Why not? Obama got elected President and he doesn't have any experience!

Sorry... I'm teasing now... LOL... a little levity, of course. But with all that said, Michael, I still say the ultimate resposibility for what went down during Katrina lies with local authorities there. As others have pointed out, Mississippi and Alabama were hit, too... but those folks had their act together. Just my opinion, though, based on observations and news reports.

B

I think the issue with New Orleans and Katrina is based mostly on the perception that Bush didn't deem it important. Note that I said perception. Celebrating a birthday while tv was inundated with pictures of people in distress, looting and the like didn't sit well with many Americans. This coupled with the fact that recovery in NO is extremely slow. (especially in impoverished areas) Many people don't realize that Galveston and lots of the Texas Gulf area is still in dire staits since Gustav. We needed FEMA to take more of a leadership role during Katrina.

I think the issue with New Orleans and Katrina is based mostly on the perception that Bush didn't deem it important. Note that I said perception. Celebrating a birthday while tv was inundated with pictures of people in distress, looting and the like didn't sit well with many Americans. This coupled with the fact that recovery in NO is extremely slow. (especially in impoverished areas) Many people don't realize that Galveston and lots of the Texas Gulf area is still in dire staits since Gustav. We needed FEMA to take more of a leadership role during Katrina.

But that is the same perception that so many people had about the inaugural too. And should be had any day.

I mean look around every day in the US and you see all kinds of people hurting and in dire straights. They are just forgotten about and they aren't all lumped around in one big area like New Orleans was.

Plus as was mentioned think about Galveston, think about Biloxi, Gulfport, Mobile, and even recently Kentucky with the ice storm where many died and people were without power and daily necessities for weeks. Think about the recent floods in the mid-west where many lost homes, many died, etc. And the list could go on and on and on and on.

I have often wondered where is the outrage for these people when Washington went on about its daily lives while all these people suffered. Where is the outrage when Washington partied while people throughout the United States have been hurting.

That goes back to 1980 when the Reagans first went into office and America was in a recession. There were the usual parties and you had Nancy Reagan bragging about the dress she was wearing and you had her talking about the china she was purchasing for the White House.

And boy did the Reagans get crucified in the media for it - esp. Nancy Reagan. you had people in these casual on the street interviews who wanted to know how could they be doing all that when they were losing their jobs and barely holding on to their homes.

If Nancy Reagan esp. had not backed off of all that [!@#$%^&*] Reagan would have really had a hard time ever getting anything done.

I think alot of things are totally manipulated by the press. Many of these things don't get alot of coverage by the press and thus America doesn't know about them. Most people would not even know that Gulfport and areas of Mississippi were hit bad if they didn't go there because the press played up New Orleans.

I went to Biloxi and that area and I went to New Orleans. The amount of damage was no different in my eyes. Mississippi had better evacuation precedures and thus cut down on the loss of life.

I am not saying that FEMA should have not responded quicker, but also each person there needs to bear some responsibility themselves. They were told to evacuate and they were told to prepare. My in-laws decided to stay but in the process of doing so they did prepare themselves the best they could.

Some of the people that lost their lives lost them because they chose to stay - not because they could not be evacuated. I remember the headlines about one of my favorite singers Fats Domino and how they even said that he chose to stay in New Orleans and didn't even try to evacuate.

What happened there was bad, but I can't say that it is the worst thing that has ever happened to Americans or happened in America. And as I said before there is a lot of blame to go around for why it happened so bad there.

I think you are spot on about the media and coverage. It amazes me that there is much that we don't know in this 24/7 media technology know everything instantaneuosly day. It makes me wonder if we have lost our compassion in this I need to be #1 age. Or maybe our empathy for people who are hurting. You are right about all parties needing to take responsibility for their part in katrina's shortcomings. The tragic part about NO was the area hardest hit was the poorest area of the city. Many of these folks don't have the ability to rebuild, lack of funds or under-insured. I guess that's why there was a need for leadership. Lots of folks couldn't even get FEMA trailers. And you do remember all the fraud with the FEMA workers and the vouchers. So in a time of great need, our leaders (on all levels) didn't step up to the plate. The big question is have we learned from this?

But I agree we should be one mad as hell country for the amount of suffering that goes on everyday and the lack of effort to change it.

Edited March 27, 200916 yr by UCLAN

I think the issue with New Orleans and Katrina is based mostly on the perception that Bush didn't deem it important. Note that I said perception. Celebrating a birthday while tv was inundated with pictures of people in distress, looting and the like didn't sit well with many Americans. This coupled with the fact that recovery in NO is extremely slow. (especially in impoverished areas) Many people don't realize that Galveston and lots of the Texas Gulf area is still in dire staits since Gustav. We needed FEMA to take more of a leadership role during Katrina.

I agree with you 100%, UCLAN. And to take Steve's examples a step further, Obama's "60 Minutes" interview, in which he chuckled and seemed amused by the plight of struggling Americans, is yet another example. But my concern is that a fuss was made when it seemed as if Bush was detached, but when it seems as if Obama is disconnected, little is said about it.

Is Obama a better man than Bush? Is he more compassionate? I didn't feel Bush was disconnected or lacking compassion when he shed tears in the oval office following the 9/11 attacks.

Perception... it is an interesting thing, indeed.

For those of you that don't really know what's going on with the current financial crisis (I dunno if this has been posted earlier in this thread), this is a really good, in-depth column on what happened, why, and where it looks to be going: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story..._big_takeover/1

I am extremely tired of the blame game. GW"s presidency is over and it is time to move on. The past is the past. I am hopeful in Obama and I realize that he is very different in his way of dealing with issues. (or different from GW). Those differences make people uneasy. It is understandable because change is often difficult to deal with.

You need to realize that while the past is the past, the past is utterly and supremely important. If we don't look to the past and keep the failings and mistakes in mind, then we are doomed to repeat it. Just look at the current situation we're in.

Yes but there is a big difference in learning from the past and using it as an excuse. And that is what politics has been doing for awhile.

Instead of holding the current regime whoever it is responsible all that the parties do is use the excuse well at least it is not as bad as so and so.

Look at how many times the republicans fell on the old excuse that Bush might not be perfect but at least he was not Clinton. And now with Obama it is well at least he is better than Bush.

How many times has that been said in this thread alone.

It is time we do move on from the past in that sense in that as party members we hold our party man whoever he is responsible for his [!@#$%^&*] and not just say well he may not be perfect but at least he is not (fill in the blank).

For those of you that don't really know what's going on with the current financial crisis (I dunno if this has been posted earlier in this thread), this is a really good, in-depth column on what happened, why, and where it looks to be going: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story..._big_takeover/1

You need to realize that while the past is the past, the past is utterly and supremely important. If we don't look to the past and keep the failings and mistakes in mind, then we are doomed to repeat it. Just look at the current situation we're in.

I fully realize that we need to learn from our mistakes. I am very familiar with that saying. My frustration is the blame game.(Not on my watch, Clinton policies etc).

Sorry GD, didn't see 60 mins, Jay (Leno Leno too late(asleep) 60 mins too early (still at dinner)). Believe or not I don't need to watch Obama 24/7. I support what he is trying to do. I keep up via print and internet news (LA Times on line.) I try not to judge or comment on people's foibles. While I did not care for GW's policies as president, I never saw him as uncompassionate or unfeeling. He certainly wasn't the brightest bulb on the block but I didn't perceive him as insensitive. He was a man driven by his beliefs and he acted accordingly.

Just finished rolling stone article. WTF! Wall Street and the banking industry ran amock. This whole scenario is insane. Regulation is needed badly for this industry.

First of all, WHAT'S UP BRIAN! It's great to see my good buddy back here posting again.

<< Gives Brian a hug >>

<< G mutters: Even if it is a bunch of hogwash >>

Hi Steve,

Facts are facts and it is clear that Obama is doing very poorly. Yeah, I admit that I'm not an Obama supporter and I'm sure Roman and others can feast on my statements as being ultra-partisan... and it's true, I'm quite partisan... but pointing out my partisanship really does nothing to mask the very plain fact that Obama has truly bungled his first months in office.

I'm worried for the country.

Describe my "duplicitous" nature... I'm curious. If need be, quote me from previous posts.

In short, this post of yours from 3.22 was primarily what I was talking about, Brian. Of course, I'm not confused as to where your political loyalties lie as you've posted enough on here for me to know that. Hello!

Specifically, the bold part of your post is what prompted me to post what I did. Why? Because throughout the campaign, you needled and egged on hard left-leaning Dems to vote for Republicans quite a few times. (And no, I'm not going to post every quote from you on this matter. You know you did it.) And you turn around and make a statement like this - the bold text above. Your duplicity comes from pretending to be an open-minded Republican and then making this statement. It's not hard to understand, is it bro?

The thing is:

1. I have been quite judgemental of George W. Bush. I've expressed my disappointment in his presidency more times than I can count. But apparently not enough times for you to have read it, Greg.

Yeah, you have been but this wasn't really related to what I was talking about.

5. I agree that Obama is working his ass off... problem is, his priorities have been out of whack. And, in many cases, he's doing things nobody wants him to do.

I don't agree with this at all. He's doing exactly what he was hired to do according to the majority of people that casted a vote on November 4th. That's fix the economy. That's what he's been trying to do. So I fail to see his priorities being "out of whack".

Do you think he should have started to work on the justice system first? Would that be a priority that you claim is important to the majority of Americans?

It isn't just me who is not pleased with Obama... search the headlines, my friend. The world is unhappy with our President, too.

This is news to me. Exactly which newspaper/website headlines are claiming that the "world" is unhappy with President Obama? Would that be the FOX News Channel website? Or the ramblings a few weeks ago from ONE SOCIALIST in the EU that doesn't agree with some of his economic policies?

Enlighten me please. You seem to think that I'm living under a rock so please, Brian. Guide me. Educate me with some right-wing propaganda. Be my Guiding Light through the storm of the liberal left-wing media!!!

<< Greg waiting. Twiddling thumbs >>

Edited March 31, 200916 yr by Greg's GL

First of all, WHAT'S UP BRIAN! It's great to see my good buddy back here posting again.

<< Gives Brian a hug >>

<< G mutters: Even if it is a bunch of hogwash >>

In short, this post of yours from 3.22 was primarily what I was talking about, Brian. Of course, I'm not confused as to where your political loyalties lie as you've posted enough on here for me to know that. Hello!

Specifically, the bold part of your post is what prompted me to post what I did. Why? Because throughout the campaign, you needled and egged on hard left-leaning Dems to vote for Republicans quite a few times. (And no, I'm not going to post every quote from you on this matter. You know you did it.) And you turn around and make a statement like this - the bold text above. Your duplicity comes from pretending to be an open-minded Republican and then making this statement. It's not hard to understand, is it bro?

I am not only an open-minded Republican, but I am also partisan. Greg, I always lean right. However, I'm tolerant to opposing viewpoints. If I wasn't, I wouldn't like YOU at all! Nice try to discredit me on this issue, buddy... But people can be partial to one set of beliefs while still being tolerant of others. And I never EVER needled and egged on hard left-leaning Dems to vote for Republicans. I have occasionally discussed ideology, but have I ever stated to others "YOU MUST VOTE FOR REPUBLICANS"?? Hell no. Even YOU know that McCain was my last choice to run for the party.

So I fail to see his priorities being "out of whack".

Do you think he should have started to work on the justice system first? Would that be a priority that you claim is important to the majority of Americans?

His APPROACH to resolving issues indicates that his priorities are out of whack, Greg. Pork? How does that resolve the economic issues? Why would he sign so much waste into law? How does spending more pork on Acorn and other pet projects of lawmakers resolve our economic woes? Do you agree that Obama has displayed remarkable judgement in how he has proceeded? Do you agree that his administration has performed to its highest level of competency?

Enlighten me please. You seem to think that I'm living under a rock so please, Brian. Guide me. Educate me with some right-wing propaganda. Be my Guiding Light through the storm of the liberal left-wing media!!!

Not a problem. I don't have time to post more right now as I must get ready for work, but I will today or tomorrow...

See ya bud!!

OK. Let's see......

I am not only an open-minded Republican, but I am also partisan. Greg, I always lean right. However, I'm tolerant to opposing viewpoints. If I wasn't, I wouldn't like YOU at all! Nice try to discredit me on this issue, buddy... But people can be partial to one set of beliefs while still being tolerant of others. And I never EVER needled and egged on hard left-leaning Dems to vote for Republicans. I have occasionally discussed ideology, but have I ever stated to others "YOU MUST VOTE FOR REPUBLICANS"?? Hell no. Even YOU know that McCain was my last choice to run for the party.

Hmmm. You got me. You never said the exact words "YOU MUST VOTE FOR REPUBLICANS". No, you didn't say that verbatim. But you encouraged it. And you most certainly did give anyone you deemed as a left-leaning partisan a fair amount of [!@#$%^&*] for not considering voting for someone that your party nominated. You don't agree with that?

His APPROACH to resolving issues indicates that his priorities are out of whack, Greg. Pork? How does that resolve the economic issues? Why would he sign so much waste into law? How does spending more pork on Acorn and other pet projects of lawmakers resolve our economic woes? Do you agree that Obama has displayed remarkable judgement in how he has proceeded? Do you agree that his administration has performed to its highest level of competency?

Remarkable judgement? Probably not. Listen. I love the man. I think he's the perfect person for the problems this country faces. But Bri - you are setting higher standards for Obama than you would have for someone with an ® behind his name, wouldn't you agree? Obama has said himself that he would not be a perfect president. He has admitted he's made mistakes. If YOU expected absolutely no problems from the moment he stepped onto Pennsylvania Avenue, that's your problem. Don't project that onto others. I'm willing to give him some leeway in fixing our problems. I'm willing to accept that there will be stumbles for a new administration. There were for GWB and Clinton. Why would Obama be any different - especially faced with these monumentous problems?

And lastly, I can't remember the last administration that "performed to its highest level of competency". Can you? I don't know if there was EVER such a thing in the HISTORY of the United States.

His APPROACH to resolving issues indicates that his priorities are out of whack, Greg. Pork? How does that resolve the economic issues? Why would he sign so much waste into law? How does spending more pork on Acorn and other pet projects of lawmakers resolve our economic woes? Do you agree that Obama has displayed remarkable judgement in how he has proceeded? Do you agree that his administration has performed to its highest level of competency?

Pork is in the eye of the beholder. I think that term has been wrongly used or defined. Not everything in the stimulus and the budget is "wasteful spending" Not everyone is funding a bridge to no where. I'm curious as to where you got the information on spending for ACORN. Is that in the stimulus or the budget? Which member of Congress is calling for that? Is that like the train from Disneyland to Vegas? (not true) I often wonder about people's rationale. Many cry out for less government involvement and lower taxes. My analogy as silly asit may seem to some is this: I can't have $50 and gointo the store and buy something that cost $100. Yet we expect the government to build roads and highways and bridges and not pay anymore than we now pay, regardless of the fact that stuff costs more nowadays. Maybe I'm naive, but I just don't get it.

In terms of President Obama, I think he's doing the best job that he can. He's definitely not as left as I thought he would be. Like I said previously, I think he's got too many oars in the water, but that's based on how I deal with tasks (one at a time). But I think he's a little smarter than me (Not much though ). Time is an ally. I think the president will use time to his benefit. So far the trip to Europe is going well.

UCLAN First of all (a little off topic) but I guess you've heard the news about our show. I don't know how I'm going to act without seeing "Guiding Light" on the DVR list everyday.

But on to the topic at hand. You make some good points, UCLAN.

And to the topic of "pork", it's all relative - isn't it? I don't consider spending on health care or any other social program to be PORK. I don't consider spending on highways and infrastructure to be PORK. I consider that an effort of President Obama and his administration to help the American people. That's what it's all about. That if one of us falls, there will be someone there to pick you up and help you get back on your feet. I believe in that. As a country, we're only as strong as our weakest citizens. Once we work to lift everyone up and make everyone strong, we become stronger as a result.

Furthermore, President Obama made some very good points specifically on health care. How can a country return to economic prosperity when the cost of health care is eating up the majority of people's income? It can't. He's beginning to fix ALL aspects of the economy, and if the cost of health care isn't brought down, we will be suffering under the weight of the elephant in the room once again. I say more power to him.

UCLAN First of all (a little off topic) but I guess you've heard the news about our show. I don't know how I'm going to act without seeing "Guiding Light" on the DVR list everyday.

But on to the topic at hand. You make some good points, UCLAN.

And to the topic of "pork", it's all relative - isn't it? I don't consider spending on health care or any other social program to be PORK. I don't consider spending on highways and infrastructure to be PORK. I consider that an effort of President Obama and his administration to help the American people. That's what it's all about. That if one of us falls, there will be someone there to pick you up and help you get back on your feet. I believe in that. As a country, we're only as strong as our weakest citizens. Once we work to lift everyone up and make everyone strong, we become stronger as a result.

Furthermore, President Obama made some very good points specifically on health care. How can a country return to economic prosperity when the cost of health care is eating up the majority of people's income? It can't. He's beginning to fix ALL aspects of the economy, and if the cost of health care isn't brought down, we will be suffering under the weight of the elephant in the room once again. I say more power to him.

ITA about GL. My deep mourning period begins now. It will leave a big hole on my DVR list too. (I'm watching right now)

Ah yes, Health care is the 2 ton elephant in the room. Costs are out of control. I consider myself lucky to have affordable insurance. I know many who don't. Here in Cali especially L.A. education is really suffering. LAUSD laid off about 5000, 99 Special Ed teachers. I was always of the opinion that Special Ed was untouchable. I was wrong. Education needs a bailout. Children are our future and they need to be prepared fully to deal with it. Priorities...I think the president's priorities are right on target.

Edited April 2, 200916 yr by UCLAN

OK. Let's see......

Hmmm. You got me. You never said the exact words "YOU MUST VOTE FOR REPUBLICANS". No, you didn't say that verbatim. But you encouraged it. And you most certainly did give anyone you deemed as a left-leaning partisan a fair amount of [!@#$%^&*] for not considering voting for someone that your party nominated. You don't agree with that?

Actually, I don't agree with that. During the election, I spent more time debating issues at hand that encouraging people vote Republican. I can't recall a time I ever encouraged, say, Roman for example, to vote Republican. Why would I waste my breath?

Remarkable judgement? Probably not. Listen. I love the man. I think he's the perfect person for the problems this country faces. But Bri - you are setting higher standards for Obama than you would have for someone with an ® behind his name, wouldn't you agree?

I wouldn't agree with that, either. My standards for Bush were never met and I have often made that a big deal. The man with an ® behind his name failed. However, the man with an ® behind his name did not campaign on a platform of "CHANGE". Tax cheaters galore, worsening economic outlook, skyrocketing debt thanks to the porkulus, government takeover of the banking and auto industries, mandatory community service for all young people (the Obama Youth Corp?), failure to keep his promise on bringing troops home, turning US foreign policy into a joke, etc. In addition to doing everything BUT "CHANGE", I see some scary socialistic items on Obama's agenda. I didn't set higher standards for Obama... Obama did. And he has failed to meet them.

And lastly, I can't remember the last administration that "performed to its highest level of competency". Can you? I don't know if there was EVER such a thing in the HISTORY of the United States.

Actually, I will say that the Reagan and Clinton Administrations did quite well for themselves. I think both can be termed as successful and I personally regard them as having performed to their highest levels of competency. Prosperious times... America was secure... I don't feel so secure today. And I don't feel the greatest threat to America now is external.

Just my humble opinion.

And my condolences on the news of GL's cancellation. I honestly can say that I'm not surprised as I predicted this... Next to fall will be DAYS... then ABC will follow suit by cancelling either AMC or OLTL. At this point, I'm leaning heavily toward AMC. I believe the industry has held its collective breath for a while now... but with the ax having finally fallen on the vintage crown jewel of daytime (though tarnished the last year or two), the rest will start falling like dominoes...