|
Forums >
Off-Topic Discussion >
The Blame Game
I'm starting to realize that the term "The Blame Game" is a code phrase within the conservative movement which means "The administration screwed up, but if we can shame the other side enough it might buy us some time to set things straight and earn brownie points to use as ammunition later." It's used in a sentence like "The liberals need to stop playing the 'Blame Game' until we rescue everyone and get the city back to where it was before the hurricane". Wrong - Now is exactly the time to figure out what went wrong and correct the situation before the next emergency falls on our country. We're right in the middle of hurricane season and this has GOT to be fixed before we find ourselves in the same situation. Using this for political gain on either side is wrong, but changes have got to be made and now. The bottom line, if this had been a Kerry or Clinton presidency the right wing in this country would have started the impeachment process already. People, write down these quotes from the right (include the date, the context and the circumstances) and be sure to use it as ammunition to expose their hypocrisy when the next Democrat is elected president. Sep 07 05 11:51 am Link Our last presedent was not elected... What makes ya think the next one will... This is the start of the new electorial.. Hj Sep 07 05 11:54 am Link Stop asking for the federal gov't to control more of our lives and you'll see less and less of the blame game. Problem is, people like the blame game. It's easier to blame someone else than to realize we screwed it up. You want to change the Blame Game but really all you are doing is playing the same game by blaming conservatives. hypocrisy on the right? definately...but don't kid yourself into believing it doesn't come from the left. Sep 07 05 12:11 pm Link I was raised a Democrat and classified a Dem until I voted to keep Bush in office only for four more years. Now, I'm classified a Rep. If the next Presidential elect is a Democrat and is good, I'll vote for him (or her, but not an "it"), and I'll once again be classified a Dem. I won't have a problem bouncing from camp to camp. I stand with whoever I personally feel is right for the times, the country and whatever situation she's in. She's at war. Bush is where he needs to be at this time. It's just my opinion that he's got more resolve and conviction than Kerry. It seems Bush also has the kind of back built strong enough to handle all the knives being driven into it. That's important, because the last thing we need is a President who is going to wallow in self-pity and waver in the midst of war of this nature and scope. It's the kind of war that's gonna hit him and his cabinet from all sides. So far, they still have the spines that I like to see up there. Resolve and convictions is what we need to win this war against Terrorism on American soil and acts of aggression against American interests, properties and people overseas, or at least make it extremely difficult for potential terrorists to attack again going forward and the punishments for accomplishing such violent acts resulting in loss of life, exacting and severe. The nations that host and condone the Terrorists and their acts need to get that message loud and clear. We're giving it to them and I don't give a rats ass that we're not being polite about it either. Polite is not going to make the graves we dig for our innocent and fallen countrymen any easier, or ease the pain and suffering of their surviving loved ones go away any faster. Hopefully, whoever Bush passes the baton to, will have the same resolve and conviction. Whether it's a Dem or Rep, the next crew that takes office gotta keep up the momentum. When it comes to the blame game, what I observe from people who do that, reside in both camps at all levels. I ignore them and focus on the man talking the talk and walking the walk. Sep 07 05 12:16 pm Link DigitalCMH wrote: Please, tell me how the government going into New Orleans immediately is them taking more control over our lives? I would have welcomed them from day one in New Orleans and I guarentee every person in the affected areas would have felt the same. DigitalCMH wrote: Who screwed up in this case? DigitalCMH wrote: I prefer to think of it as the "Holding Responsible The People Who Were In Charge" game, and that's everyone who took little to no action when it was needed, conservative and liberal. PLEASE understand that my issue is not with the way the president handled this (his cabinet is as much to blame as he is), but with the way that it was handled in general. The fact that a Republican was in office when this occured is incidental. DigitalCMH wrote: You are 100% absolutely right. I'm more sensitive to the conservative voice right now because of the part of the country I live in, but it most definitely comes from both sides. Sep 07 05 12:26 pm Link September 5, 2005 latimes.com : Business Michael Hiltzik: Golden State Bush's Hurricane Response a Disaster Nearly five years ago, the Bush administration rode into office bearing its cynicism about government high, like a banner. It promoted a massive tax cut as a way of "starving the beast" of federal government. President Bush traveled