NationStates Jolt Archive

What do you guys think?

What do you guys think?
If the elections were held tomorrow, yes. But I think it will depend upon how far things are after that amount of time. The GOP has taken a hit, but we'll have to see. If America is reminded of what happened, and there apears to be no progress...

In other words, expect Rove to be heading to NO to personally fix the pump stations.

I don't think it will affect the '06 elections much. I think the Republicans will lose a few seats in each house, but I thought that before the hurricane anyways...so, no real effect.

I'm fairly confident that even the 2006 election is too far off for the aftermath of Katrina to affect it much. It's been my impression that the American public has somewhere around 6 months memory (I'm probbaly being generous), and I don't think Katrina will be an issue by the time the elections roll around.

It's depressing, but I think it's the way things are :(

I kinda picture American politics as a see saw. Reps on one side, Dems on the other. Kinda a steady motion of ups and downs. Reps go down, and the Military and homeland security gets crushed. Then they go up, Dems go down, and social services and civil liberties are crushed. I think if we quit playing see saw, we would see how vital they both are to making sure the other side doesn't go too far.

I kinda picture American politics as a see saw. Reps on one side, Dems on the other. Kinda a steady motion of ups and downs. Reps go down, and the Military and homeland security gets crushed. Then they go up, Dems go down, and social services and civil liberties are crushed. I think if we quit playing see saw, we would see how vital they both are to making sure the other side doesn't go too far.
If only people would vote for candidates like me, who support the Military, homeland security, social services and civil liberties. :)

It's possible. To quote Jon Stewart: "Hurricane Katrina is George Bush's Monica Lewinski. With one exception. Tens of thousands of people weren't stranded in Monica Lewinski's vagina."

The response to Katrina has been a spectacular failure on the part of everybody from the top down. (On both sides of the aisle)

Maybe the independent candidates will have a better chance in 06/08 and we'll finally have a truly representative government. (hope hope hope)

Someone mentioned that the situation in New Orleans is basically a zombie movie without the zombies (which is ironic since it's Louisiana, after all.) If we can extrapolate Shrub's My Pet Goat reactionary speed combined with his lack of foresight, would the average America feel comfortable about the future of this nation should an actual zombie epidemic break out under Il Duhce's watch?

What do you guys think?

One can only hope.

The answer is no it wont cost the GOP the '06 or '08 elections.

I am not worried about it. People were already pretty mad at the GOP last election ( and the one before that ) and we came out okay. ( well, as okay as you can be with Bush) I really think they are going to come up with some great candidates next time around. Besides as long as the dems keep not voting and the dems in office keep whining and pushing voters away, we will continue to have the majority. I am not really worried about it anyway, the dem party is going to have to find a moderate to win the 08 election and I wouldn't be too unhappy about a moderate being in office anyway. As far as the 06 elections, Republicans can't help but win around here.

Based on this report, I think it will have literally no effect.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/HurricaneKatrina/story?id=1094262&page=1

70% of Republicans think the Federal Government response has been quick and effective. They are applauding Bush, and their biggest concern is gas prices. The people who voted Democrat are going to vote Dem. The people who voted Republican are going to vote Rep. Nothing will change.

Note: I think officials at EVERY level, city, parish, state, and federal dropped the ball big time. They all deserve to be investigated, and I imagine heads will roll at all levels. Unfortunately, the American public keeps their heads in the sand, and this isn't going to affect how we think or vote. Sometimes I'm ashamed to be a member of this group.

The answer is that it will cost them, and rightly so. Right now, the US has very little of a "checks and balances" system because of the stranglehold of the Republicans on all levels of governance.

It ought to, and I hope it will, but I've stopped underestimating the ability of the Republican noise machine to drown out the bad and replace it with crap, and the ability of the press to let them get away with it.

Of course it will, because most of America is stupid and thinks that the GOP is responsible for anything bad!!! So of course having a Republican in office caused this massive whirling of winds to form and they guided it straight to New Orleans with an Atari controller.

