I see a lot more news articles about energy and oil after katrina and the blame being put on drivers. People who own a car or two out of necessity are not to blame. Transportation needs to continue. Yes, people who dont live in a variable climate dont need Hummers or Escalades, and having more cars than your family can drive or you need 400 hp for stop and go traffic is just pure gluttony. If that is you, then you deseverve the pain at the pump.

However, most of us have purchased the vehicle they could out of necessity and lack of choice. You have stuff or a family to haul, you want a safe vehicle that can stand up in a crash, something with 4x4 when the winter hits 6 months of the year. Sorry, but only the SUV market fits that bill. The passenger cars are so small that they are basically useless unless as a 2nd vehicle for your kid or something.

I for one would love to have an economical SUV and I dont need 400 hp for that 10 times a month I need to pass someone. It does get very icy here so 4x4 is something that gets used a lot. So where are these choices on the lots? For one, the hybrid vehicles are just barely coming to market and the big 3 barely have any at all. Secondly, why does the government not mandate regular gas vehicles to get something reasonable. if it doesnt make 25mpg, then it doesnt come to market. Where are the alternate fuels such as ethanol and biodeisel blends that farmers can make for us. Why does my city and company not promote telecommuting or setting up in a busines park in the suburbs. The answer is simple: CONTROL

Last point I want to make is that overall energy consumption due to transportation is a fraction of what it is for industry. So we have factories using up tons of resources to make crap we dont need just to fuel our consumer drive. Walk into the dollar store or any big box retailer and look at what items make a difference in your life and which are just useless knick knacks that will be in the landfill in a year. Thats where our energy is going and until we get out of our hoarding lifestyle, we are doomed.

SUVs don't exactly qualify as safe cars.

To be specific, the real-life mortality rate is 100% higher among SUV passengers than among regular car passengers.

I recently bought a Prius. 44mpg at freeway speeds (usually 70-85 mph here) and 55mpg when the 405 or 5 is crawling, and that's with air conditioning. About 45mpg in the city, which I hope will improve as the engine finishes its breaking-in period. Great whoosh pep thanks to the continuous transmission, and it's very quiet. It's a 5 seater with more leg room in the back than my old American car (an Oldsmobile Achieva) or the Ford Expedition even (I had to rent one recently). Baggage space is about the same as in the Expedition too..., but you can safely put a 9-foot longboard inside the Prius (the front passenger seat back can fold flat backwards and the rear seatbacks fold 60/40).

I also liked that the Prius was the only vehicle I could find that was in the highest reliability category in all areas (engine, transmission, brakes, electrical, etc.) per Consumer Reports review of real-life actual vehicle history.

The $2,000 federal income tax deduction doesn't hurt either, and I'm paying nearly the same for comprehensive insurance on my 2005 Prius as I did for my 1996 Oldsmobile.

No 4WD certainly, and I haven't had the opportunity yet to test how it fares on ice and snow. I spent many years driving in very difficult ice&snow conditions, without 4WD, but it took a lot of skill and recurring training.

Today there are several Hybrid SUVs if you want though, including a Ford, although its gas mileage is 35 mpg EPA instead of the Prius 55 mpg per EPA (the EPA mileage is of limited value standing alone because it is measured on rollers, so no drag resistance).

The Ford Expedition I rented got 8 mpg from L.A. to O.C.

OK, traffic on 5 was incredibly slow (as usual) and the A/C was going full tilt. Still, I was chocked when filling it up afterwards. A review in L.A. Times got the same gas mileage, so it was not a fluke either...

From New York Times:

When Wal-Mart sent three trailer trucks loaded with water, FEMA officials turned them away...

Red Cross staff and equipment was turned away also per separate reports.

Thanks, guys.

Louisiana Gov. Blanco hired the previous FEMA Director James Lewitt to lead the rescue efforts, to try to actually get things done in spite of the new management.

I expect there WILL be a Federal Katrina Commission to figure out how to do this better next time.

Next time could be in a few weeks as the regular hurricane season starts to get up to speed.

