The 2008 presidential field at-a-glance

[SWTXBelle]

This is something which bothers me about Katrina. It wasn't the hurricane as much as it was THE FAILURE OF THE LEVEES which resulted in so much destruction and loss of life.

Also, let's not forget that men and equipment which would normally have been availble through the National Guard were not - they were in Iraq.

And the destruction of the natural wetlands "buffer" through ill-advised policies.

I amazed at this point that anyone thinks Bush should be off the hook regarding Katrina. Not that ANYBODY - mayor, governor, etc. - should be . . . I'm still mad about Katriana, in case you couldn't tell. AND I'm a former chairman of my campus College Republicans/election judge for GOP - hardly someone you'd expect to be a Bush hater.

Now back to your regularly scheduled thread.

[bluefish81]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

Are you saying that had the tax cut not been passed we'd be all set with social security and health care?

Who was responsible for passing the tax cut into law? Who would have been responsible for making sure that the money in the federal coffers, had the tax cut not gone into effect, went to shoring up Social Security or God forbid, Federal health care benefits? What evidence can you point to of a willingness on the part of Congress to any of the things necessary to yield the results that Skylark wanted to see?

Certainly, a reasonable person can conclude that Bush provided bad leadership, but so much more than that went into it.

No, I was not saying that if the tax cut had not been passed, we'd be all set for Social Security, and I don't interpret that from Skylark's post either. Perhaps we just read that statement differently, which is fine.

Both political parties have robbed Social Security over the years to pay for lot of different things, hopefully no one denies that. I think I've heard they're estimating that Social Security will be completely depleted by what 2040?

Who was responsible for passing the tax cut bill the Bush introduced? Well, who was controlling congress back in 2004? The tax cut bill that was passed then to benefit the oil companies is being offset by tax increases for other people. Someone has to make up the $77 billion.

As for your last question about the willingness of Congress, I think Congress may very well have been willing to do some of these things, but Bush likes to veto a LOT.

[bluefish81]

Got back from caucusing about an hour ago. The turnout at my caucus was huge - around 1,000 people! Plus, I got to meet the mayor of Omaha, because he was standing in line to register to caucus behind me so that was cool. There were so many people there they had to split us up because of fire code. So they divided us into a group in the gym and a group in the hallway. There were about 450 of us in the hallway - Obama won by about 100. I don't know how the gym vote turned out, they were still counting that when I left.

[skylark]

Okay, so a lot has happened on this thread since I left GC last night.. and I think most of the other posters have done a good job with the criticisms thrown at my post (which I certainly didn't intend to be so controversial).

A couple explanatory things about my post:

Of course its an overstatement. I was (albeit highly unsuccessfully) trying to be dramatic in a funny way, I guess. However, there is truth in every accusation in the post, including the ones you find nutty.

And of course there are other people to blame besides Bush. I honestly don't see why placing blame on one person alleviates blame on another, but if you read that into my post then I'm sorry. That was not my intent. I don't think anyone on here (besides maybe SECDomination) is naive enough to think that one person or one party is the sole source of our problems.

On to some specific issues you raised...

1. Yes, skylark is a she.

2. Governmental branches: I work for one of the branches of government and so yeah, I'm pretty sure I understand their separate functions, but I also understand their influence over each other and the way things (like $ or religion) that corrupt one branch have a tendency to corrupt the others. Also, we may all believe that there SHOULD be limits to executive power, but how much do you want to bet that Bush (and Cheney behind him) doesn't give a rats behind about it? It has pretty much been a blatant goal of Bush/Cheney since they took office to expand the power of the executive. For instance, one of the few checks on the executive is the requirement that treaties be approved by the Senate. So what has Bush done now that he wants to create a treaty with Iraq? He simply gives it a new name without "treaty" in it so he doesn't have to ask for approval. This is just an example, but you get the picture. Bush doesn't care about what boundaries the executive branch SHOULD have.

