The mayor of New Orleans is a Democrat. The governor of Louisiana is a Democrat. Both houses of the state legislature are controlled by Democrats. Despite these facts, I have not heard a single Republican blame the disastrous situation in New Orleans on the opposition party.

The president of the United States is a Republican. His adversaries are having a field day casting stones at him. Robert Kennedy blamed President George W. Bush and Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour for the tragedy, singling out their opposition to the Kyoto Treaty. The victims of Hurricane Katrina, Kennedy notes, "reap the whirlwind of fossil fuel dependence which Barbour and his cronies have encouraged." "In 2004, the Bush administration cut funding requested by the New Orleans district of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for holding back the waters of Lake Pontchartrain by more than 80 percent," Clinton lackey Sidney Blumenthal writes. "The Bush administration's policy of turning over wetlands to developers almost certainly also contributed to the heightened level of the storm surge." Liberal bloggers point to a perceived aloofness emanating from the president. "I just wish that the president gave a damn about what's happenend," reads the Daily Kos.

Why do Democrats play politics with Hurricane Katrina while Republicans shy away from blaming anyone save Mother Nature? Perhaps it is because people of Sidney Blumenthal's ilk are a few rungs lower on the decency ladder. Another explanation seems more relevant. Liberal Democrats see every problem as government caused and government solved. Conservative Republicans see government as limited in its benefits and as one among many spheres that constitute society. That liberals would politicize a natural disaster of the type that predates even politics shows the limitations on their outlook.

We have come to expect this kind of bad whacky behavior from the left. The last paragraph of the topic text about sums it up.

Even though many things seem to be unraveling today, it’s been amazing how hysterical people are getting and the target of their hysteria has been GW. He seems to be the guy everybody loves to hate.

Even my wife called raging about how GW should be impeached because gas it $3 bucks a gallon. Rational? Not!!

From where I sit, I see a concerned President who is working to get aid and relief to an area of the country that has been devastated due to a natural disaster, trying to get fuel costs somewhat under control by supplementing with reserve oil and (although misguided) attempting to run a war that he believes needs to be fought and ultimately won to protect his country. In short, doing whatever it is that he and government can do.

So whatever happened to Americans adopting that “can do” attitude and having the strength to work problems out without pointing the finger?

Not true of this liberal (at least).

Perhaps someone should run a survey? I doubt the hotheads referenced (Bob Kennedy) were in any great rush to consult the Liberal leaning populace before he opened his trap.

Lumping Kennedy (and ilks) errors on the "Liberal outlook" of the majority of liberals is just as speculative (and unfounded) as Kennedy's statements.

Tit for tat isn't going to help anyone affected by Katrina.

I was reading some of the German responses in the Spiegel Online, regarding the unhappy sentiments from German Environmental Minister Jürgen Trittin, who believes America's lax policy on global warming is partly to blame for Hurricane Katrina. After angry emails from Americans, many Germans wrote back. The one below is my personal favorite. I expect a check in the mail soon to help relief efforts from this guy. Hope you enjoy!

"My full compassion goes to the victims and also deep thanks for liberating Europe in WW II. But what the hell has it do with the reasons for climate change? Instead of wasting the last oil, causing deaths all over the world by increased hurricanes and flooding, instead of praying to middle-aged-gods and instead of dividing the world by the right and left, good and bad, why don't you sell your SUVs and try to intellectually enter the 21st century."

- D. Mueller, Germany

"middle-aged-gods"

Is that who you pray to if you are a balding guy with an expanding waistline who really really wants a porsche?

I agree with your take Dan. I was listening to a baseball game yesterday and the broadcast was interrupted so that we could listen in on Bush's press conference detailing the cabinet level group he has designated to coordinate relief efforts and FEMA and this and that. I was terribly annoyed that this was considered news that should trump regular programming. The contents of his press conference should have just been given in summary with regular newscasts. Instead, given the ingrained liberalism of this country, we have to listen to Bush inform us of what he (that is the state) is doing to save our backsides from natural disasters.

