, this Republican would discuss the deliberations only on condition of anonymity because of keen White House sensitivity about how the administration and its strategy would be perceived.
In a reflection of what has long been a hallmark of Mr. Rove's tough political style, the administration is also working to shift the blame away from the White House and toward officials of New Orleans and Louisiana who, as it happens, are Democrats.
"The way that emergency operations act under the law is the responsibility and the power, the authority, to order an evacuation rests with state and local officials," Mr. Chertoff said in his television interview. "The federal government comes in and supports those officials."
That line of argument was echoed throughout the day, in harsher language, by Republicans reflecting the White House line.
In interviews, these Republicans said that the normally nimble White House political operation had fallen short in part because the president and his aides were scattered outside Washington on vacation, leaving no one obviously in charge at a time of great disruption. Mr. Rove and Mr. Bush were in Texas, while Vice President Dick Cheney was at his Wyoming ranch.
Mr. Bush's communications director, Nicolle Devenish, was married this weekend in Greece, and a number of Mr. Bush's political advisers - including Ken Mehlman, the Republican National Committee chairman - attended the wedding.
Ms. Rice did not return to Washington until Thursday, after she was spotted at a Broadway show and shopping for shoes, an image that Republicans said buttressed the notion of a White House unconcerned with tragedy.
These officials said that Mr. Bush and his political aides rapidly changed course in what they acknowledged was a belated realization of the situation's political ramifications. As is common when this White House confronts a serious problem, management was quickly taken over by Mr. Rove and a group of associates including Mr. Bartlett. Neither man responded to requests for comment.
White House advisers said that Mr. Bush expressed alarm after his return to Washington from the Gulf Coast.
One senior White House official said that Mr. Bush appeared at a senior staff meeting in the Situation Room on Friday and called the results on the ground "unacceptable." At the encouragement of Mr. Bartlett, officials said, he repeated the comment later in the Rose Garden, the start of this campaign.
Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company
Comments:
<< Home
Ahhh, the New York Times' famous "unnamed source" again! I notice they trot this mysterious guy out whenever they want to make an accusation that is unproven.
The statement that Bush had "little" contact with the victims is poppycock. Hasn't the NYT seen the photos of him embracing victims with an anquished look in his face? I haven't seen any photos of Hillary doing that. Or any other Democrat for that matter.
I read that entire article and no where in it is any member of the Bush administration "pointing fingers" at anyone. It only says they are attempting to shift blame which theywouldn't be having to do if someone wasn't attempting to blame them in the first place.
Oh, they did say, "The way that emergency operations act under the law is the responsibility and the power, the authority, to order an evacuation rests with state and local officials. The federal government comes in and supports those officials."
But that is true. and they did reiterate that they support those officials.
Geraldo Rivera, very much a leftie himself, when told of this article you have quoted reacted with rage, and cursed the columnist that wrote it on national radio, saying it was a G--G--- lie and that he wished the columnist was there so he could punch him.
I heard him say it.
The statement that Bush had "little" contact with the victims is poppycock. Hasn't the NYT seen the photos of him embracing victims with an anquished look in his face? I haven't seen any photos of Hillary doing that. Or any other Democrat for that matter.
I read that entire article and no where in it is any member of the Bush administration "pointing fingers" at anyone. It only says they are attempting to shift blame which theywouldn't be having to do if someone wasn't attempting to blame them in the first place.
Oh, they did say, "The way that emergency operations act under the law is the responsibility and the power, the authority, to order an evacuation rests with state and local officials. The federal government comes in and supports those officials."
But that is true. and they did reiterate that they support those officials.
Geraldo Rivera, very much a leftie himself, when told of this article you have quoted reacted with rage, and cursed the columnist that wrote it on national radio, saying it was a G--G--- lie and that he wished the columnist was there so he could punch him.
I heard him say it.
Rumsfeld also ignored and walked passed the injured and elderly according to the reporter on the scene. Let's face it the only reason the Bush gang is heading south is because they are worried. Twice to three times the number of will die because of this tragedy than in 9/11. Where did all the billions of dollars for homeland security go?
It's people like you mark maness that are giving the Bush gang a free pass to invade countries, give the rich additional benefits, and allow oil companies a free pass while the rest of the middle and lower classes suffer.
It's people like you mark maness that are giving the Bush gang a free pass to invade countries, give the rich additional benefits, and allow oil companies a free pass while the rest of the middle and lower classes suffer.
I have never understood what makes the Left believe that they can throw as much excrement at the President as they want, and that he will never grab a handfull and toss it back their way.
What is wrong with blaming the people who are actually at fault?
The slow response was not the fault of the White House. It was the fault of the people whose fault it actually was.
