Skip to main content

View Diary: Katrina, Politics and Iraq (173 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  You seem to be heavy on the symbolism. (none)
    "The whole two-disaster concept relies on the fact that the second disaster is bushes fault for poor leadership.  You can't go back on that now!"

    What? He cut funding. He chose incompetent hirelings to gut FEMA etc. He sent the experienced disaster-relief guys to iraq. And now you want him to do some mystical "leadership" that's supposed to make a difference?

    "If he is apparently weakened he cannot control the appartus."

    Ah.... Do you think the massive apparatus of disaster relief will work better with Bush leading it than it would on auto-pilot? Have you seen something that gives you that idea?

    "His political wing is the only wing."

    Yes, you understand that. There's no way to keep it from being political with him. So your advice makes no sense whatsoever.

    "... already the talk is that the democrats are saying that the "hurrican is Bush's fault".  That's how it's going to sound at this point."

    Of course. That's republican spin control. Do you think if we just politely give them a few months head start that they'll be polite back? You think they won't use their headstart to the ultimate? Give them time, and if you say anything about the hurricane that isn't praising Bush even normal people will tend to hear you saying the hurricane was Bush's fault. These guys are good that way. They aren't good at anything but spin, but they're real good at that.

    Your stand makes no sense. It's like you're going into a boxing ring, and somebody gives you the advice, "Don't hit back the first few rounds, the audience wouldn't like it. Just stand there with your arms down and let him hit you for four rounds and then in the fifth round you can hit back as hard as you like."

    •  it;s not a game (none)
      It's like you're going into a boxing ring, and somebody gives you the advice, "Don't hit back the first few rounds, the audience wouldn't like it. Just stand there with your arms down and let him hit you for four rounds and then in the fifth round you can hit back as hard as you like."
      It's not a game!  It's not a contest!  It's human lives!  Real people!

      Real people!

      So what - bush gets a pass for 5 weeks.  SO WHAT.  So his machine goes on the offensive for a few weeks.

      SO WHAT.

      If it was your life, would it be worth it?  Because that's what at stake here.

      Politics, or life.  Bush will choose Politics, because that's who he is.

      The question is not what would Bush do, but what will WE do.

      My opinion is that I support the President's efforts to provide relief and shelter for those in need.

      •  That's a nonsequitur. (none)
        Of COURSE we want Bush to approve further relief efforts. What possible justification could he have for not doing that?

        How can he possibly justify the inaction so far?

        "Oh, we aren't allowed to help because the governor hasn't gotten around to giving us permission."

        Look -- when the tsumani hit, Bush made a token donation. And after he got a lot of criticism, he scrounged up some more aid.

        Do you think he'll do less if he gets criticised this time, or more?
        Look -- people's lives are at stake. And the only thing that can get Bush to give the federal government permission to help is massive criticism.

        And you want to play nice-nice until after the crisis is over because you don't want to accept a political advantage. It's people like you who're responsible for Bush being president in the first place.

        •  and it's (none)
          It's people like you who're responsible for Bush being president in the first place.
          It's people like yourself who have caused the DNC to shed voters that would have always gone traditionally the democrat candidate.  

          It's absurd.  It's shooting yourself in the foot.  Bush is falling on his face, and the only thing slowing him down is people like yourself shouting about impeachment.  

          It's a crisis and all you can talk about is politics.  

          •  You're almost there (none)
            So, tell me, why would otherwise-sensible voters listen to the Swiftboaters and it gets them to vote for Bush, but they listen to me and it gets them to vote for Bush?

            What are the scummy republicans doing right that I'm doing wrong?

          •  You're almost there (none)
            So, tell me, why would otherwise-sensible voters listen to the Swiftboaters and it gets them to vote for Bush, but they listen to me and it gets them to vote for Bush?

            What are the scummy republicans doing right that I'm doing wrong?

            •  what? (none)
              What are the scummy republicans doing right that I'm doing wrong?
              It's mostly just demographics.  The democrat base has been shrinking unionized households have dropped, blacks a % of the population has dropped, self-identified catholics have dropped, etc.  
              •  So why does it hurt you and doesn't hurt them? (none)
                They politicise everything, and lie about it.

                I want to point out political implications on this one thing while it's still news, and you say it will hurt democrats.

                Do you have an argument why it would hurt democrats?

                •  yes absolutely (none)
                  Do you have an argument why it would hurt democrats?
                  Many people around assume that because Bush's numbers are falling Democrats numbers are rising.

                  This is not automatically true.  Sometimes it is, but often, well, very often, it is not.  

                  This disaster is obviously worsened by Bush; and time will show that.  Going on TV and bitching about what a loser Bush only causes people to be defensive about the man.  Every democrat worth his/her salt in the country hate GWB already; the point is that the Republicans have to start to hate him as well to make any progress whatsoever, in anyway.

                  •  I still don't get it. (none)
                    It sounds like you're saying if we actually point out what Bush has done wrong, it will make "people" be "defensive".

                    But if we don't point out the problems, people will eventually notice the problems for themselves.

                    Why would you expect people would notice Bush's idiocy quicker with nobody replying to the spinmasters?

                    When somebody starts a chain letter and a lot of idiots think they can each make hundreds of thousands of dollars from it, do you think the'd figure it out quicker if nobody told them?

                    Would people understand about Scientology quicker if nobody exposed it?

                    •  reponse (none)
                      It sounds like you're saying if we actually point out what Bush has done wrong, it will make "people" be "defensive".
                      Yes.

                      But if we don't point out the problems, people will eventually notice the problems for themselves.
                      Yes.

                      Why would you expect people would notice Bush's idiocy quicker with nobody replying to the spinmasters?
                      Why quicker?  Because when partisan hacks start yammering people shutdown.  The same cast of clowns protest everything Bush does, at all times, regardless of merit.  When these people are yammering people shutdown and become dogmatic.

                      It's already happened.  It's too lote, this conversation is already over.  People choose your approach, and now, as predicted, people have shutdown.  Most people do not associate this disaster with Bush.  

                      Partisnship is infectious.  Once the same old cast of clowns starts yelping it's over - the battle is lost.

                      •  Partisanship doesn't have to be infectious. (none)
                        "Partisnship is infectious.  Once the same old cast of clowns starts yelping it's over - the battle is lost."

                        Suppose you're right. And suppose by some wondrous chance everybody on your side understood and agreed and stayed quiet while people listened to the propaganda and figured it out for themselves.

                        If you're right, all the propagandists have to do is play both sides themselves. Some of them can pose as Bush supporters and others can pose as stupid Bush opponents, and that's enough to get regular people to shut down and ignore all the problems.

                        So your solution was never a workable solution.

                        Any other ideas? We need something that can work even when fanatics are yammering on two sides.

                        •  no (none)
                          If you're right, all the propagandists have to do is play both sides themselves. Some of them can pose as Bush supporters and others can pose as stupid Bush opponents, and that's enough to get regular people to shut down and ignore all the problems.
                          Except that if the liberal/progressive voices shut down, and let bush pretend to be a leader, and hey, even get a bounce for some short period of time, Bush wont want to stick his puppets all over the place yammering.

                          It was workable, it happened after 9/11 to great effect.

                          Bush was an idiot to failed to prevent 9/11.  Fool.  Moron.  Yet criticism was bit for a few weeks, and it was for the greater good of the country.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site