quote:

---

I was all set to defend President Bush as a guy who really doesn't want poor black people in Louisiana and Mississippi to die of starvation and disease, no matter what the Democrats say.

But then Barbara Bush, the president's mom, went and dusted off the Bush family silver foot Monday. And she used it.

While touring the Houston Astrodome, where thousands of Hurricane Katrina refugees have been huddling, Barbara Bush said they didn't have it so bad because, heck, they were poor to begin with.

"What I'm hearing, which is sort of scary, is they all want to stay in Texas," she was quoted as saying in an interview on National Public Radio.

Thousands of hurricane refugees were sitting on or near their green army cots, perhaps thinking of lunch, presumably waiting to be fed something hearty.

Anything but cake.

"Everyone is so overwhelmed by the hospitality," Barbara Bush said. And here comes the fastball over the middle of the Democratic plate:

"And so many of the people in the arena here, you know, were underprivileged anyway, so this is working very well for them."

At least she didn't ask them to sing and dance. But I'm sure it's working out very well for them. How often does something nice like a hurricane come by and change your life so you can hang out with thousands of others in the Astrodome and have Barbara Bush say it wasn't so bad, because you were poor anyway?

---

[ September 07, 2005, 03:34 PM: Message edited by: sndrake ]
 

---

Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
 
Well, I have to say I agree with him. I posted in Bob's "mild rant" thread yesterday about this. That is exactly the way I took it, too. I thought I was the only one, but last night The Daily Show came through for me and played the clip as it was going to commercial. If you didn't see The Daily Show last night, you should catch the re-run of it tonight.
 

---

Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
 
Kayla,

Thanks for the heads up on the Daily Show. I'll try to catch it tonight. But I suspect it won't be the only news show running the clip.

I really do enjoy John Kass. I suspect that sooner or later he'll be making comparisons between the patronage appointments at FEMA and some of the more outrageous patronage appointments by Chicago's Democrat mayor Richard Daley.

I look forward to that column.

I've been searching google regularly and I am pretty shocked that there is no news of a clarification and/or apology from Barbara Bush.

What's that about?
 

---

Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
 
Apparently, we are the only people in the universe that took it the wrong way. I'm sure she doesn't even have a clue that what she said might be considered inappropriate.

Look at this. http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001054719

They changed the quote to take out the "scary" part, which seems to be pretty common among the articles I read. Other than reporting what she said, and a sentence with an obliquely raised eyebrow, they seem to move right along like nothing ever happened. I kind of wonder if all the reporters are sitting around wondering if they are the only one that took it out of context and are giving her the benefit of the doubt, while waiting to see if anyone else was upset. It might be a few days before this story takes off. Or it could die a quiet death.
 

---

Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
 
Kayla,

who changed the quote?

"Scary" is included in the Editor & Publisher quotation.

I suspect that this will probably simmer. Major papers ran articles on this yesterday - although many combined it with a really stupid remark from Rick Santorum suggesting "penalties" be leveed in the future against people who don't evacuate.

He had to backtrack almost immediately and admit the majority of people who remained in New Orleans were those without vehicles and without money for transportation out of the city.

I want to see what tomorrow brings in terms of editorials and opinion columns.
 

---

Posted by Goody Scrivener (Member # 6742) on :
 
I'm so glad to see that I wasn't the only one who thought she was being insulting with that comment. I've been simmering on it for the past day and a half since I first saw the quote in yesterday's Trib trying to decide if I was being overly sensitive (for no real reason since I'm not affected in any significant way) or if she really was that blind to her own statement.

Hey, waitaminnit... the title changed while I was posting! LOL
 

---

Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
 
I swear they just changed that.

quote:

---

In a segment at the top of the show on the surge of evacuees to the Texas city, Barbara Bush said: "Almost everyone I’ve talked to says we're going to move to Houston."

Then she added: "What I’m hearing is they all want to stay in Texas. Everyone is so overwhelmed by the hospitality.

"And so many of the people in the arena here, you know, were underprivileged anyway, so this (she chuckles slightly)--this is working very well for them."

---

quote:

---

In a segment at the top of the show on the surge of evacuees to the Texas city, Barbara Bush said: "Almost everyone (the victims) I’ve talked to says we're going to move to Houston." (clarification Soto's)
Then she added: "What I’m hearing is they (the victims) all want to stay in Texas. Everyone is so overwhelmed by the hospitality.
"And so many of the people in the arena here, you know, were underprivileged anyway, so this--this [she chuckles slightly] is working very well for them."

---

I really think E&P changed it's copy, though.
 

---

Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
 
Heh. Sorry, Goody.

I figured John Kass's name doesn't mean much outside of Chicago and the title was a little dense. So I decided to go for a title that was a little more direct and explicit about the thread content.

So it wasn't just you. It was me, Kayla, you and John Kass.

So far.
 

---

Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
 

quote:

---

I really think E&P changed it's copy, though.

---

quote:

---

I suspect that this will probably simmer. Major papers ran articles on this yesterday - although many combined it with a really stupid remark from Rick Santorum suggesting "penalties" be leveed in the future against people who don't evacuate.

He had to backtrack almost immediately and admit the majority of people who remained in New Orleans were those without vehicles and without money for transportation out of the city.

---

quote:

---

WASHINGTON - A few days after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, President Bush galvanized a fearful nation by climbing atop the rubble of the World Trade Center, draping his arm across the shoulders of a firefighter and declaring, "The whole world hears you."

The president's popularity surged in the aftermath of that disaster, rallying public support and displaying defiance in the face of aggression.

But what Bush has said after Hurricane Katrina, now recognized as the worst natural disaster in U.S. history, has attracted criticism from Democrats and Republicans alike. While his words after 9/11 provided confidence, his statements after the disaster that has befallen New Orleans and other areas have given little solace.

House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of California told reporters Wednesday that Gulf Coast residents were struck by two disasters - Katrina and the president's failure to lead.

"Instead of unconscionably blaming others, President Bush must take charge and take responsibility, and must get it right, and that is my concern and the message that I will bring to the president: 'Mr. President, you should have taken charge and you should have taken responsibility,' " she said.

Pelosi recounted a conversation with Bush, during which she called for the resignation of Michael Brown, head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency who has been under fire since the outset.

"He said, 'Why would I do that?' " Pelosi said. "I said, 'Because of all that went wrong, of all that didn't go right last week.' And he said, 'What didn't go right?' "

"Oblivious, in denial, dangerous," she said.

---

quote:

---

Bush also wasn't helped by comments from others. House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., raised questions almost immediately about the wisdom of rebuilding New Orleans, comments he lost no time retracting. Homeland Security Department Secretary Michael Chertoff told Tim Russert on "Meet the Press" that no one envisioned the New Orleans levees breaking, even though the possibility had been discussed for years.

And then there's the president's mother, Barbara Bush, who appeared insensitive to the suffering of residents in her comments.

"What I'm hearing which is sort of scary is that they all want to stay in Texas," she said. "Everybody is so overwhelmed by the hospitality. And so many of the people in the arena here, you know, were underprivileged anyway, so this, this is working very well for them."

