For the good of the country, Bush and Cheney should resign.

[Scylla]

@mswas

First off, if the President is doing ANYTHING other than trying to find a proactive solution to this problem, then he’s not only failing his country, but his PR department is failing him, because there is NOTHING he could do that would bring him better PR than to work on this problem full steam. Any politician who gets to the calibre where they can handle being PRESIDENT, knows that some people are going to bitch no matter what, and that they need to listen, but not take it personally, because they have an important job to do. If HE is worrying about his opinion polls, then that is further evidence of his incompetence.

I disagree. First off, whether you like or dislike Bush, I think it’s accurate to characterize him as not being one afraid to make unpopular decisions. On the other hand, I think a President or any politician needs to pay attention to public opinion since it his job to represent the public. If anything, I think the opposite of what you are saying is true. The most valid criticism of Bush is that he is intractable in his actions and opinions when he should be more flexible. I think you have this one exactly backwards.

Secondly, you are overvaluing the opinions espoused on the straight dope. This forum is average everyday citizens excercising their voice to their peers. This is what they SHOULD be doing, it will help them form how THEY will handle a situation like this in the future, how they will formulate their own personal political goals, and helps inspire them to go out and do something. However, they are not in the position to fix this, that’s why they pay taxes to FEMA in the hopes that FEMA will actually do what they have paid it to do, FEMA has failed it’s customers to put it simply. People discussing this on the straightdope SHOULD be criticizing, that’s what this forum is for.

Well… This really pisses me off. I’ve read this over three times. Ok. You’re right. I’m wrong. What you’ve said makes sense, and I have no counterargument.

And you are damn right I am going to politicize this right now. The Bush administration is a boil that must be lanced before we have to amputate. What have I done? Well, I was at a festival called Burning Man where we had excess food when we left, that food has gone to the New Orleans relief… …seeing a system that turns laws that should be about managing inebriated idiots into creating the most powerful Intelligence Agency in the world to topple foreign governments so that stupid suburban white kids don’t kill themselves with cocaine.

This is the PERFECT time, to criticize, the PERFECT time to act, the PERFECT time to remove the corruption.

Erek

Ummm. I hope that felt good :dubious:

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

Here’s something an effective leader might do to help others.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/09/09/katrina.gore.ap/index.html

KNOXVILLE, Tennessee (AP) – Al Gore helped airlift some 270 Katrina evacuees on two private charters from New Orleans, acting at the urging of a doctor who saved the life of the former vice president’s son.

Gore criticized the Bush administration’s slow response to Katrina in a speech Friday in San Francisco, but refused to be interviewed about the mercy missions he financed and flew on September 3 and 4.

[XT]

@Hentor the Barbarian

Al Gore helped airlift some 270 Katrina evacuees

Thats great and all Hentor, and my hat is off to Gore…I think it was a great gesture. But aren’t we talking about 10’s or even 100’s (millions) of people here? 270 is a drop in the bucket. As I said, its a great gesture, but I’m not seeing it as making a great case for “effective leader”.

-XT

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

@Scylla

You need a cite for this. They weren’t constructing the levees during the four years I lived there, that I can recall, and I know Bush spent more on the levees during Clinton. Actually, don’t bother with the cite. I really don’t care. The whole argument is really just bullshit.

Don’t bother with a cite? What is that? “Please don’t prove me wrong!” Sheesh. Too bad, pally:

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/12528233.htm

In 2004, the Corps essentially stopped major work on the now-breached levee system that had protected New Orleans from flooding. It was the first such stoppage in 37 years, the Times-Picayune reported.

“It appears that the money has been moved in the president’s budget to handle homeland security and the war in Iraq, and I suppose that’s the price we pay,” Jefferson Parish emergency management chief Walter Maestri told the newspaper. “Nobody locally is happy that the levees can’t be finished, and we are doing everything we can to make the case that this is a security issue for us.”

You really can’t pretend that Bush’s inattention to the levee system is the same as all of those who came before him. Unless your intention is to mislead people and deflect blame from Bush.

F’rinstance?

Here’s a thread I started on the topic a while back, with three f’rinstances.

