Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
In the midst of the hurricane devastation, the folks at NBCs "Today" seemed a bit too smiley for a Monday morning as they kept reporting that President Bushs approval ratings had hit an "all-time low." Have you seen the AP poll? How about the Zogby poll? Did we mention "all-time low," they wondered?
If Republicans were asking themselves when the Cindy Sheehan publicity festival would end, they got their answer: when the next Bush-trashing media opportunity suggested itself.
Its not political rocket science to figure that job approval ratings of a president might dip after the bungled government response to the flooding of New Orleans. But how badly did the feds botch their initial response, and how much of that was the presidents fault? It didnt matter. In the eyes of a news media that institutionally despises the man, Bush was the Bungler-in-Chief, and they grasped the opportunity to turn a natural disaster into a political disaster for the White House.
One obvious reality in all the hurricane coverage is the liberal medias love for government action. It took only about 24 hours for Chris Matthews to start lecturing America that all those people who think there should be less government and lower taxes should realize that this is why we need super-sized statism, because only the federal government has the resources and "the manpower, I mean person power" to handle disasters.
The anti-Republican/pro-Big Government bias is so predictable. In the spring of 1997, a massive snowfall led to flooding and levee-breaking in North Dakota. Nobody blamed Bill Clintons administration for not realizing the levees were going to break. The political games didnt start until summer, when the congressional GOP suicidally tried to hold up some flood aid to get political concessions out of the White House. It was quickly used against them. They quickly became the callous haters of disaster victims.
ABCs John Cochran lamented: "Flood victims in Grand Forks do not understand why Republican leaders refuse to pass an aid bill without strings attached." A flood victim elaborated with vigor: "The river took our home, our possessions, our neighbors, our neighborhood and we still have our spirit. But the government is taking our spirit and our strength. And that's what's going to kill us."
According to the nightly news, natural disasters present a fine opportunity to suggest that when Republicans try to limit government, they are obviously out to kill somebody.
Bill Clinton saw every disaster as an opportunity for lip-biting political opportunism. There was no such thing as overdoing federal disaster aid. In a 1997 article for Slate.com, Jodie Allen noted that before 1993, no snowstorm or blizzard had been declared a "major disaster or emergency" by the president. But in the first four years of Clinton, nearly four dozen severe winter storms were so designated, 17 in 1996 alone. She called 1996 "a banner year for calamity: FEMA found itself responding to 75 major disasters and eight emergencies so designated by the White House." Crass political opportunism, anyone?
Clinton suffered positively zero media badgering for completely overdoing federal hurricane reactions. In 1999, he pre-emptively declared a state of emergency around Hurricane Floyd, causing some of the worst traffic jams in the history of the South. Luckily the storm did not kill large numbers of people in their cars, where they are most vulnerable. Emergency experts estimated the evacuation cost at cost more than $2 billion, but since 95 percent of the cost of the evacuation was borne by the evacuees, the Clinton administration proclaimed it was a great success.
Had the Bush administration reacted to oncoming Katrina by ordering a $2 billion evacuation, 95 percent of which cost would be carried by Gulf Coast residents, no journalistic levee would have held back the medias outrage.
No one in the media really objects when FEMA gives out taxpayers money out like free candy, either. Reporter James Bovard found that after the 1994 earthquake in Northridge, Calif., FEMA began mailing checks out to homeowners even before they'd claimed a dime's worth of damage. All it took to get an average grant of $3,450 was an address in the proper ZIP code. And $142 million in "fast-track assistance" went out to people whose homes required no inspection whatsoever to collect.
The ultimate irony about the medias liberal disaster opportunism is that President Bush isnt any threat to super-sized statism. He hasnt vetoed a single spending bill, no matter how outrageous the congressional pork. He ran for office in 2000 accusing conservatives of balancing budgets on the backs of the poor. But since he continues to enjoy a base of support in his party that prefers less government, and he is George Bush, a liberal media cannot resist the opportunity to administer whippings to conservatives generally, and Bush personally, when disasters hand them a weapon.
ProudDem said:I love it when conservatives bring up Bill Clinton when Bush is in the hot seat. It makes me smile.....big time!
What's interesting about the comment about the Today show is that I am almost positive that Matt Lauer is a republican. I used to like him until I heard him make deragotory comments about democrats. I haven't made up my mind as to which political party Katie Couric associates herself with.
It's okay if Bush messes up from time to time. He is human. What is disappointing is that I never see republicans willing to criticize him. Just because you criticize someone does not mean you don't support them.
dilloduck said:Read some threads here--you will find Bush is severely criticized by consevatives on several issues. "Republicans never criticize Bush" is a myth.
ProudDem said:That is fantastic, not because I can't stand George Bush, but I like people who are honest about how they feel about their own party. I am glad I joined this board.