3. Hurricaine Katrina (this seems to be the one you have the biggest problem with): (A) I've heard several analyses by climate experts that show that there may be a link between increased intensity and frequency in hurricaines and global warming. Bush didn't cause global warming, of course, but how many opportunities has he passed up while in office to try to fix it (Kyoto was the first, I think). Hell, until a year or so ago he wouldn't even acknowledge it. (B) HE is primarily responsible for the slow disaster response because HE appointed the poorly qualified crony that was in charge of FEMA and neglected to monitor the situation enough to sweep in and fix the problem once things started going haywire. Go back to my original post and you'll see my main criticism focuses on the emergency services. These are well within the President's responsibility and power in the executive branch because executive power includes direct authority over all the federal government's agencies.

4. As to health care: did you pay attention at all when Bush shot down a bill because it included national health care for lower-income children which he decided looked too much like socialism?

5. I think the tax cuts have been mostly addressed, but I think it helps to remember that with our national debt, every cut is a loan we take out from our children and grandchildren. And the tax cuts themselves are illusory in some respects because it doesn't even take into account all of the income that the economic elite make on selling stocks. Did you know that Bush cut the taxes on stock-sale income to 15%?! That's a lower rate than I'm sure most of us are getting taxed on our own income. So if you don't think that tax cuts are highly geared toward corporate CEOs and other economically fortunate individuals, I don't know what else to tell you. And I specifically mentioned energy CEOs because energy-related businesses (especially the ones Cheney has ties to) are mysteriously the target of a large percentage of the corporate bail-outs and tax cuts we dole out every year.

Oh yeah, and we should all thank Bush for trying to "fix" social security by privatizing it with all of the "political capital" he had after his reelection. Just like with immigration, if he wasn't so hard-headed and closed to compromising with dems on national policy issues, maybe we'd have at least some limited improvement instead of dealing with the status quo.

Okay.. can we talk about the election again? I'm actually pretty optimistic that a new president could motivate the rest of the country into some meaningful change!

[UGAalum94]

At this point, I'm kind of over it as I'm sure many of you are as well. Everyone who has posted is in agreement that Bush wasn't a particularly good President; we just vary in the degree for which we'd blame him on different issues.

I think it's really important not to let congress off the hook. I'll offer the reminder that Kyoto was signed in a largely symbolic gesture after the Senate refused (in advance) to ratify it during the during the Clinton Presidency. It was never even submitted by the Clinton Administration for ratification. We can say the Clinton Administration had a better attitude about global warming, but we can't really say they got much done, and in this case it was the Senate with the block.

Yes, I did pay attention when the expansion of the children's heath care program was shot down. And to tell you the truth, I support it being shot down. I'm all about health care for children but I think federal programs are the least effective way to guarantee that it's delivered well. Every nice thing that we think we need isn't best addressed by a federal program, IMO, so as heartless as it might seem, in this particular instance, I think Bush acted correctly. If states need to raise taxes to offer expanded children's health services, then they need to bite the bullet and do it themselves. Perhaps they could tax the CEOs.

Although I'm not particularly pro-CEO taxcut, I again tend to think that congress bears a lot of responsibility for the issues of taxing and spending.

If you all want, we can review this issues four years from now and see if we all feel the same way when there's been someone we generally like more than Bush in office for four years. Let's mark our calendars for 2012.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by bluefish81

Who was responsible for passing the tax cut bill the Bush introduced? Well, who was controlling congress back in 2004? The tax cut bill that was passed then to benefit the oil companies is being offset by tax increases for other people. Someone has to make up the $77 billion.

As for your last question about the willingness of Congress, I think Congress may very well have been willing to do some of these things, but Bush likes to veto a LOT.

Well, if they were really interested in good government, they could muster up the override.

But I'm totally with you that the last Republican Congress was craptacular and not up to the task.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by bluefish81

Got back from caucusing about an hour ago. The turnout at my caucus was huge - around 1,000 people! Plus, I got to meet the mayor of Omaha, because he was standing in line to register to caucus behind me so that was cool. There were so many people there they had to split us up because of fire code. So they divided us into a group in the gym and a group in the hallway. There were about 450 of us in the hallway - Obama won by about 100. I don't know how the gym vote turned out, they were still counting that when I left.

So your caucus is more like the Republican one in Iowa in which you vote rather than build the consensus?

This may have been covered before, and I apologize, but what actually separates a caucus from a primary when it's a one person with one vote kind of thing? And then, if anyone is feeling up to it, what makes a state convention to decide delegates different from a caucus?