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

@xtisme

Thats great and all Hentor, and my hat is off to Gore…I think it was a great gesture. But aren’t we talking about 10’s or even 100’s (millions) of people here? 270 is a drop in the bucket. As I said, its a great gesture, but I’m not seeing it as making a great case for “effective leader”.

-XT

As a person in no position to effect change within the system (i.e. the elected president), he did quite a bit to quickly move 270 people out of harm’s way. He located and secured resources and cut through red tape. He defined a job and got it done. Sell him short if you wish because he didn’t personally save everyone. I’m not surprised you would.

[XT]

I didn’t sell him short Hentor…I congratulated and praised what he did. But I also recognize it for what it was…a gesture. I have no personal problem with Gore, so I’m not sure why you would say ‘I’m not surprised you would.’ Have you found me in the past to be an unthinking Gore basher or something?

-XT

[Scylla]

@Hentor the Barbarian

Don’t bother with a cite? What is that? “Please don’t prove me wrong!” Sheesh. Too bad, pally:

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/12528233.htm

Ok. Ummm. I was just in a debate on this subject like a week ago where that cite or a virtually identical one was discussed, and I didn’t feel like going over it again since I thought it was bullshit the first time. I do conceed however that you have produced a cite stating that levee work ended for the first time in 37 years, as I asked you to, and my unwillingness to challenge the 37 years with a better cite can be taken as a concession of your superior position on this particular point.

But really, I just don’t want to do the whole levee thing again. I started off in this thread saying that it wasn’t the point.

You really can’t pretend that Bush’s inattention to the levee system is the same as all of those who came before him. Unless your intention is to mislead people and deflect blame from Bush.

Just when I think I’m out… He pulls me back in!

The one’s that came before him were worse. Bush spent more on levees in five years than Clinton did in 8.

Hentor, I find the whole levee discussion to be stupid and uninteresting, and a load of bullshit for so many reasons.

The likely truth is that probably none of the Presidents in the last 30 years has any idea what he spent of Levees in NOLA. It’s just not a Presidential issue. But, if you don’t find that to be reasonable and you think it’s appropriate to blame the CEO of Bankamerica for a teller who makes an error, than Bush spent more than Clinton on Levees in less time.

Here’s a thread I started on the topic a while back, with three f’rinstances.

Ok. Only one is actually cited and in that one Bush doesn’t mention race, though he’s seems to be implying it. I don’t particularly have a problem with this since Bush is replying to criticism that was made and that criticism did also imply race.

I don’t remember the other two being what you say they were I don’t want to sending you hunting for cites (I hate it when people get cite happy on me.)

But, you seem to be missing my point. I am not particularly interested in debating the merits or lack therof of a particular particular criticism, nor am I saying that all criticism is bad.

My thesis is that immediate dirt digging and blame casting is bad. If in the wake of a disaster one’s instinct is to go digging up dirt with the goal that it can be used to make the President look bad, then one’s priorities are screwed.

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

@Scylla

Ok. Only one is actually cited and in that one Bush doesn’t mention race, though he’s seems to be implying it. I don’t particularly have a problem with this since Bush is replying to criticism that was made and that criticism did also imply race.

I don’t think this is much of an issue to pursue down the rabbit hole, but I also don’t understand why you mischaracterized it so grossly. Bush doesn’t mention race in the cite I posted there?? I goddamn quoted it and bolded it. Like this:

Oh, I know they say certain people aren’t capable of investing, you know, the investor class. It kind of sounds like to me, you know, a certain race of people living in a certain area.

My point remains: Bush has been perfectly willing to fling accusations of racism around. The fact that he receives some in return doesn’t fill me with the need to cry on his behalf.

I understand if you bury your head in the sand so much that you don’t recall the charge that people opposed the Iraq war because they believed that “brown-skinned people” couldn’t govern themselves, or that people opposed Alberto Gonzales because of racism, but it can’t be so buried in the sand that you could actually look at the post I linked you to, in which Bush says “It kind of sounds like to me, you know, a certain race of people…” and come back and say he doesn’t mention race.