I joined the Democratic Underground, but you know what? Many of those people are just spewing hate towards republicans and they say things that are just ridiculous. They blame everything on the conservatives/republicans. There's no true discussion. The only time I got some attention from them was because I posted something obnoxious. LOL
ProudDem said:I love it when conservatives bring up Bill Clinton when Bush is in the hot seat. It makes me smile.....big time!
What's interesting about the comment about the Today show is that I am almost positive that Matt Lauer is a republican. I used to like him until I heard him make deragotory comments about democrats. I haven't made up my mind as to which political party Katie Couric associates herself with.
It's okay if Bush messes up from time to time. He is human. What is disappointing is that I never see republicans willing to criticize him. Just because you criticize someone does not mean you don't support them.
Bonnie said:Agreed to a certain extent but please provide evidence of when Democrats criticize democrats?? I seem to remember a lot of apologizing for Bill Clinton's constant screw ups. When democrats criticize their own?
Another example....Why is no one calling for Gov Blanco's resignation or Nagins' but it's okay for Brown to step down??
If nothing else I see some Republicans and all Democrats bringing Bush down incestantly daily and accompanied by the media...
And welcome to the board!!
ProudDem said:Hi Bonnie. Thanks for the welcome. My statement about republicans not willing to criticize Bush is based upon other message boards that I have been on. I am a dem who is willing to criticize my own party, but I really hate it when people refuse to see any fault with their leader (and this does not apply to anyone here since I don't know whether that assertion applies here).
Well, I guess for me, I see Brown's incompetence as being more egregious than Blanco's and Nagin's incompetence. Would you agree that Brown did not really have the qualifications to run FEMA? Now, just because some people called for his resignation did not mean that he had to resign. I believe that the Bush Administration acknowledged some culpability in having him removed from the aftermath. I think his resigning may have been because the Bush Administration asked him to resign instead of it being on his own initiative. My thoughts are that the Bush Administration was embarrassed to have Brown's lack of prior "emergency training" experience exposed over and over because it could be perceived as Bush not caring enough about FEMA to appoint someone who had experience. JMO
rtwngAvngr said:I guess it's pretty sad we're playing the "more egregious than" game with this. Typically to use something against a political opponent, you need to be better in the category for which the cricism applies. You libs have forgotten the rules of politics, that's why your losing. Your gamesmanship is weak.
ProudDem said:Well, Rightwing Avenger, all I have seen is 2 posts of yours, and all I see is an ass. By the way, you improperly used "your" when you said "your losing." It should be "you're." Just FYI.
rtwngAvngr said:A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of a small mind. I've always thought homonyms should be interchangeable in all contexts. What are you, clothes minded?
Care to explain why dems are grasping at everything that comes down the pipe as "the thing" that will finally bring down bush. They're grasping wildly even before determining if its a winning issue for them. This is not a winning issue for them, considering their own local dem incompetence. See. You're making bad political decisions out of desperation.
ProudDem said:Hi Bonnie. Thanks for the welcome. My statement about republicans not willing to criticize Bush is based upon other message boards that I have been on. I am a dem who is willing to criticize my own party, but I really hate it when people refuse to see any fault with their leader (and this does not apply to anyone here since I don't know whether that assertion applies here).
Well, I guess for me, I see Brown's incompetence as being more egregious than Blanco's and Nagin's incompetence. Would you agree that Brown did not really have the qualifications to run FEMA? Now, just because some people called for his resignation did not mean that he had to resign. I believe that the Bush Administration acknowledged some culpability in having him removed from the aftermath. I think his resigning may have been because the Bush Administration asked him to resign instead of it being on his own initiative. My thoughts are that the Bush Administration was embarrassed to have Brown's lack of prior "emergency training" experience exposed over and over because it could be perceived as Bush not caring enough about FEMA to appoint someone who had experience. JMO
ProudDem said:I'm sure you think homonyms should be used interchangeably because you are incapable of understanding the differences between them.
It's interesting. You ask me to explain why dems are grasping to bring down Bush, but then you accuse me of making bad political decisions out of desperation. I don't see that the dems are grasping to bring down Bush. I believe he is doing a great job of that all by himself. And as for your saying that that I fall into bad decisionmaking because I'm desperate, well, okay. Too bad you have no idea what goes into my decisionmaking.
Bonnie said:Actually I see Blanco and Nagin's negligence before and during the Hurricane to be just as innefective as Brown's.
rtwngAvngr said:The stench of desperation is upon our socialist foe. The end is near. Freedom shall reign.
Said1 said:Exactly. Brown can not act on his own accord, he needs the go ahead from higher ups. This was not done until the last second and the state and city's resources were not fully utilized in all areas. The people were let down on all levels, let's be honest.
Said1 said:Yep, back to the Copa, Copacabana the hottest spot north of Havana.
ProudDem said:As I stated previously, I also think Bush wanted him gone because of the effect Brown's staying would have on his approval rating.
Just my thoughts.
