Tom DeLay We were successful. And after that, we were successful in a congressional redistricting to the tune of gaining five Republican seats and more fairly represent the values of the people of Texas.
I don’t like him. He is the epitome of everything politicians should not be. DeLay’s recent indictment is not the first time the man has been in trouble with the law or ethics violations. He’s called the hammer for a number of reasons, mainly because he gets the job done. To briefly simplify matters for those who don’t fully understand what’s going on, DeLay’s indictment comes at the expense of being successful. I totally agree with him when he says that he is being singled-out because of his ability to redistrict the Texas map, take over the Texas legislature and add five new Republican congressional seats. DeLay accomplished his goals, has almost created a permanent Republican majority and he has basked in his glory. CLICK CONTINUE READING!
In the process of accomplishing his mighty tasks, DeLay is being charged with conspiracy to use corporate money to fund political campaigns. In Texas there’s a law against that. Did he do it? I have no idea. Was there motive for him to do it? Absolutely. He even defines his own motive for doing it:So we had an opportunity in 2002. I wanted to redistrict the congressional seats, so I wanted to make sure and help gain a majority in the Texas House. So I came up with this idea to form a political action committee to raise money to get into state representative races so that we could win seats.
Still it’s not so simple. Tracing money trails and proving conspiracies are very difficult. Campaigns rarely turn down money, and funneling money from organization to organziation until it gets to a specific campaign is routine. Campaign finance laws are like gun laws, they don’t work. The only campaign finance law that is enforceable is one that says spend the money you have.
And to just add some more of my thoughts on the subject, I hate the politics of scandals. I hate it. If Republicans think that a political witchhunt is the price they pay for being successful, it’s only because Republicans are the ones who started this crap. If you don’t like the way things are politically in 2005, then you shouldn’t have done it throughout the 90s. You reap what you sow. I see no end in sight for this type of political manuevering. In the end, all it does is turn the public off to the state of affairs. And when that happens we end up with incompetent, indicted government; hence the current state of the Union.
Howard Dean
I don’t like him. He’s not a politician, not even close. He might be a rambling doctor, but not a politician. I watched him on Nightline last night and it made me angry to the point of not being able to sleep.
Republican scandals, true or not, should not be the bedrock of Democratic strategy to take back power. It’s a demented way to do politics. I didn’t agree with it in the 90s when the Republicans did it, though they have no memory of their actions then, and I certainly don’t agree with it now.
If the indictments turn into convictions then sobeit. But for Dean to be on national television screaming that they all should be in jail even before they have been to court is totally ridiculous. If people on blogs want to scream that stuff then okay. If people on the streets want to think that way, okay. But the head of the Democratic Party must have some self-control and most certainly should be focused on governing rather than scandals. How can the Dems expect to be in the majority when all they are concerned about is making scandal riddin headlines for Republicans and not about offering a different direction, an alternative in which to lead the country. I deplore it all.
I think DeLay should resign his congressional seat, or be voted out, and I think Dean needs to step aside and somehow the Dems have to find a rational, moderate voice who is concerned with direction and the people of this country.
Tags:
Tom DeLay, Howard Dean, Maureen Dowd, DeLay Indictment, Past Mistakes
9.29.2005
People
Posted by Chris at 1:46 PM 9 comments
9.28.2005
Citizen Committees
Mike Brown’s testimony yesterday to a Republican committee was a complete joke. If the federal investigation into the failed Katrina efforts is to begin and end with a Republican-controlled committee loaded with snowball questions then government as we know it should cease to exist.
Bush’s government is completely incompetent. Their ideology is not that right-wing government is better, but that government should not and does not answer to the public; unless of course government happens to be moderate or slightly left of center, then it should be destroyed at all costs. No public responsibility is necessary. They are the rulers we are their subjects. CLICK CONTINUE READING!
This administration assumes no accountability to the citizens. Around 25 press conferences in 5 years is a complete and utter joke. As soon as the people realize that their government is no longer their government maybe things will begin to change.
I have an idea though, instead of holding these sham Republican-controlled investigative committees, we should hold citizen committees. These committees would have all the same powers as congressional ones, such as subpoena powers and such, but instead of being controlled by neocon-indicted Republicans, they would be run by citizens-- no government officials involved. Average voters who care about their country and are tired of the do-nothing, tax breaks for the wealthiest of wealthy, big government Republicans, should suffice. It would work much like jury selection.