I don't know if it is Ceasarism or what but the consistent and automatic turning of people's hopes to the federal state at all times---good and bad---always focused on the person of the president, really creeps me out. Some takes on this from the right, such as Peggy Noonan's latest column and even a piece I read in yesterday's NYT, all make this same "liberal" move. However, instead of blaming the disaster on Bush in some form (like the left) they all gush over his acting "presidential" and "taking control in a crisis," "calming fears," and what-not. What is the fundamental difference in these two views of Bush's (or a presidnet's) place in the midst of disaster's like Katrina? Both sides treat him like a ceasar.

What a coincidence...

Your mention of Sidney Blumethal.

Just last night (or this morning... it's often hard to know which), I was at this Internet Archive page of the Polyconomics site, where Jude Wanniski's older articles were, grouped by category. (Vlad Signorelli, one of their staffers who I spoke to a couple of years ago, was impressed when I showed him how websites are accessible through the "Wayback Machine"... More people should use this.)

Anyway, around that time, when I had spoked to Vlad, I had looked through Mr. Wanniski's past writings there [click on the "Clinton Impeachment" category link], and I had reached the hasty conclusion that Jude had opposed the impeachment and conviction of President Clinton.

I have been under that impression since then... Until last night/morning however, when I actually took the time to read the piece that had caused me to reach that erroneous conclusion.

How I Changed to Conviction From Acquittal, Memo: Feb. 3, 1999

(I was about to say that Jude had titled it wrong... But I just realized that my eyes have been transposing the "to" and "from" in that line.)

The reason I am pointing this out now is because I found, by actually reading through Jude's pertinent pieces, that the reason that he (though he did initially oppose the impeachment process) changed his position is because of... Sidney Blumenthal. It is some coincidence that Sid is featured in this entry, published at 'Flynn Files' the same day as the one below. [Thanks for the link, btw.]

I wasn't even aware of the "bombshell" regarding Blumenthal and Lewinsky, which Mr. Wanniski wrote about in that above-mentioned article (which he tried to get published in the WSJ).

Jude Wanniski to Sid Blumenthal: Why didn't you quit?

Sorry if this comment seems too long-winded... I chose, quite unwisely, to stay up all night (and unlike with the Leadership Institue conference, I wasn't driving across the country; just stuck in my room) - Not a good way to start of Grad School. I thought that I should comment, however, on the fact that Blumenthal's behavior is brought up in this entry by Dan, right after I find out about it (re: Clinton's impeachment), via the same writer who we were just blogging about.

When I talked to Vlad at Polyconomics, it was about two years ago; I had some questions regarding their websites (they had three of them at the time). It was a good conversation... I deeply regret that I never had the chance to speak to Mr. Wanniski himself. I hope he read my e-mail.

If it had hit San Fransisco, instead of New Orleans, I don't doubt they would be proclaiming it God's punishment of gays, or some BS. Lets not pretend that the right isn't just as screwed up as the left about some issues. And as one viewer sent into CNN, congress had 'no' problem returning from a vacation within an hour of finding out that a feeding tube had been removed from a living corpse, but has taken days to sit down and 'really' try to arrange for more help for this disaster. This, I have to agree with the viewer, shows a horribly distorted set of priorities. Just as paying more attention to what businesses want, instead of the consequences of giving it to them, is rightly questioned with reqard to this event. Should they wait until they stop collecting bodies before starting in on the right for being idiots? Probably, but as I said, had this been San Fransisco, the right wouldn't have even stopped long enough to take a deep breath before making their own brand of far more insane and stupid comments.

Kahegi: the difference between the two situations you present--San Francisco and New Orleans--is that one exists in your imagination and the other exists. Instead of imagining what conservatives would say in a hypothetical situation, why not deal with what liberals have actually said in an all too real situation?

Wait a minute...

I totally agree that most of the statement that have been made about the storm thus far are ridiculous at best, and opportunistic at worst. However, why DIDN'T the government of New Orleans build the levees to withstand the force of a Cat 5 storm? They knew that some day, probably, a big one would hit and N.O. would be underwater, yet they only were ready for a Cat 3. What's the sense in that? It's not as if they didn't know what was POSSIBLE, they only built for what was likely. But what was possible was total destruction, and they knew this. If the levees had held, this would have been a much less destructive situation. I can only guess that, if they were to build them to withstand a Cat 5, they would have had to build the walls much higher, and this would have been an eyesore, not to mention rather expensive. Just my speculation, but I'll be interested to see if anyone raises this issue.

