More Post-Katrina Aftermath
I. Governor Blanco Recall
Due to the lack of problems with hurricane Katrina, there are citizens of Louisana who want to remove governer Blanco from office. Here are the basis of the complaint:
1. Failed to execute the state's emergency plan to safeguard the citizens by ordering a mandatory evacuation of Southern Louisiana in a timely manner.
2. Purposefully withheld food, water and hygiene items from the tens of thousands of victims stranded at the Superdome and the New Orleans Convention Center in an effort to get them to leave the area.
3. Delayed sending the Louisiana National Guard to maintain order in the city of New Orleans for four days, allowing snipers to hamper rescue efforts and permitting looters to ransack homes and businesses.
4. Chose to spend the days after Hurricane Katrina engaged in partisan bickering and finger pointing rather than giving FEMA and the U.S. military the authority they needed to take over the rescue effort, relieve suffering, and save lives.
I would like to see the proof. Number 2 sounds conspiratorial, and in fact, as I can recall, she asked that there be no bickering in the aftermath of the storm, so I question point 4. Point 3, however, I don't have enough info to comment on.
I have heard that President Bush asked for an evacuation, and she supposedly refused. I don't know where I heard it, and I don't know whether or not that statement is in fact true. And if it was, if she had good cause to refuse, and it can be documented (like the chaos it could create, for example, and pre-event perception that it was better to keep the citizens in the Superdome than totally evacuate the city, with good evidence to back it up), then there is no basis to remove her. However, if she does not have good cause, and she did in fact refuse to order an evacuation when asked by President Bush, then there might be basis for recall.
It is my impression that in 2002, there was a close gubenatorial election in Louisiana between her, and an Indian (as in from India) who converted to Catholicism and Republicanism in college. He is my age, too. Of course, given that Louisiana is largely Catholic, and is a red state, can only mean they rejected him for one reason - you guessed it, racism. Remember, it is in the deep south, and I suspect that southerners still have some lingering racism. Those that do not are degenerate socialists. There are some who are both, and few that are neither. That is the only explanation I can see as to why he lost. Maybe they will get their wits about them and vote him in during the recall election - if Louisiana's recall (which I assume they have, as people are advocating it) is like California's.
II. Scary Kerry Back
I recently read that Senator Kerry blasted the administration on it's Katrina efforts. He is doing this via his presidential election website, JohnKerry.com, probably telling everyone how this is Bush's failure, etc. etc. Since this appears to be more and more of a local problem, the same things probably would have happened had he been elected. I went there, saw the speech, saw it was long, so didn't read too much of it. He is doing what every other Democrat is doing anyway - follow the leader - so so much for leadership on his part. Yawn - I do that whenever he pops up.
It is my understanding that he wishes to pursue the 2008 Democratic Nomination. Two words: Damaged Goods. Evidence of treason does not play well in subsequent elections. Plus, it is very common knowledge that Hillary will be running in 2008. She is the best choice for the Democrats because a. She has the best chance of winning, and b. She represents Democrat views on almost everything. Any Democrat who supports anyone else in 2008 I have to seriously question their sanity and/or common sense.
Sure, people like Sean Hannity thinks that she is so extreme that everyone will vote against her, but that is what they said about Reagan in 1980. I do not really listen to Sean Hannity - He basically spouts talking points, Michael Medved, on at the same time, is far more interesting, and Sean Hannity is about as exciting as John Kerry.
Speaking of John Kerry, not winning against George Bush indicates his unelectability on a nationwide basis. The Democrats had the anti-war issue, and I believe that Howard Dean had a far better chance of winning that John Kerry, because he was consistent on his anti-war position, as well as the other big issue Democrats like, single-payer health care. He had much more exicited, as well as positive, as opposed to negative, support. John Kerry got as many votes as he did because they were mostly anti- rather than pro- votes. "I voted for $87 billion before I voted against it" would have those sitting on the fence on this issue go toward W, not toward him, because he basically says nothing in this statement, which probably most defined his positions in the election. Howard Dean could have won with his consistent hammering away of the administration's policies. Not that I would have voted for him - I'm a Republican - I'm merely giving observations.
Of course, the establishment decided against Howard Dean because a. John Kerry had lots of "gravitas" and b. Howard Dean had an "A" NRA rating. And I think the establishment hates guns much more than they hate the Iraqi liberation, or much more than they like single payer health care. Of course they gravitate toward those with "gravitas" because, being journalists at the New York Times, they have some kind of self-esteem problem and need to support someone who makes it look like they have stature. Even if such person only introduced two pieces of legislation during a 20 years Senate career, and both being narrow and Massachussets specific.