With the citizen committees the people will be in charge and not loaded with snowball questions or filled with fake journalists. The people will be able to ask what went wrong with pre-war Iraq intelligence. People will be able to ask what happened to the WMD that we were promised existed. People will be able to ask where bin Laden is hiding-- the man responsible for 9/11. People will be able to ask why Iraq was not the easy war we were told it would be. People will be able to ask why the 9/11 Commission recommendations to make America safer have not been adhered to. People will be able to ask for a detailed account of government spending, including all war costs and pork projects. People will be able to ask what went wrong with FEMA and Homeland Security. People will be able to ask how the president plans to govern with the lowest public support since the 1920s and the steps he will take to ensure results. People will be able to ask why Bush did not setup an independent Iraq WMD commission to investigate all the failures of the Iraq war prior to invasion and following. Mainly, people will be able to ask questions.
None of these questions are possible under the current government. Because if one does even begin to ask such questions, they are immediately labeled anti-American, terrorist sympathizing, liberal girly-men that only want to counsel terrorists, and then are silenced with intimidation. Of course it is the Bush administration that attacks first with these labels while the MSM timidly follows suit.
No accountability is the name of the game. How American is that?
Tags:
find the brownie, heck of a job, Brown Bagged, Big Government
Posted by Chris at 12:14 PM 6 comments
9.27.2005
Brown and Excuses
I have to apologize to everyone for being tardy on some posting. I am traveling for work this week and have been a little busier than I thought. I had hoped to do a post over the weekend about Bush’s out of control spending spree of the last 5 years but that didn’t happen either. Maybe by the end of the week it will be up.
This morning I was watching some of Mike Brown’s testimony before a congressional committee and I laughed so hard it almost made me cry. Talk about snowball questions. It made me think that Jeff Gannon was in there somewhere feeding the questions to the committee. I think Gannon, though, is too busy attending pro-war rallies for a war that he himself won’t go fight. I wonder if his open homosexuality would keep him out of the military or if it’s just his fetish for Marines in PT gear that motivates him. I digress.
Former FEMA director Mike Brown at his congressional hearing is once again blaming the state and locals for the lack of response to Katrina. Insisting that it’s not the job of the federal government to respond to various relief and rescue operations. Sorry Brown and other neocons but that’s simply not true. It’s worth repeating:
According to the Department’s 2004 National Response Plan (a mandate by the Bush government), the federal government will assume a “proactive” response to catastrophic events. It goes on to define a catastrophic event as “any natural or manmade incident, including terrorism, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the population, infrastructure, environment, economy, national morale, and/or government functions.” Concluding, “all catastrophic events are Incidents of National Significance” (pg. 43).
There’s more:
In the Guiding Principals for Proactive Federal Response (in the DHS 2004 National Response Plan), which tell the government when, how and why to intervene, specifically states that no calls for assistance from the state level is needed when such a catastrophic event occurs: “Standard procedures regarding requests for assistance may be expedited or, under extreme circumstances, suspended in the immediate aftermath of an event of catastrophic magnitude” (pg. 43-44). Given the strategic importance of New Orleans and the magnitude of Katrina, this catastrophe clearly falls within such federal guidelines.
And finally:
At that time, the Federal Response Plan also calls for the immediate deployment of all “identified federal response resources,” and to immediately begin “necessary operations as required to commence life-safety activities” (pg. 44).
---
Now the question is what part of the federal guidelines for Homeland Security does the President of the United States and the Director of FEMA not understand? If the state and locals failed at their efforts it’s because the feds failed. It is the job of the federal government to have the state and locals prepared. It’s like when a coach sends a baseball team out onto the field to play. It’s the job of the coach to ensure that the players are ready for what’s ahead. Brown you were the coach and you lost the game.
I think the funniest part of Brown’s testimony is when he blamed horseass.org for the failures of FEMA and ultimately of the federal government. Horseass.org was the blog that broke the story about Brown not being qualified for the job as well as having lied on his job application. I think the entire net is posting about this; you can read it here, here and here. Let me get this straight, it’s not the fact that Brown creatively forged his resume and that the Bush administration hired someone totally unqualified for the position, but it’s the fault of a lonely blog for breaking the story during the crisis? I’m not sure what to say about this one. But is the MSM so fractored that they can no longer do their job? And why when Bush gets caught in broad coverups is he not held responsible? I guess the major statement of the era is that nobody has a job and nobody is accountable for anything. We’re in bad shape people.
