I'm confused.

[Justin Davis]

Bush said he takes responsibility for what happened with the poor response to Hurricane Katrina. No matter how poorly he may have worded everything that surrounded it, he did actually say, "I take responsibility."

Therefore, I need someone to explain how the people who were saying he had no fault when it came to Katrina are still saying this. How is it that there are still people saying President Bush isn't to blame when he himself says he takes responsibility for the poor reaction time and effort given to those affected by Hurricane Katrina? How can someone still defend the president when he's taken a moment to stop defending himself? If this was a democratic president, wouldn't these same people be cheering, "It's about time" or "He's just going to lower morale" or even "What a wimp" if the took responsibily for any poor efforts given to this crisis? How is it that some can be so partisan and blind that they can't see when one of their own leaders admits responsibility for something they still are unable to pin any blame to?

This isn't purely about Bush defenders still sticking up for Bush after he's made the admittance that he, or at least the federal government he runs, should take responsibily for the poor effort given to relief of Katrina's victims. When it's all boiled down, what I want to know is how do people justify themselves and their reactions or lack of reactions? How do they keep from feeling foolish when they still play the same sad song that is no longer sung by the person who made it popular to begin with?

[macul]

Other than the usual media nutriders, who is saying Bush has no fault in regards to Katrina?

[SUPERECWFAN1]

I think he was responsible for the slow Federal response. But not responsible for the entire Katrina disastor. I doubt even with warnings that Bush and his Adminstration considered the odds a catoagory 5 Hurricane would wipe out New Orleans . You just never really think it even if people say: " The big Earthquakes gonna destroy LA ! " " The big Hurricane's gonna total Florida and New Orleans ! "

And heres the thing. Almost every news agency has said that even if Bush hadn't taken much of the funding for the new levies , they would have still fallen. That was what a special Army Contractor said . That the levies would have fallen even with the funds Bush had taken.


I blame Bush for his slow response. I don't blame him for the act of Nature. Because who knows what will happen . If the big one hits California do we blame Bush ? You can blame Bush for his actions in Iraq and all. But here...its a sad disastor that even he had no control over.

[Justin Davis]

Other than the usual media nutriders, who is saying Bush has no fault in regards to Katrina?

In your eyes, who are those usual media nutriders? I'm not just talking about some of the pundits and talking heads that support him, but some non-media people too.

[macul]

In your eyes, who are those usual media nutriders? I'm not just talking about some of the pundits and talking heads that support him, but some non-media people too.

The Limbaughs and Hannitys of the world.

[Justin Davis]

The Limbaughs and Hannitys of the world.

Those people and the sadly large amount that listen to them with baited breath are the ones I'm referring to when it comes to this particular action of Bush's.

I'm just curious why it is that people stick by others when they are no longer the person they originally or were thought to be. Is it some clingy desperate hope of someone else providing salvation or part of dictionary definition conservatism i.e. the fight against any change?

[macul]

Those people and the sadly large amount that listen to them with baited breath are the ones I'm referring to when it comes to this particular action of Bush's.

I'm just curious why it is that people stick by others when they are no longer the person they originally or were thought to be. Is it some clingy desperate hope of someone else providing salvation or part of dictionary definition conservatism i.e. the fight against any change?

I guess that could be the case if you assume that only conservatives do that. Then you have to figure out an answer as to why liberals do the exact same thing. Some people are blind no matter their political outlook.

[Justin Davis]

I guess that could be the case if you assume that only conservatives do that. Then you have to figure out an answer as to why liberals do the exact same thing. Some people are blind no matter their political outlook.

I'm not saying only conservatives do that though. Reread the last paragraph in my first and last post.

[Solaris]

I guess that could be the case if you assume that only conservatives do that. Then you have to figure out an answer as to why liberals do the exact same thing. Some people are blind no matter their political outlook.


To add to that... some people want so badly for their hero, their idol, to be right, always, that they simply will not accept that he can be wrong... even when he himself says he was (in this case, Bush simply said "the federal govt.," not "I"... but it's still some form of admittance).