---

quote:

---

noemon, the headline here (at NPR) says Barbara Bush's Comments on Evacuees Cause a Stir, goes on to quote her and then says nothing about the stir.

---

Yeah, I haven't heard an actual news story on this from NPR--the show I was listening to has more of a roundtable discussion format. The people on the panel were pretty vocal in their condemnation of the former first lady's "let them eat cake" attitude.
 

---

Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
What is the latest polling of Bush's job approval rating?

Before Katrina he was at 41%. What do you think he is at now? I'd guess low 30's.

His domestic agenda for the next year is sunk.


And DarkKnight - Do you really think that LIVING at the Astrodome on cots is better than the life they had in NO before the flood? That is what she was saying, that these underprivileged people didn't have much to start with, and that the charity they are being shown is actually an improvement over their previous life. It's sickeningly patronizing.

Furthermore, I think Texas should be commended for their actions. I have family in Houston. My cousin was telling my mom two days ago about how there was a call out for people with wireless enabled laptops to come to the Astrodome to help work the refugee databse to try and reunite families broken up. I've never been more proud of my cousin.

Texans can be coarse, and they can be snooty. But when it comes down to it, they have huge hearts, and don't lack for generosity.
 

---

Posted by Treason (Member # 7587) on :
 

 

---

Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
 

quote:

---

Her comment of "so many of the people in the arena here, you know, were underprivileged anyway, so this, this is working very well for them" is true.

---

quote:

---

WASHINGTON A White House spokesman says Former First Lady Barbara Bush's comments about some hurricane refugees were a personal observation.

The wife of former President George Bush on Monday said poor people at a relocation center in Houston are faring better than before Hurricane Katrina struck.

White House press secretary Scott McClellan today didn't answer directly when asked if the current president agreed with his mother's remarks.

---

quote:

---

But no, the more important story here is we found a way to hopefully convince everyone that the Bushes are evil monsters.

---

No, not in the least. The real story is that a government that prided itself in security, stability, proper leadership and the ability to respond in times of crisis turned out to be slow, timid, and outwardly unfazed by the suffering of those in poverty.

The Bush administration worked hard to create the Department of Homeland Security and bring all of the intelligence and disaster relief agencies under one banner. They were streamlining and making a better bureaucracy to address catastrophic disasters. They were going to have one group of people who would listen to the threat experts and act appropriately.

And when the chips went down, that Department would spring to life and be a superhero.

I'd rather have The Tick watching over us. This wasn't just a national tragedy, it should be a national shame.

And Mr. Bush and his family, have proven how insulated they really are from the sufferings of people below a certain poverty level or voting block. He went to speak to seniors groups in the Southwest and then to an event in San Diego before he ever turned more than a blinking glance at the devastation along the Gulf Coast.

He fiddled while Rome burned.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Nice rhetorical flourish, but you're overstating the case.
 

---

Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
 
Kat,

I'm confused. I see what you wrote and I don't see much in common with the "straw man" stuff DK wrote.

The generosity of the Texas public and the state's response has been widely recognized as astounding. Last weekend, Al Sharpton surprised Tucker Carlson on MSNBC. (Carlson had earlier announced Sharpton wanted to talk about racial issues related to the disaster, which would be predictable.)

That's not what Sharpton did. He spent his whole time on the air praising the mayor of Houston, the Texas public and the larger faith community in Texas. Considering his usual rap, it looked like he was honestly moved by what he saw. Texans were doing their best to move every available resource to help people whose lives had been devastated.

But that's a separate issue from what Barbara Bush said. I just can't figure out why a politically savvy person like her hasn't issued an apology for sloppy speaking or something like that. The sooner she does it, the likelier it will fade away as more pressing matters take everyone's attention.
 

---

Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
There's going to be a lot of Nero references in the weeks to come aren't there?
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
I was referring to part where it's scary that everyone wants to stay in Texas. I don't think for a second that she meant the people are scary - there are plenty of violent people with guns in Texas already. I think she meant about all the work it will take to absorb a city full of people with no resources of their own. I'm proud of Texas for what they've done so far. Texas can handle it, but it is a big job.
 

---

Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
 
Katie, I don't think people are taking issue with that so much as the "they're better off" part. Which you have already agreed is tacky.
 

---

Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
 
kq,

the "better off" is certainly what set me off about Barbara Bush's statements. That was obviously what bothered John Kass too.

The "scary" part is ambiguous and could be interpreted in a variety of ways. It's probably getting harsher interpretations because of what follows directly after.
 

---

Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
 
I love John Kass. I agree that "scary" is ambiguous, and probably related to Texas suddenly getting a HUGE influx of basically indigent people.

But the later quote DOES smack of clueless priviledge (as have a few of the President's quotes/actions over the last week or two).

I'm not saying that the Bushes are classist or even clueless in fact, merely that they look that way. The fact that they have been slow to correct that impression is bad, because ...

If it looks like a banana and smells like a banana people will believe it IS a banana, even if it tastes like a kumquat.

If enough people believe it, in politics, it hardly matters whether-or-not it's true.
 

---

Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
 
I'm going to repost my comments from yesterday on Bob's thread over here.

quote:

---

Living on a cot in the Astrodome is working for them? Because they are poor. I guess when you come from the slums, a cot in the Astrodome, which is filled with 15,000 other people, "works" for you.

You know, I am pretty certain she didn't mean it the way it sounds. I'm sure it was meant as a compliment to Texans, but I sometimes wonder if people ever think about what is coming out of their mouths or if they just talk. (My son is one of those people who doesn't have an edit button, so I understand, but sheesh, the woman has been First Lady and First Mom for quite a while now. You'd think at some point and time, one would have been installed.)

---

quote:

---

To me, when I initially read what she said, thought it could easily be taken poorly by anyone who thinks that the world is racists and out to get them. I mean, we are talking about a large group of people who think the government actually blew up the flood wall near 17th Street Canal to protect the French Quarter.

To those people, what BB said was "It's scary that the black people all want to stay in Texas. I mean, we've been so hospitable that they say they want to stay! They are so poor that a cot in room with 15,000 other cots is better than what they had. Oh my lord, what are we going to do with all these poor black people?" It's almost like she wishes that Texas wouldn't be quite so hospitable so that they would all leave.

Like I said, I'm sure she intended it completely differently, but you'd think that at this particular point and time in history, she'd know that charges of racism are rampant and that the "underprivileged" are wary of government.

---

Like I said, I'm sure what she meant was totally different than what seemed to come across. I'm sure she meant that she was really proud of her fellow Texans and how generous they were.

But is sure seemed like she thought everyone was going to be happy with a cot in the Astrodome and stay forever because it's better than what they had before the hurricane.
 

---

Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
 
And for all that they are doing now, I have to say that the Texans are not all that welcoming of outsiders who they feel don't belong there. This is a temporary welcome mat and make no mistake about it. At some point, these people are expected to go home -- especially if they are indigent.

If they have work in Texas, that's a whole other kettle of fish. But people who might swell the welfare roles aren't going to be happily absorbed into ANY community in the US.
 