I think the SUV accident rate is due to a couple of things, namely a feeling of invincibility in poor road conditions, inexperienced and timid drivers taking on a much larger vehicle than they are used to and their higher profile which can lead to rollovers and spinouts with inexperienced drivers.

I think in a head on collision with a similar sized vehicle, they fare better than a prius or a smart car almost guarunteed, simply because of the larger crush area in the front and the fact that you sit higher than most other vehicles bumpers which would reduce your injury in a side collision.

An 8 mpg gallon vehicle should have never been allowed to be built. I am not a government intervention type, but when it comes to these sorts of issues, such as global warming and oil shortages, I want that number regulated.

Times-Picayune: An Open Letter to President Bush:
http://www.nola.com/newslogs/tporleans/index.ssf?/mtlogs/nola_tporleans/archives/2005_09.html#076771

<Rant mode on>

Well - if anyone is watching Larry King right now you will have, no doubt, noticed the lack of SBP's “Junior” Rodriguez. Not only this but one evacuated resident called and asked why there has been no mention of SBP. Larry looks puzzled and asks one of the CNN reporters in the field who mumbles a bit, says he had visited Jefferson Parish and ends by saying he has not even heard of St Bernard Parish. Larry says "thank you" to the caller and goes to the next caller. Not one other freaking mention of it and not one mention that the president of the parish was supposed to have been on his show.

As bad as this was if anyone saw the press conferance earlier in the day with Lt. Gen. Russel Honore he was asked point blank about "red tape" that was preventing things like food and water and overall aid getting into areas. He goes off on a rant about how even suggesting that was doing a dis-service to all those making rescues. He went on syaing it was total BS and there was no "red tape" and anyone who could come and help could freely do so, no one was stopping them. The reporter who asked the question followed up with a clarification saying "I was speaking about St Bernard parish" and Honore went on some more with his rant saying he didn't care where he was peaking of and it was still BS and no one has prevented anyone from helping. FEMA director jumps in and starts to add on "Well, yes but I would ask anyone who wants to come and help please go through us..." and as he was trying to clairfy the "Anyone who can help come and help" comment Honore walks out.

(And by the way - did anyone catch Wolf Blitzer's little comment the other day - showing rescued people coming into the airport and he says So tragicly, so many of these people, almost all of them that we see are so poor, and they are so black, and this is going to raise lots of questions for people who are watching this story unfold. ???? WTF????)

Its finger pointing time folks...big time.

There has been disussion about our Govt here, there has been discussion about "How far back" here...and on and on. But you know the fact is people have died, people still are in need, and still we get total BS like this. G.W Sr was on for the first 30 minutes of Larry King and he went on about how not one person has come up to him and asked for more help and not one person has asked him why it took so long to get help. And here is the thing - if any one of us was sitting on top of our home, no power, no food, no escape - well, first off I am not sure we would ask "why so long?" at first resuce either. After September 11, in talking to so many people who were trapped by the collapse, they all said the same basic thing - "I had no idea what it looked like until I saw it on TV" Same goes here - We all have the "luxry" of seeing this unfold - the people trapped in any of the areas where it hit do not. We hear things like "If you are trapped call..." when the reality is - well, "how the **** can you call if you have no power, no lights, no phone?" I mean it is just plain stupid. For the last few days the Red Cross has clearly said they have not been allowed to help out in some of these areas because they have been asked not to. I just saw video shot the day after the hurricane of a line of ambulences waiting to enter New Orleans and the Guard *turned them away*. I had not seen this before and was a bit shocked at a few things - help *was* there and so was the National Guard and FEMA - sitting right there on the 610. Yet no one seemed to report this and what the hell did they do for 4 days??? My guess is they sat there because of *red tape*.