the country telling us that we were overdependent on the government for help with healthcare and retirement. To those wondering what resources might see them into old age, he advised: "a conservative mix of stocks and bonds." New Orleans is, or should be, the graveyard of the conservative ideology that government is useless. An American city is reduced to Third World desperation as people who own nothing scrounge for necessities in a sea of waste and federal officials offer lame excuses about how their disaster plans would have worked fine had there not been, you know, a disaster. The president, at the head of a global power that can't get its own troops or supplies off their bases to reach the needful, whines, "The private sector needs to do its part." This deplorable performance has deep roots. Joe M. Allbaugh, a Bush campaign hack without any crisis management experience who was named director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, disparaged federal disaster assistance as "an oversized entitlement program" before Congress in 2001. The public's expectations of government in a disaster situation, he said, "may have ballooned beyond what is an appropriate level." He advised stricken communities to rely for help on "faith-based organizations ⦠like the Salvation Army and the Mennonite Disaster Service." If Allbaugh were not an amateur, he would have known that communities, "faith-based organizations" and the private sector become overwhelmed by disasters more modest than this one. In a crisis the federal government should be the first responder, not the last, to take charge, not wait to be asked. Cynicism on such a scale is self-perpetuating. Determined to portray government as little but an intrusion into people's lives, this gang made it irrelevant to hundreds of thousands of victims of Hurricane Katrina â thus giving them, and us, good reason to be cynical after all. The federal officials assigned to New Orleans have displayed an appalling combination of arrogance and ignorance. Thursday evening on NPR, I heard Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, who oversees FEMA, dismiss reports of thousands of refugees trapped at the New Orleans convention center for days without sustenance. He called the reports, in so many words, "rumors and anecdotes." Informed that an NPR reporter had been on the scene, he sniffed, "I can't argue with you about what your reporter tells you." Later, his staff called back to say that he had "received a report confirming the situation" and that he was now "working tirelessly" to get food to the location. At a news conference that day, FEMA Director Michael Brown, Allbaugh's successor and college chum, attributed the death toll in New Orleans "to people who did not heed evacuation warnings." Insensitive to the truth that many of the stranded had no way of responding to the warnings â no money, no transport out of the city and nowhere to go â he blamed them for having failed to prepare any better than, well, the federal government. He also described security in the city, where snipers were firing on rescue boats and a mob beat back police trying to impose order at the convention center, as "pretty darn good." The image of lawlessness, he said, was fomented by those willing to "stick a camera" in front of "bad people." The Bush administration is not alone in having ignored pleas to improve the hurricane and flood defenses of New Orleans. But it bears sole responsibility for a crisis response that has been fairly labeled a national disgrace. FEMA drafted an action plan for a New Orleans flood: pre-position food, supplies and hospital ships for immediate deployment in the aftermath. Brown and Chertoff failed to implement it adequately, pleading that no one could have anticipated a disaster that had in fact been anticipated by engineers, geographers and political leaders for decades. As I write, the Navy hospital ship USNS Comfort remains moored in Baltimore, not to arrive off New Orleans until the end of this week. President Bush will surely feel the consequences of his dereliction. Every policy of his administration will be viewed through the prism of the debacle of New Orleans. The pursuit of a personal vendetta against Saddam Hussein, supported by manipulated intelligence, has sucked billions out of the treasury and removed more than 30% of Louisiana and Mississippi National Guard members from their homes, so they must watch the disaster unfold from half a world away instead of assisting their own communities. Tax cuts for the wealthy have been financed by budget cuts for disaster preparedness and other crucial programs. Four years of anti-terrorism planning have failed to produce a competent system for mitigating a metropolitan cataclysm â one that, on the ground, is indistinguishable from the effects of the terrorist attack we've supposedly been girding for since 9/11. Then there's Bush's sustained assault on social insurance programs such as Social Security, safety nets that are to be replaced by the slogan "You're on your own." New Orleans is not a local calamity; it belongs to us all, not least because it signals what to expect from this administration. If a major earthquake strikes Los Angeles or San Francisco, will President