Political Speak - Listen Closely

We have had the benefit? of listening to a lot of Politicians since Katrina hit. Have you been listening closely OR simply hearing what you like to hear ?

Unfortunately, we have many in our country who will follow whatever their favorite Politician says NO MATTER what it is.
Anyone else have a mother who asked -" If your friend jumped off a cliff, would you follow?"
On this site there has been an enormous amount of 'Bush Bashing'.
Many on the left who chime right in with this have the misconception that those on the right will simply go along with Bush no matter what he does.
I have been a part of this site for quite awhile now. In my humble opinion, I can say that it has been difficult for anyone on the right to post a thread and get a meaningful dialogue going since the election.

Since the hurricane many Politicians have made their views on different issues known to us, the public.
Many people listen closely to what their favorite big mouth politician, of either party, has to say and turn the channel or dismiss what another has to say because he/she is lesser known or belongs to the other party.
I'll admit, when Nancy Pelosi (D) comes to the microphone I can pretty much guess what she will say. I do listen to see if she will actually say something of substance. Most of the time she is just there to bash Republicans, claim the Democrats would have done better, and point out wherever she can that the Democrats want to do the opposite. Harry Reid (D) and Ted Kennedy (D) pretty much do the same.
It is funny, to me, to listen to these same people claim that President Bush was going to be a 'uniter' not a 'divider'.
I don't care who the President is, when people of the other party find fault no matter what you do it is impossible to unite. When the best the other party can do is: 'I'll admit it was the right thing to do, BUT it wasn't enough.' or 'It's the right thing to do BUT because he didn't ask us first we won't go along with it.'
When Kennedy comes before a microphone and tells the American People that it's Bush's fault this country is so divided - because he won't do what we (the Democrats) tell him to do - it just reminds me that it is NOT Bush who is the only reason for the divide.

In the days following Katrina, I like what two Politicians have been saying. They both happen to be Republicans. They both happen to be Governors.
They both say what is on their minds. They both say things that we know BUT that we leave out of the dialogue - most likely due to the PC Police.
These two Politicians are :
Governor Haley Barbour of Mississippi and Governor Mitt Romney of Massachusettes.
I'm not saying I'd vote for for either of them for President.
My point is:
These two men spoke out. They had something to say and they said it. These two men didn't seem concerned about what the 'reaction' would be to what they had to say by either side.
We need more politicians who will speak out without bashing the 'other side'.
We need leaders who will actually say what the problems are, why they are, and give honest opinions on how they believe these problems can be fixed.
Too many of our 'leaders' simply pussyfoot around the issues.
Too many of our 'leaders' want to blame everything on one person - the President, or the other party. We aren't ALL dumb enough to believe that we send all these people to Washington to blame the President for everything so they do not have to accept any responsibility for their own actions or inaction.
I want to know what the individual will do. What the individual will do for our Country - not their Party.
I want people who are Americans first.
It seems we have too many who put their Party first. This is understandable, because if they don't, the party will not come out in full force to support them.
Running for President is supposed to be different. Presidents are supposed to show us that they will be there for ALL OF US.
Too many times we hear 'the Democratic Nominee' or 'the Republican Nominee'. As soon as someone is known more for their Party than the country as a whole many people 'tune out'.
We have a historical election coming in '08. One where neither Party has someone who has already been President or Vice President - unless Gore tries again.

Many of our Politicians need to be replaced for various reasons. I am not talking simply because they are the 'wrong party' for some.
It was laughable to me, while watching the Roberts confirmation hearings, to listen to some of our Politicians.
What I found most 'laughable' were the ones who claim to be SO concerned about the length of time Mr. Roberts could remain a Supreme Court Justice.
To listen to someone who has been a career Politician voice his/her concern about the fact that Mr. Roberts would be confirmed for life while talking about how they have sat on that committee through 9, 10, 11 Supreme Court Nominations, to me, was a bit hypocritical.
To sit there and tell a man that they are concerned about his nomination because he may be there 30+ years and has the opportunity to control the 'direction' of our Nation.
These same Politicians, who though they have to be re-lected each term pretty much know as long as they keep running that they will keep winning and control the 'destiny' of our Nation, claim to be SO concerned that if they vote 'Yes' for the 'wrong' person they can do nothing to change it.
Politicians who have to 'check with' their special interest groups before they can vote. Politicians who are more concerned with the 'right' judge for their party than for the 'right' judge for OUR Country.

I especially liked it when Mr. Roberts said," I don't want an ideologue on the Supreme Court any more than you do.", to Mr. Schumer(D) I believe.
If I am wrong about who he said that to - please correct me. To say that to someone, who most assuredly would not mind an ideologue from their 'side' being on the Court for years to come, was about the best moment for me.

Our Country needs a change alright.
This change is not going to come by re-electing the same Politicians.
The divide will continue no matter who is in the White House if we keep the same people in the other institutions.
We know from past experience that both sides blame the President for everything that goes wrong and find it hard to give credit where credit is due if it goes to the other side.
We need leaders - not 'Party faithfuls' - on both sides.
We need people who can work together not against one another.
A 'better America' is never going to happen if we continue the way we are.

Posted by Dawn at September 17, 2005 3:32 PM
Comments
Comment #81167

Dawn,

“It is funny, to me, to listen to these same people claim that President Bush was going to be a ‘uniter’ not a ‘divider’.”

Those were Mr. Bush’s very words during the ‘00 campaign.

“In my humble opinion, I can say that it has been difficult for anyone on the right to post a thread and get a meaningful dialogue going since the election.”

IMHO, that is because the country is divided the way it is.
There are parrots on both sides of the fence.

I have been coming here for a while as well, and you can count those that are here for intelligent, thought provoking, and well informed conversation on slightly more than two hands, three at best.

When someone like yourself posts an article that requires more than a sycophantic response, there always will be a more lively debate.

Posted by: Rocky at September 17, 2005 5:06 PM
Comment #81168

Dawn,

One other thing.

Until political campaigns become more about the message than the amount of money that is raised, we will continue to have this stalemate between the two dominant parties, and nothing at all from a third party.

Posted by: Rocky at September 17, 2005 5:17 PM
Comment #81172

Dawn, Following are 10 areas where the right and left could come together in the following elections:

1) Debts and deficits: we should be paying as we go rather than racking up enormous debts for our kids.

2) New Orleans: if it’s going to be rebuilt, let’s do it wisely and well and pay for it today rather than tomorow.

3) Iraq: prevent a civil war and get out as soon as feasible.

4) Supreme court: bipartisan agreement on moderates.

5) Poverty: reduce dependency but invest in training and jobs programs. Help the people who can’t help themselves.

6) Health care: for goodness sake, do something! Use market mechanisms if you like, but make sure people can get health care without ruining themselves financially.