Stop trying to make the President the bad guy in all of this.
HE AIN'T!
What is wrong with blaming the people who are actually at fault?
The slow response was not the fault of the White House. It was the fault of the people whose fault it actually was.
Stop trying to make the President the bad guy in all of this.
HE AIN'T!
Thank you for sharing this. I'm a moderate conservative who has finally had enough. I'm proudly linking to your blog. Keep up the good fight.
Misanthrope, People like me? Where do you know me from? Who the hell are you to make judgements on me? I won't defend myself to you. You have judged yourself.
Nice talking points, though.
Dawno. Since moderate is a term Liberals use to describe themselves because the term Liberal has a negative connotation to them, the term moderate conservative is an oxymoron, isn't it?
It doesn't have a negative connotation to me, by the way. I consider it a political ideology that encompasses a wide spectrum that I classify as Liberal, the same way that i classify the term, Conservative, of which i proudly am.
All that to say I have a rather simplistic view of not terms, as ER can attest.
Nice talking points, though.
Dawno. Since moderate is a term Liberals use to describe themselves because the term Liberal has a negative connotation to them, the term moderate conservative is an oxymoron, isn't it?
It doesn't have a negative connotation to me, by the way. I consider it a political ideology that encompasses a wide spectrum that I classify as Liberal, the same way that i classify the term, Conservative, of which i proudly am.
All that to say I have a rather simplistic view of not terms, as ER can attest.
Whatever. I have stood by this presidential administration since 9/11, to my shame. I have tried to dissuade the meanest attacks, to my embarassment. I have let my affection for Geo. W. Bush's "type -- the good ol' boy forced to wear a tie and jacket when he'd really rather be cuttin' brush somewhere -- blind me to the inept privilege his administration represents.
No mas.
I don't plan to call him names. I don't plan to suggest others don't.
The Right wing has been talkin' about a "culture war" when one didn't exist except in their own fevered nightmares. Now I see it. It's the one that's been going on in this country forever, with a few new twists.
Money vs. poverty. Enlightened sense of community vs. unenlightened selfishness.
The new one: the Christian-industrial complex vs. the words and admonitions of Jesus.
Yeah, there's a war going on. Bang-bang.
No mas.
I don't plan to call him names. I don't plan to suggest others don't.
The Right wing has been talkin' about a "culture war" when one didn't exist except in their own fevered nightmares. Now I see it. It's the one that's been going on in this country forever, with a few new twists.
Money vs. poverty. Enlightened sense of community vs. unenlightened selfishness.
The new one: the Christian-industrial complex vs. the words and admonitions of Jesus.
Yeah, there's a war going on. Bang-bang.
Oh, I think this is getting lost in the details. "This" being what, at root, is driving me now.
My "world" changed with this hurricane and its aftermath and the way we're responding to it, good and bad. So, my values are different, political (although not that much) and otherwise. So, I'm lashing out. Maybe I'm not lashing out at the exact people or institutions that make sense.
May I learned that from the president in the months after 9/11. Maybe the hurricane is my Taliban. Maybe this administation is my Iraq.
Maybe if you're not standing with me, you're against me.
Nah. That's just stupid.
(Yes, yes, finish the romp in the desert, and try to salvage what's left of our national honor in the process. But with haste.)
My "world" changed with this hurricane and its aftermath and the way we're responding to it, good and bad. So, my values are different, political (although not that much) and otherwise. So, I'm lashing out. Maybe I'm not lashing out at the exact people or institutions that make sense.
May I learned that from the president in the months after 9/11. Maybe the hurricane is my Taliban. Maybe this administation is my Iraq.
Maybe if you're not standing with me, you're against me.
Nah. That's just stupid.
(Yes, yes, finish the romp in the desert, and try to salvage what's left of our national honor in the process. But with haste.)
Why Are Looters Always Democrats?
By Richard Davis (09/05/05)
Maybe it’s the Democrat tradition of taking other people’s money and property and believing you’re entitled to it. Or perhaps it’s the years of big-government paternalism that destroys any sense of personal or civic responsibility. Whatever the reason, when the mayhem begins, the looters will invariably be Democrats, or at least products of Democratic households and neighborhoods. Does the party owe America an explanation?
I bring this up only because Democrats and their media lackeys are having a field day blaming Bush for everything from the hurricane itself (“If only he had signed Kyoto!”) to the criminal orgy of looting and destruction (“Why didn’t he stop us?!”). Only a Democrat would loot the local Wal-Mart and then hold the president responsible.
