Subj : Re: Yet another poll
To   : alt.tv.farscape
From : TNW7Z7Z7Z12345
Date : Fri Sep 09 2005 13:43:48

From Newsgroup: alt.tv.farscape

Ken McElhaney wrote:

> Isn't it amazing! Unprecidented negative coverage of Bush, lowest
> approval ratings yet and he STILL BEATS KERRY!
> 
> Doesn't say much for most people's view of Kerry. :)

Between the Swift-boat lies and Flip-flop hypocrisy, I would say that
Kerry received unprecedented negative coverage from August until the
election.  He's been my senator for a very long time, and I know he's
nothing like the charicature the country was left with after his
character was decimated. He's an intelligent, competent guy who
unfortunately speaks in a wordy, round-about way that seriously hurts
his cause.

Of course Dubya can barely speak, but with Karl Rove doing the
scripting, that doesn't matter.  Notice how bad his response to the
hurricane was until Rove got back from vacation. Too bad for the country
that Kerry didn't shut up and let someone else script his remarks.

 
> Ken - who actually thinks Bush should take some blame, just not as much
> as the Mayor of New Orleans & the gov, who were the ones that really
> screwed up.


The governor declared a state of emergency a day before Bush did (before
the hurricane hit) and asked Bush for help directly.  Under Clinton,
this would've triggered immediate meetings between the federal disaster
*specialists* and local and state officials to anticipate many of the
problems and have a coordinated response ready (who was in charge of
what, communication systems, etc.). 

If there is a fair investigation, the issue will be why FEMA was
decimated and failed to act in the way it had under Clinton (or even in
the pre-election Florida hurricanes). This time, regardless of the
initial screw ups by local and state officials, once FEMA acted, it was
so shockingly incompetent, there is no way the Republicans won't get
blamed for that.

http://makeashorterlink.com/?Y156124CB

or if that doesn't work --

<http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2005/09/07/fema/index.html?sid=1386403>

Please don't dismiss the article just because it's in Salon. It has a
lot of background info. Read it carefully, and if you disagree, go after
his specific argument.

And the other issue will be why the federal gov. didn't shore up the
levees to start with, which inspite of the considerable expense,
would've been a whole lot cheaper than what we're going to pay now. For
that, some blame will fall on Clinton, although I believe most of the
alarms were published since 2000, and if Bush is the "grown-up" opposite
of Clinton, why didn't he act?
 
- TNW

[To e-mail me, remove 12345 from my address.]

.