Once we start getting on the other side of this you will see outrage more than what you see now. I had some respect for Larry King until tonight. He could had easly said that they were supposed to have “Junior” Rodriguez on the show but because of communication problems they could not reach him in time thusly he was being rescheduled. When asked directly about the parish he could have said this and added on other information as well, he could have even payed the Aaron Broussard clip making the rounds today to have his "pannel" comment on it. Instead he plays stupid and quickly tosses it over to a reporter who plays even more stupid saying he had not even heard of St Bernard Parish. The people in the parish know how much the local officials have been doing and how little those outside of the parish haves done, what isn't fully known is WHY??? When all is said and done it will be very clear that is was not the local BSP people who didn't care it was the "red tape" - and this does include the media as well because I, only yesterday, started seeing and hearing little mentions of SBP.

As I viewed various outlets today we are shown so many images but the overlay says "New Orleans" and all the blah blah blah talks about "New Orleans" even though we see shots of Chalmette and shots of Violt and shots of other areas. Focus seems to be on "hey lets be upbeat - look at all these people who have been evacuated. Look how caring GW is to be making another visit. Hey New Orleans is now 'under control'. People are being allowed back to their homes in jefferson parish." Blah blah blah . Maybe they had to clean it up because Oprah was in town. One of the more dramtic pieces today was from Jefferson Parish Pres Aaron Broussard who broke down when talking about the nursing home in SBP where each day they were told that help was on they way but never came. (if you have not seen it and have Quicktime open up File > Open URL in new player and paste this: http://media1.dfw.swagit.com/s/wbrz/The_Advocate/09042005-5.high.mov.smil)

We here all do something media related - maybe not broadcast news, maybe not documentarys...but the fact is all of us here have the power to tell a story - on either side of ths issue. Lots of heated discussion here but lets look at what is out there as fact. There is enough room for someone to make a film about "how far back", there is enough room for someone to make a "Why GW failed" or "Why FEMA failed". There is enough for "Why Jeb knows how to deal with hurricanes" or "Why Rudy was a poor mayor". Start now, start later - just start.

</Rant mode off>

>>>, I want to aplogize to anyone who watched Larry King last night and saw Celine Dion acting like a complete and utter idiot.<<<

I just saw the clip - now you were not really saying sorry for Celine right?

For those who didn't see it Celine starts to break down and starts to rant about what many people have asked all over the world - why can't we drop water and food? How come it was so easy to do this over in Inraq and other places but not here? She talks about her son and coming home each night holding back tears because he asks if everything is going to be ok. Larry says "But you donated a million dollars" and she says, very sincerly, that it doesn't matter right now - big deal - right now they need water. Her check doesn't mean anything to them right now. Why can't we get water to them? So I mean she sort of lost it a bit but in the middle of this, Celine is sitting there sobbing and wiping snot from her nose asking 'why can't we get them water?' and Larry King cuts her off and says "...we couldn't spend any time with you without asking you, do you have any kind of thing that you...you would like to sing that fits this moment? Is there any song..." Celine looks stunned, mumbles "oh my gosh.."

So...again - you meant to say that Larry King was acting like an idot right?

Sorry its really Dion that gets my goat in that interview. yes she made the Iraq point and I agree, but still I dont need to see some spoiled star lecturing anyone.

Why doesnt she air drop about 200 million in for the disaster effort? She probably makes a million dollars a day, cut the check and get off the TV.

From Sunday paper

As several days passed with little or no federal assistance, state and local officials set up their own improvised search-and-rescue operations, with the Mississippi River serving as a lifeline to safety for residents who rode out Katrina.

Read full story here:

... Although I am a Republican ...

That is very difficult to believe (see below).


The problem is (as we discussed at great length a few months ago) that the media spins the news to favor the administration and the majority.

You're kidding, right? The media is on the side of the administration ?? Not likely, given that only 18% of all journalists identify themselves as Republicans. This nonsense of the media having suddenly become Republican cheerleaders is straight from the playbook of the ultra-liberal web sites. It is completely untrue, and totally unsupportable. The media have been adversaries to every administration since I was born (during Truman's administration), and they are far more pointed and shrill now in their practice of that adversarial role than they have ever been.


The multi-decade project involved building new levees, enlarging existing levees, and updating other protections like floodwalls. It was scheduled to be completed in 2015.