I seem to remember an ill-fated ocean-liner that didn't want to ruin the view from the main promenade with ugly lifeboats...

In any case, there is some finger-pointing to be done, but it's the government of N.O. that should be looking at why it wasn't prepared for the worst.

Dan and Kahegi,

You are referring to liberal and conservative "idiots." Kahegi's example of the conservative idiot would be Jerry Falwell who said in regard to 9/11:
"The abortionists have got to bear some burden for this because God will not be mocked. And when we destroy 40 million little innocent babies, we make God mad. I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way, all of them who have tried to secularize America, I point the finger in their face and say: you helped this happen."
Standing atop the corpses of innocents and the ruination of cities to shout your petty political slogans is idiotic, inhuman, and disgusting.

True Webster. I've seen sermonising about the "city of sin" being flooded, even by people comments on this website. Like with Bob Kennedy, someone needs to tug on their collar a bit harder end get them to expend their energy on helping the victims rather than exploiting them.

Watched video coverage of the disaster tonight for the first time (I watch little tv) and it is just heartbreaking. Really sad. Everyone who can donate should try to, I am guessing that the Red Cross is a responsible enough relief organization to donate to. (I will see if anyplace takes credit card!)

Homer,
your points are dead on, I think all concern should be about the rescue efforts right now and we are months away from worrying about the "why it happened" question and the "how does the city avoid this in the future." But the responsibility, of course, lies for those responsible for making decisions regarding city planning and maintenance. And that is neither Congress nor the president.

Kagehi,
I have to say you really have a way with words. Specifically you are terribly incapable of logic (or you pervert it on purpose which is much worse) and like to make up your own meanings. Schiavo was a "living corpse"?

Hmmm. "So earlier tonight I took my dead dog for a walk and we passed an uprooted tree in full bloom next to the frozen pond in which some kids were swimming. I saw my neighbor with no arms and shook his hand before returning home and calling it a morning."

Corpses don't "live" dude, you been watching too much Romero.

(Psssst! Hey, Bruce, I think Kagehi is one of "them.")

If the unrest around the Superdome keeps up, if it boils over, and if the authorities fail to promptly reassert authority and deliver basic relief, then watch out. "Inner city" people have rioted over NBA and NFL games. The same thing could happen in other cities soon if the rest of America stands by and watches thousands of poor black people degraded in New Orleans. Watch out for neighborhood imams feeling emboldened in their race-based sermons, watch for the little local incident that can spark chaos. Imagine a handheld camera some looter/rioter/rapist carries along on a rampage, whose footage gets to a news network. Could happen. Imagine a news team being killed and it being caught on camera. Imagine campus radicals chanting crap like "Bring the War Home!" Imagine Cindy Sheehan or her backers making "parallels" between the "resistance" in Iraq and "lawful rebellion" here.

I'm not saying the sky is falling, I'm saying it could fall. Oh wait, it already has, in more ways than one, over New Orleans.

--Brian

What? A Zombie! ;)

I like your style Bruce, funny!

Interesting comments from John Breaux, former Senator from Louisiana, saying that "we" knew for years that a Cat 4 or 5 hurricane could wreak the destruction that has resulted from Katrina, "we" were warned repeatedly, and yet did nothing. I guess the word to the wise would be "Man who build house below sea level better own boat".

As for Robert Kennedy, Jr., Cindy Sheehan, the German Minister of the Environment, Kayne West and any other idiot out there who would like to blame Bush for Katrina, I am reminded of Dr. McCoy dissing the Klingons by saying something like "As for the Klingon, his words are of no meaning, and I ignore them"! Trek on boys!

Simple... The Bush Administration CUT funding for New Orleans Flood Control SO it could help pay for the war in Iraq. Now... we can't play the blame game when really the blame falls on the administration for their lack of securing the homeland from ANY type of disaster. This could've been prevented and the administration knows this.

We were warned for the last few years and yet all it would take is for the funding to the Army Corps of Engineers Flood Control program to at least prevent such a disaster. I guess they should've owned boats, huh? With what money fool? Mostly the underprivileged and impoverished suffered. Typical callous thinking on your part.