The answer is that it will cost them, and rightly so. Right now, the US has very little of a "checks and balances" system because of the stranglehold of the Republicans on all levels of governance.

CH:

If we use this logic, then the Democrats should suffer too. After all the democratic governor was very slow to react and the Mayor of NO didn't use all available means to get his people out of the city.

Now I don't know about you but the question should read:

Will BOTH PARTIES suffer because of Katrina?

After all, more than one party was involved in this debacle!

Nothing will happen to the Republican party. There will not be a big scandal because the Republicans control most of the media stations. Simply arrange a terrorist attack in Iraq or something and BAM! You've got the people's support again. Sad, but that's how it is. It will not cost the GOP '08, unless I am grossly underestimating the American people.

They lost it when the committed a war of agression in Afghanistan.

Bomb Massachusetts to get the Boston Strangler,
reeeeeeeeaaaaaaal smart.

Never mind that the Taliban offered to turn Osama over
to a 3rd country. No. That never happened.
Bushies demanded they turn over to the US,
so what does Bush say, we will not negotiate with terrorists.


Then they go and kill more innocent civillians than
were killed in the WTC, pentagon, and those planes.

genius, pure genius. :confused:

The rest we know.... :mad:

They lost it when the committed a war of agression in Afghanistan.

This has got to be the most redicuolous statement I think I have ever heard.

*snip*

Very nice rant. I enjoyed reading it! NOT!!!!

!


Reason US gov't did not allow the Taliban to turn
Usama over to a 3rd country...

They wanted war. They always do.
Look at our history. Over 250 uses of armed forces abroad
and only 5 declared wars.

Smedley Darlington Butler
Major General - United States Marine Corps [Retired]
one of the most decorated soldiers in US history
1881-1940, said "War is a Racket. It always has been."



But otherwise, what did you find humorous in my post?

Based on this report, I think it will have literally no effect.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/HurricaneKatrina/story?id=1094262&page=1

70% of Republicans think the Federal Government response has been quick and effective. They are applauding Bush, and their biggest concern is gas prices. The people who voted Democrat are going to vote Dem. The people who voted Republican are going to vote Rep. Nothing will change.

Note: I think officials at EVERY level, city, parish, state, and federal dropped the ball big time. They all deserve to be investigated, and I imagine heads will roll at all levels. Unfortunately, the American public keeps their heads in the sand, and this isn't going to affect how we think or vote. Sometimes I'm ashamed to be a member of this group.

Then there are the results (http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/09/07/katrina.poll/) of a CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll this morning. People were asked who they blamed for the disaster in New Orleans. I'm sure that the Bush-haters will be disappointed with the results:

So ... who's to blame?

Local officials, 25%
Federal officials 18%
Bush 13%
No one 38%

Bad news for those of you that think it will turn the elections...

Reason US gov't did not allow the Taliban to turn
Usama over to a 3rd country...

They wanted war. They always do.
Look at our history. Over 250 uses of armed forces abroad
and only 5 declared wars.

We didn't want a war. We wanted Bin Laden. If they had just handed him over to us, then we wouldn't have attacked. That is what we call an Ultimatum. Hand him over and we won't attack.

They didn't hand over the man who ordered the 9/11 Terrorist attack that killed 3000 American and foreigners in the World Trade Center.

Smedley Darlington Butler
Major General - United States Marine Corps [Retired]
one of the most decorated soldiers in US history
1881-1940, said "War is a Racket. It always has been."

Civil War Quote: "Its a good thing that war is hell otherwise we'll grow to like it."

But otherwise, what did you find humorous in my post?

All of it. Not even steeped in accurate facts.

I'm still trying to figure out what you meant by bombing Boston to get the boston strangler.

Americans can be fickle, placing blame where it is not deserved... but I don't think it'll happen in this case. Oh, the democrats will blame him, of course, but it's really the centrist voters we're talking about here who decide nearly every election. There's been a fair abmount of talk about how this was at least as much the fault of the NO mayor and the LA governor as it was president bush's (actually more, imo, but then i'm a states' rights guy).