For the record, incompetent and lawless Democrats first failed New Orleans, directly causing the misery that was to follow, and then plundered it. The mayor, police chief and all other city leaders were Democrats. Seldom has a city been so poorly served. And while New Orleans went under, it was a Democrat who sat quaking in the governor’s mansion, the water way over her head. As for the hoodlums doing the looting, vandalizing, raping and random criminalizing, not a Republican in the bunch.
When Democrats face self-inflicted failure of this magnitude, they do what years of liberal dissembling have taught them to do -- they blame somebody else (Bush). Then they play the race card (racist Bush). Of course, had Bush even suggested in advance of Katrina that troops would be standing by to maintain order, the Democrats and their race professionals would have gone apoplectic over the suggestion that their party faithful in the city were savages-in-waiting.
But many were just that, and they didn’t wait long. Everyone else in this Democratic community seemed helpless, the victims of decades of mollycoddling liberalism. The city’s feckless mayor and officials could only stand in front of microphones and plead for Washington to come and save them from the elements and each other. Then, in a ploy to absolve themselves and their party members, looters and all, of any culpability, they called the rescuers racists for not coming sooner.
We don’t expect much from political parties these days, and God knows we don’t get much, but shouldn’t there be some accountability demanded here? Scenes from New Orleans smeared a city, a race, a party and a country. How do Democrats explain the hooligan wing of their party? The response of this wing to disasters and social emergencies -- even increasingly to elections -- tells us all we need to know about the failure of Democratic politics.
And so now, unable to face a pretty ugly truth about themselves, Democrats give us more excuses, more guilt-mongering, more racial hypocrisy. They can’t even bring themselves to condemn the looters. They need their votes.
Imagine a party that tried seriously to help its underclass by addressing moral and ethical issues candidly and honestly. Democrats can’t do that because to suggest one has personal responsibility is to put the lie to the entire victimhood racket. Democrats have stood by for decades, paralyzed by their own liberal rhetoric and their self-interest in government largess, as generations of their young men and women descended into crime and immorality. Their only response was to make excuses for them and demand more money for themselves. Some help that’s been.
Looters belong to that sizable and growing criminal constituency of the Democratic Big Tent. This is the party, after all, fighting state by state to garner the right to vote for illegal aliens and felons, both of which are loyal Democrats. The few looters in New Orleans who will actually be charged with crimes can count on their party officials to come to their defense, closely followed by the party registrar. It’s a big, all-you-can-carry kind of tent.
Ed: Views are those of individual authors and not necessarily those of American Daily.
By Richard Davis (09/05/05)
Maybe it’s the Democrat tradition of taking other people’s money and property and believing you’re entitled to it. Or perhaps it’s the years of big-government paternalism that destroys any sense of personal or civic responsibility. Whatever the reason, when the mayhem begins, the looters will invariably be Democrats, or at least products of Democratic households and neighborhoods. Does the party owe America an explanation?
I bring this up only because Democrats and their media lackeys are having a field day blaming Bush for everything from the hurricane itself (“If only he had signed Kyoto!”) to the criminal orgy of looting and destruction (“Why didn’t he stop us?!”). Only a Democrat would loot the local Wal-Mart and then hold the president responsible.
For the record, incompetent and lawless Democrats first failed New Orleans, directly causing the misery that was to follow, and then plundered it. The mayor, police chief and all other city leaders were Democrats. Seldom has a city been so poorly served. And while New Orleans went under, it was a Democrat who sat quaking in the governor’s mansion, the water way over her head. As for the hoodlums doing the looting, vandalizing, raping and random criminalizing, not a Republican in the bunch.
When Democrats face self-inflicted failure of this magnitude, they do what years of liberal dissembling have taught them to do -- they blame somebody else (Bush). Then they play the race card (racist Bush). Of course, had Bush even suggested in advance of Katrina that troops would be standing by to maintain order, the Democrats and their race professionals would have gone apoplectic over the suggestion that their party faithful in the city were savages-in-waiting.
But many were just that, and they didn’t wait long. Everyone else in this Democratic community seemed helpless, the victims of decades of mollycoddling liberalism. The city’s feckless mayor and officials could only stand in front of microphones and plead for Washington to come and save them from the elements and each other. Then, in a ploy to absolve themselves and their party members, looters and all, of any culpability, they called the rescuers racists for not coming sooner.
We don’t expect much from political parties these days, and God knows we don’t get much, but shouldn’t there be some accountability demanded here? Scenes from New Orleans smeared a city, a race, a party and a country. How do Democrats explain the hooligan wing of their party? The response of this wing to disasters and social emergencies -- even increasingly to elections -- tells us all we need to know about the failure of Democratic politics.
And so now, unable to face a pretty ugly truth about themselves, Democrats give us more excuses, more guilt-mongering, more racial hypocrisy. They can’t even bring themselves to condemn the looters. They need their votes.