7) Wages: a parent working full time should be able to support themselves and one child above the poverty line.

8) Education: yeah, hold institutions responsible but provide the right funding and don’t think standardized tests are, all by themselves, going to be enough to ensure our kids can compete in a global marketplace.

9) Nuclear poliferation: let’s figure out how to do a better job preventing this, keeping it on the political front burner.

10) UN: stop beating up the institution and start providing real leadership and collaboration.


Posted by: Reed Sanders at September 17, 2005 5:25 PM
Comment #81173

Nice post. I think that much of the problem with politicians is, as you mention, that they are career politicians. The politicians in Washington are not going into politics because they see problems and they want to fix them; they are going into politics to become politicians. Some (most?) of these people have never even lived a life that can come near the lives of the people they are supposed to represent. A good number of them have probably never even had a real conversation with a “normal” American.

It is often said in jest that one of the qualifications for becoming president should be not wanting to do so, maybe that should apply to all politicians.

Posted by: Erika at September 17, 2005 5:27 PM
Comment #81174

“Dawn, Following are 10 areas where the right and left could come together in the following elections:

1) Debts and deficits: we should be paying as we go rather than racking up enormous debts for our kids.

2) New Orleans: if itís going to be rebuilt, letís do it wisely and well and pay for it today rather than tomorow.

3) Iraq: prevent a civil war and get out as soon as feasible.

4) Supreme court: bipartisan agreement on moderates.

5) Poverty: reduce dependency but invest in training and jobs programs. Help the people who canít help themselves.

6) Health care: for goodness sake, do something! Use market mechanisms if you like, but make sure people can get health care without ruining themselves financially.

7) Wages: a parent working full time should be able to support themselves and one child above the poverty line.

8) Education: yeah, hold institutions responsible but provide the right funding and donít think standardized tests are, all by themselves, going to be enough to ensure our kids can compete in a global marketplace.

9) Nuclear poliferation: letís figure out how to do a better job preventing this, keeping it on the political front burner.

10) UN: stop beating up the institution and start providing real leadership and collaboration.


Posted by: Reed Sanders at September 17, 2005 05:25 PM”

In other words: We can come together if you do these things like I want.

Posted by: tomd at September 17, 2005 5:38 PM
Comment #81175

I could add to that list: home.comcast.net/~d.a.n/PressingProblemsFacingTheUS_NoBackLinks.htm

The U.N. wasn’t on my list of our most important pressing problems. It belones at about # 26 or further down the list. (P.S. Perhaps the new U.N. building should be rebuilt in New Orleans ?).

Posted by: d.a.n at September 17, 2005 5:45 PM
Comment #81176

I could add to that list: home.comcast.net/~d.a.n/PressingProblemsFacingTheUS_NoBackLinks.htm

The U.N. wasn’t on my list of our most important pressing problems. It belones at about # 26 or further down the list. (P.S. Perhaps the new U.N. building should be rebuilt in New Orleans ?).

Posted by: d.a.n at September 17, 2005 5:51 PM
Comment #81180

I have reconsidered some of my ideas since reading this Blog. One of those ideas made by a gentleman who suggested Iraq be divided up into three countries has merit and should be explored further.

Tomd.
“In other words: We can come together if you do these things like I want.”

I am willing to listen to your suggestions and give them consideration. However, you have to offer them first. How do yu suggest we deal with the deficit? Do you want health care? It is easy to complain. It is harder to come up with workable solutions.
I have been in charge of people for a long time in my careers. When someone gives me a problem. I ask them what three possible outcomes they would like to see? There are usually the two extremes and the one in the middle is usually what will work best.

Posted by: C.L.O. at September 17, 2005 6:30 PM
Comment #81182

Rocky,

“”It is funny, to me, to listen to these same people claim that President Bush was going to be a ‘uniter’ not a ‘divider’.”

Those were Mr. Bush’s very words during the ‘00 campaign.”

Yes. But no matter how much someone actually wants to unite - it does not work when others are not REALLY WILLING to try.
If someone thinks they can gain more ground politically by opposing everything and blaming the other ‘guy’ all the time - what do you think he/she will do?
This tactic does not help to unite.
Being that it was the main tactic in the last Presidential race - and it almost worked - I don’t see many trying something different.
They may be ‘good’ politicians but I think a lot of them need to work harder on their social skills.
What were the poll numbers for the Senate and House? Weren’t they worse than Bush’s? They had better be looking in the mirror - you know ‘Those who live in glass houses ….’

Posted by: dawn at September 17, 2005 6:53 PM
Comment #81183

“I am willing to listen to your suggestions and give them consideration.”

You probably won’t like my suggestions but in fairness I will lay them out

1) Debts and deficits: we should be paying as we go rather than racking up enormous debts for our kids.

I can’t argue with that…We should have been doing that for a long time now


2) New Orleans: if its going to be rebuilt, lets do it wisely and well and pay for it today rather than tomorow.

Again, I agree. I think private enterprise should do the majority of the rebuilding.

3) Iraq: prevent a civil war and get out as soon as feasible.

We should get out as soon as our job is done and not a day sooner.

4) Supreme court: bipartisan agreement on moderates.

I don’t wan’t a moderate on the supreme court. I don’t even want to know what his/her political leanings are. I wan’t them to enforce the constitution the way it is written without political bias.

5) Poverty: reduce dependency but invest in training and jobs programs. Help the people who cant help themselves.

Help the people who CAN’T help themselves and forget the people who WON’T help themselves.
I would repeal the minimum wage laws along with probably half the restrictive government regulations.

6) Health care: for goodness sake, do something! Use market mechanisms if you like, but make sure people can get health care without ruining themselves financially.

I could write a book on healthcare, but basicly we should get the government out of it.

7) Wages: a parent working full time should be able to support themselves and one child above the poverty line.

A parent working full time should make what the market will pay for his/her job skill.

8) Education: yeah, hold institutions responsible but provide the right funding and dont think standardized tests are, all by themselves, going to be enough to ensure our kids can compete in a global marketplace.

The very first thing we should do is bust the teacher’s union. Then we should raise the pay of teachers to make it a very well paid profession. THEN WE SHOULD MAKE THEM ACCOUNTABLE AND RESPONSIBLE. And get rid of the ones who can’t or won’t perform.

9) Nuclear poliferation: lets figure out how to do a better job preventing this, keeping it on the political front burner.

I agree…To do this we need the strongest covert intellegence system in the world. Our spies can’t be bound by politics.

10) UN: stop beating up the institution and start providing real leadership and collaboration.

I am tired of beating up on the UN. I think we should send everyone home and fumigate the building.

Like I said, You probably don’t like my suggestions but I really don’t care.