---

Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
 
Why is it that the Nero references come to mind so easily right now when discussing W?

Maybe because it just fits so well.
 

---

Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
 
On a side note, I found out that the Center I work in might be working with some evacuees that ended up in the Chicago area. Diane is going to fill me in later.

Note - this is the Center for Independent Living - not the anti-euthanasia organization I do my thing with.

I do not wish to create unnecessary confusion.

We have the administration to do that for us already.
 

---

Posted by littlemissattitude (Member # 4514) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz:
And for all that they are doing now, I have to say that the Texans are not all that welcoming of outsiders who they feel don't belong there. This is a temporary welcome mat and make no mistake about it. At some point, these people are expected to go home -- especially if they are indigent.

If they have work in Texas, that's a whole other kettle of fish. But people who might swell the welfare roles aren't going to be happily absorbed into ANY community in the US.

---

quote:

---

Texas is not the only place that expects the people put out of their homes by Katrina to go home after a relatively short time

---

My understanding is that Texas leaders fully expect that many, many people will cnose to stay. I'm sure they hope not all of them will stay. But then they have taken on a huge number of refugees. If you've seen anything suggesting they aren't welcome to stay I'd like to see it.
 

---

Posted by littlemissattitude (Member # 4514) on :
 
Well, one could certainly get that impression from a myriad of broadcast news reports that talk about Texas officials saying that there is no more room for people from the hurricane zone there (which is understandable; they've taken in a lot of people) as well as comments about sending people on to other states as places are found for them.

I was just trying to say that I haven't heard reports from a whole lot of areas that are visiblly (audibly) talking about welcoming people from the affected areas for as long as they wish to stay and even making affirmative plans to integrate whoever wishes to stay permanently into the community, as Fresno seems to be doing. Perhaps the press is just not covering that aspect of the story. I don't know.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
I think there is a difference between saying that the capacity for temporary housing of refugees is about reached and saying that people who have arrived are not welcome to stay.
 

---

Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
 
Look...Texans are warm and welcoming people. Don't get me wrong. Those evacuees will never know they aren't wanted there if it ever comes to that.

It's just that no community is going to want a huge influx of the destitute. I like what the mayor of Fresno had to say. I think it's a great thing.

When social services get strapped or taxes increase to pay for the transplants, then we'll hear some grumbling.

Right now, it's just people helping people. As it should be.
 

---

Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
 
I agree Bob. Texas has been great. But right now, they have a major PR disaster brewing.

You know, when they first started moving people to the Astrodome, back when they thought they'd be able to take 25,000, they said it was clear through December. Today I heard they expect people to be out of the Astrodome by the end of the week.

And by "expect", again, I'm assuming, that they mean they hope to have everyone out of the uncomfortable Astrodome with 15,000 cots and into homes. Not that they expect all of these refugees the hell out the door by the end of the week. Bad PR.

And I also read that part of the reason they are giving "families" debit cards is to encourage people to move out. First they say the debit cards are for families to get "essentials" then turn around on TV and say the real reason is they hope it encourages people to move out of the Astrodome. (And let's face it, lots of people think the reason they are poor is because they mishandle their money. So let's go ahead and give them 2 grand and watch them all bail out of the Astrodome so they can get a decent night's sleep and then we'll close the dome and by the time they run out of money, it won't be our problem anymore. ) Again, bad PR.

Oh, I just found this. http://www.statesman.com/metrostate/content/gen/ap/TX_Katrina_Emergency_Grant.html

Texas is getting $75 million from the Federal government. And suddenly, they are trying to pawn off the evacuees to other states. Bad PR.

The Governor, has been asking other states to take evacuees and they've basically set up weigh stations in Houston and Dallas. They get evacuees of helicopters or planes, give them food, water, take care of the medically and then put them back on planes to other states.

quote:

---

The storm and its aftermath have displaced some 1.5 million people.

Texas officials estimate about 100,000 Louisiana residents are staying in hotels and motels across the state and another 139,000 are being temporarily housed in 137 shelters throughout the state from the Houston Astrodome to El Paso.

---

quote:

---

If you've seen anything suggesting they aren't welcome to stay I'd like to see it.

---

quote:

---

It's just that no community is going to want a huge influx of the destitute.

---

quote:

---

"And so many of the people in the arena here, you know, were underprivileged anyway, so this is working very well for them."

---

...and was confused at exactly why people were bothered by it. I interpreted her as meaning, "Since they are underpriviledged, they are used to having to deal with difficulty, so they are more likely to be patient in their sufferings (ie: better off) than people stuck in such a situation who are accustomed to priviledge.

I thought, well, I guess that could be considered offensive, to assume that because people have had a hard time all their lives having enough money that they would be better able to handle being displaced like this. Though it seemed a stretch.

It took me reading halfway through the thread until I realized that people are interpreting what she said as saying they have a better standard of living as refugees than they did in their normal lives.

Maybe it didn't occur to me to think that she meant that because I can't imagine someone actually meaning that. Thus we see my naivete.
 

---

Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
 
I like Barbara Bush. I'd give her the benefit of the doubt, personally. But she said something without thinking through the implications and she is a far cry from a politically inexperienced person. That's what suprised me.
 

---

Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
 
Sopwith..

quote:

---

The Bush administration worked hard to create the Department of Homeland Security and bring all of the intelligence and disaster relief agencies under one banner.

---

Just to clarify, that was a 9/11 commission recommendation that Bush intially opposed. Just for some FYI...Clicky
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Giving her the benefit of the doubt, I doubt she meant that sleeping on a cot in the Astrodome was better than their life before.

In the sense that before, the poor and futureless were being ignored and now someone is paying attention and resources will be available, their future will be better (for the people who didn't lose family or friends, of course). The present blows, but the life in general has more hope. It was a horrible way to say it, but I think that's true.
 

---

Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
 
Bob, that was my reaction as well, but maybe she's just out of practice.
 

---

Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
 
A blog I just read, reprinted here by permission:

=============================

Here's What Gets Me

People are going around and around about who should have done what at what time to get food and water to the victims of Katrina, and to get the buses there to evacuate people from the city who didn't get out on their own, and to get medical care to the elderly so they wouldn't die, and to get control of the shelter areas so that people wouldn't be beaten, raped, and murdered at the convention center and the Superdome. Let's assume we're not deciding who should have done what at what time.

My problem with Bush -- and here, I do indeed address Bush individually, as a guy -- is that during the time that the crisis was developing, from Monday to Friday, he never seemed to experience any actual sense of urgency as a result of the simple fact that people were, minute by minute and hour by hour, dying.

Let's give him the benefit of the doubt that he was being prevented from acting by bureaucracy and the sheer magnitude of the situation. Where are the stories of how he was in his office freaking the **** out because there were tens of thousands of Americans trapped without food and water? Where's the story of how he ripped a strip off of somebody, demanding to know what the holy hell the holdup is getting water and food to those people?