[Scylla]

@Hentor the Barbarian

I don’t think this is much of an issue to pursue down the rabbit hole, but I also don’t understand why you mischaracterized it so grossly. Bush doesn’t mention race in the cite I posted there?? I goddamn quoted it and bolded it. Like this:My point remains: Bush has been perfectly willing to fling accusations of racism around. The fact that he receives some in return doesn’t fill me with the need to cry on his behalf.

I understand if you bury your head in the sand so much that you don’t recall the charge that people opposed the Iraq war because they believed that “brown-skinned people” couldn’t govern themselves, or that people opposed Alberto Gonzales because of racism, but it can’t be so buried in the sand that you could actually look at the post I linked you to, in which Bush says “It kind of sounds like to me, you know, a certain race of people…” and come back and say he doesn’t mention race.

What I meant was Bush doesn’t mention “a race.” Y’know, like “black.”

You read a lot into a typo.

As for why I don’t remember the other two, you can calling it burying my head in the sand, but really… I just don’t care about this kind of minutiae. I really don’t read things to see if they can be construed as offensive. And, when I read something that I could construe as offensive, I usually choose not to. I certainly don’t carry it around and remember it.

Because, again. It’s bullshit. It really really is. It’s exactly the kind of stuff I’m talking about. Your priorities are skewed if this is what you care about.

Personally, I don’t give a shit about this stuff. I think it’s small, and petty. I think it’s mindless political semantics. I care about what happened to FEMA.

You want to criticize Bush? Why waste your time on ambiguous statements and try to construe racism from them? It’s a bullshit enterprise. Mudslinging.

You want to talk about how FEMA got screwed up and why. I’m all ears.

[Frostillicus]

@Pochacco

I agree. Put Hastert in charge. He can’t be any worse.

But that will mean that Tom Delay (R - Bug Killer) will really be running the country. Yikes! :eek:

[rjung]

@SteveG1

I am disgusted by this nonsense that we should not play the blame game, should not point fingers, and should not politicize.

Considering the folks making these talking points have no hesitation in blaming Governor Blanco or Mayor Nagin in their efforts to deflect blame from President Bush, it’s nothing more than typical right-wing hypocrisy, IMO.

[BrainGlutton]

@Bricker

Of course, before the 2004 election you ALSO believed that Bush was a danger to the country, didn’t you?

Which he was. What is your point?

[Blalron]

Has anyone read the Newsweek article entitled “How Bush Blew It?”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9287434/

It’s a horrifying read. Bush doesn’t read the papers or watch the news. He gets all of his information from his aids, who are too terrified to tell him the truth because Bush will only tolerate having “yes men” around him.

Do you Bush defenders still think he should be running the country?

[DoctorJ]

There are two problems with the “now is not the time to be pointing fingers” argument:

1. If some fingers aren’t pointed as soon as possible, the incompetents remain in charge. Should people have waited a few weeks to criticize “Brownie”, leaving him in charge all that time? Of course not. So why is Bush immune from the same immediate criticism?

2. We’ve seen this strategy from the Bush administration and their ilk more than once before. It starts with either “let’s wait until we have all the facts” or “now is not the time to criticize”, but then the time for accountability never comes. Instead, they segue seamlessly into “why are you still stuck on that? We’re moving forward” mode.

I agree that a lot of the criticism of Bush is overreaching, but a lot of it is deserved. How could he say something like “no one could have anticipated the breach of the levees”? How would we have responded if Bush had decided on 9/14/01 or so that it was finally time to be getting back to Washington? There is criticism aplenty to go around, but Bush deserves his helping, and the time for it is now.

[Bricker]

@BrainGlutton

Which he was. What is your point?

I’m just a bit curious as to the method you feel we should be using to select a President.

It doesn’t appear to involve national elections. Is it just checking in with you to see who you’d like to have in the job?

[John_Mace]

@Bricker

I’m just a bit curious as to the method you feel we should be using to select a President.

It doesn’t appear to involve national elections. Is it just checking in with you to see who you’d like to have in the job?

Is it not possible for a duly elected president to be a danger to the country? Just because someone says he’s a danger doesn’t mean he is advocating a different method for electing presidents. The question at hand is: Should Bush resign? Of course it’s a silly question because Bush isn’t going to resign, but all we’re being asked is whether or not the country would be better off if he did.