It ought to, and I hope it will, but I've stopped underestimating the ability of the Republican noise machine to drown out the bad and replace it with crap, and the ability of the press to let them get away with it.

it also helps that significant numbers of republican supporters are just delusional. they aren't bad people, they just believe the gop holds positions that are directly opposite to their real ones. not even the republican babble machine gets through to these people on lots of issues - they just go on believing that republicans favor the things they favor and do the things they think they should have.

it also helps that significant numbers of republican supporters are just delusional. they aren't bad people, they just believe the gop holds positions that are directly opposite to their real ones. not even the republican babble machine gets through to these people on lots of issues - they just go on believing that republicans favor the things they favor and do the things they think they should have.
It's happening right here in front of us with the whole Katrina fiasco.

It's real simple--who had resources to deal with destruction on this size? A city filled with poor people, a state filled with poor people, or the federal government? Who was least affected by the storm's destructive capability? The city, the state, or the federal government? Who responded the slowest, allowed the damage to worsen when it didn't need to, and put more emphasis on photo ops than helping people? The city, the state, ot the federal government?

The answer's simple, but for those of you so deluded that you'd get it wrong, the answer to all three is "the federal government." And yet who's getting the majority of the blame? The state and local authorities--even though they were screaming for help before the storm hit.

Mike Brown waited until five hours after the storm started coming ashore before even asking his boss at DHS to ready 1,000 people for aid, and then gave them two days to get there because they needed "training." You couldn't put that order in when Katrina was building steam in the Gulf? You knew it was going to be big and it would hit somewhere and that those people would be needed.

And when firefighters had come together from all across the country to offer assistance, they had to go through training as well, not as SAR people, but as community assistance folks, and some of the first who went out had a special assignment--to walk beside Bush as he "toured" the area and was filmed. They were goddamn props.

And yet, even in the face of this ineptitude, while you can see pictures of bodies floating through the streets of New Orleans, people have the gall to sit back and say that the state and local officials are at greater fault.

They had the least capability to respond effectively and they're at the greatest amount of fault.

Is there nothing that these people won't swallow in defense of their incapable and incompetent President?

Those in power are always the quickest to support war.
Why? They don't have to fight it.

Smedley Butler proposes that only those doing the actual fighting
get to vote on whether we go to war or not.
Also, he suggests that all politicians and all arms manufacturers get
paid the same low as those doing the fighting in the fox hole.

We don't like war, but the politicians and their paymasters sure do.
War is profit. Big profit. Ever hear of those 1000$ toilet seats
the pentagon uses our tax dollars for?
Interview w/Chuck Spinney pentagon auditor
Pentagon has never passed an audit
http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/transcript_spinney.html


And why should bin Ladin have been handed over to the US?
Do you really think he would have gotten a fair trial here after
all the death and destruction he was accused/(admitted?)
to have caused?

Thousands now lie .
Tragedy for some, others...
Time for politics!

From Frank J. (http://imao.us)

What do you guys think?
The GOP are not all that popular right now. They are a victim of their own success, turning from mostly an opposition party with a few presidents, to the largest party in the US. They've focused too much on winning votes and not enough on substance. The only thing uniting Republicans is a hatred of Democrats, themselves in a sorrier ideaological state. I think that unless we can have a good ole' infusion of moderates in both parties (which may yet happen), the parties will become so tense, and then it'll snap. I think that one of the parties will split into two or three separate ones in the next decade if moderation isn't sought soon. However, this isn't to say that I endorse moderation. I wish there were a split of someone.

It's possible. To quote Jon Stewart: "Hurricane Katrina is George Bush's Monica Lewinski. With one exception. Tens of thousands of people weren't stranded in Monica Lewinski's vagina."

The response to Katrina has been a spectacular failure on the part of everybody from the top down. (On both sides of the aisle)

Maybe the independent candidates will have a better chance in 06/08 and we'll finally have a truly representative government. (hope hope hope)
Jon Stewart is clever, I'll grant you, but his comparison, as I'm sure you know, is flawed.

