PDA

View Full Version : Too bad it took a Hurricane before our country figured this out...As I have been saying all along...


reeds
09-08-2005, 05:33 PM
Poll: Majority now wants Bush to keep focus at home
WASHINGTON (AP) Hurricane Katrina has made Americans heartsick.
They're depressed about the images of destruction and despair they see from the storm zone and they increasingly want President Bush to shift his attention toward home, a poll released Thursday found.

More than half of Americans now say it is more important for the president to focus on domestic policy the first time since Sept. 11, 2001 that domestic matters have been viewed as a higher priority than the war on terrorism in polling by the Pew Research Center.

Two-thirds said the president could have done more to get relief efforts going quickly, according to the survey.

The slow-moving response to the hurricane appears to have shaken American confidence in the government's ability to deal with a major disaster. Four in 10 said the response to the hurricane has made them less confident about the government's ability to handle a major terrorist attack.

Almost six in 10 in the Pew poll, 58%, say they have felt depressed because of what's happened along the Gulf Coast. Pew polling indicates that at no point during the Iraq war has that high a percentage of people said they were depressed because of the war.

Despite those gloomy feelings, many people have found encouragement in the response to the storm 59% saying what they've heard and read about the storm has made them more optimistic. Many from around the country have offered help to the evacuees.

People were divided on those who took things from homes and businesses after the storm equally likely to say they were trying to survive or criminals taking advantage of the situation.

The Pew poll of 1,000 adults was taken Sept. 6-7 and has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3.5 percentage points.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MavKikiNYC
09-08-2005, 07:54 PM
Four in 10 said the response to the hurricane has made them less confident about the government's ability to handle a major terrorist attack.

Does this mean that the other 6 in 10 felt as confident or more confident about the government's ability to handle a major disaster/terrorist attack?

Drbio
09-08-2005, 08:18 PM
reeds revels in a tragic event yet again.

tool.

LRB
09-08-2005, 09:51 PM
Too bad even a terrible tragedy like Katrina can't keep Reeds from using it to take cheap political shots.

MavKikiNYC
09-08-2005, 10:04 PM
Originally posted by: LRB
Too bad even a terrible tragedy like Katrina can't keep Reeds from using it to take cheap political shots.

What's more pathetic is that he gets the meaning of the survey response ass-backward.

dude1394
09-08-2005, 11:36 PM
I really didn't want to weigh in. . It's like shooting ducks in a barrel.

mavsman55
09-09-2005, 06:09 AM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/parenting/images/300/baby_crying_closeup.jpg

chumdawg
09-09-2005, 06:25 AM
Don't stick your heads in the sand, people. If you think this isn't bad news for the Repubs in '08, you're crazy.

madape
09-09-2005, 08:21 AM
Bush isn't running in '08. How this might effect my favorite potential candidate, Rudy Guliani, is less clear. I think it might actually help him. The difference between how he handled the 9/11 tragedy and the way New Orleans, Louisiana, and FEMA handled Katrina, should be enough to swing anyone who really cares about homeland security back over to the GOP.

Drbio
09-09-2005, 08:26 AM
Originally posted by: madape
Bush isn't running in '08. How this might effect my favorite potential candidate, Rudy Guliani, is less clear. I think it might actually help him. The difference between how he handled the 9/11 tragedy and the way New Orleans, Louisiana, and FEMA handled Katrina, should be enough to swing anyone who really cares about homeland security back over to the GOP.

Excellent point. If Rudy is on the ticket, his exceptional response to 9/11 will be a HUGE discussion and selling point.

LRB
09-09-2005, 09:26 AM
Originally posted by: chumdawg
Don't stick your heads in the sand, people. If you think this isn't bad news for the Repubs in '08, you're crazy.

This will be relatively ancient history in '08. By then there will be other issues that will be pressing America's hot buttons. This is more likely to become a big issue in the '06 elections.

MavKikiNYC
09-09-2005, 10:27 AM
Laura Bush Says Criticism of Husband 'Disgusting'

WASHINGTON (Sept. 9) - Laura Bush described as "disgusting" comments by rapper Kanye West and Democratic chairman Howard Dean blaming her husband for the disproportionate number of black hurricane victims.

Laura Bush, shown with Katrina victims on Sept. 2, responded forcefully to charges her husband doesn't care about black people. "I know what he's like and I know what he thinks and I know how he cares about people," she said.

"I think all of those remarks are disgusting, to be perfectly frank, because of course President Bush cares about everyone in our country," the first lady said Thursday in an interview with American Urban Radio Networks.

"And I know that. I mean, I'm the person who lives with him," she said. "I know what he's like and I know what he thinks and I know how he cares about people."

The president has faced sharp criticism over federal relief efforts for Hurricane Katrina victims, who are disproportionally black and poor.

On a nationally televised telethon Friday, broadcast live on NBC, West departed from the script to declare "George Bush doesn't care about black people."

Earlier this week, Dean, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, told the National Baptist Convention of America, a black religious group, that race played a role in the hurricane casualty numbers.

Mrs. Bush said it was clear that poor people were more vulnerable when the hurricane hit.

"They lived in poorer neighborhoods. Their neighborhoods were the ones that were more likely to flood, as we saw in New Orleans. Their housing was more vulnerable," she said.

"And that's what we saw, and that's what we want to address in our country."

AOL POLL:

Do you think President Bush should be criticized for failings in Katrina relief efforts?

No 51%
Yes 49%

Do you think any of the mistakes officials made were rooted in racism?
No 72%
Yes 28%

Total Votes: 31,147

MavKikiNYC
09-09-2005, 10:34 AM
September 9, 2005
Political Issues Snarled Plans for Military Help After Hurricane
By ERIC LIPTON, ERIC SCHMITT
and THOM SHANKER

WASHINGTON, Sept. 8 - As New Orleans descended into chaos last week and Louisiana's governor asked for 40,000 soldiers, President Bush's senior advisers debated whether the president should speed the arrival of active-duty troops by seizing control of the hurricane relief mission from the governor.

For reasons of practicality and politics, officials at the Justice Department and the Pentagon, and then at the White House, decided not to urge Mr. Bush to take command of the effort. Instead, the Washington officials decided to rely on the growing number of National Guard personnel flowing into Louisiana, who were under Gov. Kathleen Babineaux Blanco's control.

The debate began after officials realized that Hurricane Katrina had exposed a critical flaw in the national disaster response plans created after the Sept. 11 attacks. According to the administration's senior domestic security officials, the plan failed to recognize that local police, fire and medical personnel might be incapacitated.

As criticism of the response to Hurricane Katrina has mounted, one of the most pointed questions has been why more troops were not available more quickly to restore order and offer aid. Interviews with officials in Washington and Louisiana show that as the situation grew worse, they were wrangling with questions of federal/state authority, <u>weighing the realities of military logistics and perhaps talking past each other in the crisis.</u>

<u>To seize control of the mission, Mr. Bush would have had to invoke the Insurrection Act, which allows the president in times of unrest to command active-duty forces into the states to perform law enforcement duties. But decision makers in Washington felt certain that Ms. Blanco would have resisted surrendering control, as Bush administration officials believe would have been required to deploy active-duty combat forces before law and order had been re-established.</u>

While combat troops can conduct relief missions without the legal authority of the Insurrection Act, Pentagon and military officials say that no active-duty forces could have been sent into the chaos of New Orleans on Wednesday or Thursday without confronting law-and-order challenges.

<u>But just as important to the administration were worries about the message that would have been sent by a president ousting a Southern governor of another party from command of her National Guard, according to administration, Pentagon and Justice Department officials.</u>

"Can you imagine how it would have been perceived if a president of the United States of one party had pre-emptively taken from the female governor of another party the command and control of her forces, unless the security situation made it completely clear that she was unable to effectively execute her command authority and that lawlessness was the inevitable result?" asked one senior administration official, who spoke anonymously because the talks were confidential.

<u>Officials in Louisiana agree that the governor would not have given up control over National Guard troops in her state as would have been required to send large numbers of active-duty soldiers into the area. </u>But they also say they were desperate and would have welcomed assistance by active-duty soldiers.

"I need everything you have got," Ms. Blanco said she told Mr. Bush last Monday, after the storm hit.

<u>In an interview, she acknowledged that she did not specify what sorts of soldiers. </u>"Nobody told me that I had to request that," Ms. Blanco said. "I thought that I had requested everything they had. We were living in a war zone by then."

By Wednesday, she had asked for 40,000 soldiers.

In the discussions in Washington, also at issue was whether active-duty troops could respond faster and in larger numbers than the Guard.

By last Wednesday, Pentagon officials said even the 82nd Airborne, which has a brigade on standby to move out within 18 hours, could not arrive any faster than 7,000 National Guard troops, which are specially trained and equipped for civilian law enforcement duties.

In the end, the flow of thousands of National Guard soldiers, especially military police, was accelerated from other states.

"I was there. I saw what needed to be done," Lt. Gen. H Steven Blum, chief of the National Guard Bureau, said in an interview. "They were the fastest, best-capable, most appropriate force to get there in the time allowed. And that's what it's all about."

But one senior Army officer expressed puzzlement that active-duty troops were not summoned sooner, saying 82nd Airborne troops were ready to move out from Fort Bragg, N.C., on Sunday, the day before the hurricane hit.

The call never came, administration officials said, in part because military officials believed Guard troops would get to the stricken region faster and because administration civilians worried that there could be political fallout if federal troops were forced to shoot looters. {Kikitorial comment: And you can be damned sure there would have been from the likes of Sharpton, Jackson, Waters, Pelosi and the rest of the vulturous crowd waiting to make a political feed on the corpses in Louisiana and Mississippi}

Louisiana officials were furious that there was not more of a show of force, in terms of relief supplies and troops, from the federal government in the middle of last week. As the water was rising in New Orleans, the governor repeatedly questioned whether Washington had started its promised surge of federal resources.

"We needed equipment," Ms. Blanco said in an interview. "Helicopters. We got isolated."

Aides to Ms. Blanco said she was prepared to accept the deployment of active-duty military officials in her state. But she and other state officials balked at giving up control of the Guard as Justice Department officials said would have been required by the Insurrection Act if those combat troops were to be sent in before order was restored.

In a separate discussion last weekend,b[/b] the governor also <u>rejected</u>a more modest proposal for a hybrid command structure in which both the Guard and active-duty troops would be under the command of an active-duty, three-star general - but only after he had been sworn into the Louisiana National Guard.[/b]

Lt. Gen. James T. Conway, director of operations for the military's Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that the Pentagon in August streamlined a rigid, decades-old system of deployment orders to allow the military's Northern Command to dispatch liaisons to work with local officials before an approaching hurricane.

The Pentagon is reviewing events from the time Hurricane Katrina reached full strength and bore down on New Orleans and five days later when Mr. Bush ordered 7,200 active-duty soldiers and marines to the scene.

After the hurricane passed New Orleans and the levees broke, flooding the city, it became increasingly evident that disaster-response efforts were badly bogged down.

Justice Department lawyers, who were receiving harrowing reports from the area, considered whether active-duty military units could be brought into relief operations even if state authorities gave their consent - or even if they refused.

The issue of federalizing the response was one of several legal issues considered in a flurry of meetings at the Justice Department, the White House and other agencies, administration officials said.

Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales urged Justice Department lawyers to interpret the federal law creatively to help local authorities, those officials said. For example, federal prosecutors prepared to expand their enforcement of some criminal statutes like anti-carjacking laws that can be prosecuted by either state or federal authorities.

On the issue of whether the military could be deployed without the invitation of state officials, the Office of Legal Counsel, the unit within the Justice Department that provides legal advice to federal agencies, concluded that the federal government had authority to move in even over the objection of local officials.

This act was last invoked in 1992 for the Los Angeles riots, but at the request of Gov. Pete Wilson of California, and has not been invoked over a governor's objections since the civil rights era - and before that, to the time of the Civil War, administration officials said. Bush administration, Pentagon and senior military officials warned that such an extreme measure would have serious legal and political implications.

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld has said deployment of National Guard soldiers to Iraq, including a brigade from Louisiana, did not affect the relief mission, but Ms. Blanco disagreed.

"Over the last year, we have had about 5,000 out, at one time," she said. "They are on active duty, serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. That certainly is a factor."

By Friday, National Guard reinforcements had arrived, and a truck convoy of 1,000 Guard soldiers brought relief supplies - and order - to the convention center area.

Officials from the Department of Homeland Security say the experience with Hurricane Katrina has demonstrated flaws in the nation's plans to handle disaster.

"This event has exposed, perhaps ultimately to our benefit, a deficiency in terms of replacing first responders who tragically may be the first casualties," Paul McHale, the assistant secretary of defense for domestic security, said.

Michael Chertoff, the secretary of homeland security, has suggested that active-duty troops be trained and equipped to intervene if front-line emergency personnel are stricken. But the Pentagon's leadership remains unconvinced that this plan is sound, suggesting instead that the national emergency response plans be revised to draw reinforcements initially from civilian police, firefighters, medical personnel and hazardous-waste experts in other states not affected by a disaster.

The federal government rewrote its national emergency response plan after the Sept. 11 attacks, but it relied on local officials to manage any crisis in its opening days. But Hurricane Katrina overwhelmed local "first responders," including civilian police and the National Guard.

At a news conference on Saturday, Mr. Chertoff said, "The unusual set of challenges of conducting a massive evacuation in the context of a still dangerous flood requires us to basically break the traditional model and create a new model, one for what you might call kind of an ultra-catastrophe.""

Eric Schmitt and Thom Shanker reported from Washington for this article, and Eric Lipton from Baton Rouge, La. David Johnston contributed reporting.

LRB
09-09-2005, 11:00 AM
WASHINGTON (Sept. 9) - Laura Bush described as "disgusting" comments by rapper Kanye West and Democratic chairman Howard Dean blaming her husband for the disproportionate number of black hurricane victims.


What's perfectly clear is that Kanye West and Howard Dean don't give a rat's @$$ about poor black people except as disposable pawns to advance their own political purposes and/or career. Their shameless exploitation of the poor black victims has thrown yet another roadblock in the way of reducing racism in America and has in fact hindered those victims in recieving the timely aid that they need. I'm sure the KKK is extremely happy about their actions.

LRB
09-09-2005, 11:13 AM
Kiki my understanding was that Bush asked for control and Blanco refused to cede the control. Sounds like she wasn't putting the people's safety over policitics when she admitted that state resources were woefully inadequate to restore order but law and common sense was preventing sending federal troops into a lawless combat zone without legal authority to defend themselves.

Mavdog
09-09-2005, 11:43 AM
Originally posted by: LRB

WASHINGTON (Sept. 9) - Laura Bush described as "disgusting" comments by rapper Kanye West and Democratic chairman Howard Dean blaming her husband for the disproportionate number of black hurricane victims.


What's perfectly clear is that Kanye West and Howard Dean don't give a rat's @$$ about poor black people except as disposable pawns to advance their own political purposes and/or career. Their shameless exploitation of the poor black victims has thrown yet another roadblock in the way of reducing racism in America and has in fact hindered those victims in recieving the timely aid that they need. I'm sure the KKK is extremely happy about their actions.

I do not agree with what Kayne West said, yet I do not agree that his comments were self interested and meant to "advance {his} career". To denigrate him in that way is not accurate, he just has a different opinion (however misguided it may be) that deviates from ours. It is not "shameless" and in no way "hindered those victims in recieving the timely aid that they need".

LRB
09-09-2005, 12:22 PM
So Mavdog do you say that it is inaccurate to denigrate KKK pamplets speaking about how the white races is superior to other races. After all that's just an opinion, however misguided it may be. I know that Laura Bush would call it disgusting as would her husband and as would I. But I guess according to you that behavior is wrong. Or are you taking the stand it's OK to be racist so long as you do it in a liberal leaning way? It seems that the dems support making judgements based on at least partly on race or gender or ethnic or religious background or even sexual orientation. But only certain races, genders, religious backgrounds or sexual orientations should get preferential treatment. I'm sure if some right wing kook came out and said the mess in New Orleans was caused by the socially inferior blacks who lives there that you and the dems would be all over calling that disgusting. Yet you defend from fellow dems prejudicial statements as being OK since they're only attacking one of the "politically correct" groups to attack. Like it's OK to make racial and gender jokes about white heterosexual males, well as long as they're republicans, but do it about a black lesibian female who is a dem and it's a crime against humanity. I find that behavior disgusting as well.

Mavdog
09-09-2005, 02:32 PM
Originally posted by: LRB
So Mavdog do you say that it is inaccurate to denigrate KKK pamplets speaking about how the white races is superior to other races.

no, and how you come to that conclusion is beyond me. I am saying that I saw the video of Kayne West making the statement, and I see it as just a poorly thought out expression. However poorly conceived it may have been, it was sincere and not a statement made just to "advance his career" and that West DOES care about poor black people. That was very clear in his tone. Did you actually see kayne make the statement, or are you going by what you have read?


After all that's just an opinion, however misguided it may be. I know that Laura Bush would call it disgusting as would her husband and as would I. But I guess according to you that behavior is wrong. Or are you taking the stand it's OK to be racist so long as you do it in a liberal leaning way?

???? please try to make some sense. George and Laura, as well as you, I and Kayne West, are free to express themselves. As far as Kayne being "racist" I guess we just disagree, as I don't see him expressing a racist statement in his criticizing Bush.


It seems that the dems support making judgements based on at least partly on race or gender or ethnic or religious background or even sexual orientation. But only certain races, genders, religious backgrounds or sexual orientations should get preferential treatment. I'm sure if some right wing kook came out and said the mess in New Orleans was caused by the socially inferior blacks who lives there that you and the dems would be all over calling that disgusting. Yet you defend from fellow dems prejudicial statements as being OK since they're only attacking one of the "politically correct" groups to attack. Like it's OK to make racial and gender jokes about white heterosexual males, well as long as they're republicans, but do it about a black lesibian female who is a dem and it's a crime against humanity. I find that behavior disgusting as well.

the only thing that I find "disgusting" is an attempt by you to label Kayne "racist" for merely expressing his opinion that George Bush doesn't care about low income black americans left in New orleans. He feels that there was not sufficient effort to aid the folks who remained behind, and those people were almost all black americans who did not have he ability to evacuate.

It is easy to disagree with someone who has a differing conclusion than yours while respecting the difference in view without questioning their morals. You seem to have a problem doing that in Kayne's case.

MavKikiNYC
09-09-2005, 03:10 PM
1) His name is Kanye....K-a-n-y-e. Do the piece of trash the courtesy of knowing his name if you're gonna defend him.

2) The attempt to demonize Bush by accusing him of not caring about African-Americans? I sure as hell think what he said reflects a racist mentality. He may be so stupid that he actually believes it, but sincere ignorance and bigotry are still ignorance and bigotry. To accuse a man like George Bush of not caring about an entire race of his constituents just because he is Anglo-American is nothing but pure bigotry. Pure and simple.

George Bush has already done more to advance the cause of African-Americans than Kanye West could do in a lifetime of rap-star executions.

LRB
09-09-2005, 03:13 PM
It is easy to disagree with someone who has a differing conclusion than yours while respecting the difference in view without questioning their morals. You seem to have a problem doing that in Kayne's case.


He can have whatever opinion he wants, but exploiting poor black people to further his career, which I feel that he did with the publicity stunt that he pulled, I find to be racist. And I didn't see his statement, but I got an extremely detailed description from my wife. It's fine that you feel that he isn't intentionally exploiting poor blacks to advance his career, but I have a completely different opinion. And according to my wife he sounded much more like he was acting sympathetic as opposed to actually being sympathetic. And if someone expresses an opinion, then I have just as much right as they do to have an opinion. And I think his is racist.


???? please try to make some sense. George and Laura, as well as you, I and Kayne West, are free to express themselves. As far as Kayne being "racist" I guess we just disagree, as I don't see him expressing a racist statement in his criticizing Bush.


And so are the KKK. Doesn't mean that you have to agree with said expression nor does it mean that said opinion wasn't racist.


the only thing that I find "disgusting" is an attempt by you to label Kayne "racist" for merely expressing his opinion that George Bush doesn't care about low income black americans left in New orleans. He feels that there was not sufficient effort to aid the folks who remained behind, and those people were almost all black americans who did not have he ability to evacuate.

Can you say hypocrit? You're doing the very thing that you find "disgusting". So it's OK for Keyene to label people racist as it's just his opinion, but let anyone label that opinion racist and it's not OK. So I get it, because Keyene expressed a liberal view it's OK, but consevative isn't. Quit contradicting yourself and admit you're only acting on party politics and not for any real reason to have differing opinions respected. BTW I find your opinion disgusting as well. Guess we're even.

MavKikiNYC
09-09-2005, 03:13 PM
Okay. The bigoted racist Democrats claim the first scalp. Who will be next?

Why have Ray Nagin and Kathleen Blanco not been drawn and quartered yet?

September 9, 2005
Announcement Follows Barrage of Criticism; New Chief Is Named
By DAVID STOUT

WASHINGTON, Sept. 9 - Michael D. Brown, the embattled head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, today was relieved of his duties overseeing recovery efforts in the Gulf Coast region.

The secretary of homeland security, Michael Chertoff, described Mr. Brown's reassignment to FEMA headquarters here as a logical step in keeping with Mr. Brown's overall duties as FEMA director. Mr. Chertoff, speaking in Baton Rouge, La., said in a televised news briefing that the hurricane-recovery mission would now be led by Vice Adm. Thad W. Allen, the third-ranking officer in the Coast Guard.

"Michael Brown has done everything he possibly could to coordinate the federal response to this unprecedented challenge," Mr. Chertoff said, accompanied by Admiral Allen and Mr. Brown. "I appreciate his work, as does everybody here."

Those words did not reflect the fierce criticism that Mr. Brown has come under for the federal government's response to Hurricane Katrina and the disastrous flooding that followed, particularly in New Orleans. Some Congressional Democrats have demanded that President Bush fire him outright, and they criticized Mr. Brown anew this afternoon, after the announcement that he was being reassigned.

"At last President Bush has recognized what I have been saying for more than a week," the House minority leader, Nancy Pelosi, Democrat of California, said shortly after Mr. Chertoff's announcement. "The federal response to this disaster must be managed by a capable leader."

But Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Senate minority leader, and three of his party colleagues demanded that Mr. Brown be sacked altogether.

"It is not enough to remove Mr. Brown from the disaster scene," they said in a letter to President Bush. "The individual in charge of FEMA must inspire confidence and be able to coordinate hundreds of federal, state and local resources. Mr. Brown simply doesn't have the ability or the experience to oversee a coordinated federal response of this magnitude."

In addition to Mr. Reid, the letter was signed by Senators Richard Durbin of Illinois, the minority whip, and Debbie Stabenow and Charles E. Schumer of New York.

Admiral Allen is the Coast Guard chief of staff. On Monday, he was dispatched to the gulf region as Mr. Brown's deputy in the recovery efforts. The admiral's official biography describes him as "a specialist in operations both in coastal and offshore environments."

Before becoming chief of staff in May 2002, he headed the Coast Guard's Atlantic operations and was in charge of 26,000 military and civilian employees in an area covering 14 million square miles.

A week ago today, Mr. Brown was at President Bush's side as the president made his first visit to see the devastation caused by the storm. "Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job," Mr. Bush said then.

But today, the chief White House spokesman, Scott McClellan, declined repeated opportunities to say that Mr. Brown still enjoyed the president's full confidence. "We appreciate all those who are working around the clock, and that's the way I would answer it," Mr. McClellan said.

With each passing day since the storm pounded the Gulf Coast, the criticism of Mr. Brown, a lawyer whose credentials indicated no emergency-response experience when he became head of FEMA two years ago, has only increased.

Several days into the crisis, Mr. Brown acknowledged in an interview with Paula Zahn of CNN that he was not aware that thousands of New Orleans residents were huddled in the city's convention center under increasingly dire circumstances.

As recently as Thursday there was obvious disarray within FEMA, as agency spokesmen in Baton Rouge and Washington gave conflicting answers on whether the agency would proceed with plans to use debit cards to distribute financial aid to people dislocated by the storm.

Mr. Brown's standing was further clouded when Time magazine reported on its Web site Thursday that he had embellished some of his credentials. When he was asked today whether he had done so, and whether he would resign from FEMA, Mr. Brown was silent.

Instead, Mr. Chertoff spoke up. "You heard the ground rules," he said. "I'm going to answer the questions." Earlier, Mr. Chertoff had advised reporters to choose their questions carefully, because his time was limited.

Mr. Brown, when asked by The A.P. whether he thought he was being made a scapegoat, replied: "By the press, yes. By the president, no." Mr. Brown said in a telephone interview that he was "anxious to get back to D.C. to correct all the inaccuracies and lies that are being said."

Nor was Mr. Brown without his defenders today. One of them was Carl Reherman, a former councilman and later mayor of Edmond, Okla., who said Mr. Brown was involved in setting up an emergency operations center there in the 1970's. "He not only worked very hard on everything he did, he had very high standards," Mr. Reherman said in an interview with The A.P.

LRB
09-09-2005, 03:30 PM
Race is only a tool that the dems use to advance their political ambitions. Poor blacks are the unwitting pawns of the dems who don't really give a rat's @$$ about them as can be seen by Nagin and Blanco. I've tried to hold back criticism, but I'm tired of the racist dems and their equally racist allies. It's time to cut through the dems BS rethoric about wanting to improve the lives of poor minorities and realize that in order to maintain their power the Dems have got to keep them poor and blame the republicans. Let those minorities taste real econmic success and the dems would start losing a large % to the republicans. Goodness forbid that we have more successful minorities like Condi Rice or Collin Powell, the Dems just might lose a whole lot of power.

Mavdog
09-09-2005, 03:39 PM
Originally posted by: LRB
And I didn't see his statement, but I got an extremely detailed description from my wife.

nuff said.

Mavdog
09-09-2005, 07:10 PM
Originally posted by: MavKikiNYC
1) His name is Kanye....K-a-n-y-e. Do the piece of trash the courtesy of knowing his name if you're gonna defend him.

my apologizes, don't listen or watch the videos.


2) The attempt to demonize Bush by accusing him of not caring about African-Americans? I sure as hell think what he said reflects a racist mentality. He may be so stupid that he actually believes it, but sincere ignorance and bigotry are still ignorance and bigotry. To accuse a man like George Bush of not caring about an entire race of his constituents just because he is Anglo-American is nothing but pure bigotry. Pure and simple.

George Bush has already done more to advance the cause of African-Americans than Kanye West could do in a lifetime of rap-star executions.

how can a remark about an individual and his basis for decsionmaking be "racist mentality"? yes, it may be ignorance, but that isn't necessarily racism.

george bush is not a racist in any stretch of the word. I haven't seen anything from kanye that says he is either.

dude1394
09-09-2005, 07:19 PM
Well the folks up in boston didn't appreciate him very much.


[W]e got remotes of rapper Kanye West and pop rockers Maroon 5 from a generic-looking, red-white-and-blue stage in Los Angeles. Maroon 5 came off vapidly (doing just one song, ''Harder to Breathe"), while West did one tune, ''Heard 'Em Say." Yet it was disconcerting to hear his name booed loudly by Patriots fans who evidently didn't appreciate his nationally televised comment the other night on a Hurricane Katrina benefit that President Bush ''doesn't care about black people." The boos were thunderous and lasted for much of his number.

Oh this is going to hurt big time...

Way to go you yankees!! i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif

chumdawg
09-09-2005, 07:33 PM
If you want to watch Kanye, click here. (http://www.big-boys.com/articles/kanye.html)

Oh, and watch Mike Meyer's expression.

LRB
09-10-2005, 12:03 PM
Originally posted by: Mavdog

Originally posted by: LRB
And I didn't see his statement, but I got an extremely detailed description from my wife.

nuff said.