Bush wait to respond until he can conclude his vacation, as he did last week? Will his appointees express surprise at an eventuality that "no one could have predicted"? Probably. George W. Bush is known for never admitting his mistakes. Consequently, he never learns from his mistakes. The chances are dismal that he will learn from this one. We're on our own. Sep 07 05 12:30 pm Link Jeffrey Haas wrote: I disagree. I don't think we've ever seen the political fallout from a natural disaster happen faster than we have with this one. Within days, everyone with a political agenda was screaming, "It's the administration's fault" and "You know why didn't help arrive sooner? Cause GW hates the poor and minorities". Sep 07 05 12:34 pm Link Jeffrey Haas wrote: Only because a LOT of people are blaming the Federal Govt...while in my opinion, the blame lies with the city and state gov'ts. It is their responsibility to mind the store. We can't except the feds to do everything. You're only inviting failure. Sep 07 05 12:40 pm Link Ed Burns Photography wrote: And I welcome the information. Listen, if it turns out that the president did everything exactly as he should have given the situation, I'll stand at the foot of the Washington Monument and shout his praises (which will probably land me in jail). Right now, however, it does not look that way, and the slow response to this catastrophe from all levels of government very well may have cost the lives of tens of thousands of Americans. Sep 07 05 12:42 pm Link DigitalCMH wrote: I'm not for more State independence and I'm all for the system of having States beg for the money back. Why? It's to keep the politicians at the State level from abusing Federal funds for personal wealth and gain. Sep 07 05 12:45 pm Link Joe K. Perez wrote: I'd rather trust the states over the federal gov't. Whatever it is you're worried that someone at the state level is doing I can promise you, someone at the federal level is doing it too but with more money and control. Sep 07 05 12:48 pm Link DigitalCMH wrote: I'm placing this squarely on the shoulders of everyone who could have acted but didn't. The mayor of New Orleans - too slow. The governor - too slow. FEMA - too slow. The president (and his cabinet) - too slow. Let me ask you a question - If the governor had not asked for any assistance, even though it would have meant even more devistation, should the president have said "Well, ok then", or should have have gone in anyway? DigitalCMH wrote: I go back and forth on this. At the very least the representatives of the state should have slipped a rider into one of the bills for the money and then actually used that money for the levee. Too much emphasis on building a nice, pretty stadium and not enough on protecting the people of the city. DigitalCMH wrote: While I agree with you to some extent, I ask you to think about this: Sep 07 05 12:49 pm Link DigitalCMH wrote: Well sure, at all levels, the same games are played, but the higher up you go, the responsibility is greater, and the temptation to play the games lesser. That's just my opinion. Just think about how you were when you first started in an industry and worked your way up. The higher up you went, the less and less you were apt to make the wrong moves because, there's a lot at stake and a lot to lose as a consequence. Sep 07 05 01:09 pm Link Jeffrey Haas wrote: Depends...the President is doing a lot of OTHER important things. As President (assuming it was me) I'd expect OTHERS to tell me what they needed when it comes to domestic stuff. Now, if while watching the news I see this hurricane, as a curious person, I'd ask, "Hey, is this gonna be a problem?" I'm going to expect advisors to give me an opinion. I'd then approach the LA gov and ask what they are doing. If he says nothing of they have under control, I have two choices. Leave the power with him. Or I can decide that I have no confidence in his leadership and go around him. My next step would probably be to approach the two senators of LA and then perhaps the members of the house for that state. Find out what their stance is. If they all tell me to bug off then I probably will. But if they say something needs to be done, then yeah, I'd step in. While I agree with you to some extent, I ask you to think about this: This is true. Sep 07 05 01:11 pm Link DigitalCMH wrote: This is absolutely NO excuse. If you can tell me what he could be doing that's more important than saving an entire US city that's being destroyed and helping to save and comfort its citizens, MANY of whom are dying, I'd buy it. I defy you to tell me what, during the past week, required his attention more than Hurrican Katrina and its aftermath. DigitalCMH wrote: It is for this very reason that I hold his cabinet and the heads of the relief and emergency agencies responsible as well. DigitalCMH wrote: President Bush declared a state of emergency before it ever hit Louisiana. It's potential impact was know without question. DigitalCMH wrote: I disagree. The second that hurricane reached category 5 and it was guarenteed that it was going to hit the US, I'd have sent troops and aid to that area IMMEDIATELY. You scenario is exactly why it took 5 days to get anything started, and the results