Tags:
FEMA, find the brownie
Posted by Chris at 1:33 PM 4 comments
9.22.2005
The Neocon Roberts Vote
Judge Roberts will get his up or down vote. Thank God. I’m so tired of hearing “up or down vote;” the neocons have to learn some new terminology or we all are going to go crazy. From the day Roberts was nominated, I supported it. I have always maintained that Roberts should be approved as soon as possible.
Do I think he’s well qualified for the job? Nope. Do I think he’s the best “man” for the job? Nope. If I sat down and talked to Roberts one-on-one, would he and I agree on most things? Probably not (though I wouldn’t debate the guy in a million years; he might be the best there is). Do I even have a vote in this matter? Nope.
But, there is one thing I got to get off my chest here: Just because the president nominates someone to a position does not mean jack squat. A president’s nomination is merely only a nomination. The Senate is granted with approval powers of all presidential nominations. So the power lies within the Senate to approve or disapprove of a president’s selection. Given that the neocons control both the House and Senate, along with the White House, the president should have no trouble getting his people where he wants them.
However, any elected senator has every right to NOT vote in favor of any presidential nomination. And another news flash is that not everyone in the Senate agrees with the president! I know, it’s amazing.
So, for matters of political harmony, Democrats who do not vote to approve Roberts are not obstructionists. Another filibuster would be. But that’s not what’s happening here. Besides, anyone who is naïve enough to believe that given the president’s total disregard for Democrats, that they would all line up behind his lousy butt and vote for his people are detached from reality.
Even with all that said Roberts will be approved and rightfully so.
Another matter that I’m working on is President Bush’s out of control budget. I’m not sure how anyone can argue that Bush is fiscally responsible. I’ll have more on that later.
And one last thing, another massive hurricane is about to make landfall on American shores. God help us.
Tags:
Roberts, Rita, Campaign for the Court, Roberts Committee, Up or Down
Posted by Chris at 12:59 PM 9 comments
9.20.2005
More on North Korea
Six nation talks with North Korea do appear to have bottled up some sort of agreement concerning nuclear weapons for North Korea and the US. Yes, that’s right, these talks have limited both North Korean nuclear capability and American. I think it’s a good thing, but the Bush administration will never admit to negotiating with terrorists whether up front or through a conduit. And North Korea is a terrorist sponsoring state as well as a member of the Axis of Evil. Oh, and they are Communist. With us or against us only applies to Iraq and not al Qeada or countries with nuclear weapons like North Korea and Iran.
In principal, this is very similar to the one brokered by Clinton in 1994. So, Bush’s approach of no bilateral talks with Communist, terrorist states like North Korea has produced the same outcome of that of bilateral talks. It is also probably foolish to assume that the US stayed out of this negotiation allowing only the six nations to converse with North Korea. This deal will not go through without Bush approval, and it appears that Bush is on board. My question is, if this deal (the Clinton 1994 deal) was so bad that Bush had to break away from it in 2001, then why is it good enough in 2005? And why should Bush receive any credit for it, especially considering that the Bush administration supposedly stayed out of it, which isn’t true, but that’s the official line from the White House?
Some background of the Bush reversal is due. This from several Bush administration officials, off the record of course:
Several [Bush administration] officials, who would not allow their names to be used because they did not want to publicly discuss Mr. Bush's political challenges, noted that Mr. Bush is tied down in Iraq, consumed by Hurricane Katrina, and headed into another standoff over Iran's nuclear program. The agreement, they said, provides him with a way to forestall, at least for now, a confrontation with another member of what he once famously termed "the axis of evil."The Bush Doctrine again only applies to countries that broke off friendships with the president’s dad.
This is no great diplomatic victory for Bush. If anything this agreement returns us to the status quo, which apparently Bush sees as a good thing now. It’s worth stealing some good analysis from the Political Heretic that he left on my last post’s comment section about what the new/old agreement has accomplished:
- conceded in principle to unilateral disarmament by allowing the North to negotiate over its weapons program while assuring them of a nuclear-free South.
- conceded in principle to future talks over light water reactors, the very kind of project we agreed to without having the North admit to operating the very uranium-enrichment program that led us to abandon the project to begin with. Are we at fault for the collapse in talks? Don't answer that.
- reiterated our commitment to refrain from regime change on the peninsula.