George Bush did not initiate Hurricane Katrina.

Clinton most certainly initiated . . . well, you know.

The answer is that it will cost them, and rightly so. Right now, the US has very little of a "checks and balances" system because of the stranglehold of the Republicans on all levels of governance.
Um, checks and balances is a term used to apply to the branches of government - legislative, judicial, executive - not to be applied to political parties.

If the people elect one party to all three branches, then that's what they should get. Democrat or Republican.

I don't think you were complaining when the Democrats did control the House, Senate, Presidency, and the Supreme Court.

One can only hope that Bush gets a spanking for his FEMA appointment at least.

I think the GOP will suffer, because they are the party in power, and because the overall response to Katrina has been poor, to say the least. How much, I don't know. Enough to lose the House or Senate? Probably not, but certainly enough to make it interesting.

CH:

If we use this logic, then the Democrats should suffer too. After all the democratic governor was very slow to react and the Mayor of NO didn't use all available means to get his people out of the city.

Now I don't know about you but the question should read:

Will BOTH PARTIES suffer because of Katrina?

After all, more than one party was involved in this debacle!
I think the question is a fair one. After reading the timeline, and numerous articles, it is quite clear to me that Bush and his posse have failed the people of the US. I hope that the electorate hold them accountable in upcoming elections. IF there is no backlash, the Republicans will have more reason to believe that they can do whatever they please, since no one wants to hold them accountable.

My hope is that the Democrats will garner enough support that they can make inroads to regaining the House and/or Senate. Right now, American politics are lopsided and the good ship USS America is starting to sink.

Um, checks and balances is a term used to apply to the branches of government - legislative, judicial, executive - not to be applied to political parties.

If the people elect one party to all three branches, then that's what they should get. Democrat or Republican.

So if a single party controls all three branches of a government, then it's okay to ignore Checks and Balances because that's what's been "elected"? Oh please, that's the kind of selective attitude which lets Bush get away with his incompetence.

I don't think you were complaining when the Democrats did control the House, Senate, Presidency, and the Supreme Court.

Of course he probably didn't think a blowjob was a Crime Against Humanity either.

:rolleyes:

IMy hope is that the Democrats will garner enough support that they can make inroads to regaining the House and/or Senate. Right now, American politics are lopsided and the good ship USS America is starting to sink.

Actually, the USS America was sunk several months ago as a test bed for future Naval development. ;)

I think the question is a fair one.

At least you think that. That is a good sign :D

After reading the timeline, and numerous articles, it is quite clear to me that Bush and his posse have failed the people of the US. I hope that the electorate hold them accountable in upcoming elections. IF there is no backlash, the Republicans will have more reason to believe that they can do whatever they please, since no one wants to hold them accountable.

Shouldn't the Democrats answer to this too? I mean the democrats that run LA that is.

My hope is that the Democrats will garner enough support that they can make inroads to regaining the House and/or Senate. Right now, American politics are lopsided and the good ship USS America is starting to sink.

We aren't sinking. Not in the least.

According to recent polls, only 18% think its Bush's fault however more think it is the fault of the Local and state governments. Can I have your honest opinion on the poll?

Then there are the results (http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/09/07/katrina.poll/) of a CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll this morning. People were asked who they blamed for the disaster in New Orleans. I'm sure that the Bush-haters will be disappointed with the results:

So ... who's to blame?

Local officials, 25%
Federal officials 18%
Bush 13%
No one 38%

Bad news for those of you that think it will turn the elections...
From the very same article that you linked to:

Opinions varied widely, however, on the response of federal, state and local officials regarding Katrina. Forty-two percent of respondents characterized President Bush's response to the disaster as "bad" or "terrible," while 35 percent said it was "good" or "great."

The dance isn't over yet. There will be more finger pointing and defining moments. If Americans shrug their shoulders on this matter, things will only get worse not better.

Actually, the USS America was sunk several months ago as a test bed for future Naval development. ;)
I rest my case. :rolleyes: