by AgentR » Tue 20 Oct 2009, 13:46:37
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('dinopello', 'B')ush was compared to Nero during Katrina. The "nobody could have anticipated this" kind of ignorance and was mostly criticized (by those that were critical) for not doing enough, fast enough at the Federal level, while others had/have the opinion that the correct Federal response to a natural disaster is to do nothing. It was all about what he was or was not doing and I think that is a legitimate debate on natural disasters or (now) on the economy.
My point is that the legitimate part of the argument; in this example, ie, what, if anything should the federal government do in response to natural forces performing reclamation on a city that should have been abandoned decades ago; gets overwhelmed by the personality hatred or loyalty towards whoever happens to be in office. Bush chose X; I hate Bush, thus X must be evil or incompetent, or both. That people who promote the AGW cause were also in the line saying "OMG we must rebuild NEW ORLEANS!" really illustrates this point.
Now, some natural disasters do have a reasonable response from the federal government, I'm not an advocate of traditional federalism; but sometimes the correct immediate response is minimal with only focus on mobilizing resources to prevent loss of life.
To be fair thus, I think Bush was a coward for not tackling the issue directly and openly; just as I think Obama is a coward for not openly championing a real National Health Service for the United States. That they both chose to enjoy some recreation during what appear to be heated moments is neither immoral nor inappropriate. It is human.
Yes, we are. As we are.
And so shall we remain; Until the end.