So, even if fully funded, it wouldn't have done any good. Right? Your own citation pretty much invalidates your entire argument that lack of funding by Bush is the sole reason the levees broke. Even if the projects had been funded to the max, the improvements wouldn't have been in place by last week.


Those of you who support the Bush administration ought to think twice about your sources. They DO NOT work in the public interest. They work in the interest of the wealth minority with a following of hapless misinformed victims who don't even realize they are being had because the media is a part of the wealthy minority fed heartily by these people you all elected.

Huh? This is pretty far out stuff. So, Bush's prescription drug bill -- the biggest entitlement since Medicare -- was only for the wealthy? The highway bill -- the largest in history -- just passed, isn't in the public interest?


For everyone reading these posts, please note that virtually every item in that last post is copied/pasted directly from ultra-liberal sites. In fact the exact same story can be found, word-for-word verbatim, at the following sites:

www.democrats.org
www.newshounds.org
www.pnionline.com
www.truthout.org
www.bushwatch.com

and dozens more. Goggle the words and you'll find out right away where this is coming from. This is not to say that everything at these sites is a lie, but they are certainly not balanced: They are advocates for a certain point of view, and the whole concept of advocacy is that it is up to the other side to provide the balance.

One thing for sure: These are NOT sites where Republicans hang out.

I can fully understand people's opposition to Bush's decision to invade Iraq, but trying to blame him for every single thing that goes wrong is getting pretty far fetched. It is a very unnatural, unhealthy obsession. The reason I take the time to respond to posts like this is that I don't feel that such nonsense should go unchallenged, even in a small forum like this, because other people that read it might actually believe some of this stuff is true.


BTW, ABC doesn't publish free transcripts (of the September 1 Dianne Sawyer interview with Bush on GMA), but a columnist at the Washington Post quoted much of it here:

A Dearth of Answers

Remember, as you read the column, that we are supposed to believe that the media is on Bush's side. Also, remember that Sawyer's questions were characterized above as "butt-kissing," which implies they weren't tough in any way. You read, you decide (oops, that sounds like FoxNews and that'll get me in trouble). Also, you can decide if the columnist himself is a cheerleader for Bush because, remember, the media is all on Bush's side ...

Right.

John,

You say "liberal" like it's a bad thing. Let's look at the definition of liberal and conservative straight from the The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition:

LIBERAL:

a) Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
b) Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.

CONSERVATIVE:

a) Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change.
b) Traditional or restrained in style
c) cautious

Personally, based on the definitions, I think I'd rather be a liberal. Although, in reality, I'm a "raging moderate" that aligns more toward the Libertarian political philosophy. So I'm not really on either side. Gee, how about a system of government based on compassion and common sense? What a novel concept. (It's not going to happen in my lifetime.)

When you're the party or person in charge, you get the praise or the blame. Regardless of who's fault it was, it has taken entirely too long to get aid to those people. Period.

John

Folks, from a distance (Australia) this thread is most interesting and rewarding. Congratulations to all those offering considered opinions and comments. Naturally you all cant agree but commonsence seems to be high in the order of things. Aussies hearts go out to all those affected. The lawlessness and chaos are being reported heavily here of course and while we must mentally filter this like any news service there is one point I would like to make.
Take a look at your (and ours too since we love to ape the US) TV shows which top the charts, all reality shows, right? What is the one theme running through them. Compete, look out for number one, give no quarter, win at all costs. This attitude is increasing in our society and with a rising population and shorter wotrking hours here in Australia volunteer organisations are having great difficulty in recruiting members.
Just so I could comment on it I recently watched an episode of Lost. The characters in this show were behaving exactly as that reported in NO.

..note that virtually every item in that last post is copied/pasted directly from ultra-liberal sites. ...the exact same story can be found...at the following sites:

Democrats ultra-liberal? I think you give them too much credit. Perhaps you are thinking of Hillary hanging out with Gingrich for so long. (And don't get me wrong, they both make me puke.)