have been completely and utterly unacceptable. Once the storm gets to a certain intensity it becomes too much for ANY state to handle. This storm had reached that point well before it hit the coasts of Louisiana and Mississippi, and not having state and federal troops at the ready cost thousands of people their lives. Sep 07 05 01:24 pm Link Hugh Jorgen wrote: So true! I really doubt "Democrats" will gain anything politically due to this event. But hopefully we can exercise our First Amendment Rights! Thank you for this thread because I agree that guilt-tripping us into donating and shutting up and taking no part in the decision making that led to such unprepared action is just a red herring! Sep 07 05 01:49 pm Link Joe K. Perez wrote: Why should Bush wallow in self-pity when he's surrounded by people willing to die for him, and he has a cozy retirement sum waiting for him when he leaves the white house? qphotonyc wrote: LMAO! Count on Bush to tell us all to invest in stocks and bonds! That'll help the economy! He'll just keep on pumping on the bubble market till it pops like a pinata and then he'll pick up the pieces. Sep 07 05 01:53 pm Link The 'blame game' is not a game. It's part of the democratic process. It's a critical component of the government's accountability to us; the people, the taxpayers, the voters. Calling it a game degrades it. It's time somebody takes responsibility with what's going wrong, whether it's at the top of a failing corporation, city, state or nation. Sep 07 05 01:58 pm Link JvR wrote: Although I was really just refering to the conservative use of it at the moment, I agree with you 100%. Sep 07 05 02:07 pm Link Jeffrey Haas wrote: Sure. But just as you rightly say that if Kerry were president, the Republicans would have called for accountability. so too would the Democrats have accused them of playing the 'blame game.' Sep 07 05 02:14 pm Link JvR wrote: I think a distinction needs to be made between the actions and motives of the politicians versus those of the American public, and I hope (and pray, to be honest) that criticisms, for the most part, on this and all other threads from both sides are directed at the politicians and not the people. I like these threads because it gives us all a chance to voice our opinions and discuss the issues. Hate the politicians all you want for their views, but at least try to understand where I'm coming from. Sep 07 05 02:20 pm Link Google Tab: Bill Clinton Your link to every commander in chief from Washington to Bush Vote for Google for president he knows everything! (:------ Hj Sep 07 05 02:24 pm Link You actually think Bush used this company to win the election? Google Tab: Campaign Websites Experienced at helping you win your Election. $495 includes hosting. Im interested!! Waves hello Hj Sep 07 05 02:28 pm Link Google Tab: Automated Voter Contact Contact thousands of voters by phone instantly. Try it now free. Wait till some of the models read this!! Vote for me!!! Hj Sep 07 05 02:30 pm Link "Viagra" I just want to throw random words in "Addiction" to try and "Constipation" throw off the google ads... Sep 07 05 02:31 pm Link Jeffrey Haas wrote: Very good!! Sep 07 05 02:37 pm Link Something to chew on: http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110007219 Sep 07 05 03:04 pm Link Jeffrey Haas wrote: I think we agree and I'm sorry if I made it sound as if we don't Sep 07 05 03:17 pm Link DigitalCMH wrote: I don't have to read that article to know that, yes, the mayor and the governor screwed up as well. I have been saying for the last week that authorities on all levels screwed up, but for some reason people don't want to admit that the man in the White House is one of those to hold accountable. Sep 07 05 03:21 pm Link JvR wrote: Perhaps you should: Mayor Nagin was responsible for giving the order for mandatory evacuation and supervising the actual evacuation: His Office of Emergency Preparedness (not the federal government) must coordinate with the state on elements of evacuation and assist in directing the transportation of evacuees to staging areas. Mayor Nagin had to be encouraged by the governor to contact the National Hurricane Center before he finally, belatedly, issued the order for mandatory evacuation. And sadly, it apparently took a personal call from the president to urge the governor to order the mandatory evacuation. and... The federal government does not have the authority to intervene in a state emergency without the request of a governor. President Bush declared an emergency prior to Katrina hitting New Orleans, so the only action needed for federal assistance was for Gov. Blanco to request the specific type of assistance she needed. She failed to send a timely request for specific aid. Sep 07 05 03:26 pm Link I know the mayor and believe he did all in his power but given the destruction of the city his power became zero, how can a police force operate when out gunned and a fire department when there is no water pressure and an administration when there is water everywhere and no means of ciommunication.?Quite simply our federal government failed to act in a timely manner no excuses that is fact. If you wish to hear accurate broadcasting from NOLA try WWL @870am, they often replay the