Author: RenaRF

(Cross-posted at Daily Kos, my blog and My Left Wing)

First a disclaimer.  It is pretty much assumed that Bush cannot hand me a SCOTUS nominee with whom I will be happy.  Therefore, it’s imperative, for me, to try to get someone who doesn’t make my skin crawl.

Having said that, I’m torn on Miers.  I’ve seen all of the speculative arguments about whether or not she is a raging far-right evangelical wingnut and then further speculative argument about why she is not a raging far-right evangelical wingnut.

So I took a time-consuming approach.  I researched public statements made by Republican Senators and the Independent Senator from Vermont in a effort to get a feel for which way the wind was blowing.  Upon reading their statements, I cam up with the following regarding the Miers nomination (purely subjective): Opposed, Neutral and Favorable.  Unknown was assigned if I simply couldn’t find a public statement by a Senator.  Below the fold is my analysis of these statements and perhaps some conjecture as to what it all means.
I have to admit that it was my grandmother who has made me step back and take a second look.  No, not because she called me with some inside information on Miers that caused me to raise an eyebrow.  Rather, my 86 year old grandmother is a Limbaugh-listening Texas Republican.  I don’t think she has ever voted for a Democrat in her life.  She is also a bona-fide Church-going Christian, so much so that her social events are church-related and she attends not only services but Bible study and Sunday school as well.  I’ve been with her to her church – I wouldn’t say, generally, that it’s a choice-loving crowd.  Yet my Grandmother is adamantly pro-choice – always has been.  She hasn’t succumbed to her church or her friends or talk radio or her party in her choice/life position.  So I started thinking about that in the context of Harriet Miers and at least came back to a middling position as to whether or not being an evangelical guarantees that she is pro-life (and yes, pro-choice vs. pro-life is THE issue for me in this nomination – I realize that there are other important issues but this one’s a dealbreaker for me in the SCOTUS).

But that’s not enough – so call what follows my attempt to read the tea leaves.  Here’s a high level summary:

Republican and Independent Senators

Faovrable: 18

Neutral: 28

Opposed: 2

Unknown: 8

What follows is a list, alphabetically by state, of Senators, public comments they have made on the Miers nomination (if any), and my assessment of their favor/oppose/neutral status:

Now let’s look at the Republicans who were members of the “Gang of 14” who averted a nuclear showdown in July of this year:

Gang of 14 Republicans:

McCain: Favorable

Graham: Favorable

DeWine: Favorable

Warner: Favorable

Chafee: Favorable

Snowe: Neutral

Collins: Neutral

Of the two Republicans on that list, DeWine and Chafee are facing tough re-election bids in 2006.

The arch-conservative Senators tell a mixed story:

Arch-Conservative Republicans:

Brownback: Oppose

Sessions: Neutral

Coburn: Neutral

Thune: Oppose

Santorum: Neutral

(Yes, I realize there are likely more than this – please add yours in the comments and I’ll append)

I almost excluded Santorum from the list – he’s in such a political pickle these days that all of his rhetoric has been seriously dialed back.

And finally, the Republicans on the Judiciary Committee:

Judiciary Committee Republicans:

Hatch: Favorable

Grassley: Neutral

Kyl: Unknown

DeWine: Favorable

Sessions: Neutral

Graham: Favorable

Cornyn: Favorable

Brownback: Oppose

Coburn: Neutral

I don’t know where Kyl is going to come down on this – I simply have no appreciate as to how owned he is by the religious right.  I’m also not surprised by Cornyn – he is, of course, from Texas, Miers’ state.  Suffice it to say that there’s room even in the Judiciary Committee (Specter, Brownback and Coburn) for this nomination to fail to achieve recommendation.

In researching this I also found this article from October 5, 2005 indicating that the ‘Gang of 14’ have met on the Miers nomination.

So what does it mean?  Well, first, I think there is plenty of room in the Neutral category that makes this nomination far from a done deal.  Interestingly, some of the farthest-right wingnuts fall into the Neutral column.  My only two Republican “Opposes” are screaming wingnuts.  