Tags:
Burger King Commercial, Bush, North Korea, Sanctions, Announcement, Washington Monthly
Posted by Chris at 4:04 PM 7 comments
9.19.2005
No WMD For You
IT APPEARS THAT North Korea wants to return to the friendly confines of the world of nations. In contrast to its tough talking president/dictator, North Korea has released a statement that Pyongyang is "committed to abandon all nuclear weapons and existing nuclear programs and to return at an early date to the nonproliferation treaty of nuclear weapons." The six nation talks, led by China, have lasted for over two years and finally show some signs of progress. As part of the deal, the US has agreed not to invade North Korea and announced that it has no nuclear weapons on the Korean Peninsula. In turn the US also grants North Korea some form of legal recognition along with some form of diplomatic relations. I’m confused too.
The agreement also allows North Korea the rights to peaceful use of nuclear energy and left the door wide open to a light-water reactor in the future. The brokered deal with the third member of the Axis of Evil also gives energy and security assurances, all to be supplied by the US and other countries.
Forgive me if I’m wrong, but isn’t this the same diplomatic solution that Clinton brokered in 1994? Haven’t the neocons and conservatives been yelling and screaming that the “liberals” created this terrorist negotiating, sympathizing world by coming up with this same deal 10 years ago? I think some minute details are different, but the overall conclusions are very similar, if not totally. So, has Bush realized he’s overstretched and now ready to change course or is something else happening?
Speaking of Clinton, the NY Times reported that the former prez criticized President Bush rather sharply over the weekend. “You can't have an emergency plan that works if it only affects middle-class people up,” stated Clinton on Sunday on ABC’s This Week program. Clinton went on to talk about how poverty rates have risen since Bush took office in 2001. Despite O’Reilly’s and other neocon claims about how the poverty rate was higher during Clinton’s two-terms, the facts are that a reduction in poverty did take place and the opposite is occurring during Bush. Of course it is a matter of measurement like O’Reilly says, but that’s called spin when the Democrats do it. It always brightens my day to see Clinton hitting back.
Tags:
Burger King Commercial, North Korea, Clinton, Bush
Posted by Chris at 4:40 PM 5 comments
9.16.2005
Thoughts on the President's Speech
What a different role we witnessed last night for President Bush. Bush the domestic has been something of a rarity for this administration. For almost five years the president has been bogged down in a global war on terrorism with sketchy results and a maddening war in Iraq that has tested the president’s credibility on more than one occasion. The best-known domestic issues for which Bush accepts credit is the embattled No Child Left Behind program, which has less support nationally than his handling of Iraq, and his unprecedented tax cuts for the wealthiest of Americans along with his record setting tax breaks for Big Oil.
Yet last night we saw a president bent on doing whatever it takes to reconstruct the Gulf Coast region left devastated by Katrina. In doing so the president also acknowledged the failures of the federal government in its response to the crisis. The president has promised to make right with both the middle class that were largely able to escape and the poverty stricken masses who were not so fortunate. Once again the president wishes to focus on the federal government’s role in the social security of its citizens.
Much has been compared to Mr. Bush’s other major reconstruction effort in Iraq. As stark as the differences are, Iraq is the only major reconstruction effort offered by this administration for which to judge the newest endeavor. Unlike Iraq, the devastation of the Gulf Coast region was not self inflicted and not brought about by choice and the Gulf Coast will not require a massive military combat effort either. But the attention and focus by this administration must be greater than that given to Iraq, or lack thereof. The president is dealing with a voting populous and an angry America stubborn at viewing the federal government’s response as non-existent at best. Appropriately, the president’s own reconstruction is also at stake.
The president’s answer for such a failure by his self-created big government is bigger government. By expanding the government’s role in catastrophic events with the advent of Homeland Security, the president’s answer now is to increase the welfare role of government not necessarily with those who are poor but to those who are without solace. An endeavor of monumental scale goes without saying when the financial status of this country is considered, and that congress is controlled by the most conservative right wing agendas in a hundred years. Already operating with the largest deficit in the history of this country, not to mention bottomless pockets for a war in Iraq with no end in sight, it must only be necessary and impossible to continue on this fiscal path with Mr. Bush’s prized tax cuts for the wealthy in place.
The president’s call to make this "one of the largest reconstruction efforts the world has ever seen” is big talk for an administration that has for the last five years been totally negligent in convincing the public of its domestic agenda. Not to mention coming from a country that almost single handedly rebuilt Western Europe and all of Japan. If this new reconstruction effort is to be on a grander scale than that, then this president must learn to better manage not only his sloppy world affairs but also put an unprecedented focus on the Southland which voted for him almost 60-40.
The outlook must be larger than the goals for this reconstruction, and the planning must be measured in years not in primetime speeches designed for political talk. One can only hope that the federal government this time will be more successful than the last Union reconstruction of the South.
