Saturday, April 26, 2008

Clueless in NOLA



The old goat seemed honestly surprised to see just how little progress has been made in the city of New Orleans since Katrina.

Gee, I wonder how many times he's visiting since Katrina?

I'm guessing none.

Update: Ah, per Newsweek, he's been to New Orleans twice- but I imagine this was his first trip to the 9th ward. Senile old fuck.

15 comments:

Oh Susanna said...

Whatever your feelings about Obama or Clinton, remember that THE MOST IMPORTANT THING is preventing McOld Goat from assuming Moron's throne.

Don't let the idiots, pundits and politicos distract you with their nightly noise. If they do, they WIN and WE lose--some of us will lose our lives overseas, some of us will lose our homes, many of us will lose our jobs and most of us will lose hope. Don't let the bastards get you down and don't give up. You have brains, determination and energy. Use them!

four legs good said...

susanna, at this point I consider CLinton to be only slightly worse than McBush.

In a way she's worse, because I think she's making his election inevitable.

Pundits aren't distracting me- but I won't be suckered into cowboying up for a corporate sell out again.

Oh Susanna said...

Four Legs, I'm sorry to hear you feel that way. I don't understand, but I would like to. I look at the damage the republicans have done over the last 8 years--the wars, the divisiness, the $5 trillion shift from a budget surplus to serious deficit, the callous contempt for the non-rich, and the hypocrisy in the name of religion, ad nauseum, and I am so appalled and and angry I can hardly breathe. I grant you that Clinton and Obama are both flawed (aren't we all?) and like you, I don't like the recent negative turn of the campaigns. However, that said, I cannot comprehend how a republican victory in November can be considered a viable option. How can thinking people not fight that with all their will and resources? Whichever candidate becomes the dems nominee, he or she will at least rout the thugs from many levels of government. Seems to me that while there are no perfect solutions, at least having a democrat in the White House is a means to a better solution. You seem to disagree--please help me understand why.

Culture of Truth said...

Whatever your feelings about Obama or Clinton, remember that THE MOST IMPORTANT THING is preventing McOld Goat from assuming Moron's throne.

I'm not convinced Clinton herself believes this.

BlakNo1 said...

Clinton happily enabled damn near everything that has happened in the past 6-7 years. She preferred to bloviate about flag burning and video games while New Orleans died. She voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq based on intel that she never even read.

She may make a better president than either Bush or McCain, but that ain't saying much.

Oh Susanna said...

Whether or not one shares that assessment of Clinton, doesn't it make more sense to vote for and support the Dem nominee (whomever that may be) than to do nothing and hand the election to McCain and the corporate puppets? Let's be pragmatic. To sit idly by and not vote out of frustration or spite may seem like a vote of No Confidence, but the real result is to simply hand the election and the reins of power to those with the focus and determination to win. Last time around that was the Religious Right and the Fearmongers. How is that working out for you???

Aside from the One War Is Not Enough and the Take From Everyone and Give to the Rich programs that will continue to ripen and grow if McCain wins, remember that the average age of the Supreme Court Justices is over 70 and the new President will be choosing justices that set the rules affecting the rest of our lives. Stripping away the political BS, isn't the act of not voting another step in the process of relinquishing one's civil rights (e.g.,warrantless wiretaps, Gitmo and Roe v. Wade challenges)?

Culture of Truth said...

How is that working out for you???

Criminy we're agreeing with you - calm down

Oh Susanna said...

Sorry, must have been that 3rd cup of coffee while reading the newspaper...

With savvy people like Four Legs writing about giving up on politics and increasing numbers of people expressing their frustration after the PA primary, I'm really concerned that McCain could win by default. It absolutely scares the hell out of me that we could swap a moron for the oldest person ever to assume the presidency, a man that at the age of 71 and after many years in government blithely admits he doesn't understand much about the economy. (What, he's had no time to study this stuff??) I'd probably have to buy a down parka on Ebay and move to Canada---and I really, truly hate cold weather.

four legs good said...

susannh, I've spent a lot of time the past week or so thinking about what it means to be a democrat.

Yes, McCain is scary. And yes, the republicans suck ass, but I'm not convinced the democratic party is much better.

They engage in the bait and switch as adroitly as the rethugs do. And they do it in the smug assumption that we have nowhere else to go.

I'm sorry but Mrs. Clinton has gone beyond the pale as far as I'm concerned. Many of you have concluded that either candidate is acceptable. I have not.

The fact that she could make a political vote for war (a vote that doesn't seem to bother her conscience much) and that she would blithely seek to destroy Barak Obama's reputation and career, well, IMHO, that disqualifies her for the presidency.

I don't care what anyone says. I will not be bullied into supporting her. I won't.

At some point principles matter. A hillary presidency might look better than a McCain presidency, but not by much.

Not that it matters. If Hillary forces this and steals the nomination, she will not win. No black will support her, and we cannot win without the black vote.

They say we get the government we deserve- all the people who are egging Clinton on in her crusade to break the party are surely going to get the government they've earned.

It's too bad the rest of us will get it too.

BlakNo1 said...

I'll vote for whomever the dem nominee is, but it will be little better than a symbolic change.

The past 7-8 years didn't happen in a vacuum. THEY WERE ENABLED.

They were enabled by those who happily pulled our gov't to the right and The Clintons were a huge part of that.

Seeing democrats cheer for "welfare reform" is still a vomit-inducing sight after all these years. Getting rid of welfare was one of the wet dreams of the Reagan regime.

Oh Susanna said...

Four Legs, Thanks for your thoughtful reply. Let me mull on this a bit and try to return the favor.

Blakno1, I'm not sure what you mean about the Clintons being a huge part of pulling our government to the right. Please tell me more.

four legs good said...

I'll vote for whomever the dem nominee is, but it will be little better than a symbolic change.

I've said it over and over and over...

Clinton doesn't think there's anything wrong with Washington. She just thinks the wrong people are in charge.

If anyone thinks things will change much with her in charge they are crazy.

BlakNo1 said...

Gah, I hate haloscan.

Welfare reform? NAFTA? Clinton-Albright sanctions in Iraq? Declaring that "The era of big gov't is over"?

What I should've said is The Clintons played a big part in pulling the democratic party to the right.

ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© said...

What I should've said is The Clintons played a big part in pulling the democratic party to the right.

April 29, 2008 8:47 AM



I think that is definitely true. It is one of the main two identifiable marks of the DLC: 1) Panders to rethuglican males who will never vote for the Democrat anyway.

The other mark, of course, is 2) with the sole exception of brilliant politician Bill Clinton in 1992 and 1996, the DLC is noted to lose every election it contests, in spite of successfully raking in the big buck$.
~

BlakNo1 said...

Even John freakin' Kerry would've won in 1996 against the other weak candidates.