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

This is something which bothers me about Katrina. It wasn't the hurricane as much as it was THE FAILURE OF THE LEVEES which resulted in so much destruction and loss of life.

Also, let's not forget that men and equipment which would normally have been availble through the National Guard were not - they were in Iraq.

And the destruction of the natural wetlands "buffer" through ill-advised policies.

I amazed at this point that anyone thinks Bush should be off the hook regarding Katrina. Not that ANYBODY - mayor, governor, etc. - should be . . . I'm still mad about Katriana, in case you couldn't tell. AND I'm a former chairman of my campus College Republicans/election judge for GOP - hardly someone you'd expect to be a Bush hater.

Now back to your regularly scheduled thread.

It's not on the regularly schedule thread, but New Orleans is interesting to think about.

There's plenty of blame to throw around, and your mentioning the levees is a really good example. Look at their history and how long a better system could have been implemented. I don't think I'm trying to get Bush off the hook completely, but his role is limited compared to the dysfunction and mismanagement by the elected representatives of the people of Louisianan and New Orleans over the years, for instance, and yet, we don't hear as much about that or at least I don't. Maybe it's a reflection of where one is in the country.

I think people look at the scale of the destruction and want to assign blame because it makes them think that we can control and master elements of nature in the future. We really can't and it's a lesson we've learned over and over again, usually in individual cases but here collectively.

To tell you the truth, New Orleans, as a city essentially constructed at or below sea level next to Lake Pontchartrain, the Mississippi River, and the Gulf of Mexico, had a pretty good run before disaster struck, really, and there's probably a certain amount of hubris involved with assuming we could keep it from flooding forever.

Apparently if you live on the Mississippi Gulf coast, you just kind of have to accept that a major storm may come along every thirty or so years and destroy almost everything. And weirdly, other than complaints about the slow pace of rebuilding infrastructure like sewers, you don't hear anyone blaming the government for the destruction by the storm itself. I wonder what the difference is? (Generally, I think people favorable compare the response of the government to Katrina with the response to Camille. )

[bluefish81]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

So your caucus is more like the Republican one in Iowa in which you vote rather than build the consensus?

This may have been covered before, and I apologize, but what actually separates a caucus from a primary when it's a one person with one vote kind of thing? And then, if anyone is feeling up to it, what makes a state convention to decide delegates different from a caucus?

Not really, but it was a bit of a mess. Ideally it would have been run, very similar to the Iowa Democratic caucus, and it kind of was at my location - they just split us up because the fire marshall came to our location. I'm guessing because we were lucky enough to have not only the mayor but a State Senator in our caucus. From what I've read on the Omaha World-Herald's website, some of the other sites were done more like straw polls.

I admire the Nebraska Democratic party for saying, "Hey let's try this caucusing thing." Unfortunately, there were a few problems, the sites were WAY too small. And there weren't enough of them. Granted Nebraska is a very Republican heavy state, but to only have 15 caucus sites for all of Douglas County which is the largest county in the state is crazy. The county to the south of me, which picks up some southern suburbs and is the third largest county and they only had one caucus site for the whole county!

RE: your question on what seperates a caucus from a primary. I know that it was explained somewhere earlier (back when IA was doing it). Each state may have slight modifications though. I'll edit my link unless someone has already responded. I can say that states with caucuses still have state conventions. One of my co-workers is a state delegate for Huckabee in Iowa.

[AGDee]

Ok. I spent a long time reading Obama's site yesterday, every issue and his plan for everything. While I love where he hopes to go on most issues (we differ with a few things), I am concerned about how he plans to pay for all of it, because a lot of it would cost a whole lot of money. If he can really do it without harming the economy, then yay!

[SWTXBelle]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

It's not on the regularly schedule thread, but New Orleans is interesting to think about.

I think people look at the scale of the destruction and want to assign blame because it makes them think that we can control and master elements of nature in the future. We really can't and it's a lesson we've learned over and over again, usually in individual cases but here collectively.