All in all, the president has set some huge goals. We’ll see if the results match.
Tags:
Katrina, Bush Speech, Repair
Posted by Chris at 2:13 PM 10 comments
9.15.2005
Little Round Up
I’m going to steal a lot of stuff this morning and move on.
I spent a great deal of time this morning reading newspapers and blogs. And since I don’t have a lot of time to write a post, I figured I would let others do it for me.
From the Post and NY Times:
As it turns out, and this is something I wrote about a few days ago, Karl Rove is still in charge of the Katrina reconstruction effort. Since Rove has absolutely no qualifications or experience in dealing with natural disasters or really any sort of recovery effort reconstruction experience, and neither did Director Mike Brown who resigned a few days ago, I can’t help but think that Rove’s presence is there for political purposes only. He’s there to control the spin, in his favor of course. For all the people who claim that Dems are using this opportunity as political gain, I would love to hear your excuse for Rove being placed in charge. The number one concern of the Bush administration is politics, and judging by the polls he’s doing a crappy job at that too. Bush dispatched twinkle toes Rove to New Orleans before any sort of relief efforts. Rove is politics. If people want the politics taken out of Katrina, remove Rove and then we’ll talk.
Also from the Post:
Bush is giving a nationwide televised speech tonight. Sacrifice, struggle, perseverance, humanity, terrorism, 9/11, WMD, government-- that’s the speech. I don’t even have to watch it to know it. Two weeks too late Bush.
Notice though, that it is a speech and not a press conference. How dare he be asked a question about the failures of his government. It’s time for a press conference. I’m going to have to count again, but I think he is still on number 24.
From Think Progress:
Judging from Bill O’Reilly and Secretary of State Condi Rice, the major concern in Iraq is whether or not Fox News correspondents can get a good coffee:
O’Reilly: The truth of the matter is our correspondents at Fox News can’t go out for a cup of coffee in Baghdad.
Rice: Bill, that’s tough. It’s tough. But what — would they wanted to have gone out for a cup of coffee when Saddam Hussein was in power?
I’m going to answer that and say, 200 people a week weren’t being blown up in the streets when Saddam was in power, so I’m going to have to say YES on that one.
Oh yeah, over 180 people murdered this week in Iraq with the insurgency growing stronger by the hour. But that’s not the major concern, coffee is.
And just to add some of my other thoughts to this week’s news, I think Judge Roberts should be confirmed as quickly as possible. Yes, Roe v. Wade will probably be thrown out the window and a majority of the Patriot Act will be upheld with Roberts at the helm, which is really why Bush wants him there in the first place, Bush could careless about abortion. But when the Dems lose two times to one of the most inapt politicians in history, this is the result. Bush is the president and Roberts is his choice. Remember Bush has at least one more nominee to go and I seriously doubt that that person will be any more moderate or liberal than Roberts. Win an election Dems and then we can start putting people where we want them.
Tags:
Rove, Bush, Roberts, Iraq
Posted by Chris at 12:49 PM 9 comments
9.12.2005
Bush's Big Government and its Role
Shortly after 9/11 President Bush realized the necessary urge to better prepare the federal government in times of crises. Bush’s reaction was to enlarge the federal government by creating the Department of Homeland Security. From this Act also came the federalization of all airline employees, thus creating the largest increase in government in over 70 years. The result was bigger government, more federal employees and a federal agency in charge of all catastrophes, natural or manmade.
Four years after that dreaded day in September we have our first real look at how Bush’s big government will respond to such situations. Albeit a president who ran his campaign on the fact that he has made us safer and stronger.
Many times on the net I have read quite a bit about the role of the federal government and how it is only to assist states in such times of catastrophes. The media, too, has also not done its job in reporting what that role is either. Too many times the media has simply repeated falsehoods and politician’s bluffs when covering Katrina. It is a misconception and flatly wrong to assume that the federal government is merely an agent of the state waiting for a call of assistance.
The response of the federal government is not to assist states in such times, especially considering the new role of the Department of Homeland Security, but to actively take over.
According to the Department’s 2004 National Response Plan (a mandate by the Bush government), the federal government will assume a “proactive” response to catastrophic events. It goes on to define a catastrophic event as “any natural or manmade incident, including terrorism, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the population, infrastructure, environment, economy, national morale, and/or government functions.” Concluding, “all catastrophic events are Incidents of National Significance” (pg. 43).