Why do some people still love Michael Jackson, buy his stuff, flock to his home, his concerts, his court hearings in a show of support? Because, even though it's highly likely that he's a pedophile, and it's definite that he's a crackpot... some people just won't let go, no matter what. In a way, it's a form of idolatry---people build up an idol of someone in their head, and letting go of it to see and accept reality is just too painful for them. They want whatever it is they think they'll get from the idol, too badly.

In the case of Michael Jackson fans, I have no clue what that is; but in the case of die-hard Bush fans, it's probably about wanting the dream he was selling SO BADLY that they just can't face the reality that he's human, rather than having some divine mandate from God.

I don't recall seeing it to this degree in Clinton supporters, for instance---most of the ones I heard were willing to admit the man's foibles, which were many. I really think that in the case of Bush, it's a by-product of his campaign tying itself so closely to religious values... because religion is about faith. These people put their faith in Bush as well as God, feeling that both are completely on the same side. In a way, that not only made Bush God's poster boy, it also made him something larger than life... rather like a saint to these people. They wanted so badly to believe in the "honest, God-fearing politician" that they can't let the idea go... because letting go of it, to them, also means that their dreams of a Christian Reform in Government were founded on sand.

For others, it's not about God or religion, it's about the political ride and their own jobs. Limbaugh is a great example of that. These folks don't want to admit anything that will tarnish the shining Conservative Image in the public eye, because to do so will weaken their position---at least, by their way of thinking.

When Image becomes more important than Substance... you start to see some real crazyiness.

[west3man]

I feel similarly, Justin.

Still, I know that there are times when people take responsibility for ONLY because it's the shortest route to closure and looking ahead... not so much because of wrong-doing on their part.


Anyway, that's the best (and most noble) reason I could think of.

[Shellhead]

Bush said he takes responsibility for what happened with the poor response to Hurricane Katrina. No matter how poorly he may have worded everything that surrounded it, he did actually say, "I take responsibility."

Therefore, I need someone to explain how the people who were saying he had no fault when it came to Katrina are still saying this. How is it that there are still people saying President Bush isn't to blame when he himself says he takes responsibility for the poor reaction time and effort given to those affected by Hurricane Katrina? How can someone still defend the president when he's taken a moment to stop defending himself? If this was a democratic president, wouldn't these same people be cheering, "It's about time" or "He's just going to lower morale" or even "What a wimp" if the took responsibily for any poor efforts given to this crisis? How is it that some can be so partisan and blind that they can't see when one of their own leaders admits responsibility for something they still are unable to pin any blame to?

This isn't purely about Bush defenders still sticking up for Bush after he's made the admittance that he, or at least the federal government he runs, should take responsibily for the poor effort given to relief of Katrina's victims. When it's all boiled down, what I want to know is how do people justify themselves and their reactions or lack of reactions? How do they keep from feeling foolish when they still play the same sad song that is no longer sung by the person who made it popular to begin with?

Sometimes Bush supporters only pay attention to the first thing that he says about a given topic. There are still people who believe that there are WMDs in Iraq, because Bush said so. Never mind that Bush has since admitted that we haven't found any, those Bush supporters still remember what he originally said. Same thing regarding the al-Qaeda/Saddam Hussein connection.

[Fenris]

I don't know what exactly you're referring to, Justin, so all of this is just conjecture for me. But, since I'm in a theorizing mood, I can think of three explanations.


1) Friends, not slaves. I like you, Justin. You're a nice guy. If you blamed yourself for something terrible, I would be inclined to judge you lightly. And I might conclude that you were being too hard on yourself.

The fact that Bush has taken responsibility for the Katrina disaster doesn't necessarily mean that all of his supporters will go along with it. They're supporters, not slaves; they don't have to agree with everything he says. And they're more likely to judge him lightly because they like him.

2) The hobgoblin of little minds. If you've spent hours discoursing on Bush's innocence, it can be hard to turn a 180 and say, "OK, it's all his fault after all." Particularly when all the leftists you know are in Full Gloating Mode.

3) It's not always about Bush. The theory that local and state authorities have more responsibility than the federal government is very old. It was around before Bush was born, and it'll still be there after he's gone.

People who believe in it don't necessarily like Bush; but their principles may absolve Bush of this particular blame, whether Bush takes the blame or not. Because for these people, it's not about Bush at all, but about fundamental questions of political philosophy.


