Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well, if you mean do I think Kerry would have attended a fund raiser in Arkansas and played guitar while people were screaming into their cameras for help? Then yes, I do believe he would have, in a very Clinton way, returned from whatever vacation he was on at the time and been on the ground to make sure that people were taken care of.
I also don't think he would have had to have a DVD made for him with different snippets from news casts in order to "catch up" on the horrors that were occurring that each of us were watching in real time on a daily basis.
This guy is so completely out of touch that I am surprised anyone can defend him on this.
As to your point - yes - as a native Floridian I know a little bit about hurricanes and response times. The state and locals do have their parts to play, but there have been MANY horrific hurricanes in our history and the government has NEVER allowed something this horrible to happen.
Have you ever heard of delegating? I'm not a huge Bush fan by any means, but I don't think for a minute that any administration would have don't better or worse. The Presidents job is to delegate and not micro-manage.
Besides, the city has to request state assistances, Nagan didn't right away and 100's and 100's of buses sat flooded, the Governor has to request federal aid, Blanco waited and waited before she did, only in total breakdown of the state and local government can the feds move in and start calling the shots without those request, and by the time Blanco requested aid it was already a total fiasco. I have a bunch on friends in N.O. and the area and they all blamed the locals and not the Fed, who would know better? People there or those watching from the comfort of home?
Have you ever heard of delegating? I'm not a huge Bush fan by any means, but I don't think for a minute that any administration would have don't better or worse. The Presidents job is to delegate and not micro-manage.
Besides, the city has to request state assistances, Nagan didn't right away and 100's and 100's of buses sat flooded, the Governor has to request federal aid, Blanco waited and waited before she did, only in total breakdown of the state and local government can the feds move in and start calling the shots without those request, and by the time Blanco requested aid it was already a total fiasco. I have a bunch on friends in N.O. and the area and they all blamed the locals and not the Fed, who would know better? People there or those watching from the comfort of home?
As they say, you can delegate authority but not responsibility. The Buck has to stop at Bush's desk. Yes the local and state governments were pitiful. But especially when Bush was making so much of how he had prepared us for a terrorist attack response with our brand new Homeland Security Organization - the Federal response was unacceptable. Guys with trucks of aid not going to help because they could not find someone to give them the approval. That guy in charge with no experience - remember him? Another example of Bush sticking a bureacratic political ally in a position of authority instead of a person with real field experience. That was a true embarassment to our nation.
As they say, you can delegate authority but not responsibility. The Buck has to stop at Bush's desk.
One HUGE difference between Clinton and Bush: I think Bush saw a lot of appointments as being political appointments versus trying to find the best person (with experience) to do the job. This is how we got Brown and Wolfowitz and bunches of unqualified people in certain positions. Clinton was much more concerned with putting qualified experienced people in jobs.
Regarding Gore (which someone brought up in an earlier post). It would have been interesting to see what Gore would have done in 8 years. I think he would have been a better choice than Kerry or Bush. Gore wasn't terribly exciting but I will give him credit for putting a lot of thought into make decisions and being proactive. I think he would have avoided some of the mistakes the Bush administration has made.
Same here. Am I happy with Bush's performance? Nope.
Kerry really blew it with me when he used the term "passing a global litmus test" (whatever the hell that is) with regards to foreign affairs
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
