Is the Louisiana flooding Obama's Katrina?

[fuelair]

Are you trying to prove how severe your case of ODS is?

I am quite certain you have the right* of it!!!!!!!!!!!!!












*wing of course!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[fuelair]

If you say so.

**














** for appropriate emphasis!!!

 

[fuelair]

He decided to go because he's a thin-skinned narcissist, of course! Or something.

I'm guessing here, trying as I might to think irrationally.

It really is hard for real people to think like republickers!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[applecorped]

No true real person?

 

[fuelair]

Speaking of thin-skinned narcissists.... How much of his yuge fortune did Donald donate to help out the victims?

I like the plant in the crowd - maybe Mrs. Sunmaster? - "We're sure glad you're here instead of playing golf in Martha's Vineyard." Hardly staged at all.

Looked like he had someone pick up a truck, stop at a Sam's/ Costco or similar and got a bunch of shiny stuff to pass around for a short photo op and then flew on back to Trump Tower or such to relax before issuing his next rant !!!

 

[fuelair]

Speaking of thin-skinned narcissists.... How much of his yuge fortune did Donald donate to help out the victims?

I like the plant in the crowd - maybe Mrs. Sunmaster? - "We're sure glad you're here instead of playing golf in Martha's Vineyard." Hardly staged at all.

Actually he always has a few plants in the plane, ready to douche their parts for his glorification and the leavings from his table!!!!!!! They practice the appropriate patois during the flight so they sound authentic!!! It's a skill!!!

 

[Babbylonian]

While this is obviously not Obama's Katrina, it would be funny if it turned into Trump's tank ride.

 

[fuelair]

While this is obviously not Obama's Katrina, it would be funny if it turned into Trump's tank ride.

Well remembered!!!!! And hopefully it indeed will - but do not forget the headdress fiascos also!!!!!!! Maybe his people can photo-op him for one!!!!

 

[TheGoldcountry]

While this is obviously not Obama's Katrina, it would be funny if it turned into Trump's tank ride.

Good call. I can't believe that his advisers approved that BS. You can hire good people, but if you ignore them, you're throwing money down the toilet.

 

[Stacko]

Good call. I can't believe that his advisers approved that BS. You can hire good people, but if you ignore them, you're throwing money down the toilet.

You appear to be unfamiliar with his advisers.

 

[kookbreaker]

One could make an argument that the media is underplaying the floods. That is fair.

What is utterly deranged is to demand that the media rake Obama over the coals for not being on site from day 1 (or 2).

The op is constantly downplaying the major outrage issue that happened with Katrina in that Federal relief efforts utterly failed and very often just made things worse during the rescue phase. even the Cato institute had a laundry list of screw ups that happened during the relief effort.

This was entirely because Bush did not take the relevant positions seriously and put cronies in charge of the relevant agencies (agencies the op has demonstrated he does not understand the mission of). The result was a horrid failure on multiple levels and relief "efforts" that made things worse.

So what the op and Fox News seem to think is that this some kind of sympathetic magic: heavy floods on the ground in Louisiana? President not landing on site? Must be the same exact situation! Why no media outrage? LIBRAL BIAS!

All of this ignores the fact that relief agencies in this flood are pretty much working effectively and it was the clustermess of Bush that was the problem, not him just circling the area in a plane.

 

[332nd]

Just to back up my claim that the media underplayed the story of the Louisiana flooding for the first 4 or 5 days, here is a viral letter from a Baton Rouge lawyer complaining about that very issue. It is a powerful letter.

I've been hearing about this since at least Last Sunday or Monday. Not sure how much coverage is enough.

 

[TheGoldcountry]

You appear to be unfamiliar with his advisers.

Perhaps I am.

 

[TheGoldcountry]

It always cracks me up when people complain about no media coverage, while simultaneously being here, and discussing media coverage.

Apparently, we have media coverage.

 

[johnny karate]

I've been hearing about this since at least Last Sunday or Monday. Not sure how much coverage is enough.

No, you don't understand... sunmaster14 found this post on Facebook from some guy who said there wasn't enough media coverage. So it must be true!

 

[sunmaster14]

Actually there is a rational basis for saying that.

Obama has been president for close to 8 years. That has provided plenty of opportunities for people to criticize him for things he has done wrong and praise him for things he has done right.

I'm not familiar with all your threads and posts, but my impression is that you routinely find things to criticize in Obama and that you rarely if ever find things to praise. I don't recall you ever approving of any significant action Obama has taken or policy Obama has espoused.

Well, this is another kind of logical fallacy you're deploying - selection bias. First of all, I don't see the point of praising here anything Obama has done right. His supporters outnumber his detractors by about 10 to 1. Anything good he does is either uncontroversial and doesn't get discussed, or it is attacked by a one-off detractor or another, and dozens of Obama's supporters swarm in like ants on an overripe banana.

I have read many threads where Obama has been attacked unfairly or irrationally, and I have simply declined to get involved. I'm not here to support the existing narrative. I'm not interested in dog-piling. I'm here to provide a contrarian voice, to test drive some of my ideas, and to learn something.

Perhaps even more important, however, is the fact that when I ever do defend Obama, and I have done so at times - on budget deficits, on his support of free trade, on finally talking tough and taking action on ISIS - the discussion peters out because there's nobody to argue with. So that becomes one or two posts. Whereas when I criticize Obama, I spend half of my day just responding to all the nonsense, and adding dozens of posts to my post count.

Second, Babbylonian's claim was that I would have criticized Obama no matter what he did. But this is demonstrably untrue. I have refrained from criticizing Obama hundreds of times, even in threads in which I participated actively where he was being criticized by others (liberals or conservatives) and being defended. If I don't agree with a criticism, I either ignore it or a post a mild defense. Babbylonian is conflating criticism of Obama with an aversion to attacking Obama's critics.

Finally, I'll note that I haven't actually attacked Obama for going or not going to Louisiana. Admittedly, I've mocked his prodigious dedication to golf, but only to be humorous (and a bit trollish), but my main point in this thread was to highlight media bias when it comes to Democratic Presidents, and Obama in particular. I think the mainstream reflexively paints Republican politicians' actions in the worst possible light and Democratic politicians' actions in the best possible light. Probably not even consciously, but the effect is very real nonetheless.

 

[sunmaster14]

One could make an argument that the media is underplaying the floods. That is fair.

What is utterly deranged is to demand that the media rake Obama over the coals for not being on site from day 1 (or 2).

You're strawmanning this a little bit, but I think any objective observer should agree that the optics are jarring, and it's the kind of thing that the media likes to play up for certain kinds of politicians. Michael Moore in Fahrenheit 911 played up the incongruity of Bush denouncing a terrorist attack in Israel (which was not an uncommon event back then, and didn't involve Americans) while on the golf course, and then a few seconds later hitting a golf ball down the fairway. Obama did roughly the same thing after giving a statement on the beheading of an American by ISIS, although there was muted criticism of Obama then. I think the image of Obama golfing on Martha's Vineyard, day after day after day, while 100,000 people have been displaced from their homes - with nowhere near enough shelter available, by the way - is far more jarring than those other two examples.

The op is constantly downplaying the major outrage issue that happened with Katrina in that Federal relief efforts utterly failed and very often just made things worse during the rescue phase. even the Cato institute had a laundry list of screw ups that happened during the relief effort.

The outrages fed on each other. Personally, I think that FEMA did as good a job as could be expected, but because of the scale of the disaster, the fact that a hundred Geraldo Riveras were down there documenting the worst problems they could find, and coupled with the media spin on a couple of "perfectly-timed" media fumbles by the administration, it turned into a narrative of criminal negligence. It was anything but.

This was entirely because Bush did not take the relevant positions seriously and put cronies in charge of the relevant agencies (agencies the op has demonstrated he does not understand the mission of). The result was a horrid failure on multiple levels and relief "efforts" that made things worse.

First of all, mechanisms that work smoothly for typical disasters can completely breakdown if stressed beyond a certain point. Katrina stressed the system beyond that point. I think if the federal government could have been blamed for anything it was not realizing early enough how dysfunctional the governments of New Orleans and of Louisiana were. As I argued in the other thread, FEMA mainly writes checks and coordinates other agencies. They help local first responders prepare plans to handle disasters. Those plans existed, by the way, but they were not properly implemented. Ray Nagin, the mayor, delayed the evacuation, and that led to hundreds of thousands of poor people being stranded in low-lying areas. Contrast that with Chris Christie who ordered an evacuation from the New Jersey shore before Hurricane Sandy hit, on pain of arrest. The failure to evacuate hundreds of thousands of poor people in New Orleans was the original sin. After that, the most competent and well-funded disaster relief organization in the galaxy would have looked woefully inadequate.