Imagine a party that tried seriously to help its underclass by addressing moral and ethical issues candidly and honestly. Democrats can’t do that because to suggest one has personal responsibility is to put the lie to the entire victimhood racket. Democrats have stood by for decades, paralyzed by their own liberal rhetoric and their self-interest in government largess, as generations of their young men and women descended into crime and immorality. Their only response was to make excuses for them and demand more money for themselves. Some help that’s been.
Looters belong to that sizable and growing criminal constituency of the Democratic Big Tent. This is the party, after all, fighting state by state to garner the right to vote for illegal aliens and felons, both of which are loyal Democrats. The few looters in New Orleans who will actually be charged with crimes can count on their party officials to come to their defense, closely followed by the party registrar. It’s a big, all-you-can-carry kind of tent.
Ed: Views are those of individual authors and not necessarily those of American Daily.
# posted by 
: 9:18 AM
: 9:18 AM
Anonymous, that has to be yet the most offensive, stupid, appalling piece of poo I've seen a monkey sling yet.
Mark, from the Department of Homeland Security's own website:
"In the event of a terrorist attack, natural disaster or other large-scale emergency, the Department of Homeland Security will assume primary responsibility . . . for ensuring that emergency response professionals are prepared for any situation. This will entail providing a coordinated, comprehensive federal response to any large-scale crisis and mounting a swift and effective recovery effort."
By the feds' own words, the primary responsibility is theirs.
Moreover, see the end of this post for a list of various ways in which FEMA actually *interfered with* and *blocked* aid that was coming from sources that the state and / or city had arranged for, or that was voluntarily and freely offered. Not only did they fail to respond; they blocked help from people who *were* responding. They didn't support local and state officials. They got in the goddamn way.
And by the way, Hillary is not the president of the US. On the other hand, the Mayor of New Orleans was on the ground from the very beginning (as he should have been) and he is a Democrat. So your ridiculous partisanship in trying to make this a party issue is factually inaccurate, as well as offensive.
"In the event of a terrorist attack, natural disaster or other large-scale emergency, the Department of Homeland Security will assume primary responsibility . . . for ensuring that emergency response professionals are prepared for any situation. This will entail providing a coordinated, comprehensive federal response to any large-scale crisis and mounting a swift and effective recovery effort."
By the feds' own words, the primary responsibility is theirs.
Moreover, see the end of this post for a list of various ways in which FEMA actually *interfered with* and *blocked* aid that was coming from sources that the state and / or city had arranged for, or that was voluntarily and freely offered. Not only did they fail to respond; they blocked help from people who *were* responding. They didn't support local and state officials. They got in the goddamn way.
And by the way, Hillary is not the president of the US. On the other hand, the Mayor of New Orleans was on the ground from the very beginning (as he should have been) and he is a Democrat. So your ridiculous partisanship in trying to make this a party issue is factually inaccurate, as well as offensive.
That last posting from the other Anon is the most common sense I've ever seen on this site. All you crap flingers who hate this president (and pretty much this country) should take it to heart. The truth of the matter is, those people all knew the risk they were taking by living below sea level in an area that gets several hurricanes a year. It was only a matter of time before this happened(hell, I saw a program on this very topic on the learning channel 2 years ago,it predicted to a "t" what just happened). And yes, the loss of life is horrible beyond words, but no thinking person could say this is the fault of the federal gubmit. If anyone should have been on top of this, it was the City of NO and the state of La. They are right there, they knew what could/would happen. Can you really expect the President to know all the dangers and risk faced by every city in this country? earthquakes in San Fansico, Tornado's in Oklahoma City, Snow storms in New York. How the hell is the federal gubmit going to deal with all the issues faced by all the cities in the great country? should we have military bases every 300 or 400 miles? with hundreds of troops and trucks standing by, waiting for the next big event? Are we all willing to pay 60-70% income tax to fund all this? Nope. And one last point. If all the troops we have overseas were to have been in this country when this happened last week, they would not have been able to have gotten to those poor people any soone than was done by our troops on-hand. It takes TIME to organize a operation of this size.
# posted by : 10:51 AM
: 10:51 AM
ER: I am a Democrat. Let me say that first, before what I'm going to say next. I have been a Democrat all my life and I will be a Democrat, more than likely, all my life. Maybe, but I'm just hanging on by a thread. The conversion you experienced, I empathize with, but I'm going the other way. Actually, I'm so disgusted with both parties, I'm thinking Independent might be the way to go.