Posted by: tomd at September 17, 2005 7:06 PM
Comment #81184

In order to be a uniter one has to at least pretend to give a care what the others say even when their opinion differs from their own. You do not do that by political attacks agains the other party.
Please don’t say the left is also doing that. Yes they are butt they lost the election, the ball was in Bush’s court. It is a two wrongs don’t make a right type of issue.

Posted by: C.L.O. at September 17, 2005 7:09 PM
Comment #81185
But no matter how much someone actually wants to unite - it does not work when others are not REALLY WILLING to try.

Mr. Bush started off well with the No Child Left Behind bill and, from there, never really initiatived another legislative initiative from the middle. (The Medicare plan is debatable). The U.S. was united in terms of foreign policy in Afghanistan but then utterly fell apart in Iraq. The left and center should not be faulted for being divisive if a president intentionally chooses to rule from the right. If the president wants to unite, he should rule from the middle and with integrity.

This is all water under the bridge by now. The point is where we go from here. In my opinion, Dawn, if you aren’t willing to talk specific political initiatives, then this discussion is a waste of time.

Posted by: Reed Sanders at September 17, 2005 7:11 PM
Comment #81186

dawn,

It is funny, to me, to listen to these same people claim that President Bush was going to be a Ďuniterí not a Ďdividerí.Ē

Those were Mr. Bushís very words during the Ď00 campaign.

And from the left, Bush hasn’t even tried to listen to the other side……….because he doesn’t have to. Repubs are in control of both the house and the senate and have a majority in the supremes. Immediately after he was elected in 2001, he started proliferating his right-wing agenda.

Bush is seen from the left as someone who doesn’t care about their opinions on any subject. He has been deemed a fraud and a liar. His party has done nothing but character assassinations on anybody who disagrees with any idea or policy that conflicts with the Mr. Bush’s agenda. Its gottten so rediculous to the left that anybody protesting or is against the war in Iraq are anti-americans (aiding the terrorists) and a denigrating the troops.

Are you still confused as to why the country is so split.

Please take a few moments and try to see the world through the eyes of a person from the other side and then you may get some answers.

Posted by: reed at September 17, 2005 7:37 PM
Comment #81187

Nope Tomd
I think you will be surprised

#1 I agree but since we are dreaming I would include a surplus in case of emergencies i.e. katrina.

#2 I agree. San Fransico and Chicago tell us market works best in these cases.

#3 First we need a definition of when our job is done? So I can’t agree of disagree here. It is costing a boat load of money so if we can’t pay shuld we not play? See #1

#4 I agree but it is how they see the consititution and the bill of rights. Some of the judges picked for their left/right stance have surprised us. I think Roberts will be such a man.

#5 I agree. It is who is deciding who can’t help themselves where the problem comes into paly. Any suggestions?

#6 Job sponsored health care is failing due to the hight cost. I am in health care. Market forces are not working. It cost around 27 dollars for one paper transaction in medical care it cost the banks less than a dollar for computer transaction. There are many problems ethical, moral and financial that will be a tough fix no matter what.

# 7 I agree

# 8 I am not a fan of unions either but I don’t know if that would be the first thing I would do.
So I can’t agree on you with this one

# 9 Can’t agree with you on this one either. I have no problems with spies but I don’t think they need to know what my library record is either. We need some limits, we will ignore them but they need to be there. They also need the abiity to communicate with law enforcement.

# 10 Can’t agree with this. We are just mad cause we are not in charge and can’t control them.

We are not so very far apart

Posted by: C.L.O. at September 17, 2005 7:37 PM
Comment #81189

tomd and C.L.O.,

There is a surprising amount of agreement here. So just based on this exercise, it sounds as if there might a lot of bipartisan heft to:

A balanced budget platform

Paying for N.O. rebuilding today rather than running up deficits for it.

Making sure there’s a social safety net for people who can’t help themselves.

Seriously focusing on nuclear nonproliferation.

That’s not a bad start. So, we need to figure out the following:

What in the heck is our actual mission in Iraq?

And then we need a real fact-based debate over health care and minimum wage to figure out who is right on this, with a minimum of bloody ideology.

We all sound like we agree that unions may be part of the problem in education and that teachers should be held accountable for their teaching. We all may also agree the salaries should be higher.

As for the UN, we can leave that aside for now.

Oh, and the Supreme Court. Well, there’s probably no agreeing here for one simple reason. Judges necessarily have to go beyond the purview of the Constitution to make rulings. Even those who claim to be strict constitutionalists are just blowing smoke up our butts. Do you think the founders could have envisioned the use of the Commerce Clause the way it’s been used (or misused). Nope. But do you think they’d truly understand the need for some creative interpretation of it? Yep, the majority of them would.

They’d know that a nation must bend but not break in order to accommodate change. And they’d be so horrified by the Civil War that they would have changed some things if they could have. They were good but not perfect.

Posted by: Reed Sanders at September 17, 2005 8:29 PM
Comment #81191

Dawn,

One other thing.

Until political campaigns become more about the message than the amount of money that is raised, we will continue to have this stalemate between the two dominant parties, and nothing at all from a third party.

Posted by: Rocky at September 17, 2005 05:17 PM

The best way I can see to remedy this is to have TRUE canpaign financing reform.
(1) Limit contrabutions to no more than $100 per houshold.
(2) NO Corporattions or special intrest groups are allowed to contribute to ANY campaign.
(3) Each canidate is responsible for reporting ALL contributions.
(4) Limit the time to campaign to 30 days before any election or primary.


Reed Sanders,
I agree to some extent on 9 of your 10 items.
The one I don’t agree on is 10, we need to get out of the UN and kick it out of the US.


Posted by: Ron Brown at September 17, 2005 8:58 PM
Comment #81192

“In my opinion, Dawn, if you aren’t willing to talk specific political initiatives, then this discussion is a waste of time.”
Posted by reed at September 17, 2005 07:37 PM

It looks to me that some actually took the meaning of my article to heart and are discussing the issues.
I was not trying to control the debate, only trying to get it started.

Posted by: dawn at September 17, 2005 9:03 PM
Comment #81195

I criticize George Bush all the time on a number of issues. Off the top of my head—on gays, on several aspects of the conduct of the war, and on educational policy in general.

Unfortunaly, it’s hard to have anything resembling a reasonable discussion about those very issues. Whenever you crack open the door of criticism in conversation with a lefty, a whole flood of unreasoning bile comes flooding in. Even if you intended to criticize the president, you end up defending him in the face of such total unthinking and unfactual anger.

Yes, I once opposed Bill Clinton, but considering the number of positions any president takes a stand on, I found many many things to support and even praise.

If you look at George Bush and cannot find A SINGLE good thing to say about him, if whatever he does or says you say the opposite, then that should make you question whether your antagonism to him is founded on reason instead of emotion.