It is fair to assume that since New Orleans sits at the mouth of the largest river in North America consisting of a port which opens to the largest gulf in the world where some 25% of our oil is received into the country, that the city is also of grave strategic importance during any “catastrophic” event, including and not limited to terrorism. Homeland Security begins there at the waters edge.
In the Guiding Principals for Proactive Federal Response (in the DHS 2004 National Response Plan), which tell the government when, how and why to intervene, specifically states that no calls for assistance from the state level is needed when such a catastrophic event occurs: “Standard procedures regarding requests for assistance may be expedited or, under extreme circumstances, suspended in the immediate aftermath of an event of catastrophic magnitude” (pg. 43-44). Given the strategic importance of New Orleans and the magnitude of Katrina, this catastrophe clearly falls within such federal guidelines.
At that time, the Federal Response Plan also calls for the immediate deployment of all “identified federal response resources,” and to immediately begin “necessary operations as required to commence life-safety activities” (pg. 44).
Just from those two federal guidelines alone (and there are many more), many failures by the federal government are highlighted.
In sum: during times of catastrophic events it is not the role of the federal government to assist the states, it is federally mandated that it take charge. Nor does the federal government have to wait for SOS calls from the states either. The Department of Homeland Security (the federal government) assumes total control, immediately.
FEMA and Homeland Security had 3-4 days warning before the hurricane made landfall. The question then becomes what federal response resources were identified and put in place for this catastrophe?
Conservatives are quick to point out that the initial response belongs to state and local officials. I have no problems admitting that they failed also in their preparation for such an event. But the role of Bush’s big government, which tax payers fund, is to respond with or without state consent. It is the responsibility of government. Bush made it so. The role of Bush’s big government failed.
Posted by Chris at 1:26 PM 10 comments
9.11.2005
When the World Stop Turning...
...I was driving to work admiring the day. I didn’t have class that day, I was so relieved that all I had to do was work and do some research that night. It was my first semester of grad school and I was totally in over my head. I had a graduate assistantship at a policy think tank on campus and it seemed all I ever did was read and do research. I still hadn’t settled into the new routine. At 23 I had a lot of other things I would have rather been doing.
As I pulled into the parking lot I heard the DJ on the radio announce that a plane had flown into one of the World Trade Centers. I remember thinking to myself that someone was way off course. I looked down at the clock and it was 7:55 AM (CST). I had five minutes to get to my office.
The office was already hectic because most who worked there were retired senators or congressmen and a French guy who really wasn’t making much sense met me at the door with more of the news. I noticed that the Internet wasn’t working so I turned on the radio for some updates. By that time the senator had requested that a TV be placed in the lobby so we could watch it live. Since it took forever for the maintenance people to get the cable hooked up the first thing we learned was that a second plane had already crashed into the second tower.
We all knew then nothing would ever be the same.
The first 11 days of September will forever be a grieving period for America. From New York to New Orleans this country again will mourn for September. I’m not sure there’s anything left to say today.
Posted by Chris at 5:24 PM 4 comments
9.08.2005
Cap Vacations
I’m in a capping mood lately. Caps on gasoline, caps on vacations, let’s cap it all.
There is more than enough evidence to suggest that part of the reason the federal government was sluggish in responding to Katrina was because most of those in charge were on vacation at the time of the storm. Some, namely the president, had been on vacation for weeks leading up to the day the storm made landfall.
“…Republicans said that the normally nimble White House political operation had fallen short in part because the president and his aides were scattered outside Washington on vacation, leaving no one obviously in charge at a time of great disruption,” reports the NY Times, the Washington Post and many other sources.
I don’t think it’s any secret given Cindy Sheehan let the whole world know Bush decided to take 1/3 of the summer off and relax at his ranch in Crawford, Texas. Despite an ongoing war in Iraq with no end in sight and that the deadline for the Iraqi constitution fell right in the middle of Bush’s retreat, Bush still thought it was a good time for a bicycle ride.
Now I know that it’s entirely impossible to plan one’s vacation time around a hurricane. I understand Bush had no clue that Katrina was coming or the devastation that would follow. I’m not even hinting at that. The situation in Iraq, however, Bush was well aware of-- okay maybe not, maybe that’s a stretch. But it’s obvious his vacations are taking a toll on this country.
Because of the apparent complexity and the consequences that a vacationing president can levy on the nation, I think it is fair that Congress mandate some sort of limit on presidential vacations.
Think about it. If my numbers are correct, Bush has spent somewhere around 340 days on vacation in the last 5 years. That’s almost an entire year of his 5 spent on vacation. How is that even possible? Reagan who was ancient during his tenure can’t even match that.
