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.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
>>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.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
>>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?
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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
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.
For the record, I personally think the elimination of "refugee" as a term works out well for the administration. "Evacuee" is a much softer term.
Having said that, it looks like objections to the term "refugee" have been embraced by many of the displaced persons themselves, so I am more inclined to go with Eric Zorn's take on the issue:
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:"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 think that interpretation would have come to my mind if she'd said "so they are working well with this." However, she said "so this is working well for them" -- i.e., this [situation] is turning out well for them.
Thanks for the copy, Chris. That pretty much nailed it. I compare in my mind how he reacted after 9/11 and how he reacted after Katrina. He looked and sounded like he took the magnitude of the former seriously (the deaths, the loss of morale, the blow to the American psyche), but not the latter.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sara, that makes sense. It just never crossed my mind to take it that way. I'm just dense sometimes. Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
*nods* I can see that. The present tense, instead of the future tense, makes the sentiment much worse.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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. Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1014 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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 ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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 ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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::
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Refugee: n. an individual seeking refuge or asylum; especially : an individual who has left his or her native country and is unwilling or unable to return to it because of persecution or fear of persecution (as because of race, religion, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion)
n : an exile who flees for safety
Exile: Enforced removal from one's native country. Self-imposed absence from one's country. The condition or a period of living away from one's native country. One who lives away from one's native country, whether because of expulsion or voluntary absence.
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.
Chris, that is to totally awesome. It sums up my feelings pretty well.
sndrake, I saw/heard a reporter talking about Bush's approval rating recently and was absolutely chilled to hear him say that while the Presidents approval rating is pretty much unchanged from before the hurricane (those who like him think he's doing fine, those who hate him think he's doing terrible, just like before) but, and this is the chilling part for me, he didn't get a boost in approval rating the way he did after 9/11.
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think a President's capacity to look totally fake and boringly calm in front of cameras is vastly overrated. Policies matter vastly more than image.
I also think a slip of the tongue by a politician is not a worthwhile thing to complain or worry about. It's easy to accidently imply something you did not intend, and everybody knows that. It happens to everyone. I will start worrying about it only when it becomes a consistent behavior pattern showing that it is something more than a verbal misstep.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Kayla,
I think it really depends on the dictionary. Going to the Chicago Trib yet again, Don Wycliff, public editor at the Trib wrote about the issue (FWIW, Wycliff is Black):
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."
This definition includes fleeing "home" as well as "country."
*shrug*
Like I said before, for whatever reason, those who have dispersed out of New Orleans seem to be voicing objections to the term - for whatever reasons. I am willing to go with it on that basis.
I kinda like Kass because he's a loose cannon. And I totally agree with his take on the attempt to ban photos of corpses (we're talking any photos - not just close up, possibly identifiable photos) in New Orleans.
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, okay then. I've been more or less on the Republican side of things (though not social issues) for some time.
And I want to slap him. I suppose it doesn't surprise me that more moderates don't feel as I do. 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*
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.
Good Lord!! How many times does he have to do it before you see it as a consistent behavior pattern. From where I sit, its happened virtually everytime he's opened his mouth for the past 5 years.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
There's no event so close to home or so complex that can't be turned into an invective against whatever political enemy.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
I'm not sure, myself, for racial reasons that I've already given, and because $ doesn't necessarily equal results.
One of the things I'm curious about is exactly what the sixty billion so far earmarked for disaster relief is going to exactly pay for. Is it going to disappear into boondoggles that none of the refugees ever see beyond a few 2K chickens tossed their way? Or is it going to be used mainly for the refugees, to help the refugees regain their former lives in NO and rebuild their community?
In all this talk about rebuilding NO, I think what is lost is that the city was a place where people lived and were connected. These people are now flung across the U.S.. Their community is broken. I think it's vital that they get it back because it's what they need to move forward in life.
I'm not saying that some refugees can't start over somewhere else. For those that want to, fine and dandy. But I do think that the main thrust should be helping the NO community get back on its feet.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 4077 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1903 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
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.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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. Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 4077 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
)![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Cry]](graemlins/cry.gif)
I don't have a good reason. I didn't vote for him the first time, but the second, I did.![[Wink]](wink.gif)