Posted by: sanger at September 17, 2005 9:36 PM
Comment #81198

GB says many things people want to hear. No child left behind, Safe from terrorist, Get rid of Sadam, I’ll pour money in Katrina. I’m against gay marriage and I am against abortion. If someone tried to sell somehting, we don’t get too far into the conversation before I start asking about the price. If I say I can’t afford it, they start talking about easy financing. I start looking hard at the real cost. Chances are I normally say no. You would be surprised about the differences in wants and needs. If WE THE PEOPLE don’t figure out the difference soon, the difference won’t matter because we will not be able to get either one.

Posted by: C.L.O. at September 17, 2005 10:12 PM
Comment #81200

C.L.O., asking for the costs upfront is always a good idea.

It’s why I’m for aiding the victims of Katrina but against rebuilding an entire city most of whose residents and businesses have already relocated.

But not all costs can be expressed in dollar amounts. I supported Clinton’s intervention in Kosovo even though the Serbians never attacked us and the intervention was expensive. Moral questions always have to be weighed against the bottom line.

Posted by: sanger at September 17, 2005 10:28 PM
Comment #81206

Sanger
I agree but it seems we have not looked at the bottom long for awhile. However we can do so much without paying attentiion to the bottom line. We can not keep spending the money. America is acting like the it will never run dry. It will. Pensions/Social Security are in trouble. We know it. We did not like what Bush was suggesting. Nobody made a counter offer, the news moved on. This is one I give to Bush. He told the problem, made a suggested fix, asked for others to make suggestions. No body stepped forward. He is not the one that will be hurting when unable to work. The Average American will. We want things fixed NOW, don’t spare the expense. Morality won’t matter when the dollar is not worth the paper it is printed on. Let the market build NO back

Posted by: C.L.O. at September 17, 2005 11:23 PM
Comment #81211

Ooh, ooh! If by “lefty” we mean those liberals who are stupid enough not to engage in real debate, can “righty” mean those conservatives who bash liberals without cause?

To put it more seriously, I think people on all sides of the debate tend to stereotype the other side by the worst behavior they have seen on the other side (every liberal is a Michael Moore and every conservative is a Rush Limbaugh). However, as I think this thread shows, we really have more in common than not. Yeah, there are some fundamental issues we disagree on, but civilized people can disagree without hating each other. Kudos to everyone for trying to find true middle ground.

Posted by: Erika at September 18, 2005 12:32 AM
Comment #81214

Ron,

“The best way I can see to remedy this is to have TRUE canpaign financing reform.
(1) Limit contrabutions to no more than $100 per houshold.
(2) NO Corporattions or special intrest groups are allowed to contribute to ANY campaign.
(3) Each canidate is responsible for reporting ALL contributions.
(4) Limit the time to campaign to 30 days before any election or primary.”

My senario would be that all contributions would go into a kitty to be shared by all candidates, no matter what party.
With money not an issue it wouldn’t matter if the candidate were rich or poor, the voters could focus on the candidates themselves, and whether they were actually qualified for the job.

Take the money out of politics and we could get honest representation.
Put a moratorium on post government high paying jobs.
No 527’s, no PAC’s to sully the waters. Lobbyists could become a thing of the past.

Posted by: Rocky at September 18, 2005 12:52 AM
Comment #81215

Rocky,

That sounds good. But how would we decide who gets the funds? What would qualify a person as a viable candidate?

i also agree with some sort of restriction of post-term employment. Too many seem to get into politics just as a stepping stone for lucratove assicated business afterward. Loophole drafting and hiding seems to be the most sought after skill for political office.

Posted by: jo at September 18, 2005 1:01 AM
Comment #81218

jo,

We could have state referendums to decide on the candidates, or petition drives.
Lets make this truely grass roots again, and actually get the voters involved in who they pick to run the country.
The monies would be distributed equally amongst the candidates that qualify.
I am talking about from the highest National office down to the state level.
I am also for term restrictions, one maybe two terms and your gone, either elected to a higher office or back to the public sector. Politics shouldn’t be a career choice. If you have a yearning to serve the country, there are other ways to do it.
If you have to go back to the public sector, you will probably pay better attention to the real needs of your constituents and your country.

Posted by: Rocky at September 18, 2005 1:57 AM
Comment #81219

Erika,
I think that the reason most people look at issues differently is the fundamental way they look at making money. Democrats look at more from a labor point of view(ie Working) and Republicans look at more from a managers point of view (ie cost). What we need is a party that looks at the issues facing America from the point of view as an investor. As our Forefathers at the turn of the last century left us Nature as a gift, what is the “Best Gift” we can leave the first generation of the 22nd Century?

Katrina and President Cliton’s Global Summit has made it clear that not only does Americans have the political will now, but so do so many other Citizens and Nations as well as the Private Sector realize that The World needs to Change.

Debt and Debt reduction talks needs to be replaced with talks aimed at should we invest in a certain program and/or project. If Congress would have to raise the necessary funds for “Pork Barrel Spending” through the sell of Treasury Bonds & Notes to American Citizens only, our federal budget would be reduced. Thats what our Forefathers had to do long ago.

Katrina and New Orleans Recovery Plan needs to push our economy to accept and inspire us to build “Green.” By offering tax incentives and low cost loans for manufacturing renewable energy and substainable “Green Building Materials” to provide jobs in the area would have a long lasting effect on growing our economy. Not only would it help the environment, but if done right it would lower the cost of governing ourselves. Schools, government buildings, public works operating costs could be cut in half using present day technology.

On Iraq and the War on Terror, we need an all out assault on those who want to play “Gang Bangers.” It is one thing for a Human to fight for their freedom, but OBL and his Rapitalistic friends have proven that is not their goal. Therefore, we need to make it very clear to them that they are as much of the problem as what they say they are fighting against. If that don’t work, well lets just say its not a problem taking them out.

As far as confirming Supreme Court Judges, we need to have them explain how they would rule on abstract cases. For example, Roe vs. Wade deals with the female reproductive system. Since the odds of the male reproductive system being questioned in court is about zero than ask them questions in that realm.

Poverty and Wages go hand in hand. By building homes and dewellings that fit the price range of the local wages paid so that only 30% of a person’s/household income goes toward shelter and utilities. If company A does want to pay their employees less than that than company B has a right to sue them in the interest of their employees and stockholders because company A is directly effecting their income by increasing taxes.

Health Care can be easily fixed by forcing AMA to remove doctors that screw up more than twice. Also, we can regulate the industry to seperate “Basic Care” from the rest of the medical cases. Why should people pay for high insurance premimums (sp)if they only visit a doctor once a year or in an emergency? The fact that America has lost doctors who partice “General Medicine” has driven up the cost of Health Care almost as much as malpartice suits.