Due to the lack of problems with hurricane Katrina, there are citizens of Louisana who want to remove governer Blanco from office. Here are the basis of the complaint:
1. Failed to execute the state's emergency plan to safeguard the citizens by ordering a mandatory evacuation of Southern Louisiana in a timely manner.
2. Purposefully withheld food, water and hygiene items from the tens of thousands of victims stranded at the Superdome and the New Orleans Convention Center in an effort to get them to leave the area.
3. Delayed sending the Louisiana National Guard to maintain order in the city of New Orleans for four days, allowing snipers to hamper rescue efforts and permitting looters to ransack homes and businesses.
4. Chose to spend the days after Hurricane Katrina engaged in partisan bickering and finger pointing rather than giving FEMA and the U.S. military the authority they needed to take over the rescue effort, relieve suffering, and save lives.
I would like to see the proof. Number 2 sounds conspiratorial, and in fact, as I can recall, she asked that there be no bickering in the aftermath of the storm, so I question point 4. Point 3, however, I don't have enough info to comment on.
I have heard that President Bush asked for an evacuation, and she supposedly refused. I don't know where I heard it, and I don't know whether or not that statement is in fact true. And if it was, if she had good cause to refuse, and it can be documented (like the chaos it could create, for example, and pre-event perception that it was better to keep the citizens in the Superdome than totally evacuate the city, with good evidence to back it up), then there is no basis to remove her. However, if she does not have good cause, and she did in fact refuse to order an evacuation when asked by President Bush, then there might be basis for recall.
It is my impression that in 2002, there was a close gubenatorial election in Louisiana between her, and an Indian (as in from India) who converted to Catholicism and Republicanism in college. He is my age, too. Of course, given that Louisiana is largely Catholic, and is a red state, can only mean they rejected him for one reason - you guessed it, racism. Remember, it is in the deep south, and I suspect that southerners still have some lingering racism. Those that do not are degenerate socialists. There are some who are both, and few that are neither. That is the only explanation I can see as to why he lost. Maybe they will get their wits about them and vote him in during the recall election - if Louisiana's recall (which I assume they have, as people are advocating it) is like California's.
II. Scary Kerry Back
I recently read that Senator Kerry blasted the administration on it's Katrina efforts. He is doing this via his presidential election website, JohnKerry.com, probably telling everyone how this is Bush's failure, etc. etc. Since this appears to be more and more of a local problem, the same things probably would have happened had he been elected. I went there, saw the speech, saw it was long, so didn't read too much of it. He is doing what every other Democrat is doing anyway - follow the leader - so so much for leadership on his part. Yawn - I do that whenever he pops up.
It is my understanding that he wishes to pursue the 2008 Democratic Nomination. Two words: Damaged Goods. Evidence of treason does not play well in subsequent elections. Plus, it is very common knowledge that Hillary will be running in 2008. She is the best choice for the Democrats because a. She has the best chance of winning, and b. She represents Democrat views on almost everything. Any Democrat who supports anyone else in 2008 I have to seriously question their sanity and/or common sense.
Sure, people like Sean Hannity thinks that she is so extreme that everyone will vote against her, but that is what they said about Reagan in 1980. I do not really listen to Sean Hannity - He basically spouts talking points, Michael Medved, on at the same time, is far more interesting, and Sean Hannity is about as exciting as John Kerry.
Speaking of John Kerry, not winning against George Bush indicates his unelectability on a nationwide basis. The Democrats had the anti-war issue, and I believe that Howard Dean had a far better chance of winning that John Kerry, because he was consistent on his anti-war position, as well as the other big issue Democrats like, single-payer health care. He had much more exicited, as well as positive, as opposed to negative, support. John Kerry got as many votes as he did because they were mostly anti- rather than pro- votes. "I voted for $87 billion before I voted against it" would have those sitting on the fence on this issue go toward W, not toward him, because he basically says nothing in this statement, which probably most defined his positions in the election. Howard Dean could have won with his consistent hammering away of the administration's policies. Not that I would have voted for him - I'm a Republican - I'm merely giving observations.
Of course, the establishment decided against Howard Dean because a. John Kerry had lots of "gravitas" and b. Howard Dean had an "A" NRA rating. And I think the establishment hates guns much more than they hate the Iraqi liberation, or much more than they like single payer health care. Of course they gravitate toward those with "gravitas" because, being journalists at the New York Times, they have some kind of self-esteem problem and need to support someone who makes it look like they have stature. Even if such person only introduced two pieces of legislation during a 20 years Senate career, and both being narrow and Massachussets specific.
posted by EricMatthew at 9:54 PM
<< Home