Please don't be offended, I don't usually like getting into these blog debates, but I have to say the article you placed here held no surprises for me, and frankly, I thought it was kinda lame. Did anyone not expect Bush to try and do some sort of damage control, with his popularity in the polls dropping and our confidence in him eroding even further? Of course he's going to use Rove -- look how successful he was in getting him re-elected. And, the media will always cover closely anything the president does-- why is this even pointed out as something insidious by the Bush administration? And to imply the governor or LA and mayor, who "happen" to be Democrat don't have some accountablity in this mess is just plain wrong. I'm sorry, but I hate this kind of reporting. Look, the one thing I can agree with the president on is that the results of this response have been "unacceptable". I'm not trying to defend the man or those working for him. His next step should be firing the head of FEMA.
I would like very much to believe our party has the answers. But I saw something on CNN this morning that I'd only heard rumors about, that really shook me up. Now, maybe one of your good readers with a lot more education or knowledge of such things, can explain to me what happened, before I totally defect from the Democratic party. I apologize now for writing so much, but I have to set up what happened in the interview, for those of you who didn't see it.
Soledad -- Not sure if I'm spelling her name right -- was interviewing the Gov. of Louisana and in her clip, she first showed the Mayor of New Orleans who stated he was told by the president he had offerred to the Governor to federalize the LA National Guard and move things along on the Federal Level. She said she needed 24 hours to think about it. This was on day 3 or 4 after Katrina.
First, Soledad gave the governor the opportunity to deny this, but she didn't. She startd sputtering about how she needed time to think about this very complicated issue and in the meantime the feds could have still been moving water and food in. I couldn't believe it.
She needed 24 hours?? If she didn't want the president to federalize her national guard in a time of unprecedented disaster, in a situation that was clearly too much for her to handle at a state level, then she should have said no and got off her ass and moved things along herself. It would have only been a temporary thing during the state of emergency. If she wanted the feds to take over, she should have signed the papers. But to waste 24 precious hours to think about is outrageous. At least to me. And surely to the people sitting on rooftops or dying because their oxygen tanks ran out of air in the convention center, or they didn't have their diabetes medicine. I'm ashamed she's a Democrat. Then again, maybe it's more complicated than that, but Soledad seemed just as incredulous as I was. If this is true, and I'm getting all the facts, no wonder there was tension between Bush and the governor, and no wonder he's shifting some of the blame her way and deservedly so. Politics as usual doesn't cut it when a whole coastline has been washed away.
Our party has a tremendous opportunity here to actually show we're the compassionate, caring party. Our party members are doing so much right now, but where are our leaders? I disagree with just about everything Mark says, but I've been asking myself, too, "Where is Hillary?" If she wants to run for president, she needs to start acting presidential. Is she afraid it will look too political if she gets down there to LA? Screw that. People are hurting and need help and comforting and trying to act like you give a damn from your office in Washington makes us look as out of touch as Bush vacationing in Crawford. I don't want her down there for a photo op, I want her down there seeing for herself what's going on and offerring real solutions to the problem. I'm sure the Democratic Gov. would love to have Hillary standing by her right now and giving her some advice. She could use it. And we could use a leader.
I know I already said this, but I don't really like getting into blog debates -- actually this is my first venture out -, so I want to apologize now if I offended anyone.
RebelAngel
Please don't be offended, I don't usually like getting into these blog debates, but I have to say the article you placed here held no surprises for me, and frankly, I thought it was kinda lame. Did anyone not expect Bush to try and do some sort of damage control, with his popularity in the polls dropping and our confidence in him eroding even further? Of course he's going to use Rove -- look how successful he was in getting him re-elected. And, the media will always cover closely anything the president does-- why is this even pointed out as something insidious by the Bush administration? And to imply the governor or LA and mayor, who "happen" to be Democrat don't have some accountablity in this mess is just plain wrong. I'm sorry, but I hate this kind of reporting. Look, the one thing I can agree with the president on is that the results of this response have been "unacceptable". I'm not trying to defend the man or those working for him. His next step should be firing the head of FEMA.
I would like very much to believe our party has the answers. But I saw something on CNN this morning that I'd only heard rumors about, that really shook me up. Now, maybe one of your good readers with a lot more education or knowledge of such things, can explain to me what happened, before I totally defect from the Democratic party. I apologize now for writing so much, but I have to set up what happened in the interview, for those of you who didn't see it.
Soledad -- Not sure if I'm spelling her name right -- was interviewing the Gov. of Louisana and in her clip, she first showed the Mayor of New Orleans who stated he was told by the president he had offerred to the Governor to federalize the LA National Guard and move things along on the Federal Level. She said she needed 24 hours to think about it. This was on day 3 or 4 after Katrina.
First, Soledad gave the governor the opportunity to deny this, but she didn't. She startd sputtering about how she needed time to think about this very complicated issue and in the meantime the feds could have still been moving water and food in. I couldn't believe it.