Mayor he is definately not a weak vassilator. Now there may be soime credence to the argument that the Govenor and the Feds had authority issiues . On the question of party lines??? well the Govenor is dem and the Mayor is rep, kind of blows any right wing conspiracy theory huh?? Sep 07 05 03:32 pm Link JvR wrote: Oh, you didn't. That was really a blanket statement for everyone. I was listening to Sean Hannity last night, and I was honestly offended by the things he was saying until I told myself that he wasn't down on the people, just the politicians. True or false it made me feel better... Sep 07 05 03:45 pm Link DigitalCMH wrote: JvR wrote: Perhaps you should: Mayor Nagin was responsible for giving the order for mandatory evacuation and supervising the actual evacuation: His Office of Emergency Preparedness (not the federal government) must coordinate with the state on elements of evacuation and assist in directing the transportation of evacuees to staging areas. Mayor Nagin had to be encouraged by the governor to contact the National Hurricane Center before he finally, belatedly, issued the order for mandatory evacuation. And sadly, it apparently took a personal call from the president to urge the governor to order the mandatory evacuation. and... I have seen many different statements as to what FEMA needs to get going and other statements about FEMA acting against the wishes of the state government. I discount them all and wait for an independent review of what the law actually says. Sep 07 05 03:51 pm Link DigitalCMH wrote: ABSOLUTELY INCORRECT, and I think it's time that everyone who uses this as justification for inaction understood this. Sep 07 05 03:52 pm Link I belive first we are still too early to know all the real facts. Not the 'facts' told to us by the media who has a profit motive. The more they can mix things up, the more they get ad fees. By law the feds have to wait for the States to ask for help. The State of Louisiana missed the ball. The Mayor of NO missed the ball. The NO Cops who threw their own badges away and went on a looting spree dropped the ball. There is plenty of mistakes to go around (we all are human), and because we are a society who needs a scape goat for everything all that laundry will come out eventually. BTW, what will be the cost of all the investigations? I think we should solve the problems first, then do a 'hard core' lessons learned. M Sep 07 05 03:55 pm Link markEdwardPhoto wrote: I agree with you that it's too early to know exactly what happened, but I'm SO tired of the demonization of the media. Granted they're looking for the more sensational stories (that's what sells), but when you're watching tens of thousands of people trapped in the Superdome, or house after house after house with people living on the roofs, or a woman holding her barely breathing child, that's not media exageration. Attack them all you want, but they've really done a great job of covering this disaster. Yes, even Fox News. If for absolutely NO other reason, the press has kept this fresh in peoples minds, causing a desire by countless people to try and help in whatever way necessary. I personally hope they hold onto this for a while and don't allow people to forget that there's still people there who need help. The press has shown the good, the press has shown the bad. Isn't that fair and balanced? markEdwardPhoto wrote: True, but the presidents power superceedes that. He had the ability to go in earlier had he wanted to. markEdwardPhoto wrote: Let's just pray that nothing else happens until we start looking into this in the next year or two. Putting off until tomorrow is what got us into this mess in the first place. Why not look into it now? You're telling me that every single person in Washington is tied up with this at the moment? markEdwardPhoto wrote: An estimated 10,000 - 40,000 people have died in Louisiana and Mississippi, and you're worried about how much it will cost to correct the problems in the system through investigation?!? Sep 07 05 04:11 pm Link Just someone, please, explain to me why the Governor, when presented with her options in a meeting with the president said she needed 24 hours to think. Or, why, today she announced that the mayor's mandatory evacuation of N.O. was not his decision and not up to him, but up to her. If she was so interested in Federal help, why is she trying to make it seem like it's her decision and then, she doesn't make any decisions. Sep 07 05 04:19 pm Link DreamPretty? wrote: A good question. Another good question would be, how would Kerry have reacted to the strong public criticism if he were President right now. What would he do differently and what would the impact to the Nation be? We'll never know. We can only guess. Sep 07 05 04:27 pm Link Jeffrey Haas wrote: Oh, I agree, he should have absolutely looked her in the face and said, you are incompetant to make decisions, get out of the way! But, you know as well as I do that you and all the liberals would then be saying "he just took over like a Texas Cowboy wannabe , ignored state's rights, and did what he wanted" Sep 07 05 04:27 pm Link David Moyle wrote: I think they call it, "The Shuck-N-Jive". Except, in a more sophisticated form. Sep 07 05 04:30 pm Link |