I want to hear about how he was demanding that extraordinary steps be taken. I want to hear about how he sent his lawyers into a room -- he had four days, you know -- and demanded that they come back in an hour with a plan for him to send the Marines into New Orleans with 100 trucks of food and water, posse comitatus or not. I want to hear that he was panicked. Because I was panicked. Everyone I know was panicked. Everyone I know was gnashing their teeth with helpless rage because they couldn't get in a car, drive down there, and drive a load of homeless Louisiana residents back home with them for soup and a goddamn hot bath. I want to hear that he acted at some point out of genuine despondency about the fact that citizens of the country he is supposed to be running were being starved and dehydrated in a hellish, fetid prison. We are dancing around now about whether it is his failure or not his failure. Where is the decency that would tell him that he is the president, and FEMA is part of his administration, and this failure is his to own and apologize for, whether other people also were wrong or not?

Why is he even trying to shift blame to anyone else? Why isn't he wracked with such guilt, justified or not, that he can't stand up straight? How is it possible that late in the week, when it was so obvious that every safeguard meant to guard against just this kind of catastrophe had failed and he had failed every citizen of that city, he had the joviality to make jokes about his partying days in New Orleans? I'm not talking here about appropriateness or sensitivity, although both were obviously lacking, and there's been no apology for that, either. I'm wondering how it's possible that he felt that way. How was he not tormented? Because he wasn't. You can see that he wasn't. I would feel better if there were some report that he seemed, at some point... shaken. Upset. Angry. Desperate. Something. Something other than "on vacation" and then "lecturing emptily about how much help everyone's going to get, provided they haven't already died of dehydration, drowned, or committed suicide."

The state has the primary responsibility, you say? Okay, fine. Then I want to hear how Bush offered the governor whatever she wanted on whatever terms he could legally get it to her, because it made absolutely no difference who got credit. I want to hear how he couldn't concentrate like the rest of us couldn't concentrate, because he was so consumed by images on television of old women in wheelchairs slowly dying.

Prevented from going into the city by the criminals? Are you telling me that armed thugs could take over a suburban neighborhood and surround it, and law enforcement would stand back until the thugs decided to go away? The people at the Superdome who were following all the rules were being, in a sense, held hostage by the relatively small number who chose to be violent -- to shoot at planes and whatnot. Since when do we leave good citizens to die because we don't want to get dirty doing law enforcement?

Say what you want about the mayor and governor -- those people were in pain. They saw people suffering and dying and took it as a given that it couldn't go on that way, and that if it did, government's response would be a failure. The mayor cried at the top of his lungs for help. I want to hear that Bush cried at the top of his lungs for help. I want to hear that he called every corporate hotshot he's befriended in the last twenty years and told them that if they ever wanted another invitation to the White House for dinner, they were going to pony up a fat wad of cash to the Red Cross, and they were going to do it yesterday.

I want him to have reacted like a person who happened to also be the president. I want him to have felt the same bone-deep sense of shock that I felt at the thought that this could happen in a large city, easily accessible by trucks, in a wealthy country. I want him to have gotten on the damn phone and told somebody that if there wasn't water for every person at the Superdome within eight hours, that person's head was going to roll, and he didn't care how it got done, it had better get done. I want him not to have sat around on his ass on vacation while people's children were being taken from their arms to be rescued.

I want Bush not to have spent four days dicking around while the conditions deteriorated. I want him to have acted sooner, not because it was his obligation as president and it would reflect badly on him if he didn't, but because people were dying, and everyone I know who could think of something to do did it. There were a million things he could have done besides sit around making happy speeches about how everything would be fine. The stupid comment about Trent Lott's porch doesn't infuriate me because Trent Lott can't miss his porch. He has as much right to be sad over his losses as anyone. But the lighthearted way in which Bush delivered those remarks was absolutely chilling.

I want him to have been consumed with grief and sorrow at the dying that was ongoing, and he wasn't. I want him to have felt like a profound failure because an entire segment of the population of one of America's greatest cities was suffering and was at risk of starving to death, but he didn't. I want him to have been embarrassed when the FEMA director gave up the information that FEMA knew less about the convention center than CNN, but he wasn't. I want him not to have smirked his way through the entire experience, and he did.

No matter whose fault the slow relief effort was, the fact of the matter is that these are Americans, and this is their president, and the fact that they were homeless, starving, dying of thirst, and deprived of medication never once seemed to actually bother him.

=============================

That's the feeling a lot of people have right now. It's not bashing the right, it's honest bewilderment that our president didn't jump to action and seems puzzled that we thought he should have.
And I know that there was probably little the president could have personally done that was more effective than what happened. I'm sure he does care about the tragedy, and about the thousands of people killed and many more displaced.
But it does bother me that it apparently never occurred to him being seen strumming a guitar on Tuesday next to video of people dying would be bad. Rove should have called him Monday morning and told him to cancel everything and start yelling at people, ideally near a camera.

President Bush won, in large part, because he promised to protect Americans. One of the biggest arguments against him is that he seems to prefer protecting rich Americans. Speaking frankly, this was a golden opportunity for him to get some easy brownie points that would have helped him with his domestic agenda down the road. Instead, people who feel he ignores the plight of those less fortunate than his golfing buddies now have video to justify their fears.
 

---

Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
 

quote:

---

In the sense that before, the poor and futureless were being ignored and now someone is paying attention and resources will be available, their future will be better (for the people who didn't lose family or friends, of course). The present blows, but the life in general has more hope. It was a horrible way to say it, but I think that's true.

---

This seems to me to be an overinterpretation in the other direction. To be honest, the lady wore thin for me during her tenure as First Lady, so I'll put my biases up front.

But I just don't see her intending to say the poor have been ignored.

Part of my dislike is the impression that under the amiable veneer was a person with a real nasty streak - verbally. I have to wonder what besides irritation over the reactions to her remark could account for her silence right now. A little contrition could go a long way. Or it could have if done in a timely manner.
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
>>Where are the stories of how he was in his office freaking the **** out

Right. Because that worked really well for Howard Dean.

Look, I don't like Bush's plasti-face. But come on-- you don't show the leader of the free world freaking out. He, more than anyone else, needs to be seen as being calm, cool, confident, and optimistic. This is basic PR.

His image would have been improved by a more sincere pitch; he probably wishes he'd never mentioned Lott's front porch; but show him losing control or acting angry? Not in today's media circus.
 

---

Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
 
Wow, Chris!

For myself, thanks for posting that.

An added note - this isn't about evil but about banality - I saw a Salon writer interviewed the other night. He called attention to the attentiveness and preparedness shown all up and down the administration in 2004 before, during and after the hurricanes swept across Florida.

But that was an election year in a hotly contested state.
 

---

Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
 
In this case I think anger would have helped. Not Dean's cry of impotent rage, but a measured, no-nonsense image of "We're going to get this done, I don't care how" would have gone a long way. He didn't have to lose control.

Actually I would have preferred a plasti-face. Optimism is good, calm control is fine. But joking was out of line. Can you understand that watching four days of people in jeopardy and then seeing our president smirk and make jokes is infuriating?
 

---

Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
 
But that was an election year in a hotly contested state.

That was also a state that a) had been through this before, and b) had a governor who knew better.

