National Republicans leaped on Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Claire McCaskill for a comment she made about President Bush's handling of Hurricane Katrina.
Here's the A.P's take.
The money quote that got McCaskill in this mess: "George Bush let people die on rooftops in New Orleans because they were poor and because they were black."
Harsh. Very harsh. The implication is that if the victims of Katrina were rich, white people, the President's response would have been more robust.
It seems like an odd remark for McCaskill to make, particularly because of how careful she has been in her language about the President and Republicans on other issues. She's trying to make herself in the mold as a Tim Johnson Democrat not a Teddy Kennedy Democrat. It could be one of those remarks that was driven by the audience she was speaking to. Or it could be she just really believes it.
What do you think?
A despicable comment that went over-the-line? -OR- Legitimate criticism of W.?
5 comments:
I would be interested to know how much of McCaskill's money is coming from out of state. It seems that both of them are buying alot of ads.
Her statements are more like Howard Dean than Harry Truman and have a certain desperation that is unsettling.
Something went terribly wrong in New Orleans last August during Katrina.
The Bush administration apparently has a difficult time interacting with those who do not share their values and sensibilities. That the majority of Katrina's victims were poor and black complicates the problem.
New Orleans should be an embarassment to all Americans.
The images that came out of the city during the Katrina storm are horrifying and haunting. Images from a year later are the same.
I agree with McCaskill on this criticism.
Don't we all remember the desperate screams of the man saying "For God's sake, send somebody" when massive flooding ensued after Katrina. It was the worst natural disaster in recorded U.S. history. Why didn't Bush call out the Texas National Guard? We already know that the Louisiana first responders and their equipment had been sent to Iraq. Was Bush just too befuddled to act in the face of this tragedy, or did he just not think these poor people were worth his undivided attention? I think it is probably the latter.
If we contrast the response to the 2004 hurricanes in Florida, a swing state governed by Jeb Bush in an election year, it seems clear that the Bush administration plays political football with his concern for disaster relief.
Fema was prepositioned with adequate relief *before* Hurricane Charley hit Florida, and was "mailing checks to hurricane victims within a week of Charley's passing--including "victims" as far as 500 miles from the damage area." A press release outlining FEMA efforts was issued August 13, 2004 by the same Michael Brown, who seemed unable to figure out what exactly to do in response to Katrina.
www.thinkprogress.org has a detailed timeline of the progression of events before and during Katrina. It's a sad story in contrast to that of the Charley response.
I realize that KY3 reporters are accustomed to throwing out little sound bytes and barbs, and not really looking at an issue in depth, but anyone who is curious about this issue can search Google and find a wealth of information to support the fact that Brownie did not do "a heck of a job" as Bush stated while slapping him on the back.
I would go one step further and say that Bush fiddled while New Orleans flooded, because the people were poor, black and they were Democratic voters.
Right. Bush hates blacks, and let 'em die.
I'd believe this if that racist moron from Aurora, were the president. Bush isn't smart enough to be racist.
Far as I'm concerned, the New Orleans and Louisiana leadership, was just as flat-footed in their response. Nagin should've ORDERED someone to drive those soon-to-be-flooded buses. The Governor isn't squeaky-clean, either.
However, it is amusing to watch the two parties blame each other. Assuming that gov't will save you, in a time of crisis, is a fools' errand.
Post a Comment