Education needs totally revamped. The idea that there is only one way learn a subject is stupid. Also, the major reason most children dropout of school. Subjects need to be changed to teach our children how to live in the real world and force them to learn at a young age how to expand their mind. Also, we need to teach them how and why what they are taught will improve their life. “Just Because” is no anwer and if a child asks a question that a teacher can not or should not answer than the teacher should be required to find the proper person to explian the answer to the question asked by the child.

Nuclear poliferation can be stopped by showing those who want to aquire them that as a bomb they have gone the way of the Bow & Arrow. And as an Energy Source, nuclear power is outdated.

America and Humanity’s Nations does have bright future and it is our duty as a society to be the voice that hold the Civil, Political, and Religious Leaders of The World accountably for their Words and Actions for it is “We the People” that hold the purse strings not only to our personal wealth, but their wealth as well.

Do right and prosperity will be had by All Humans And for those few citizens that don’t care or just want to be greedy, they can go the way of the “Cave Man.” Because although 40 years ago we lacked the knowledge and wisdom to live in a “Limited World,” Our Children are blessed with the technology to build the kind of world those over the age of 50 could only dream of the last time The Global Society was froced to look itself in the mirror.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at September 18, 2005 2:00 AM
Comment #81221

Rocky,

“My senario would be that all contributions would go into a kitty to be shared by all candidates, no matter what party.”

Sounds like a good idea, but how do we get rid of the whole spending money is a freedom of speech thing?

“Lets make this truely grass roots again, and actually get the voters involved in who they pick to run the country.”

“Grass roots” has been used to describe a vast array of different things lately. How would you describe it specifically?

Posted by: Stephanie at September 18, 2005 2:35 AM
Comment #81222

Dawn said: “To listen to someone who has been a career Politician voice his/her concern about the fact that Mr. Roberts would be confirmed for life while talking about how they have sat on that committee through 9, 10, 11 Supreme Court Nominations, to me, was a bit hypocritical.”

Not hypocritical if you observe the fact that it is far easier to remove a bad Senator than it is a bad judge. Judges don’t stand for election, hence, there in for good even if they prove to be a very poor justice to both sides of the aisle.

Why should people pay for high insurance premimums (sp)if they only visit a doctor once a year or in an emergency?

Dawn, this comment reflects a basic lack of understanding of insurance. It is precisely because the bulk of policy holders pay premiums but don’t file claims that insurance companies can stay in business. The cost to all is reduced in exchange for coverage for all with a policy. Now, if you want to talk about a capping a reasonable percentage of profit on insurance companies, I am with you all the way. But, if you want to demand that those who don’t have claims pay substantially smaller premiums, then you are asking those who need the insurance for a health care problem like an auto accident, not their fault, to be penalized financially for years due to another driver’s negligence. There would be nothing fair in that. Same for increased premiums for those with sickle cell anemia, or diabetes, or cancer. Isn’t it bad enough they are ill, you want to make them pay more as well? Which of course would price many out of the market resulting in their dying for lack of affordable treatment. Fair? I don’t think so. That would be just another plan of classicide against the poor nor not other reason than they are poor.

I stand with you on your many other points and found your article thoughtful, inventive, and encouraging. Great article, Dawn.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 18, 2005 3:51 AM
Comment #81223

Stephanie,
Free Speech may be a right; however, willfully misleading a consumer through advertisement is a different. Factcheck.org showed America that during the last election. Now, we just have to rasie enough hell the next time a group does it that FCC makes them hold 527’s and political groups to the Truth in Advertising claus.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at September 18, 2005 3:57 AM
Comment #81226

Blind Loyalty is Not Loyal
From Merriam-Webster
Def = a: Blind loyalty, faith; unable or unwilling
to discern of judge.

From an article in The Scotsman by Margaret Cook
“Loyalty is the glue which fixes you in hierarchal
allegiance; when the fixative is insufficient, the next tactic is fear.”

Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the Spirit of Party (political)generally…. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.

George Washington, Farewell Address, September 19, 1796

Posted by: Old James at September 18, 2005 6:34 AM
Comment #81232

dawn, I enjoyed the gist of your article. Too bad it’s marred by your blind hatred of Democrats.

Yes. But no matter how much someone actually wants to unite - it does not work when others are not REALLY WILLING to try.

We did try. Remember Senator Kennedy and President Bush glad-handing and slapping each other on the back with silly grins over passing NCLB. That’s a program Democrats really wanted. The President Bush stabbed us in the back by not fully funding it.

Remember the unity after 9/11. Hell, it even extended to giving President Bush a blank check on Iraq so we could show how both Democrats and Republicans were united in our desire to disarm Saddam Hussein. Then we found out he didn’t have any WMD and Bush invaded anyways, and then he bashed us over the head with our support when things started going bad.

When a dog gets kicked enough, it starts to bite back.

I liked Reed and tomd’s exchange. There are so many issues that Dems and Reps agree upon — balancing the budget, reducing poverty, making healthcare affordable so businesses don’t have to shoulder the load by themselves — unfortunately, Republicans aren’t willing to consult or compromise on any of the methods. Hell, they physically locked Democrats out of the room when crafting their prescription drug benefit — a program that should have had wide bi-partisan support.

President Bush got 51% of the vote. When he wants to start representing the other half of America, we’re ready. As long as he wants to shove his right-wing agenda down half the country’s throats on only his terms, then forget it.

Unfortunaly, it?s hard to have anything resembling a reasonable discussion about those very issues… Even if you intended to criticize the president, you end up defending him in the face of such total unthinking and unfactual anger.

Try it sanger, you might be surprised. My biggest complaint about this column is the lack of substance presented by the right. If you’re met with unfactual anger, then educate the offenders. That’s what Watchblog is all about.

Posted by: American Pundit at September 18, 2005 8:10 AM
Comment #81236

Steph,

“Sounds like a good idea, but how do we get rid of the whole spending money is a freedom of speech thing?”

Money is money and speech is speech, just because someone has more money than you do doesn’t mean that their vote should account for more than yours.

Grass roots are us, you and me. When we get all the you and me’s together it would be a powerful voice.

Posted by: Rocky at September 18, 2005 10:27 AM
Comment #81238

5% of the U.S. population (the wealthiest) have 59% of all wealth in the U.S.
How can the remaining 95% of the U.S. population have a voice ?
They can’t.

80% of the U.S. population only has 16% of all wealth in the U.S. How big is their voice in government, when 90% of all elections are won by the person that spends the most, is usually an incumbent, and is usually a main-party (Republican or Democrat) candidate, with big money backers. Those that abuse vast wealth to finance elections, make it nearly impossible for 3rd party and independent candidates to get on ballots or participate in debates. Media corporations exacerbate the problem too.

That’s why we have government for sale, influence peddling, irresponsible and unaccountable government, whose actions are also increasingly suspicious & questionable, as massive world corporations scheme and plot to control resources all about the planet.