I don't pretend that Bush is ultimately to blame or that major mistakes weren't made at all levels, mostly at the city and state. Also plenty of blame for senators and congressmen, Dems and Reps, for voting for their pork projects while slashing necessary ones. And there's the infighting and political manuevering that went on between the Army Corp of Engineers and the other interests in La. when they were trying to work out what to do, years ago.

But where President Bush stepped up and at least looked like what we needed him to be after 9/11, he let us down this time. That's why the vitriol, at least for me.
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
>>But joking was out of line. Can you understand that watching four days of people in jeopardy and then seeing our president smirk and make jokes is infuriating?

Point taken.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Hmm...

Barbara Bush's motivation aside, I do think that for a lot of people - those who did not lose family and who are not going to be racked with PTSD from the violence and hunger of that week - their future will now be better than the future before the hurricane.

I've lived in the ghetto before, and there's a lot of loyalty and love for the place there, but I don't think leaving it is a bad thing, especially when there is support.
 

---

Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
 
BTW, John Kass has another column out today. (this is a columnist who isn't welcome in either Republican or Democratic Headquarters in Illinois, I suspect.)

He didn't compare Chicago's mayor and the President.

Nope - He went for Jesse Jackson and the President. (If nothing else, I know that Olivet will probably appreciate this. )
Changing words, pictures won't change reality

quote:

---

The people who fled Hurricane Katrina are refugees.

They fled their homes and sought refuge. That's the definition of a refugee.

There is no shame in the word. It is not a black word or a white word or any color word. Fear has no color. The desire to keep your family alive has no color.

We don't call them white-ugees or black-ugees, but if breaking human beings into racial subgroups for political gain makes you feel better, be my guest. I'm sticking with refugee.

And those who didn't make it? Those who died? The stories of their deaths won't change the fact that they are dead. And no photographs of their bodies will bring them back to life.

There's no shame in dying, either. It has happened to human beings confronted by lesser storms than Hurricane Katrina.

What is shameful, though, is the attempt to shape reality to fit the politics. In this, two men have found common ground:

Rev. Jesse Jackson, and President George Bush.

---

quote:

---

In virtually every print and broadcast interview on the subject, those who have found refuge in shelters--many of whom, certainly, like me, never gave a thought to the nuances of disaster relief terminology before Katrina--now overwhelmingly express dislike for "refugee."

Whether opinion leaders have spun them into this negative interpretation of "refugees" or whether they came to it on their own doesn't matter. Whether those of us who used the term had the best of intentions--believing that "refugees" best underscores the profundity of their plight--doesn't matter.

All that matters is that most of them find it offensive. And who am I--who is anyone--to inflict a prissy little etymology lesson on those who have lost nearly everything? "Evacuees" or "survivors" it is.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

"And so many of the people in the arena here, you know, were underprivileged anyway, so this is working very well for them."

---

...and was confused at exactly why people were bothered by it. I interpreted her as meaning, "Since they are underpriviledged, they are used to having to deal with difficulty, so they are more likely to be patient in their sufferings (ie: better off) than people stuck in such a situation who are accustomed to priviledge.

---

quote:

---

Barbara Bush's motivation aside, I do think that for a lot of people - those who did not lose family and who are not going to be racked with PTSD from the violence and hunger of that week - their future will now be better than the future before the hurricane.

---

I think you're right, Kat. Absolutely right. But I don't think the timing of the observation was remotely appropriate. It really was (from my perspective, that is) like saying "well, at least your life is better now that you have more freedom" to the widow of a long-suffering man at his funeral.

I tend to avoid hyperbole, and I hope that is how I'm taken in general here. I'd like to think that 'Rackers expect me to be civil and more understated than not. But this comment of hers really shook me to the core.

Edited to add: Especially given that she was speaking immediately after the event, with so many of these people still not knowing who they knew was alive or dead. And she knew she was speaking in public, so she knew they could (eventually) hear her.

Not only this, but I can't find a reason why to bring up this point. It wasn't a frank admission in the midst of puzzling through allocating scarce resources at a budget table or something (where, at least, I could argue that it might further some aspect of the discussion at hand) -- it was a throwaway comment: an offhand, callous remark. You don't get to be callous unless there is a compelling and overriding reason to be so.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Sara, that makes sense. It just never crossed my mind to take it that way. I'm just dense sometimes.
 

---

Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
 
No, bev, no worries. It speaks well of you that you expect the best of other people.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 

quote:

---

But I don't think the timing of the observation was remotely appropriate.

---

I agree. That's what was so tacky about it - it was highly inappropriate. The timing and verbalization was insensitive, and the phrasing very unfortunate and badly said unless she actually thought that being crammed into the Astrodome was better than life in New Orleans.

With all that, though, I'm not sure she was wrong. Raising a family in New Orleans was only really good if you could send the kids to private school - the public schools sucked. It wasn't like Las Vegas, with a racuous tourist attraction hiding a dynamic middle class city. It was a racuous tourist attraction hiding a largely broken, poor city with horrendous schools and shrinking tax base. I don't know all the reasons it got that way, although it's enough like Detroit that it tugs on my heart.
 

---

Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
 
Hmmm. I wouldn't agree that "this is working well for them," at least not at this point. I can see that this might turn out (relatively, in some way) well for them, but I really think the "is" part of it is what I found staggering. I mean, many of these people have no idea yet whether or not many of their family members -- including parents, including siblings, including children -- and friends are alive.

Edit: And that, I think, is the "let them eat cake" part.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
*nods* I can see that. The present tense, instead of the future tense, makes the sentiment much worse.
 

---

Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
 
Yeah. I didn't piece that together until we just now talked about it together, but yeah. It's the tense that really is disturbing.
 

---

Posted by Theaca (Member # 8325) on :
 
Isn't she like 80 years old? I just chalked it up to memory problems or some age-related brain fart. It just didn't make sense otherwise so I haven't really wasted any time being upset with her.
 

---

Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
 
Another possibility, certainly. She might well think that the disaster happened months ago.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
I hate to give people a pass just because they are old. I don't think she thinks it happened months ago - I think she's not thinking about them at all.

It reminds me of my grandmother. At my mother's funeral, four weeks before I was about to leave for a year and a half, my grandmother tells me it's my job to make sure some golddigger doesn't attach herself to my dad, because he'll probably get remarried soon.

After I got back and he had married my stepmother (whom my grandmother adores), my grandmother very happily told me how everything (including my mother dying??) had worked out for the best.

I think it's the same thing. Same callous attitude, and while there's a spin there with truth in it, prima facia it is a horrible thing to say to an even more horrible choice of audience.

*shrug* No reason to be vilified, but not a reason to be loved, either.
 

---

Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
What really bothers me in all of this, is the implication that it probably doesn't bother the poor when they lose everything because they didn't so much to lose.

That attitude is just so arrogant. If you were from the upper middle class in New Orleans and your home was destroyed -- you probably didn't lose everthing. If you were well off, you probably had some money in the bank, an insurance policy, a 401 K, perhaps a stock portfolio and a wallet full of platinum cards. You may even be continueing to collect your salary and if you aren't you likely have very marketable skills and will be able to find another high paying job given a bit of time.