She needed 24 hours?? If she didn't want the president to federalize her national guard in a time of unprecedented disaster, in a situation that was clearly too much for her to handle at a state level, then she should have said no and got off her ass and moved things along herself. It would have only been a temporary thing during the state of emergency. If she wanted the feds to take over, she should have signed the papers. But to waste 24 precious hours to think about is outrageous. At least to me. And surely to the people sitting on rooftops or dying because their oxygen tanks ran out of air in the convention center, or they didn't have their diabetes medicine. I'm ashamed she's a Democrat. Then again, maybe it's more complicated than that, but Soledad seemed just as incredulous as I was. If this is true, and I'm getting all the facts, no wonder there was tension between Bush and the governor, and no wonder he's shifting some of the blame her way and deservedly so. Politics as usual doesn't cut it when a whole coastline has been washed away.
Our party has a tremendous opportunity here to actually show we're the compassionate, caring party. Our party members are doing so much right now, but where are our leaders? I disagree with just about everything Mark says, but I've been asking myself, too, "Where is Hillary?" If she wants to run for president, she needs to start acting presidential. Is she afraid it will look too political if she gets down there to LA? Screw that. People are hurting and need help and comforting and trying to act like you give a damn from your office in Washington makes us look as out of touch as Bush vacationing in Crawford. I don't want her down there for a photo op, I want her down there seeing for herself what's going on and offerring real solutions to the problem. I'm sure the Democratic Gov. would love to have Hillary standing by her right now and giving her some advice. She could use it. And we could use a leader.
I know I already said this, but I don't really like getting into blog debates -- actually this is my first venture out -, so I want to apologize now if I offended anyone.
RebelAngel
# posted by : 11:04 AM
: 11:04 AM
No, I was calling "Anonymous" a monkey. I don't know Richard Davis. He could be purple or green for all I know.
First of all, I think it is a ludicrous notion that all of the looters are Democrats. In fact, I doubt very many of the looters are Democrat. Or Republicans.
Criminals don't normally align themselves with any party.
B, You are right. Hillary isn't president. Neither are any of the Republicans that the NYT columnist says "... (made)orchestrated visits by cabinet members to the region."
But they went, didn't they?
I wonder how the Mayor had time to be "on the ground" considering he was spending so much time on 60 minutes, CNN, MSNBC, etc. blaming the President. By the way, he was a Republican until just before he began to campaign for Mayor. he switched parties because he didn't think he could win in a predominately Democrat city by running as a Republican.
Let me add, for the record, that although I can't stand Sean Penn and Geraldo Rivera is a leftie, They are both doing great things in New Orleans, helping to rescue people and distributing supplies.
I am not a Bill Clinton fan either but I can't deny he is lending a great deal of support. These people, and many others that I disagree with politically, are doing wonderful things. Kudos to them!
So, by my own words I have indicted myself. I apologise for the "I don't see any Democrats helping" remark. Obviously they are.
That said, other than that, I did not make this a "party issue". That was done by many others long before I weighed in on it. Both Democrats and Republicans, but mostly, firstly, and most shrilly, by the Democrats.
Do you really believe Bush refused to help because the people were poor and black?
I am an idiot compared to Bush and his advisors but even I know that would be political suicide, not to mention extraordinarily cold and heartless, and I wouldn't even say that about the King of mean spiritedness, Michael Moore.
You may accuse me of being ignorant and even stupid if you like but don't try to tell me that I am ridiculously partisan. I have never seen any comment from you that is non partisan.
"Let he that is without sin cast the first stone"
Criminals don't normally align themselves with any party.
B, You are right. Hillary isn't president. Neither are any of the Republicans that the NYT columnist says "... (made)orchestrated visits by cabinet members to the region."
But they went, didn't they?
I wonder how the Mayor had time to be "on the ground" considering he was spending so much time on 60 minutes, CNN, MSNBC, etc. blaming the President. By the way, he was a Republican until just before he began to campaign for Mayor. he switched parties because he didn't think he could win in a predominately Democrat city by running as a Republican.
Let me add, for the record, that although I can't stand Sean Penn and Geraldo Rivera is a leftie, They are both doing great things in New Orleans, helping to rescue people and distributing supplies.
I am not a Bill Clinton fan either but I can't deny he is lending a great deal of support. These people, and many others that I disagree with politically, are doing wonderful things. Kudos to them!
So, by my own words I have indicted myself. I apologise for the "I don't see any Democrats helping" remark. Obviously they are.
That said, other than that, I did not make this a "party issue". That was done by many others long before I weighed in on it. Both Democrats and Republicans, but mostly, firstly, and most shrilly, by the Democrats.