So exactly why couldn't a Republican listen to what a Democrat says, ever?

Because he or she HAS to listen to ONLY the own party line? That idea has been practiced primarily in totalitarian countries, and among fanatics everywhere who don't care about the truth, only dogma.

No matter who you are following, they are not going to be right 100% of the time. If you care about the truth, you get multiple sources of information and decide for yourself the best you can.

What if you saw a bumper sticker that said "Real Conservatives Don't Have Budget Deficits!"

Would you paint "Bush-hater" on the car and rant and rave about what an ultra-liberal idiot the owner must be, and how he is not hanging out with the right Republicans?

If sources need to have a historically conservative bias for you to consider them potentially honest, john, here you go:

http://michellemalkin.com/archives/003458.htm

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2005/Katrina.htm

Even among Republicans, there are significant doubts about the federal response to Katrina. Just 47% of those in President Bush's party say the federal response has been good or excellent. Fifty-one percent say fair or poor.

http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/cgi-bin/buchanan.cgi

I'd hardly consider Time "liberal":

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101329-1,00.html

For a twist on conservative commentary not in favor of Bush, there's some pro-hurricane articles:

http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/9/22005b.asp

http://www.michnews.com/artman/publish/article_9348.shtml

http://www.michnews.com/artman/publish/article_9343.shtml

From the previous two posts:

You say "liberal" like it's a bad thing.

Liberal is not a bad thing at all. Liberal, as you defined it, and as it used to be practiced in this country, is a good thing.

But, contrast what liberals used to be like and what they have become today. In particular, I am old enough to remember Hubert Humphrey, the Vice President under Johnson who ran against Nixon in 1968. He was a liberal through and through.

Do you remember his nickname?

The Happy Warrior.

Do you know any liberal today who has a happy demeanor, and an optimistic, positive, can-do attitude towards anything?? I sure don't. What I see are Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer, Hilary Clinton, Chuck Shumer, John Kerry, and, of course, the head of the Democrat Party itself, Howard Dean. With the possible exception of Hilary, I don't think I've heard any of these people, in the past two years, making positive comments that indicate they have a viable vision for the future. In all of their interviews on TV -- even when asked what they would do about some situation -- they answer by stating that they disapprove of what Bush is doing, and would definitely not do the same thing.

Simply being against something is not leadership, and it sure isn't liberalism.

In fact, John, according to your own Webster dictionary definition, these people fail miserably to qualify as traditional liberals. Here's the second part of the Webster definition of a liberal, pasted from your post:

Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.

There is absolutely nothing tolerant, broad-minded, or open to genuinely new ideas coming from any of the people I mentioned. They, in fact, are the ones that are the reactionaries, "opposing change" (the definition of a conservative), and spending virtually all of their time obstructing (refusing to vote on judicial nominations, comes to mind); and blaming others. Where is the leadership??

So, when I use the word "liberal" in a derisive manner, I am doing so to refer to what this word has come to mean, and how it is practiced today, not on how it was originally defined or what it used to mean.

What if you saw a bumper sticker that said "Real Conservatives Don't Have Budget Deficits!" Would you paint "Bush-hater" on the car and rant and rave about what an ultra-liberal idiot the owner must be, and how he is not hanging out with the right Republicans?

No, actually I'd ask the person for a copy and put it on my car. Bush has spent way too much money. The highway bill and prescription drug bills were gigantic entitlements, largely brought about by Bush's desire and willingness to work with Democrats on bipartisan projects.

While on this subject, I should point out that despite this horrendous spending binge -- which includes the funding for the war -- the deficits are coming down. This is entirely due to the tax cuts. This, once again, proves that tax cuts actually generate more tax revenue, not less (see the CNN article: Federal budget deficit drops again from three weeks ago).

The only time I can think of where tax receipts went up when tax rates went up was under Clinton who had the amazing good fortune to be president at the time of the Internet boom which had a momentum that even horrendous tax increases couldn't stop. Normally, when you increase tax rates, investment slows, and both economic output and spending slow, which decreases actual tax collections, despite the higher marginal rates. At the extreme, if the government raises its rates to 90% -- as Britain and other governments did in the '60s -- they get to collect 90% of nothing (most people making enough money to be taxed at 90% left the UK at that time).

