I think the most important thing to duffer is that Bush hasn’t raised cigarette taxes.
Right, monkey-boy?
Of course, what does he know? He’s just the guy on the ground.
-Joe
You got it, slick. :rolleyes:
It’s good to admit the truth. Even if you have to pretend it isn’t by throwing on a rolleyes.
Just keep telling yourself that them dirty Democrats would have raised them taxes. It’ll make all the repressed guilt go away.
-Joe
Me, I like the ole one-two–the well, the governor and the mayor effed up, so that lets FEMA and Bush off the hook argument.
It’s a logical fallacy, but one that apparently comforts died in the wool Red folk.
Luckily, not all GOP’ers are that way–maybe some moderate Reps will now grow spines.
It digusts me the way the suffering and devastation just becomes a political football and a point scorer. The manly thing to do would be to admit to fuck ups, work to solve the problem and make sure that this doesn’t happen again.
It’s the Bush camp who are playing the blame game at present. Talk about projection! They can’t point fingers fast enough. God forbid one of them have enough balls to stand up and take some heat. Blanco and Nagin will be dealt with–I have yet to hear anyone say differently, but there is no excuse for the bumbling and dithering of FEMA and the White House–and their feet should be held to the fire.
CORRECTION:In my post, I stated it was Michael Brown who said it wasn’t foreseeable that the levees would fail after a category 4 hurricane. That is incorrect.
I apologize for that dumb mistake. With all the stupidity and incompetence that’s been going around since Katrina hit, I lost track of exactly who made what asinine comment.
Well, the Democrats advanced the idea of a bi-partisan commission in the Senate today and the Republicans just shot it down.
It’s interesting to look at the votes. Except for one Senator from each party who abstained, every Democrat voted in favor of forming a bipartisan commission, and every Republican voted against it.
Do any Republicans care to defend this vote? Other than on the grounds of “we have a majority, so we can do whatever we damn well please with no justification whatsoever”, I mean.
A Republican-controlled committee investigating mistakes made by a Republican White House. Now even if the committee is scrupulously honest the **perception ** of a whitewash will taint it’s findings. What was so terrible about a bipartisan committee that the Republicans were willing to undermine confidence in the investigation from Day One?
Unless they really, really, really think they **do ** need to whitewash this … .
Look, the Republicans control the Reichstag and we’ll just have to sit by and abide whatever decisions they make. It’s for the good of the country.
<Republican-apologist>
“Rush said this was necessary to prevent the Dems from turning the hurricane into a partisan issue; that’s good enough for me!”
</Republican-apologist>
Ahhhh … bipartisanship is the new partisanship! Now I understand.
It goes hand in hand with the “the truth is lies so we have to lie to tell the truth” argument that KidCharlemagne advanced in this thread.
When you folks would like to stop lumping everyone who has supported the GOP with Rush, then we might get somewhere, unless you’re in favor of foolish generalizations, in which case we can piss on one another’s shoes. It’s your call.
Love him or hate him, he’s your Ted Kennedy (symbolically speaking).
Not quite. I wouldn’t vote for Rush. Lemmings rush to the polls in favor of Kennedy, now don’t they?
Says the guy who went a-sweepin’ with this broad brush. :rolleyes:
To needlessly embroider a well-made point…
One must assume that the Rovian Calculus indicates that the political damage of refusing to permit a bi-partisan investigation, whatever that might prove to be, would be less destructive than the probable results of an independent investigation: choosing between a debacle and a catastrophe.
And if the heat gets too much, the Bushiviks are perfectly capable of turning on a dime, and claiming tomorrow that they are wholeheartedly supportive of an independent investigation, always were, its was just that the liberal media was misrepresenting them again yadda blah yadda blah…
Or in other words, what I said in post #36. 
A trick well-learned from a recent Democratic president who was everywhere on every issue.
Why should anyone hafe to defend this? Them’s the breaks of a representative democracy; the winners get to make the rules. Happens everywhere and unless you’ve got a better solution for governance (which by the way under the current rules would require majority approval before implementation) then you’re left only the option of fielding candidates more acceptable to the voters than the Pubbbies. The Pubbbies have not fundamentally changed the way Wahsington operates; they’re playing by the rules which they found in place when they arrived. If the rules suck, it’s more the fault of the Democrats who not so long ago had control of both the Executive and Legislative branches.
My point is that I can’t think of any rationale for the actions of the Republican leadership other than: “We have enough votes to whitewash the Bush administration’s failures.”
What possible harm would there be in making the commission bipartisan like the 9-11 commission was? How would that impede its functioning in any way?
Is there a single Republican on this message board who will stand up and justify this vote on principle?
Because, so far all I’m hearing is “Yeah, it’s a whitewash. We got the votes, so you Democrats have to suck it down.”
Is that really what the Republican party stands for?
This was the largest national disaster in American History. There was a massive failure of the executive branch to respond to it. Rather than trying to get to the bottom of what went wrong, the entire Republican Party is playing a giant game of Cover Your Ass.
Party before Country. Is that what Republicans stand for?
So its the Dems fault for failing to ruthlessly ram their agenda down the throats of their Loyal Opposition? Does the possession of a majority, no matter if its as thin as the hair on a butterfly’s butt, confer absolute power? Or do we expect our representatives to negotiate in good faith and seek respectful compromise?
That a bare majority confers more power than it should upon its possessors is one of the weaknesses of democracy. Those of us who love democracy should be mindful that we don’t turn it into a Darwinistic excercise in amoral grasping. It ain’t poker, it ain’t Monopoly, its democracy.
This is a point we as Democrats have to highlight and underscore so that the Republicans cannot run a candidate as an “outsider” or “reformer” or “candidate for change.” The predicaments that we find ourselves in (be they disaster preparation, the war in Iraq, the economy, international credibility and loss of allies…) are the result of the Republicans who are in control, not just Bush.
The key for voters who are dissatisfied with the way things are gonig in our country is not just to rely on Bush’s leaving office. We all have to use the power of our representative democracy to have the Republicans on the whole stand to account for the results of their leadership.