Most likely, none of that is true for the poor. When their neighborhoods were destroyed in the storm, they truly lost everything they had, probably even their jobs. The poor aren't the ones who have started rebuilding their houses, confident that aid will arrive in time for them to pay their debts. These people don't have a VISA card to charge it to and no bank would make them loans. And when the government aid comes to help rebuild New Orleans, it won't come to them because they didn't own their homes. It will go to their landlords who may not choose to rebuild low income housing.

[ September 08, 2005, 03:02 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
 

---

Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
One more thing, if you are a poor family and you are living from pay check to pay check, barely making enough to pay the rent and the bills and you loose your home, you are in serious deep trouble. In order to get into a new home, you will have to come up with first and last months rent and a deposit. When you can barely scrape together enough to pay the rent each month, coming up with the money to get into a new apartment is absolutely impossible.

I know from working with the local homeless shelter that these is a serious problem in America. There are many homeless families who are making enough money to afford to pay rent but can't get a home because they can never get enough together to make the big upfront payment.

The fact of the matter is that losing your home isn't easier just because your home is worth less on the free market. In most cases, it's probably harder.

[ September 08, 2005, 02:59 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Rabbit, I hate to do this, but it's driving me crazy. "Losing" has only one o.
 

---

Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
 
Chris, that blog entry (and the other Kass quotes, thank you sndrake) speak to exactly what I was saying before.

It may very well be true that there was nothing GWB couldn't have done by phone while on vacation (or whatever), so that there was no real need for him to be out and about, looking like...well, a concerned president.

"Freaking out" is probably bad PR for anyone, I suppose, but strumming guitars and making jokes about having enjoyed New Orleans 'maybe too much' on occassion *wink, nudge* (followed by a weak assertion that NO would be restored to its former self, admittedly)... was painful to watch.

Sorry, but that is WAAAAY worse PR than freaking right the heck out. Like I said, he may be a kumquat, but he looks like a banana. Even if Brown was the best person for the job (big if) and none of this is really the administration's fault in any way, he still looks like a clueless child of priviledge, oblivious to the suffering of his people.

I think it's too late to fix it, really. The PR damage has been done, and I think he'll burn for it in the hell of public opinion.
 

---

Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
 
That's just it, though, Olivet. I'm not sure he will suffer in public opinion. The one part of the administration that went into high gear right away was the "spin" machinery.

Right now, an overwhelming majority of Republicans think Bush is doing a good job handling Katrina. The overwhelming majority of Democrats think he's doing a poor job.

And my guess is that the majority of Republicans and Democrats aren't analyzing this nearly as much as so many of us Hatrackers are. Republicans aren't watching the shows that air Bush's comments about "no one anticipating a breech of the levees" and flashing to interviews with folks at the Hurricane Center who briefed Bush on that possibility before the storm hit.

And I doubt the majority of Democrats are doing much better - just going with their preferred "spin" and not bothering with real analysis.

::decides not to quote John Kenneth Galbraith here::
 

---

Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
 

quote:

---

His argument, echoed by the Congressional Black Caucus, is that "refugee" suggests foreign status, that the person is somehow second class, second rate. I suggest members of Congress obtain a dictionary.

---

quote:

---

However, I understand his point. The whole evacuee/refugee thing is a bit nuts, when you are sitting there thinking, they are taking refuge. Refuge is a place providing protection and shelter. Why are they so upset. Till you go and actually look at the definition of refugee. Maybe we should send Kass a dictionary. He doesn't have one apparently.

---

quote:

---

Suffice to say in response, however, that most readers probably rely on a simpler definition, like that found in Webster's: "a person who flees from home or country to seek refuge elsewhere, as in a time of war or political or religious persecution."

---

quote:

---

I will start worrying about it only when it becomes a consistent behavior pattern showing that it is something more than a verbal misstep.

---

quote:

---

I will start worrying about it only when it becomes a consistent behavior pattern showing that it is something more than a verbal misstep.

---

quote:

---

quote:Barbara Bush's motivation aside, I do think that for a lot of people - those who did not lose family and who are not going to be racked with PTSD from the violence and hunger of that week - their future will now be better than the future before the hurricane.

I think you're right, Kat. Absolutely right.

---

quote:

---

I'm just... honestly I'm ashamed I ever voted for him. I don't WANT to be ashamed of my president, but there you go. *shrug*

---

You really honestly voted for him?
 

---

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
I'm suprised, too.
 

---

Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
 
He's the only president you've got, whether you voted for him or not.
 

---

Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
 
I voted for him. Once. I voted for Clinton, once, too, and later felt shame. But this is worse.

I suppose confession is good for the soul, and I confess. I don't have a good reason. I didn't vote for him the first time, but the second, I did.

I realize that makes it much, much worse. The only thing I can say in my defense is that I was on mood-altering prescriptiion drugs at the time, and I knew Bush was going to take Georgia anyway, and it would make my husband happy. I honestly figured we were prettymuch screwwed either way.

I hope the world can forgive me, and perhaps I can forgive myself. I effed up, and I'm sorry. Meaningless as my vote was, I wish I could take it back. I just didn't think it would be this bad.
 

---

Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
 
In Olivet's defense, I used to live in that area. There's no way in heck he WASN'T going to win the entire state of Georgia by an absurdly overwhelming majority, even if there hadn't been the major get-out-the-vote effort by Karl Rove et al.
 

---

Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
 
I read a very interesting book called Why the Electoral College is Bad for America.
 

---

Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
 
Wow, tell us more kq, it sounds... interesting.
 

---

Posted by Brinestone (Member # 5755) on :
 
Olivet, I voted for him too. I gave it a TON of thought because I hated the thought of voting for either him or John Kerry. But at the time it seemed that at least Bush had a plan, whereas Kerry's agenda was "Bush stinks. I'll do it better," which seemed more laced with hatred than hope (to me at least).

I thought at the time that as bad as Bush would be for America, Kerry would be worse. The further we get into his second term, the less sure I am that I guessed right.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
I am desperately hoping for a candidate in 2008 that I can actually respect.

But those sorts of human beings don't run for president, do they?
 

---

Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
 
Bush didn't even campaign here. It was a done deal, and I was tired of all the political arguing in my home. I'm not registered as a Democrat or as a Republican. I seldom vote on party lines.

I voted against the gay marriage ban, and so did my Beloved. I pursuaded him, even though it didn't matter more than a fart in the wind. I was just all out of steam by then. It was sort of meant as a private gesture. I hardly ever admit who I voted for in presidential elections, and consider myself apolitical when at all possible.

Thanks Megan. *cries on Megan's shoulder* I'm really sorry.

edit: BAN not Man
 

---

Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
 
Well...

I lived in Florida during the 2000 election and voted for Nader (or nadir as I now call him) because I just couldn't stand Gore. I considered it "sending a message."

Then it turned out that the counts were so close that my vote (and those of others like me) could've possibly turned the election from a Bush win.