And don't anyone dare to suggest that we need to raise taxes again, or that the rich don't pay enough taxes, or that Bush's tax cuts were for the wealthy. I just paid the tax bill for my parents' estates. They are dead, and the Federal Government, along with the state of Illinois, came in and took over 60% of everything my father worked a lifetime to earn.

That's almost 2/3 of everything they ever owned. That is obscene. If I could highlight this part of the post in red, I would, because that is what I am seeing as I write this.

After you sell the house that your dad lived in since 1931, and write out the biggest check you've ever seen in your life, you'll never be the same person again. This isn't taxation, it is looting. Worse, it's robbing the grave. Bush has been trying to get rid of this abomination -- which dates from World War I -- but has been demagogued by people (like those named above) who like to inflame class-warfare hatreds in order to further their agenda.

So, I am not a Bush lover, but I do think he is a real leader who is trying to do big things. And, he is the one advancing new ideas and taking us in new directions.

By your definition, a liberal.

From The Salt Lake Tribune:

As New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin pleaded on national television for firefighters - his own are exhausted after working around the clock for a week - a battalion of [1,000] highly trained men and women sat idle Sunday in a muggy Sheraton Hotel conference room in Atlanta....The firefighters, several of whom are from Utah, were told to bring backpacks, sleeping bags, first-aid kits and Meals Ready to Eat. They were told to prepare for "austere conditions." Many of them came with awkward fire gear and expected to wade in floodwaters, sift through rubble and save lives.

I think this week will be in the history books...

There is definitely nobody home in the Democratic Party.

I heard Howie Dean got elected chair by the local organizations simply by promising more national money to those same local organizations...

Outside of organized religion (read party politics) though, there are a lot of intelligent people among both conservatives and liberals.

The bumper sticker is available, I have seen it.

To say that the highway bill and prescription bill were brought about by "Bush's desire and willingness to work with Democrats on bipartisan projects" is a joke though. I think there was more Republican pork in this barrel, but everybody who voted for it is guilty.

I hope the Federal Highway funds to subsidize liquor stores located along highways didn't make it through the final wrangling, but I wouldn't bet on it.

At least we got the usual $500M bridges to nowhere, and a grand freeway entrance and federal taxpayer-subsidized city street structure leading to Walmart's corporate headquarters. And the billions of dollars in taxpayer cash subsidies to oil companies that just reported quarterly profits of 4 to more than 7 billion dollars each.

So at least you didn't give up 2/3 of your dad's estate for nothing!

My primary concern with Bush is that he seems to think only for the short term. If you can pay a little bit now or a lot more later, he hollers "later, later!"

Let's get some real conservatives in soon to clean up this mess, and some intelligent liberals to help set some goals for government.

Today a lot of people are against paying ANY taxes (not you, John), but they still want a strong military and nice highways etc.

Perhaps the real problem is simply that there is no agreement on what government should do. If there was, we could decide to do only that, chop everything that didn't support this scope, and adjust the taxes accordingly.

To those of you who are convinced that the "Media" has a conservative or liberal bias.

Conservatives & Neocons -

Why are so many reporters "Liberals". Is it because "liberals" are the only kinds of people who have an interest or skills in reporting?

When I was in college, many years ago, several conservatives, including one journalism professor explained to me that the liberal bias was because the "communists" had "infiltrated" the news media. Do you think this is still the case?

Why haven't the "liberal" reporters, after being "up close-and personal" with the actual news stories not changed their views?

Do you think that so many reporters actually have the resources to make political statements out of their reporting? Have you ever worked in the news media? Do you know how difficult it is to get ANY news story?

Liberals-

Do you really think that the media "execs" actually go out of their way to put their "spin" on stories? (Please don't include Fox News in your assesment, the Fox management has publicly declared that their strategy is to counter the "liberal" media, and that the chief of the company has had direct input on specific stories.)