Anyway, that's the three explanations that occur to me off the top of my head. You can take them or leave them, depending on whether they account for what you've seen.

õ
I just don't watch enough TV!

[Tobias March]

I was at a Mark Thomas gig last night and he recounted a Bush classic from some time ago. He was asked what he thought of Iraqi suicide bombers was.

His reply.

"Bring 'em on!"

Now suicide bombers...they're not the kind of people you really want to encourage are they?

[Shellhead]

Fenris,

I wonder how many of the state's rights proponents are now doing a 180 and complaining about the lack of support from the feds. They want autonomy *and* support, depending on how well things are going.

[Fenris]

Fenris,

I wonder how many of the state's rights proponents are now doing a 180 and complaining about the lack of support from the feds. They want autonomy *and* support, depending on how well things are going.

Yes, Shellhead. They are bad people! It's a good thing we're better than them.

Seriously; most people are like this, in one way or another. Most people want strong government benefits simultaneously with low taxes. (Or low taxes for me, and high taxes for other people; which amounts to the same thing.)

The state's righters can at least say that they're not getting the autonomy they want, so they may as well enjoy the benefits they get. I don't much like Social Security (for example) but since the money's getting taken from me, I would like to get some of it back when I'm old.

I don't know if this is moral inconsistency, so much as people making the best of a bad situation that they can't change.

õ
Or, maybe they really are bad people!

[Shellhead]

I wouldn't say it makes them bad, but it does remind me of teen-agers who demand independence, but also want to borrow the car, eat home-cooked meals, and live at home without paying rent.

[SUPERECWFAN1]

Lets just admit the truth. I voted Kerry in 2004 , but If Al Gore had been President when Katrina hit , he too would be under fire. It was an act of nature. And you can't really plan for what nature will toss your way.


Bush apologized for the slow Federal aid help. That was his problem. But to blame someone for Nature is a big leap. If a Democrat was in office he too would be gettin the blame.

[Erebus]

Kind of off topic, but Bush cut off 20% of goverment Katrina funds to support the war in Iraq. How cheap is that? I mean, there are people dying in his own country, in our own country, and all he thinks about is winning his stupid war.

[Shellhead]

Lets just admit the truth. I voted Kerry in 2004 , but If Al Gore had been President when Katrina hit , he too would be under fire. It was an act of nature. And you can't really plan for what nature will toss your way.


Bush apologized for the slow Federal aid help. That was his problem. But to blame someone for Nature is a big leap. If a Democrat was in office he too would be gettin the blame.

Maybe. Would Gore have taken a five-week vacation? No, he seems like more of an uptight workaholic than Bush. Would Gore have been so slow to respond to the disaster? Probably not, because he doesn't seem like the type to ignore newspaper headlines or CNN. Bush Senior took heat for Hurricane Andrew not because it happened, but because his response was sluggish and tepid. Same with this Bush, especially after all the emphasis that he's put on homeland security.

[Nate C.]

Justin,

I was worried about you. How about an update on you and yours?

[SUPERECWFAN1]

Kind of off topic, but Bush cut off 20% of goverment Katrina funds to support the war in Iraq. How cheap is that? I mean, there are people dying in his own country, in our own country, and all he thinks about is winning his stupid war.


I already replied about that earlier. Even with that 20% of the fund Contractors have already said that the levies would have still broke. And its like the repeated wranings of a huge earthquake gonna hit LA or a hurricane sinking New Orleans. You usually try and believe they won't happen and for years its been like that.

[SUPERECWFAN1]

Maybe. Would Gore have taken a five-week vacation? No, he seems like more of an uptight workaholic than Bush. Would Gore have been so slow to respond to the disaster? Probably not, because he doesn't seem like the type to ignore newspaper headlines or CNN. Bush Senior took heat for Hurricane Andrew not because it happened, but because his response was sluggish and tepid. Same with this Bush, especially after all the emphasis that he's put on homeland security.


The 5 week vacation was in August man. Not when a Hurricane hit. Bush apologized and took the blame on the slow response for aid by the Federal Government. He shouldn't apologize for an act of nature.