Gosh golly gee Mavdog you were right, seeing makes a big difference. Kanye looks even more racist, less sincere, and more self centered than I was led to believe. I think my wife was just being overly kind to him or I was giving him too much of the benefit of the doubt. There really is no dobut at all that this was a calculated move at a publicity stunt to boost his career by playing on black peoples fear of "The Man". After all his core fan base is black, and this would be sure to get his face in front of them. And those fans who aren't black probably lean much more to the left than to the right. And yes the guy has some ignorance about him, but bigotry is based on a large part.

MavKikiNYC
09-10-2005, 02:59 PM
" They portray us in the media...
We see a black family that says they're looting......
We see a white family it says they're looking for food.....
And you know it's been five days because most of the people ARE black...
And even for me to complain about ...I would be a hypocrite becuase I've tried to turn away from the TV because it's too hard to watch.
I've even been shopping before even giving a donation, so now I'm calling my business manager right now to see what's..what is the biggest amount I can give...and, and.....and just to imagine if I was down there and those are MY people down there....with the setup the way America is setup to help the uh...uhm..poor, the black people the less well-off as slow as possible, I mean...this is...Red Cross is doing everything they can...we...we already realize a lot of the people that could help are at war, right now, fighting another way, and they've given them permission to go down and shoot us.

George Bush doesn't care about black people."



how can a remark about an individual and his basis for decsionmaking be "racist mentality"? yes, it may be ignorance, but that isn't necessarily racism.

1) West appears to offer a criticism of the media for characterizing the actions of whites and blacks differently. In the days immediately after the hurricane, I happened to agree that some (perhaps many) of the still photographs as well as some of the video clips and live reporting that I saw characerized acts (largely by African-Americans) as looting when the pictures themselves showed people carrying out food and drink. In my own mind, I noticed that the reports of looting did not seem to synch up well with the pictures or video being presented. Since then, I have seen other still pictures and videos and read extensive reporting that actions that can only be characterized as "looting" were in fact going on.

2) Though he doesn't have the vocabulary to express it, West appears to assert that the government-led relief effort ("the setup") is designed to get aid to black people as slowly as possible. He does not get an opportunity to elaborate on this wild accusation, but the clear inference is that the government's intent is to let black people suffer. You can write it off to West's inarticulateness, or his ignorance or the pressure of the moment, but the words on the page in black and white leave no wiggle room.

3) He makes the silly (and easily refuted) accusation that National Guard troop deployment in Iraq affected response capability.

4) He wildly accuses that they (THEY--i.e., the white establishment) have given them (THEM--i.e., in large part white guardsmen)permission to go down and shoot us (US, i.e. black people).

5) He accuses George Bush of not caring about black people.

West makes a series of racially-charged, racially-inflammatory accusations, against not just George Bush, but against the government and by extension American society in general saying that the predominantly white American society does not care about the suffering of black people, that in fact, they intentionally allow black people to suffer.

He further alleges that the government (again representative of the interests of predominantly white America) has sent troops down to shoot "us"--i.e., predominantly black looters, ignoring that: 1) any looter, white or black, is breaking the law; 2) many of the looters are armed, with numerous reports of shots being fired against police and rescue workers.

I suppose that an apologist in denial could try to argue that making wild, irresponsible, irrational, unfounded, untrue, ignorant, racially-charged, racially-inflammatory remarks in an attempt to pit "US" against "THEM" doesn't represent a racist mentality; that it only represents an alternative point of view, different perhaps from one's own, but not "racist" in the classic sense.

I profoundly disagree.

When racist political figures like Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Maxine Waters et al make similar accusations to try to gain political advantage by exploiting a natural disaster, a social tragedy and human suffering they are racists. So too is an ignorant, uneducated, barely literate fool like West is a racist when he uses racially-inflammatory rhetoric as he did in the remarks above. Just because it's unfathomable what he was trying to accomplish by making his remarks in the context of a relief benefit doesn't make his remarks any less lunatic, offensive or racist.


I haven't seen anything from kanye that says he is [a racist] either.

Check again.

dude1394
09-10-2005, 07:05 PM
All at the same time that the dumb son of a ***** is asking for donations. If it wasn't for such a good cause and if other idiots didn't actually believe his race-mongering, it would be comical.

MavKikiNYC
09-10-2005, 07:52 PM
Originally posted by: chumdawg
Don't stick your heads in the sand, people. If you think this isn't bad news for the Repubs in '08, you're crazy.

Maybe. Maybe not.

BY JAMES TARANTO
Tuesday, September 6, 2005 3:23 p.m. EDT
A Political Tempest?