It’s not a global village.
It’s global pillage.
The U.S. was ripe for it (capitalism-gone-wrong; corporatism).
Our government (which was never perfect) is now on a path of plunder (not just its own citizens, but citizens of other nations too), and it is becoming increasingly difficult to conceal or refute the motives of a very few that abuse vast weatlh and power to control and plunder.

Confessions of an Economic Hit Man:
democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/11/09/1526251
The Coming Generational Storm:
mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/?sid=ADF1AB4C-005E-495A-A04A-C7DED5C979D3&ttype=2&tid=10055
Running On Empty:
powells.com/review/2004_07_30.html

Posted by: d.a.n at September 18, 2005 11:05 AM
Comment #81239

Dawn,

You are obviously more open and fair minded than I am. And since you are and I am not, I am counting on YOU to reach out to MY side once a more liberal president has been elected.

I don’t recall much reaching across the aisle by the conservatives when President Clinton was in office. NOW, we want to hold hands and quit criticizing the opposing administration?

I’m not too fond of many Democrats, but I’ll NEVER, EVER, repeat - EVER vote for a Republican again. (yes, I have in the past). As far as I am concerned the escalation of the current political climate began with the ultra-conservatives who were frustrated by the average American’s unwillingness to go along with their agenda, so they tried to destroy opponents personally instead of debating ISSUES.

I don’t care what you call yourself, I want solutions. It is my personal view that the current administration is full of idealogs who have no clue as to where their policies will lead. So far, they are proving to me that conservative values are unworkable in our world. Giving money to the wealthy to foster our economy - failed. Cutting off money to the middle class and poor to inspire them to work harder for the ultra-wealthy - failed. Pushing the ‘Christian’ ethic on those who rely on reason over faith - failed. Nothing wrong with faith, but it is not goverment’s business.

I’m hoping Bush and Rove (two of the most immoral and unethical ‘Christians’ I have ever witnessed) get what they want so that the rest of American will open up their eyes.

“When they came for the communists, I was silent, because I was not a communist;
When they came for the socialists, I was silent, because I was not a socialist;
When they came for the trade unionists, I did not protest, because I was not a trade unionist;
When they came for the Jews, I did not protest, because I was not a Jew;
When they came for me, there was no one left to protest on my behalf.”

Martin Niemoeller (1892-1984)

Posted by: Rick at September 18, 2005 11:12 AM
Comment #81240

I, along with all of my friends and family find it appaling that so many people DO want to BLAME President Bush for anything and everything that is not “RIGHT” in the U.S.A. as well as several other countries…do these people for one minute think that this president, as well as any other president as far as that goes, make the desision based on what he WANTS…of course not, maybe “These People” should read the Constitution, in additon to what the President has the authority to decide without the “permission” from Congress.

No American wants war, yet sometimes it is needed.
No President would want to be a day late in helping with something that could devasitate a City, but he talked to everyone he could, it was really all about the knowldege that was supplied to him, along with his wisdon, and the powers he could use. There is one inportant thing to remember, there is a law writen back 1906 I believe, that he did not have the power to just go into N.O. with out the signature on a document which signing was wayyyy to late. Okay he could have taken a drastic move, gone in there with out that signature, and then of course these “People” would have some different complaints to offer. Like there he goes using the office to fex him muscles. And IF by some chane the levies, had not burst, then the events that folled would not have been as devastating, therefor, once again, President Bush would have been blamed for trying to take over the goverment of N.O. So you see, instead of Americans realizing when President Bush makes a decision, it is always in the best interest of all of use…and no sometimes it does not work out perfect. Has not any “Human” charged with makeing an important decision had hine site of 20/20 to know how maybe it could have worked out better if….? If there is someone out there that is perfect, excluding “God”, hey raise your hand.

I find it next to imposible to find sites dedicated to doing the best we can for our world..regarless of your party…wonder why that is? Are we not all in this together?

Helen

Posted by: Helen Puchan at September 18, 2005 11:13 AM
Comment #81261

David,
“Not hypocritical if you observe the fact that it is far easier to remove a bad Senator than it is a bad judge.”

It may be easier as you say, but, not easy.

(I didn’t post about health insurance)

AP,
I’m surprised!…

“dawn, I enjoyed the gist of your article. Too bad it’s marred by your blind hatred of Democrats.”

…After all the discussions we’ve been through together!?
I was not talking about ALL democrats.

Rick,
“You are obviously more open and fair minded than I am. And since you are and I am not, I am counting on YOU to reach out to MY side once a more liberal president has been elected.”

It depends on who is reading my ‘message’.

What do you mean by reach out? Many people think that ‘to reach out’ from either side means to give in and back down on their own beliefs about certain issues.
When talking extremes, from either side, I can pretty much claim I am in the middle.
We are taught as children that we can’t always have everything our way - maybe some ‘adults’ need to remember that lesson.
The ‘extremes’ are so set in their message and not willing to back down. IMO this does not reflect the majority of us - though it gets most of the attention. It is not ‘news’ to be able to see the issues from the middle. The issues surrounding abortion would be a good example of what I am talking about.
I believe the majority of us are willing to compromise OR meet in the middle if that is a better term.
I’ve not seen a commercial by any special interest group from ‘the middle’. The ‘goal’ is to make us think we have to pick sides.
It seems to be working.

Posted by: dawn at September 18, 2005 1:41 PM
Comment #81266

Dawn, you most certainly did post about insurance: Let me quote you:

Health Care can be easily fixed by forcing AMA to remove doctors that screw up more than twice. Also, we can regulate the industry to seperate ‚ÄúBasic Care‚ÄĚ from the rest of the medical cases. Why should people pay for high insurance premiums if they only visit a doctor once a year or in an emergency?

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 18, 2005 1:59 PM
Comment #81267

Helen,
As an Independent, I hold my President & Congress responsibily regardless of party. President Bush and more directly the Director of Homeland Security Has the Authority of The Law to respond to the type of the State of Emergency that existed in New Orleans.

In other post on this bolg I showed where the Law is written. Not only that Factcheck.org gives an excellent time of events on what went on. Now, does President Bush deserve all the blame? No, however, it has been shown that politics did stand in the way of saving lives and that does fall on the Republican Party Leadership for they are in Charge of our Country. So don’t be surprised when it comes to light that many Top Officials in the Bush Administration blocked assistance from reaching N.O. because they wanted to have control.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at September 18, 2005 2:01 PM
Comment #81268

Insurance premiums are only a small part of the problem with inflationary health care costs, and NO! there is no easy fix as you said there was. To fix it one must curtail R&D and profitability of medicine in America, which is where the bulk of the inflation is coming from. Not an easy fix at all.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 18, 2005 2:02 PM
Comment #81277

David,
Please look again it was Henry.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at September 18, 2005 02:00 AM

Posted by: dawn at September 18, 2005 3:31 PM
Comment #81300

David,
While R&D add to the cost of health care, Congress could fix that problem real quick. Add although I understand why the cost is added to the products, I do not feel that it is our job as consumers to pay for all the research. For why should I pay for the risk if I do not reap the rewards. A pill is a pill and I only take it is because they say it works.

Now, if the companies want to make it favorable for a consumer to invest in their R&D than that is a different question. However, passing the R&D down to the consumer for all the failed experiements don’t cut it IMO.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at September 18, 2005 6:44 PM
Comment #81314

Rocky,

“Money is money and speech is speech, just because someone has more money than you do doesnít mean that their vote should account for more than yours.”

Oh, I agree with you completely, but that’s not how our laws are set up, and thus we have the problem. As per the SC, political donations are an act of free speech. Why? I have no idea, but that was how the ruling was presented to me by someone here on Watchblog. I’ve reason to disbelieve them, but if you have evidence discrediting that claim, I’d be very happy to hear it.

“Grass roots are us, you and me. When we get all the you and meís together it would be a powerful voice.”

And that’s what I think we should be doing to force Bush to do his job, but it doesn’t seem to go anywhere.

As for getting voter support that way, that’s how the Republicans won so many elections lately.

Posted by: Stephanie at September 18, 2005 9:01 PM
Comment #81320

Oh, boo hoo! Those big bad liberals just aren’t nice enough to the poor little GOP. So sad!

Get a backbone.

As long as you continue to vote for and blindly support these numbskulls, you’re going to hear clear-thinking individuals complain about it.

Its sure has been a wonderful 5 years in the history of this nation, hasn’t it? What’s there to complain about? Let’s have a stinkin’ parade!

Posted by: Burt at September 18, 2005 9:49 PM
Comment #81322

Reed


Majority control, not thug control

Posted by: George at September 18, 2005 9:53 PM
Comment #81349

Dawn, My deepest apology. Thank you for redirecting me a second time to my error. I have no excuse for not catching it the first time you said it wasn’t your quote. Blurred eyes I guess - too long at the monitor screen.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 19, 2005 12:22 AM
Comment #81396

Stephanie,

“As per the SC, political donations are an act of free speech. Why? I have no idea, but that was how the ruling was presented to me by someone here on Watchblog. I?ve reason to disbelieve them, but if you have evidence discrediting that claim, I?d be very happy to hear it.”

http://reclaimdemocracy.org/rdc/index.php/Q&A_on_corporate_personhood_and_money_as_speech

“But, the bias of wealth still plagues our democracy, largely because in 1976 the Supreme Court, in Buckley v. Veleo , ruled that spending money to influence elections is a form of constitutionally protected free speech, which is largely beyond democratic control.”

Your claiment is correct. This should be the first ruling struck down by the USSC.
If the people want their country back, the caste system has to end.

Free speech isn’t free, appearantly it’s pretty expensive.

Posted by: Rocky at September 19, 2005 9:53 AM
Comment #81420

A thought provoking post.
Thanks for posting it.

Posted by: Andre M. Hernandez at September 19, 2005 11:40 AM
Comment #81483

Rocky
My senario would be that all contributions would go into a kitty to be shared by all candidates, no matter what party.
With money not an issue it wouldn?t matter if the candidate were rich or poor, the voters could focus on the candidates themselves, and whether they were actually qualified for the job.

Take the money out of politics and we could get honest representation.
Put a moratorium on post government high paying jobs.
No 527?s, no PAC?s to sully the waters. Lobbyists could become a thing of the past.


Hey, we found something we can agree on.

Posted by: Ron Brown at September 19, 2005 5:33 PM
Comment #81497

Thank you for the link, Rocky. It’s reassuring to know that I’m not the only one taken aback by political money being recognized as free speech.

It seems to me that for any campaign election reform to be effective the way money is viewed, in regards to freedom of speech, needs to be revized. Without that, I don’t see how any reform can be effective. And, keeping corporations from being recognized as people…well, that would be a HUGE plus!

Posted by: Stephanie at September 19, 2005 7:21 PM
Comment #81529

Ron,

“Hey, we found something we can agree on.”

We gotta stop this, people are gonna talk.

Stephanie,

“It’s reassuring to know that I’m not the only one taken aback by political money being recognized as free speech.”

This is a reveiw of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill.

http://www.campaignfinancesite.org/legislation/mccain.html

After reading it, the bill seems kind of superficial.
Sort of like kissing your sister on the mouth.
This country needs agressive campaign laws with teeth.
We have been left kissing our colective sisters long enough.

Posted by: Rocky at September 20, 2005 12:26 AM
Comment #81541

Dawn wrote:
?After all the discussions we?ve been through together!?
I was not talking about ALL democrats.

and…

I have been a part of this site for quite awhile now. In my humble opinion, I can say that it has been difficult for anyone on the right to post a thread and get a meaningful dialogue going since the election.

Having contributed to WB longer than most, I can say with some certainty Dawn that those banned and/or admonished due to behavior you find objectionable have mostly been individuals with an opposing political viewpoint to mine. And, like myself, I’ve watched fellow Blue Column contributors and other familiar, like-minded commenters conduct themselves respectfully, even while effectively challenging opposing views in these Red Column comment threads.

Therefore, having replied frequently in such a manner to your posts, I must conclude I’m engaging in ‘Bush Bashing’, for the most part. And, seeing I rarely get a direct response, neither am I offering ‘meaningful dialog’.

Furthermore, in light of how ruthlessly Bush and the Conservatives came to power thru manipulation, intolerance and fear, do not expect the Iraq debacle and our precarious state exposed by Katrina to mitigate our criticism and opposition. Just because the Right has tempered its stonewalling, and has begrudgingly accepted the administration’s culpability does not mean we in return will give Bush & Co. a clean slate, and finally get behind the President.

Your disingenuous call for harmony and ‘throwing the bums out’, is an attempt to spread the blame around and disperse Bush’s mounting collateral damage for the Republican Party. As a result, I know how difficult it must be to then to fulfill ones obligation in this WB thread.

Posted by: Bert M. Caradine at September 20, 2005 7:55 AM
Comment #81565

Rocky,

I just love your way with words. Very effective!

“After reading it, the bill seems kind of superficial.”

Yeah, the scary thing is these guys got so much kudos for tackling this tough problem, yet nothing really changed. There was still millions (billions?) of dollars poured into the elections; there was still tons of mud being slung around; there was still lies being spread around; the debates were still stale and thin at best.

Grass roots campaigns were involved, but that didn’t seem to help. It just meant that misinformation could be spread more cheaply and without having to go through the news at all.