So here it is, a bill in Congress that limits a president’s vacation time to 21 days for one work year, which is still more than most jobs. That equals out to 84 vacation days for one four year term. I’d apply for that job any day.
If it is acceptable for a president to spend almost a quarter of his entire presidency on vacation then I’m wrong here. It’s all about accountability, and despite what those in Washington want us to believe, we are the ones that do the finger pointing. My employer has a limit on how many vacation days I can take, and after all, we are Bush’s employer. I think it’s a start.
Posted by Chris at 10:16 PM 9 comments
Op-Ed With Some Analysis
The people who regularly read this site probably already know that I don’t watch a lot of television. Included in that are the political pundits and talking heads of our time. At least I think they are called pundits, heck I’m not even sure of the lingo at this point.
I don’t get a lot out of Crossfire, the Situation Room, O’Reilly Factor, Hannity or Savage (I think that’s his name). If I want to see people scream and yell at each other I’ll turn on Springer. I’m really not all that into people telling me how to think and what to say.
But, lately I have become rather fond of one talking head in particular (I’ve watched him twice now). Maybe it’s because he used to work for ESPN (which I’m boycotting at the moment, but that’s another story). I watched Keith Olbermann give one heck of an op-ed the other day and since then I can’t forget about it. If anything his quote of Churchill at the end is enough to garner some attention:
"The responsibility," of government, Churchill told the British Parliament "for the public safety is absolute and requires no mandate. It is in fact, the prime object for which governments come into existence."
His written op-ed can be found here. Or you can watch it here. I recommend both, with no qualifications whatsoever.
Also, I want to point out another op-ed from the Boston Globe that I think does a fair job of summarizing the Crisis in the Creole (politically that is). Not everyone may agree with it, I don’t in some parts, but I think it is a fair assessment. Both liberal and conservative persuasions would be wise to read it.
Posted by Chris at 2:13 PM 3 comments
9.07.2005
Terror or Storms: All the Same
While I’m on the subject of stupid things Bush has said post Katrina, I thought I would proceed.
I first got this one from Josh Marshall, who has a great site and puts a lot of time into his work, earlier today and just now bothered to read it. This is a continuation from Bush’s I’m going to investigate myself quote earlier.
"We still live in an unsettled world. We want to make sure we can respond properly if there is a WMD (weapons of mass destruction) attack or another major storm."
I can’t believe Bush is still talking about WMD. What is he thinking here? Is that the only acronym he knows? I wonder if he’s talking about Iraqi WMD or someone else’s. But, really, if this were a terrorist attack with WMD, then wow we are not prepared one bit.
What is interesting is that Bush includes a terrorist attack with “another storm.” Meaning that in case of another terrorist attack on American soil the same government response agencies (FEMA, Homeland Security, etc.) would be required, and react in much the same way. Hence, we’re in trouble.
Time to get back to work Georgie boy and figure out what in the hell has been going on these last four years.
Posted by Chris at 12:23 AM 7 comments
9.06.2005
Bush Promises Probe
"What I intend to do is lead an investigation to find out what went right and what went wrong."
I'm sure this is all over the place by now, so please let it be another stupid remark by Bush and one that his advisors will straighten out later.
"President Bush intends to seek as much as $40 billion to cover the next phase of relief and recovery operations from Hurricane Katrina, congressional officials said Tuesday as leading lawmakers and the White House pledged to investigate an initial federal response widely condemned as woefully inadequate."
Notice though that Bush did not agree to a commission, only a probe. I mean there's no sense in really finding out what went wrong.
Even in the case of some make-believe probe, the president should not be the head of it. The president cannot lead the investigation into his own governments failures. It just doesn't work that way. If that's the case I'm sure Clinton would have jumped all over the chance to lead his investigation.
Just like we need an independent commission setup to investigate the intelligence fiasco of WMD in Iraq, we also need a bi-partisan commission designed to uncover the bureaucratic incompetence of Bush's big government.
I think the reality of an independent commission to investigate either Iraq or Katrina will depend on the death tolls.
Posted by Chris at 5:13 PM 2 comments
9.05.2005
Not So Fast
A lot has happened this weekend. I have just a couple things I want to pick out. Expectedly, the Bush administration is trying to pass the blame on to everything but them concerning the lack of response to Katrina. It is true that we can't stop a hurricane, but we can be much more prepared than what we were. Considering the feds had about 3-4 days warning, and considering 9/11. Bush’s government is not prepared for a national crisis, plain and simple.