I felt sick afterwards and have decided to re-analyze my voting strategy from now on. If there is even the slightest chance that someone as horrid as Bush could get in, I will henceforth always vote for the strongest alternate candidate, no matter who that person is. The less of of two evils would have been Gore, but I couldn't see that my vote was anything but symbolic when I cast it.

So I ended up by helping a man I truly loathe get into the White House. Call me fool.
 

---

Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
 
Brinestone and beverly: Exactly. I think we were faced with two very bad choices. I DO want a candidate I can respect, but I think you're right -- the job just doesn't attract that kind of person, though there were a few names bandied about that I could have gotten behind.
 

---

Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
 
Stromy,

quote:

---

The White House said $50 billion of the $51.8 billion bill would be distributed through the Federal Emergency Management Agency, which has been the subject of widespread criticism in the past week.

The official breakdown said $23.2 billion was for housing aid and grants to individuals, of which about $640 million was for the unprecedented debit cards.

State and local governments are in line for $7.7 billion in reimbursement costs.

---

quote:

---

Of the money allocated to FEMA, $23.2 billion will be used to house, feed and provide medical care to victims. It includes costs for home repairs, funerals, replacement of vehicles, moving and storage. The expenses are capped at $26,200 per household.

---

quote:

---

House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Bill Thomas, R-Calif., said the House could act as soon as Thursday to help get money and other assistance to hurricane evacuees by cutting through federal red tape, including relaxing rules for welfare funds. In recent days, the government has spent more than $2 billion a day as it has paid out several big-ticket items such as contracts to provide housing.

The bulk of the money would go into a Federal Emergency Management Agency disaster relief fund that is offering the debit cards. FEMA anticipates handing out 320,000 cards, at a cost of $640 million, to help displaced residents buy clothing, pay for transportation and other needs.

Congressional budget aides briefed by the White House said state and local governments would receive almost $8 billion from the federal government for debris removal, school aid and infrastructure repair and replacement. An estimated $500 million would pay for helicopter costs, repairs to sewer and drainage systems, and other storm-related expenses, said an aide to Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R-Fla., a member of the House Budge Committee.

---

http://www.tucsoncitizen.com/breaking/090805katrina1.php
 

---

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
Thanks, Kayla. I sometimes wonder if my posts are coming across as the equivalent of indecipherable armpit farting noises.

Again, it will be interesting to see how much of that money is put to constructive use and how much is just basically tossed into bridges to nowhere and the like.

Olivet, I wasn't jumping on you with my statement. If you voted for Bush, that's your call. I was honestly suprised because you haven't been very sympathetic to Bush on this board.
 

---

Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
 
Oh, Stormy, I know. It may have something to do with WHY I haven't been terribly sympathetic to him, too. Like Brinestone, I saw him as the lesser of two evils. I may have been right, in that regard, but who knows? I'm quickly coming around to the view that most politicians will screw us somehow. Like, I honestly believe that, say, Carter, was trying to do the right thing. Look where that got us.

When people start in with the politics in RL, I usually hide under the table and rock back and forth with my fingers in my ears. Here on Hatrack, I have a tendency to attack everyone, so the demos saw me as a bit of Kerry-basher and the Republicans shunted me to the 'liberal' category.

I really hate politics, as my views rarely make me any friends.
 

---

Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
 
Livvy, if it's any comfort, Jim doesn't vote because he believes the old joke:

How do you know if a politician's lying?

His mouth is open.
 

---

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
I'm with Mr. Garibaldi-- everyone lies.
 

---

Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
 
House says that, too.

I vote because of situations like Bob described (living someplace where the vote might actually make a difference). I haven't yet lived anywhere like that, but even in this last election, I hoped that half the state of Indiana would suddenly change its mind and vote democrat. No such luck.
 

---

Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
 
I'm pretty sure a lot of votes cast for both Bush and Kerry were unenthusiastic ones - the "this one scares or repulses me a little less" variety.

Turns out I may have been wrong about the impact. Bush's overall approval ratings have dropped a bit - but the big news comes in polls from Zogby and CBS. I found a transcript of Keith Olbermann discussing it with Howard Fineman:

quote:

---

OLBERMANN:Yesterday, the Gallup seemed to suggest that the criticism of the president was split entirely along party lines. but these most recent ones from CBS and Zogby, which closed yesterday, are suggesting the opposite. What did we miss that may have changed things and when did we miss it?

FINEMAN: I think what's going on here is not the job approval number that is sinking, because that is divided along partisan lines, but another number that pollsters are always asking about, which is, do you think the country is going in the right direction or the wrong track?

And those numbers are cratering big time, as Dick Cheney might say. I talked to a Republican pollster today who said that his numbers on that show that the American people think that the country is on the right track 32 percent, on the wrong track, 62 percent. He said that number is worse than any that he has seen for any president since the dark days of Bush I's presidency.

And that's what dragging these other numbers down. People are looking at television, both out of New Orleans and out of the White House pressroom. They're seeing arguing. They're seeing bickering. They're seeing a lack of leadership. They're seeing a lack of progress. And that is emblematic of their fears about the economy, about oil prices, about the war in Iraq. You name it. The American people are in a very dark mood and, eventually, that takes down the standing of the president.

---

To top things off, Cheney didn't have a very good day, either. The crisis forced him to go into a public and uncontrolled situation for a photo op in Mississippi. It was disrupted by a disgruntled citizen using the same type of language Cheney himself used in expressing unhappiness with a Senator once.
 

---

Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
 
It's more amazing that 32% American people think we are on the right track. The press is just a constant drum beat of bad news first. If there is anything positive that occurs you can bet it will be immediately followed by several "ifs" that "might" happen to make the alleged good thing a total failure.
Things are never as bad as the press makes them out to be.
 

---

Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
 
Or you may not be getting it. I haven't seen the poll, but saying the country is not on the right track does not mean the President is not on the right track. They could very well mean the COUNTRY, both parties, is not on the right track.
Look at what happened after Katrina, Democrats came out out of the woodwork to bash Bush. It seemed more important to blame him for everything instead of trying to get people help. Lots of LA government officials were quick to start screaming at Bush, yet they were the ones who should have been acting. There is a ton of blame to spread around, but the Democrats and Bush haters wanted to blame Bush so the press dutifully took up the call for everyone to blame Bush. Now that more and more info is coming out, it looks a lot more like local and state officials are to blame, but now it's 'lets not play the blame game', unless you want to blame Bush, in which case go right ahead.
I think most Americans are just fed up with Politics as a whole. The constant 'they said\they said' arguements, half truths from everyone, never knowing what is true or not true, just takes its toll.
 

---

Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
 
DK,

as has been said by many others, it's not only Democrats that have been calling Bush and his administration to task. There's been a lot of criticism from Republicans as well.

Good news is going to be hard to come by over the next couple of weeks. FEMA just turned the debit card giveout into a fiasco - after the announcement they would be handed out, it turned out it would happen only at the Houston Astrodome, where they had a limited amount of them. Luckily, the Red Cross is coming through on this issue.
Here's a link to a story on the debit card confusion

quote:

---

BATON ROUGE, La., Sept. 8 - After a day of confusion and complaints, officials of the Federal Emergency Management Agency said Thursday that the agency would not expand a trial program to distribute debit cards worth $2,000 to victims of Hurricane Katrina for immediate living expenses.