Do you really believe Bush refused to help because the people were poor and black?
I am an idiot compared to Bush and his advisors but even I know that would be political suicide, not to mention extraordinarily cold and heartless, and I wouldn't even say that about the King of mean spiritedness, Michael Moore.
You may accuse me of being ignorant and even stupid if you like but don't try to tell me that I am ridiculously partisan. I have never seen any comment from you that is non partisan.
"Let he that is without sin cast the first stone"
RebAngel. :-)
I have always maintained that being politically "independent" mean you actually vote for whoever wins. Because once candidates become office holders, they are either Dems or Repubs. So, I think the best course is to pick a party, hold your nose, and hang on tight.
I have always maintained that being politically "independent" mean you actually vote for whoever wins. Because once candidates become office holders, they are either Dems or Repubs. So, I think the best course is to pick a party, hold your nose, and hang on tight.
Anyone that votes the straight party ticket every time he/she votes is a fool, or fooling him/herself. They have a “Follow the herd” mentality or just won’t take the time to study the issues. I’m a democrat, but I swing both ways on Election Day. I voted against Regan the first term and for his second, for H.W. Bush the first term and against the second, for Clinton the first term and against the second, and for George Bush the first term and FOR George Bush the second. Boy, what a run-on sentence.
My problem is I have trouble voting a second time for some wishy-washy poll-watching politician that jumps every time the media picks on him. George will defend himself if attacked, but won’t change course if he thinks he’s done, or doing the right thing. One thing I’m sure of is I’m voting for Hillary in 08 because it’s time the democrats get a dose of trying to keep this country from self destructing. Just kidding, I won’t know whom I’m voting for until I walk into the booth. One thing for sure, I won’t be voting with a stamp. I’ll be checking them off from both sides of the sheet.
My problem is I have trouble voting a second time for some wishy-washy poll-watching politician that jumps every time the media picks on him. George will defend himself if attacked, but won’t change course if he thinks he’s done, or doing the right thing. One thing I’m sure of is I’m voting for Hillary in 08 because it’s time the democrats get a dose of trying to keep this country from self destructing. Just kidding, I won’t know whom I’m voting for until I walk into the booth. One thing for sure, I won’t be voting with a stamp. I’ll be checking them off from both sides of the sheet.
# posted by : 2:52 PM
: 2:52 PM
I agree with the other Anon. Voting the party ticket is just another way of saying you're either too lazy or stupid to think for yourself. If the herd runs off a cliff, you go with 'em ( but by-god, you voted the ticket). By voting the ticket no matter what, you get leaders like that goof-ass of a mayor down in NO.
# posted by : 3:19 PM
: 3:19 PM
I think some of y'all missed my point.
Voting the "the man" -- or the woman -- makes some sense if you're talking about for president or governor. I guess any executive.
Voting for "the man" -- or woman -- for any legislative post, as noble and as rootin'-tootin' "thoughtful" as it sounds, is just naive, in my opinion.
Here's why:
The first thing they do in Congress, and in every statehouse, is get all the Repubs together on one side and all the Dems together on the other. Then they select leaders and committee chairmen and such. Then the lobbiests trot in. But the party in charge of Congress, or any statehouse, runs the show.
Independents suck hind tit in the legislative process. And looking up and down the ballot and voting for a Dem here and a Repub there and a Repub there and a Dem there dilutes the power of your vote. I'll even accept the argument that says it makes sense to vote for one party for president (or governor) and the other for Congress (or the statehouse). But I think it's folly to just pick and choose based on what an individual says or does not say. Partly because almost all of them say whatever they think they need to say to get elected.
Which is why I hold my nose and vote for my party. I'm a dinosaur maybe, but I'm no fool. And I for damn sure don't vote straight-party because I don't think. I do so because I DO think.
Call it a "herd mentality" if you like, but the fact remains that there IS herding, alomg party line, once all these yahoos have managed to get elected pretending that they will stand above the partisan fray. Most do not because they cannot -- not and have any real influence.
Voting the "the man" -- or the woman -- makes some sense if you're talking about for president or governor. I guess any executive.
Voting for "the man" -- or woman -- for any legislative post, as noble and as rootin'-tootin' "thoughtful" as it sounds, is just naive, in my opinion.
Here's why:
The first thing they do in Congress, and in every statehouse, is get all the Repubs together on one side and all the Dems together on the other. Then they select leaders and committee chairmen and such. Then the lobbiests trot in. But the party in charge of Congress, or any statehouse, runs the show.