Something else that occurred that I’m opposed to is Judge Roberts being nominated to be the next Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Many of you will note that I do not oppose Roberts’ nomination to the court whatsoever. In fact, I think he should have been approved as quickly as possible. Maybe the guy is too conservative for most, or not enough of a right wing nut job for others. But I do support his seat on the Supreme Court. I do, however, entirely oppose his recent nomination as Chief Justice.
Bush is using this time of crisis in hopes that people are not paying attention to the Supreme Court so that he can quietly sneak Roberts in as Chief Justice. This is a form of exploitation. Instead of worrying about the Supreme Court, which selected Bush to be the 43rd president, Bush should worry about how his government failed in the worst of ways with Katrina. But again, the neocons are not concerned with the burdens of the citizens; they are only concerned with politics and promoting the farthest of right agendas in the history of America.
Back to the crisis in the Creole. I also think that it is entirely unethical for Bush to appoint his chief political advisor to head the relief efforts. I have many reasons for opposing this. One, Rove is politics. This is not a political matter. But again, this goes to show everyone what is first and foremost on the minds of the Bush administration. Rove is present in order to pass the blame to state agencies and anyone else but Bush. The focus should be on recovery and with Rove in charge it is clear that politics is being put first. Another reason why I oppose this is because I too am a director for political affairs. And when we come into play, I promise you it’s all politics. We are not concerned with anything else. And Rove is much, much better at it than me. Rove is there to head the efforts merely as a political machine. This is not the time or place for Karl Rove.
Posted by Chris at 1:59 PM 14 comments
9.02.2005
Riding It Out
"We'll get on top of this situation."
The above quote from President Bush implies a lot of things. Taken out of context, the quote can be turned in all sorts of directions. Firstly, the quote leaves the impression that the federal government, which Bush is the head of, is not entirely aware and not appropriately in control of the situation. That's an easy assumption to make.
Many people are circulating this quote to demonstrate that Bush et al., are incompetent to the point of allowing the crisis to escalate. So, is this quote out of context especially how I have posted it above?
It depends on what context one is speaking about. Is it in regards to the crisis, or the management thereof? Is it political or is it real? Nevertheless, spinning, circulating quotes, pointing fingers and passing blame right now does nothing to help those who are so desperately in need. And that is the reality of a very grave situation.
But there are many forces involved in this. And blaming Bush can be handled in two ways. Politically and publicly.
Politically speaking, and this is a political blog, I think it is entirely fair to look in the direction of Bush and ask what the hell is going on and why was the federal government (FEMA) not prepared. There are many factors to look at when considering this. Federal funding for disasters is a fair target, especially when during a terrorist attack the response from the federal government will come about the same way and from the same agencies as in a natural disaster like that in New Orleans. If New Orleans is looked at as an example of how Bush's post 9/11 government will respond during a crisis then it is a total failure and this country is not prepared at all for another attack.
Publicly speaking, the fair and right thing to do is to get relief to New Orleans and worry about the blame later. Publicly, the political is useless and hampers the relief efforts. Right now both are happening simultaneously and creating so much confusion.
Politically speaking, it is totally believable that if Clinton were still in power or any Democrat that the Repubs would use this crisis as a way of painting the Dems as weak and unprepared. Politics is a circle. And Karl Rove would jump all over this if it happened during a Democratic administration.
There are two worlds. One political and one real. We need to be real right now.
Posted by Chris at 1:27 PM 7 comments
9.01.2005
Taking a Moment
Given the situation in New Orleans and the fact that I've been on the road all week, I just don't have much in me.
I'm not sure it's fair to blame Bush for not reacting to Katrina. What could he do? Call off the weather reports? And if he were to go down there, there isn't anything he could do anyway. Touring the devastation from 100ft. up would do nothing to help. Besides, he should conserve the fuel for the rescue operations.
I think it's probably fair to state that Bush has had one heck of a rough second-term. A lot of events have happened that no human could control. And a lot has happened that Bush is definitely responsible for. Iraq is still anyone's guess. Gas prices are the highest in history. The Dow is stagnant. Minimum wage is still the same. Job production is laughable. Over a million more Americans fell into poverty in the last two years. Darfur is still a genocide. Bin Laden is still at large.
Something's gotta give.
Mid-term elections are right around the corner. It's time we all wake up and decide the fate of this country. The path we are on is unsustainable.
Posted by Chris at 1:33 PM 2 comments