[XT]

@John Mace

Is it not possible for a duly elected president to be a danger to the country? Just because someone says he’s a danger doesn’t mean he is advocating a different method for electing presidents. The question at hand is: Should Bush resign? Of course it’s a silly question because Bush isn’t going to resign, but all we’re being asked is whether or not the country would be better off if he did.

Of course a duly elected president COULD be a danger to the country. I’m not convinced that bush IS one, but I can certainly see that we could get one in that was…and thats why we have provisions for removing a president found unfit to that degree.

As to the question at hand: Should Bush resign. I see no reason why he either will or should resign at this point. As to whether it would be best for the country if he resigned…I don’t see that either. Having BOTH Bush and Chaney resign tomorrow would be bad for the country IMHO, just because of how it would rock our political structure, defang our efforts in Iraq and probably send the economy into a tail spin. Oh, it would be great points scored by our liberal bretheren and sisteren on this board and throughout the country…but actually GOOD for the country? I’m not seeing it, as fucked up as I think Bush’s administration has been.

I didn’t think it was good for the country that he was re-elected, but more of my fellow citizens disagreed with me, and so he IS the president. His responsibility about what happened in NOLA is way over blown, and certainly isn’t grounds for him to toss in the towel and flee…nor grounds to get rid of him in more direct ways. Iraq was Iraq BEFORE the election…and its the same now as then. Grounds for not re-electing him, but since he WAS re-elected I again see no compelling reason why he SHOULD leave now, nor that his leaving would be good for the country.

Its left wing fantasy on par with cries of “Clinton and Gore should resign for the good of the country”. Something to get all worked up over, to mentally spank the monkey over…but not a serious question, since its not going to happen unless some REAL shit happens, a la Nixon.

-XT

[Bricker]

@John Mace

Is it not possible for a duly elected president to be a danger to the country? Just because someone says he’s a danger doesn’t mean he is advocating a different method for electing presidents. The question at hand is: Should Bush resign? Of course it’s a silly question because Bush isn’t going to resign, but all we’re being asked is whether or not the country would be better off if he did.

sigh

You don’t see any possible bias when the question (a) comes from a person that was convinced Bush was a danger to the country prior to the last election; (b) is asked of an audience that in the majority ALSO feels Bush was a danger to the country prior to the last election; and © the questioner has evinced hyperbole in the asking?

On reflection, I’ll acknowledge that this thread is not useless: it’s garnered one response from a guy who says, “No, I supported Bush before, but this is a monumental screw-up and he should resign.” That opinion, while I don’t share it, is meaningful.

But a thread from a guy that hated Bush before, was convinced he was a danger to the country before, and saw the man re-elected without acknowledging even the slightest chance that the voters selecting Bush had some valid reasons for doing so… no, this latest confirmation of the unceasing hate for Bush isn’t anything remarkable.

[John_Corrado]

Or, to be specific, this thread has gotten a great deal of attention and vituperative agreement from the same people who would have given it attention and just as vituperative agreement in February 2001.

[John_Mace]

@Bricker

sigh

You don’t see any possible bias when the question (a) comes from a person that was convinced Bush was a danger to the country prior to the last election; (b) is asked of an audience that in the majority ALSO feels Bush was a danger to the country prior to the last election; and (c) the questioner has evinced hyperbole in the asking?

On reflection, I’ll acknowledge that this thread is not useless: it’s garnered one response from a guy who says, “No, I supported Bush before, but this is a monumental screw-up and he should resign.” That opinion, while I don’t share it, is meaningful.

But a thread from a guy that hated Bush before, was convinced he was a danger to the country before, and saw the man re-elected without acknowledging even the slightest chance that the voters selecting Bush had some valid reasons for doing so… no, this latest confirmation of the unceasing hate for Bush isn’t anything remarkable.

Of course there’s bias. But so what? As we all know, **BG **doesn’t like the current system we use to elect presidents. But there are plenty of other systems that could be used that would still be democratic and many that are arguably MORE democratic. None of the alternative systems he has proposed could be called undemocratic. Your question was a complete non sequitur, as is your compaint about bias.