So what the op and Fox News seem to think is that this some kind of sympathetic magic: heavy floods on the ground in Louisiana? President not landing on site? Must be the same exact situation! Why no media outrage? LIBRAL BIAS!

In terms of the "empathy" factor it's a very similar situation. In terms of the publicity factor, a Presidential visit actually could have done some good this time (in contrast to Katrina).

All of this ignores the fact that relief agencies in this flood are pretty much working effectively and it was the clustermess of Bush that was the problem, not him just circling the area in a plane.

It's a fact that the relief agencies are pretty much working effectively? Tell me, what exactly have they done so far? Do you have any idea?

 

[Babbylonian]

What's amusing to me is that I would be happy to criticize President Obama on multiple issues where Republicans should be lining up to cheer him.

For example, I think that allowing Guantanamo Bay to continue operation as a prison for unconvicted terrorist suspects is a crime. I similarly think that assassinating suspected, or even confirmed, terrorists outside of areas of persistent conflict is a crime.

I also despise any President who claims to be a Christian while not immediately commuting to life imprisonment all death sentences within his or her purview.

The ACA, while pragmatic and a useful interim health care measure, is an indicator of general Democratic timidity and it's a shame that President Obama hasn't said as much more often and with greater force.

One will also find, if one bothers to look, that there are other members here who have been similarly critical of the President while supporting him in general as far better than the [money-grubbing, religious law-desiring] opposition. I don't see a lot of that on the other side.

 

[sunmaster14]

It always cracks me up when people complain about no media coverage, while simultaneously being here, and discussing media coverage.

Apparently, we have media coverage.

Not sure why it would crack you up, or even strike you as ironic. The people here are uber-informed on current events, relative to the average American. I learned about the scale of the disaster from perusing right-wing news sites, not from the mainstream media. If you want to try to justify your insinuation that the media coverage was adequate, then perhaps you can run some google searches to see. Here's a quote from an article supporting my claim. Note who the speaker is:

"You have the Olympics. You got the election. If you look at the national news, you're probably on the third or fourth page," Fugate said Tuesday. "FEMA understands this is a very large disaster impacting tens of of thousands of people. Irregardless of whether it is getting in the national coverage, we know this has had a significant impact in Louisiana."

ETA: Here is the NY Times Public Editor calling out her newspaper for its lack of coverage:

The heavy rain started on Friday, and as flooding began in towns across the Gulf Coast, the governor of Louisiana declared a state of emergency. By Saturday the waters were raging: the National Guard was pulling people from their homes, rivers were cresting at historic levels, cars and buses had overturned and the worst was ahead. It was not until Sunday night, at 8:20 p.m., that The New York Times posted a staff-written story on its website, which appeared Monday in print.

...

The Times is not the only news organization being criticized for doing too little too late on the floods. Even so, from my scanning of the media’s reaction, The Times’s performance seems particularly weak. I asked national editor Marc Lacey what explains the limited coverage so far.

“I think it’s a big story and I think we were on it,” he said. “It’s clear there’s extensive devastation.”

When I pushed about the slow start, Lacey said, “We definitely could have done more and we’re going to do more. Stay tuned.” (The Times published two additional staff-written stories Tuesday afternoon.)

 

[sunmaster14]

What's amusing to me is that I would be happy to criticize President Obama on multiple issues where Republicans should be lining up to cheer him.

For example, I think that allowing Guantanamo Bay to continue operation as a prison for unconvicted terrorist suspects is a crime. I similarly think that assassinating suspected, or even confirmed, terrorists outside of areas of persistent conflict is a crime.

I also despise any President who claims to be a Christian while not immediately commuting to life imprisonment all death sentences within his or her purview.

Well, this sure seems over the top, but whatever.

The ACA, while pragmatic and a useful interim health care measure, is an indicator of general Democratic timidity and it's a shame that President Obama hasn't said as much more often and with greater force.

One will also find, if one bothers to look, that there are other members here who have been similarly critical of the President while supporting him in general as far better than the [money-grubbing, religious law-desiring] opposition. I don't see a lot of that on the other side.

So what's your take on Obama's decision not to take time out of his vacation to visit Louisiana? Do you think it's just fine and dandy? Do you think you would be criticizing Mitt Romney, if he were President now and doing the same thing?