It would be interesting to see a political election that really, truly, simply relied on the issues.

Posted by: Stephanie at September 20, 2005 10:54 AM
Comment #81635

“Your disingenuous call for harmony and ‘throwing the bums out’, is an attempt to spread the blame around and disperse Bush’s mounting collateral damage for the Republican Party. As a result, I know how difficult it must be to then to fulfill ones obligation in this WB thread.”

Nice assumption Bert. Now let me assume something. Trying to place ALL the blame on one man - even one party - is disingenuous in itself.
If you want to say the Democrats have no power, I cannot fully agree with you on a statement like that BECAUSE they seem to know when to throw around their ‘lack of power’ if they think it will be most effective - politically.
If you believe ALL Blues are good and ALL Reds are bad, I can understand why you feel I am not genuine in the way I feel about many of our politicians from BOTH sides of the aisle.

Also… please define my ‘obligations to this WB thread.’

Posted by: dawn at September 20, 2005 4:31 PM
Comment #81881

Nice assumption Bert. Now let me assume something. Trying to place ALL the blame on one man - even one party - is disingenuous in itself.

Apparently Dawn,

One Republican’s accusation of placing blame, is this Democrat’s call for appropriate accountability.

The Bush administration would not listen to those even in his own party like John McCain (over troop levels) when it came to Iraq. So, what blame should come to the Democratic leadership for only signing off on the invasion? Michael Brown and FEMA performed effectively in response to two hurricanes that hit Florida in Sept. 2004. Are then, the failures of the Democratic Mayor of New Orleans and the state’s Democratic Governor enough to absolve the Bush administration from living up to expectations?

If you believe ALL Blues are good and ALL Reds are bad, I can understand why you feel I am not genuine in the way I feel about many of our politicians from BOTH sides of the aisle.

By continuing to frame the debate in such exaggerated terms Dawn, you can sidestep your ‘obligation’ here to genuinely and substantively defend or criticize the job performance of this administration.

I’m just not seeing enough of that in this WB Red Column.

Posted by: Bert M. Caradine at September 22, 2005 1:21 AM
Comment #81951

“Are then, the failures of the Democratic Mayor of New Orleans and the state’s Democratic Governor enough to absolve the Bush administration from living up to expectations?”

I would say - not completely. Though apparently the leadership in LA did not seem to have their act together. Just compare what the other two states did. The governor of Mississippi came out and said he KNEW Mississippi would be ON THEIR own for at least the first 3 days.
I can’t remember who was interviewing at the time but he/she tried to get the Governor of Mississippi to state that LA leaders were morons and had no clue what to do before or after the storm. He didn’t do it. He explained what Mississippi did in preparation for the storm.
Then what happens? Our media acts like New Orleans was the only place devastated and 95% of the focus is on them and others don’t get help in a timely manner?
Our media focuses on what FEMA and Bush did wrong and says little about what the local leaders should have done BEFORE Katrina that could have made the relief effort a little easier and more effective, quicker.

I believe that Bush and Brown should have just shoved the governor and the mayor out of the way and got down to business - no matter what party they belong to. (Un)fortunately we have rules against that.
Bush is not the one who kept the Red Cross out of the city because the people might stay if they received help.
Bush is not the one who waited so long to declare a mandatory evacuation because of the concerns of the major business leaders who thought they would lose money if the city was ‘shut down’ a day sooner.
Bush is not the one who was so concerned about giving up control of his National Guard.
Bush is not the one who left the buses sitting because he couldn’t find enough bus drivers.
Bush is not the one who turned down Amtrak’s offer to help get people out.
Bush is not the one who voted for the leaders in LA and it should not be his responsibility to bail out, or take the blame for, every politician when they screw up.

Nothing like politics getting in the way of people’s lives before, during, and after such a devastating event.

Posted by: dawn at September 22, 2005 12:26 PM
Comment #81985

oh.BTW.

“By continuing to frame the debate in such exaggerated terms Dawn, you can sidestep your ‘obligation’ here to genuinely and substantively defend or criticize the job performance of this administration.”

I don’t remember being informed that it was my ‘obligation to defend or criticize the administration’ when I signed on as an editor. Must have missed that in the list of requirements.
My initial goal was to discuss, not defend with a partisan rant, issues.

I guess we could blame Kerry for not getting elected OR we can blame the democratic voters for not coming up with the winning candidate.


Posted by: dawn at September 22, 2005 3:05 PM
Comment #82055

As perfectly exampled here Dawn,

For you, ‘discuss’ means to detail and assign much of the blame to local Louisiana (Dem) leaders, while absolving Bush with clearly rehearsed talking points. It’s only when the equally injurious failures of FEMA and the Bush administration are brought up, that the now non-discussion suddenly becomes partisanly offensive to you.

I guess we could blame Kerry for not getting elected OR we can blame the democratic voters for not coming up with the winning candidate.

No doubt then, you’d challenge the veracity of Bush’s current approvals, clinging to the baseless assertion that the voters have not changed their minds since November.

Yet, I’ve not removed my Kerry/Edwards bumper sticker, as it now serves as a reminder. And, I’ve not seen a ‘W’ sticker in weeks.

Posted by: Bert M. Caradine at September 26, 2005 11:32 PM
Comment #82200

It has now been said that the GOVERNOR of LA did not include New Orleans in the disaster declaration. Brown mobilized FEMA assets for N.O. anyway. Bush and Brown did not put the protocols in place - they were already put there by someone else.
We will, in the end, find out that the ‘failures’ went well beyond FEMA and the local and state officials. It starts with the rules set forth by our legislatures.
Anyone who wants to ‘overlook’ the failures at the local and state levels and place ALL the blame on the Feds, for whatever reason, will not get to the whole truth.
The failures began before the storm ever hit. These failures compounded the failures at the federal level. No denying it.
I don’t care if someone is red or blue. Morons come in all colors and at all levels.
I already said that Bush should have taken over sooner.
The problem? was that Democrats that were in charge would have to have been shoved aside.
Democrats were in charge AND THEY FAILED ALSO.
It’s so easy for blues to blame reds EVEN WHEN they themselves screwed up.
It was not the job of the Feds to evacuate the people though it seems that the officials in LA wanted to wait for the Feds to make the call so they would not take the blame for a mandatory evac. that may in the end have turned out NOT to be necessary.
If that’s the kind of ‘leadership’ the dems have to provide, I’ll take a slow response, after the fact, over what they did any day.
I’m prepared to blame people at ALL levels. From both parties.
I don’t believe that you are Bert.
The responsibilty starts at the ‘bottom’ and goes up. The ‘blame’ starts BEFORE the storm hit and continues through the days following.
You are trying to do it in reverse.

Posted by: dawn at September 27, 2005 2:00 PM
Post a comment