Independents suck hind tit in the legislative process. And looking up and down the ballot and voting for a Dem here and a Repub there and a Repub there and a Dem there dilutes the power of your vote. I'll even accept the argument that says it makes sense to vote for one party for president (or governor) and the other for Congress (or the statehouse). But I think it's folly to just pick and choose based on what an individual says or does not say. Partly because almost all of them say whatever they think they need to say to get elected.
Which is why I hold my nose and vote for my party. I'm a dinosaur maybe, but I'm no fool. And I for damn sure don't vote straight-party because I don't think. I do so because I DO think.
Call it a "herd mentality" if you like, but the fact remains that there IS herding, alomg party line, once all these yahoos have managed to get elected pretending that they will stand above the partisan fray. Most do not because they cannot -- not and have any real influence.
Oh, and I don't mean vote the same party forEVER, for the sake of saying you did. That WOULD be unthinking.
If you change, or your party, changes, reassess your vote accordingly, of course!
Someobody today mentioned my "conversion." Wasn't a conversion. Baptists call it a rededication -- 'cause I've been on the verge of a total political backslide for four years.
If you change, or your party, changes, reassess your vote accordingly, of course!
Someobody today mentioned my "conversion." Wasn't a conversion. Baptists call it a rededication -- 'cause I've been on the verge of a total political backslide for four years.
Mark, re: "Since moderate is a term Liberals use to describe themselves because the term Liberal has a negative connotation to them, the term moderate conservative is an oxymoron, isn't it?"
Um, some people who are somewhat conservative describe themselves as moderate because they're sickened by the extremes of the right wing of the Republican Party. Surely you know that. Surely.
Um, some people who are somewhat conservative describe themselves as moderate because they're sickened by the extremes of the right wing of the Republican Party. Surely you know that. Surely.
Thank you ER for saying what I couldn't articulate satisfactorily regarding my self-identification as a moderate conservative. I thought there was a 'spectrum' from far right to far left with moderates sitting closer to each other than the extremes of their own parties. I have more in common with some Dems than a lot of Repubs. My big issue is being painted with too broad a brush. I cringe at the self inflicted damage some liberals are doing to their cause with folks like me. Where are the rational voices? That's what I'm looking for in my elected officials - a rational voice .
And ER, sorry I mis-identified you on my blog, I've fixed the error! Forgive me? :-)
And ER, sorry I mis-identified you on my blog, I've fixed the error! Forgive me? :-)
Dawno, indeed, I think you and I are closer together than you are to your party's leadership (I think yer a Repub?) and closer than I am to my party's leadership, in this time of extremes.
But no more doubts as to where I'm standing: From 9/11 forward I stood with one foot over the line. Today both feet are left of center.
I'm still not out there with the lefy wackos. But I'm solidly, traditionally Dem, warts, freaks, aging hippies, Episcopaleans -- :-) -- and all.
Because the freaks on the far right are more of a danger to this country, IMHO, than the freaks on thye far left.
Come back anytime, Dawno! Mark can't discuss politics at all, I don't think, without stringing out all the labels, and what he thinks about each of them, ever time. And that's OK. :-)
But no more doubts as to where I'm standing: From 9/11 forward I stood with one foot over the line. Today both feet are left of center.
I'm still not out there with the lefy wackos. But I'm solidly, traditionally Dem, warts, freaks, aging hippies, Episcopaleans -- :-) -- and all.
Because the freaks on the far right are more of a danger to this country, IMHO, than the freaks on thye far left.
Come back anytime, Dawno! Mark can't discuss politics at all, I don't think, without stringing out all the labels, and what he thinks about each of them, ever time. And that's OK. :-)
"I have never seen any comment from you that is non partisan."
Mark, how is that true? I don't believe I've ever mentioned party labels in the comments on this blog, or my own party affiliation. I'm a feminist and I'm basically liberal, but neither of those are strictly partisan.
Mark, how is that true? I don't believe I've ever mentioned party labels in the comments on this blog, or my own party affiliation. I'm a feminist and I'm basically liberal, but neither of those are strictly partisan.
Hey-real quick-I'd like to thank whichever one of the Anonymous family that put up that entire editorial by (some fool, let's face it). I have been waiting and waiting to see some asshat use the term 'mollycoddling'. Somewhat out of use these days, it is nonetheless a term that pretty much any (fool, let's face it) will use to describe those that had been raised to think that the government is there to help those need help (amongst many other things, natch).
I apologize to anyone, in advance, who might have found my use of the term 'asshat' as a slur against either of the losing parties, or those folks of the independent persuasion.
I apologize to anyone, in advance, who might have found my use of the term 'asshat' as a slur against either of the losing parties, or those folks of the independent persuasion.
Harrumph! I'm offended that you used an expression that contains the word "shat"!!!
Post a Comment
# posted by : 9:31 PM
: 9:31 PM << Home