A FEMA official in Washington said the cards would be distributed at the Astrodome in Houston beginning on Friday.

Reports that the debit cards would be distributed on Thursday morning at the Astrodome, a temporary shelter, brought several hours of mayhem to the complex, attracting a crush of cars and pedestrians that caused the police to shut the gates, locking out thousands of residents in the 90-degree heat.

Meanwhile, in Baton Rouge,David G. Passey, a FEMA spokesman, said he did not know why the program had been discontinued.

---

quote:

---

There is good news - and people take notice. Gas prices have come down a bit. Survivors are being welcomed and supported in many areas in the country

---

quote:

---

'Most of them are out'

The sweep of New Orleans to get voluntary evacuees out is nearly complete, and far fewer bodies than expected or feared have been found. "I think there's some encouragement in what we've found in the initial sweeps that some of the catastrophic deaths that some people predicted may not have occurred," said Terry Ebbert, New Orleans homeland security chief.

---

quote:

---

New Orleans Mayor C. Ray Nagin has said up to 10,000 could be dead in that city alone. State officials have ordered 25,000 body bags

---

quote:

---

Decaying corpses in the floodwaters could pose problems for engineers who are desperately trying to pump the city dry.

---

quote:

---

As searches for the living continued, the grim task of retrieving corpses intensified under the broiling sun.

---

quote:

---

Between 5,000 and 10,000 residents are believed left in the city, where toxic floodwaters have started to slowly recede but the task of collecting rotting corpses and clearing debris will likely take months

---

quote:

---

BATON ROUGE, La. - Amid harsh criticism of federal relief efforts, Homeland Security chief Michael Chertoff announced Friday that Michael Brown, director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, is handing over Hurricane Katrina relief duties to a Coast Guard official and returning to Washington to oversee the national office.

“Other challenges and threats remain around the world,” and Brown is needed to prepare for those, Chertoff said at a news conference in Baton Rouge.

---

quote:

---

quite frankly HERE we've been reading much more blame of NO and LA officials. national news has many Bush Blamers.

---

quote:

---

I like how when one doesn't like that Bush is getting a bunch of criticism it's all "the Democrats coming out of the woodwork" and not helping.

---

quote:

---

Thank you for helping illustrate my point. You are correct, national news has many Bush Blamers. That is my point.

---

quote:

---

Nagin could have gotten those people out, LA's FEMA could have fed and given water to the people at the Superdome, but they didn't. Why? Who told them not? The Governer of LA.

---

quote:

---

Which has NOTHING to do with whether all democrats have been doing is criticizing Bush and not helping at all, as was your accusation in an earlier post.

Nagin has nothing to do with what other democrats have been doing to help with the situation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by DarkKnight:
This was my claim..

There have been no big banner headlines about those topics as compared to the doom and gloom of certain destruction.

---

quote:

---

"Miss Brodie had led her new class into the garden for a history lesson underneath the big elm. On the way through the school corridors they passed the headmistress's study. The door was wide open, the room was empty....They clustered round the open door while she pointed to a large poster pinned with drawing-pins on the opposite wall within the room. It depicted a man's big face. Underneath were the words 'Safety First.'

'This is Stanley Baldwin who got in as Prime Minister and got out again ere long,' said Miss Brodie. 'Miss Mackay retains him on the wall because she believes in the slogan "Safety First." But Safety does not come first. Goodness, Truth and Beauty come first. Follow me.'

---

quote:

---

Me, I'm hoping for calm and dispassionate people to assess the current situation -- without trying to score points off anybody -- and determine what needs to happen to avoid this as much as possible in the future.

---

Amen, Chris.

I don't like shame, as dictated by my peers. It is much too often used to manipulate.
 

---

Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
John Kerry was hardly an unknown, Irami. And you're right to say it wasn't as clear cut as the situation in the quote.

I don't know if I would've voted for Dubya again-better than even chance not-but I still would not have voted for Kerry.
 

---

Posted by Brinestone (Member # 5755) on :
 
I wasn't afraid of the unknown. I was afraid of Kerry. There's a world of difference there.

If Obama had been running, I would definitely have voted for him. That still goes for if and when he's up for presidential election.
 

---

Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
 

quote:

---

I don't like shame, as dictated by my peers. It is much too often used to manipulate.

---

Hear, hear!
 

---

Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
Okay - I know this ship has sailed but, what was so wrong with Kerry? He was a lousy candidate, but could have made a good president. He is, at least, aware. Anyone who bothered to examine the issue knows that his position on Iraq (although, sadly, not the same as mine)didn't actually change. And if it had - well, being able to change your mind when you learn stuff is a GOOD thing.

I did get to vote for Obama. TWICE in fact.
 

---

Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
 
That's throwing the baby out with the bath water. It just means you have the wrong peers.
 

---

Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
Obama may be head and shoulders better than a *lot* and I voted for him. But I'm skeptical about him being clean as the driven snow particularly since his political career originated in Chicago. As discussed on other threads "nice guys" tend to be fantastic people but ineffectual politicians. I think Obama is too good of a politician. However if he's dirty, it doesn't seem to be as bad as most, and probably the right *kind* of dirty for the job.

AJ
 

---

Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
 
Thanks Rakeesh.
 

---

Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
 
So I was walking out of the room today when I heard someone at a microphone discussing the policy of not photographing the corpse removal. He was saying to think about the families. Something along the lines of "imagine if you were in Houston watching the news and saw your (insert family member here) being picked up."

Perfectly valid point. He's right. There is something undignified about the whole thing. And horrifying. Imagine being a refugee and seeing a dead parent or child on the news.

But what really disturbed me was what I was thinking.

See, I was thinking "I bet someone in the West Wing said that they shouldn't let reporters film them collecting bodies because it would be a PR nightmare worse than what they are facing now. And I bet someone sent a group of people to some out of the way room to investigate legal ways they could keep the press at bay and this is what they came up with."

I'm sick of being disappointed with our leaders. I'm sick of thinking/expecting the worst from them. I didn't believe Clinton for a second. I think the first Bush was just as bad as this Bush. I never trusted Reagan. Carter I liked, but he was a terrible President. Great guy,I was 10 what the hell did I know? And I don't know if it was that he was a really bad President of if what he was left was just really bad, since Ford and Nixon were so bad. Not that Johnson was rose water or anything. I was 10 what the hell did I know? ( I mean, people keep saying that Clinton shouldn't get the credit for the good things that happened while he was President because they were set in motion by Bush I and Reagan, and that Bush II shouldn't be blamed for all the bad things that happened during his tenure because it was all set in motion by Clinton, so I'm not sure why Carter is seen as ineffective and a bad President when Bush II seems to be doing fine.

I'm just tired of bad, sleazy, ineffective, unaware leaders that I don't believe or trust.
Or any combination of bad, sleazy, ineffective, and unaware.

I think it's dangerous to have them running our country.
 

---