(Generally, I think people favorable compare the response of the government to Katrina with the response to Camille. )

The Dutch have mastered the whole "land below sea level" thing. It can be done, and is no more unthinkable then sending a man to the moon. It does require modern infrastructure. The Army Corps of Engineers seems to screw up everything they touch - but others have been successful with levees.

I don't know that the Katrina/Camille comparison is valid, simply because of the difference in population and development. I'm from Texas/LA Gulf coast families on my father's side, Florida Atlantic coast on my mom's - we've been through our share of hurricanes. Carla hit my grandparents (they were two blocks from the Gulf) and my father still tells stories about Beulah. So to me, it's personal. One advantage of having a family history of dealing with hurricanes - we get the hell out of the way. After trying to sit through Carla, my grandparents learned. LEAVE.

And I'm still voting for Ron Paul.

[AGDee]

Huckabee was just on Meet the Press and was telling about how he would squirrel hunt in college and then cook the squirrel in a popcorn popper. As an Alpha Gam, I could never ever support this man for any political office. That was a total deal breaker.

YOU DO NOT EAT SKIOUROS

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by AGDee

Huckabee was just on Meet the Press and was telling about how he would squirrel hunt in college and then cook the squirrel in a popcorn popper. As an Alpha Gam, I could never ever support this man for any political office. That was a total deal breaker.

YOU DO NOT EAT SKIOUROS

Oh, the squirrelmanity!

It is pretty horrible to think about on so many different levels.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

The Dutch have mastered the whole "land below sea level" thing. It can be done, and is no more unthinkable then sending a man to the moon. It does require modern infrastructure. The Army Corps of Engineers seems to screw up everything they touch - but others have been successful with levees.

I don't know that the Katrina/Camille comparison is valid, simply because of the difference in population and development. I'm from Texas/LA Gulf coast families on my father's side, Florida Atlantic coast on my mom's - we've been through our share of hurricanes. Carla hit my grandparents (they were two blocks from the Gulf) and my father still tells stories about Beulah. So to me, it's personal. One advantage of having a family history of dealing with hurricanes - we get the hell out of the way. After trying to sit through Carla, my grandparents learned. LEAVE.

And I'm still voting for Ron Paul.

I think the damage to the Mississippi gulf coast during Katrina was worse because of the larger storm surge, but the loss of life and the damage from wind may have been greater with Camille, again only in MS, I mean.

If you look at Mississippi only, I think it's an imperfect but decent comparison generally although I concede Katrina was worse; they both essentially cleared the coast from Bay St. Louis to Biloxi. I can see what you mean though that recovery with Camille might have been easier to handle because it affected a smaller segment of the overall population. Interestingly, I think for some folks in Mississippi, having survived Camille made them think they could bunker down through anything. Most of my relatives, especially the older ones and the ones with children evacuated, but a few others had to stay. Looking at some of the info. online about Mississippi and Katrina presents an interesting contrast in local and state level government response, which may taint my view of how important the federal response should have been.

As far as the Dutch, they don't get hit by hurricanes typically, and that changes the picture a lot. I think it's entirely different to compare a city on a coast with a relatively consistent (or at least somewhat predictable) water flow system to something on the coast of the Gulf of Mexico, essentially surrounded by large bodies of water, which can expect storms of varying strength in the area almost annually.

I mean, Venice is hanging in there too, but I don't think much would be left if it got hit by even a Cat. 2 storm.

And think about the expense and losses involved with the space program. We did get a man on the moon, but it wasn't without cost and I'm not sure that we can really say we've triumphed.

I think human beings can do almost anything in a certain number of cases or for a certain length of time, but there's something foolish about forgetting the truly awesome, brutal and often seemingly cruel power of nature. When the off-season snow storm hits when you're climbing Mt. Everest (after more than 1,000 people have successfully summited), or the Perfect Storm comes along when you're out working as you always do, to cite a few common cultural examples, human error is only a small part of what contributes to the loss of life.

[nittanyalum]

Originally Posted by AGDee

Huckabee was just on Meet the Press and was telling about how he would squirrel hunt in college and then cook the squirrel in a popcorn popper.

What, his college didn't provide a meal plan? Why in god's name was he out hunting his own dinner like Elmer Fudd? His poor roommates. Geez, I thought the guy was a freak before. Sick sick sick.