What makes news editor execs so "conservative". Is it because "conservatives" are the only ones who have an interest or skills in news management, or do they become that way after having to deal with "liberal" reporters all the time.

Do you thank that media execs actually have the time and resources to put their "spin" on the news? Do they fear for their jobs if they don't "tow the line" for their bosses and their political views?

Both Sides-

When you see a story that doesn't match your view of the world, do you blame the media for "false" reporting, or is it that the world is a bit different than your preconcieved notion?

The problem is (as we discussed at great length a few months ago) that the media spins the news to favor the administration and the majority.

You're kidding, right? The media is on the side of the administration ?? Not likely, given that only 18% of all journalists identify themselves as Republicans. This nonsense of the media having suddenly become Republican cheerleaders is straight from the playbook of the ultra-liberal web sites. It is completely untrue, and totally unsupportable.
=================
I can support what I allege, you cannot. You also (I am sure) cannot define a liberal if you think I am one of them. Not all of us in the Republican Party like the LYING that takes place. I have been a Republican since 1963. This White House and much of the party are Neocons, NOT Conservatives. Debt is not the mark of a sound economy and raising the cap on the deficit every time it is maxed out would make Eisenhower and Goldwater roll over in their graves simultaneously.
In the last discussion regarding the media you failed to make your point when you cited an “example” John. As a matter of fact in the CNN transcript you linked I found the CNN political analyst stumping for Ken Mehlman (RNC chairman) as you even admitted when I spotted it
=================
For everyone reading these posts, please note that virtually every item in that last post is copied/pasted directly from ultra-liberal sites. In fact the exact same story can be found, word-for-word verbatim, at the following sites:

www.democrats.org
www.newshounds.org
www.pnionline.com
www.truthout.org
www.bushwatch.com

and dozens more. Goggle the words and you'll find out right away where this is coming from
=============
When I rather hurriedly posted; last time I DID SAY “If you want all the links, I'll provide them. Just didn't have the time today.”
Why didn’t you ask me John instead of making FALSE assumptions?
No, Instead you found some “liberal” websites that used the same source I did. FactCheck.org. The SAME website Dick Cheney had enough confidence in to cite during his pre-election debate with John Edwards last fall. The SAME website both Democrats and Republicans use as a reliable source of information on a regular basis.
===================
BTW, ABC doesn't publish free transcripts (of the September 1 Dianne Sawyer interview with Bush on GMA), but a columnist at the Washington Post quoted much of it here:

A Dearth of Answers

Remember, as you read the column that we are supposed to believe that the media is on Bush's side. Also, remember that Sawyer's questions were characterized above as "butt-kissing," which implies they weren't tough in any way. You read, you decide (oops, that sounds like FoxNews and that'll get me in trouble). Also, you can decide if the columnist himself is a cheerleader for Bush because, remember, the media is all on Bush's side ...
============
ABC doesn’t publish transcripts, but the video is available on the internet. Given the ongoing complaints by the Times-Picayune and the fact sheets from the Army Corp of Engineers I cited above plus past articles in the
As well as Nightline last September, Richmond Times, Baton Rouge Advocate, and
Chicago Tribune also.

The New York Times pointed it out as well.


Given ALL that, Diane Sawyer DID NOT challenge George Bush’s LIE that "Nobody anticipated breach of the levees?" She simply went on to the next question.

SAWYER: But given the fact that everyone anticipated a hurricane [Category] Five, a possible hurricane Five hitting shore, are you satisfied with the pace at which this is arriving? And at which it was planned to arrive?
BUSH: Well, I fully understand people wanting things to have happened yesterday. I mean, I understand the -- anxiety of people on the ground. I can imagine -- I just can't imagine what it's like to be waving a sign that says, "Come and get me now." So there is frustration. But I want people to know there is a lot of help coming. I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees. They did anticipate a serious storm. But these levees got breached, and as a result, much of New Orleans is flooded. And now we have to deal with it and will.
SAWYER: A couple of quick questions about the concerns. ...