It was inevitable, we suppose. Less than a week after hurricane Katrina, the first poll came out to measure its political impact. The results, which ABC News released Sunday, will be highly disappointing to the Angry Left: 55% of those polled do not blame President Bush for the storm's devastation, and although 67% think the federal government wasn't "adequately prepared," 75% say the same thing about state and local government. John Podhoretz's interpretation is right on the money (capitalization his):


Once again we see the gigantic divide in this country--not between Right and Left, but between people who live and breathe politics and those for whom politics are only an incidental part. You need to look at the world through political glasses to assume that THE key aspect of a natural disaster is the response or lack thereof of the authorities--whether they be local, state or federal. The president doesn't MAKE hurricanes, therefore he will not be blamed FOR hurricanes. Nor do the governor and the mayor.

ABC also has an emotional breakdown by party: Democrats were far more likely than Republicans to describe themselves as "shocked" (68% to 42%), "angry" (63% to 27%) and "ashamed" (63% to 28%) at the response to Katrina, while Republicans were far more "hopeful" (80% to 50%) and "proud" (43% to 17%). Is there any doubt that those gaps would have been similar if the poll had been conducted after any other major event--or indeed at any other time--since President Bush was elected, other than immediately after 9/11?

Indeed, the experience of 9/11 shows how resistant political trends are to the influence of big events. The attack on America changed a lot, but not the electoral map: Only three states were carried by a different party's presidential candidate in 2004 than in 2000, the smallest such shift since 1924.

This is not to say 9/11 had no effect at the ballot box. At least one politician probably owes his election to the attack on America: New York's Mayor Michael Bloomberg. A beloved but term-limited Rudy Giuliani campaigned heavily for Bloomberg, who beat Mark Green, a deeply unserious man in a suddenly serious time.

Similarly, if Katrina has an electoral effect, it is likely to be local rather than national, especially since President Bush won't be running for re-election. (The Democratic Party and the left seem to have so fully absorbed the Clintonian doctrine of the "permanent campaign" that they've lost sight of the importance of actual elections.)

If Katrina's aftermath was, or is seen to have been, a government failure, state and local officials in the affected states--especially Louisiana--are likely to pay a price. And Katrina may change Louisiana politics for another reason: demographics. The storm forced a mass exodus from New Orleans and vicinity, and many residents surely will resettle out of state. The political effect will depend on whence the emigrants turn out to have come.

In the 2004 election, President Bush carried Louisiana by 281,870 votes, according to data from David Leip's election atlas. A breakdown by parish shows that the two candidates ran almost exactly even in the New Orleans area: John Kerry had a 109,763-vote margin within the city (Orleans Parish), while Bush beat Kerry by a combined 109,546 votes in the suburban parishes of Jefferson, Plaquemines, St. Bernard and St. Tammany.

Obviously if more New Orleans residents than suburbanites move out of state, Louisiana will become more Republican. Less obviously, the state will become more Republican even if flight from the suburbs equals that from New Orleans, since the evenly divided New Orleans region will account for a smaller part of the population than the heavily GOP-leaning rest of the state.

New Orleans's Mayor Ray Nagin is up for re-election in February 2006, Gov. Kathleen Blanco and Lt. Gov. Mitch Landrieu in November 2007, and Sen. Mary Landrieu in November 2008. All four are Democrats. When they point the finger at the federal government for whatever went wrong in the Katrina response, remember that they are fighting for their political lives.

Drbio
09-10-2005, 08:23 PM
Nagin and Blanco should shack up in bayou dump and never see the light of public service again. Both are reprehensible.

LRB
09-10-2005, 09:36 PM
Originally posted by: Drbio
Nagin and Blanco should shack up in bayou dump and never see the light of public service again. Both are reprehensible.

True but just imagine how bad it would have been if Sean Penn was the Mayor, and Michael Moore was the govenor. i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif

LRB
09-10-2005, 09:37 PM
Originally posted by: Drbio
Nagin and Blanco should shack up in bayou dump and never see the light of public service again. Both are reprehensible.

True but just imagine how bad it would have been if Sean Penn was the Mayor, and Michael Moore was the govenor. i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif

Thespiralgoeson
09-11-2005, 12:39 AM
Originally posted by: MavKikiNYC
George Bush has already done more to advance the cause of African-Americans than Kanye West could do in a lifetime of rap-star executions.

So very true... unfortunately, the full effects of his policies won't be seen for several years, so he won't get any recognition from the media or the NAACP or Kanye West, or anyone else.

chumdawg
09-11-2005, 02:40 AM
and although 67% think the federal government wasn't "adequately prepared," 75% say the same thing about state and local government.And how, again, do you see this impacting the next national elections?

mavsman55
09-11-2005, 09:10 AM
Originally posted by: chumdawg
If you want to watch Kanye, click here. (http://www.big-boys.com/articles/kanye.html)

Oh, and watch Mike Meyer's expression.

My god, for a freestyle rapper, he sure had a lot of trouble putting together complete sentences on the spot. He could have at least made it rhyme or something.

Drbio
09-11-2005, 01:59 PM
No one has ever accused a rapper of being well educated.