All this analysis equates to PHOG – Prophecy, Hearsay, Opinion and Guesswork – I freely admit that.  But the statements by Senator are there for each of you to look at and analyze as you see fit.  I will say that the only hesitancy I have as to Miers’ wingnut-status is that she is opposed by Brownback and Thune.  Hardly enough to hang my hat on when she has been endorsed by Robertson and Dobson.

So, after hours of work, I find I’m still confused.

What do you think?

(Cross-posted at Daily Kos, My Left Wing, and my blog)

Opinion polls, to me, are an imperfect science.  At the same time, they can serve as a touchstone in evaluating options.  The option I’m specifically concerned about right now is whether or not to adamantly oppose the nomination of Harriet Miers for the Supreme Court.

Here’s what I think the numbers tell us – make the jump.
Let me sumarrize my own personal opinion about Harriet Miers.  She’s bad.  She’s extremely bad.  I think that she’s too much of a Bush cheerleader for anyone to reasonably expect that she won’t go after Roe v. Wade.  I’m not a single issue voter, but when it comes to Supreme Court nominees, Roe is a dealbreaker for me.

I don’t know if the Administration has been distracted or how they managed to so thoroughly bungle the actual process of nominating Miers… Perhaps they took their base for granted and/or perhaps their arrogance has finally gotten the better of them in making the assumption that there would be no conservative opposition to Miers… Any way you analyze it, the end result is that the Administration is quickly trying to “fill in the gaps”, in code, for its conservative base.  I think the information that is coming out is very telling and I do not think that Harriet Miers is some closet feminist who has been pulling the wool over the eyes of everyone around her for years with the expectation that she would eventually be nominated to the Supreme Court.

So having said that, let’s get to the numbers:

PRESIDENT BUSH — Overall Job Rating

Approve: 38%
Disapprove: 56%
Unsure: 6%

Source: Pew Research Center, Oct. 6-10, 2005 via PollingReport.com

It’s about time.  But what can this tell us about the Miers nomination?  While I am opposed to Miers on a very fundamental level, the nagging question has always been that if the Miers nomination is withdrawn, would the next name be any better?  I’m not a fortune-teller – but I think comparing Bush’s approval ratings among conservatives between last month and this month points at a possible strategy to compel the withdrawal of Miers’ nomination and the naming of a more palatable (relatively speaking – we know we’re not going to get a progressive, here) nominee.

PRESIDENT BUSH — Overall Job Rating

Republicans

• Approve, September 8-11, 2005 – 88%
• Approve, October 6-10, 2005 – 87%

Source: Pew Research Center Poll via CNN

As loud as conservatives are screaming about the Miers nomination, it doesn’t seem to have had a significant affect on his approval ratings with his base.

Yes, I know that this Administration claims to have little interest in opinion polls.  I think recent actions by the Administration, however, give lie to that opinion.  Take his repeated trips to the Gulf region as an example of his concern.  Take also his repeated attempts to prop up support for the war in Iraq.  What the administration says and what it does seems to tell two different stories.  As always, I put stock in the actions, not the words.  

Remember – not only does Bush have his legacy to consider – he also has his ability to push any agenda through at stake.  Moreover, the biggest threat to Bush, as I see it, comes from within his own party.  With midterm elections gearing up, fellow Republicans are very concerned about the overall sagging approval numbers.  The pressure will be on Bush to make some move to staunch the flow and the pressure will come from his own party.

If he’s not losing support from his own base, then he’s losing it from somewhere in the middle.  His strategists already know this.  His party knows it, too.  Democrats should gently start asking questions, based on Bush’s statement about Miers’ religious beliefs, as to her qualifications while feeding him ideas on the least objectionable person he could nominate.  We may ultimately sacrifice by giving Bush a chance at better approval ratings, but given what’s at stake with the Supreme Court, I think that that’s an acceptable sacrifice to make.

Let’s not continue to prove this political cartoon:

Update [2005-10-13 20:15:24 by RenaRF]: In trying to respond to a comment on dKos, I came across this information – it regards the Bork nomination. When Bork was rejected he was replaced with Kennedy. This came from Reagan who was totally embattled over nominating O’Connor and failing to get an anti-Roe justice on the court. Interesting excerpts…

Bork had his supporters in the administration, most notably Attorney General Edwin Meese and Assistant Attorney General William Bradford Reynolds. But the White House was caught in the maelstrom of the Iran-Contra scandal at the time, and pragmatists like the new chief of staff Howard Baker and Counsel Arthur B. Culvahouse had reservations when it came to supporting what would clearly be a controversial nomination. Reagan, however, manifested a determination to make Bork the nominee, come what may. This would probably be his last chance to fundamentally change the makeup of the Supreme Court.