Now the government is going to investigate "itself". That's very reassuring. God forbid they should use an independent investigation. Save what's left of my tax money for sandwiches for the victims of the flood instead.

"To say that the highway bill and prescription bill were brought about by 'Bush's desire and willingness to work with Democrats on bipartisan projects' is a joke though. I think there was more Republican pork in this barrel, but everybody who voted for it is guilty."

Good point. I agree. Bush should have sent a message to both parties by vetoing it.

"Perhaps the real problem is simply that there is no agreement on what government should do. If there was, we could decide to do only that, chop everything that didn't support this scope, and adjust the taxes accordingly."

Actually, I think there is almost perfect agreement between Democrats and Republicans on what government should do:

Everything.

This is hard to take for libertarians like myself who believe that government should be scaled way back to the scope so clearly defined in the original founding documents ("establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity ...").

-----

BTW, I don't yet know whether this story is true or not, but apparently on July 24, 2005 (seven weeks ago) the New Orleans paper, the Times-Picayune reported: "City, state and federal emergency officials are preparing to give the poorest of New Orleans’ poor a historically blunt message: in the event of a major hurricane, you’re on your own." The article apparently continues:

"In scripted appearances being recorded now, officials such as Mayor Ray Nagin, local Red Cross Executive Director Kay Wilkins and City Council President Oliver Thomas drive home the word that the city does not have the resources to move out of harm’s way an estimated 134,000 people without transportation...Officials are recording the evacuation message even as recent research by the University of New Orleans indicated that as many as 60 percent of the residents of most southeast Louisiana parishes would remain in their homes in the event of a Category 3 hurricane."

This is being quoted on some right-wing sites, and I can't confirm this story at the Times site because they don't provide access to past articles. I want to be careful of not doing the same thing that others are doing with some of the trash being posted on the left-wing sites. However, if it is true (which we'll know in a day or two, because this will be an important point of the story if it is true), it provides an interesting backdrop to all the current finger pointing. At the very least, if true, it would make the statements made by local and state officials look totally cynical. It is they, after all, who have attempted to place all the blame on the Federal government for a "slow" response in the first three days. If indeed they themselves really did admit in tape-recorded messages, just weeks prior to the disaster, that residents would be on their own for several days after such an event, which is exactly what happened, then you have to wonder exactly what is going on in their heads.

Kind of reminds me of the scene in Casablanca where Captain Renault states: "I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!" To say that they are shocked by a response that took four days instead of two after themselves warning that everyone would be on their own for days is callously cynical -- if it is true.

Philanthropy was probably the one main thing I learned while I was in a fraternity.

======================

Alpha Tapa Kega?

Sorry, couldn't resist.

I give up.

There is no point debating with people who take any point with which they disagree, and assume that it must be the product of lying ("Bush lied, kids died"). To assume that virtually everything that Bush or his administration does is lying is the equivalent of a child on a playground who loses an argument and is reduced to yelling, "your mother wears army boots" (something that today is probably considered chic and therefore no longer an insult, but I digress ...).

Why must this same small, but vocal, crowd constantly feel the need to advance conspiracy theories when much simpler motivations provide adequate explanations? (Some people will spend their whole lives looking for the second gunshot from the grassy knoll.) The problem in political debate today -- and in much of this thread -- is not the breadth of the differences in opinions, but the absence, whether deliberate or whether due to underlying congenital conditions, of rational understanding of plain facts in evidence.

For me, the final straw is to state that "I can support what I allege, you cannot." It is not just the fact that this is insulting, or that it has the same tone of the schoolyard insult, that makes me give up. Instead, since I provide links and citations for everything I post, making such a statement is prima facie evidence of a mind that isn't understanding what it sees. Almost by definition, irrationality cannot be a party to debate, and therefore I choose to quit.

When one person insists on claiming the sky is green when all around clearly see the beautiful blue, we can all try to help that person, but in the end, if reasoning fails, it is probably better just to let him enjoy the green sky.