–snip–

As Bork’s September 15 confirmation hearing approached, liberal and conservative pressure groups spent an unprecedented $20 million in campaigns to either demonize or praise the candidate. The AFL-CIO, the American Civil Liberties Union, Common Cause, the NAACP and the National Organization of Women was just a few of the organizations who hurled themselves into the fray in order to prevent Bork’s ascension to the highest court in the land.

–snip–

They argued that the Ninth Amendment, which states that the “enumeration . . . of certain rights” in the Constitution “shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people,” justified judicial activism. In other words, the Constitution acknowledged unidentified rights and it was up to the Supreme Court to define and defend them in keeping with the premise that Americans should live in a free society where all people were equally protected under the law. Bork’s opinions and writings, said his critics, revealed a man who posed a serious threat to basic principles of social justice.

Source: The Bork Nomination.

(Cross-posted at Daily Kos, my blog and My Left Wing)

Is it possible for those of us in the progressive ranks to have a conversation about religion as it relates to politics without getting into some huge flame war?  I hope so.  Because I saw an exchange on this week’s Real Time with Bill Maher that I think everyone should read and at least consider.  After considering it, perhaps it is possible to simply discuss it without decrying this point of view or that dogma.  Let’s make an honest effort at civility, because if we can’t talk amongst ourselves about religion and the importance of its presence or absence in some of our lives, I fear we will be severely hamstrung by this weird brand of emotional hysteria (both for and against) surrounding progressive discourse on the subject of faith.

More after the flip.
First let me tell you that the exchange I’m going to reference involved primarily Bill Maher and Andrew Sullivan.  Benn Affleck and Salman Rushdie were also on the panel and some comments of theirs may be featured.  I know that opinions about Andrew Sullivan among progressives can be harsh.  Let me just set the stage a bit and highlight a comment he made prior to the one that most caught my attention.  The comment is on the subject of Sullivan’s support for George W. Bush:

I will tell you I trusted him.  I endorsed him in 2000.  I trusted him that there were stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.  I trusted him that he was a conservative President who would restrain spending.  He’s increased spending more than anybody since FDR.  I trusted him when he went into Iraq and said “we’ve got to get this right” and he would send enough troops to actually get it right, and he didn’t.  I’m never going to trust this guy again.  And any conservative who has principles who hasn’t just sold out to the Republican establishment would have said last November “we’re voting for Kerry.  Because we can’t trust this guy” and they all went along.  And I’m sorry but I have no pity for them anymore.

So there you have it – a bit of stage-setting.  Andrew Sullivan continues to withdraw support from the Presidency of George W. Bush and is doing so publicly.

Now those of you who are unfamiliar with Mr. Sullivan may not know that he is a conservative gay man of faith.  He took an enormous amount of shit on some of Maher’s past shows for supporting the anti-gay Bush administration.  I never got comfortable with his reasons.  I disagree with him on the vast majority of the positions he takes politically, though I think he’s no hack and he is definitely a smart guy.

So now to the interchange that has inspired this diary:

[ MAHER ] I have to tell you what offends me most about this nomination [Miers] is that there’s no diversity of religion in this country.  George Bush does have a diverse cabinet when it comes to race.  They’ve done a pretty good job – Colin Powell, Condoleeza Rice and so forth – but, you know, I don’t think race makes someone as diverse nowadays as how you think about religion.  And there’s no secular voice – there’s no voice of me in this cabinet.  Everyone who gets appointed has to be not just Christy but Super Christy – double-dog Christy – twice born Christy – and you know what?  That – people of faith – and when I hear ‘people of faith’ I think, well those are people who suspend rational judgment for nonsensical bullshit that they believe.  Where is the diversity of the people who think like myself and perhaps you [indicates Rushdie]?

[ AFFLECK ] I… I think that’s oversimplifying it and probably a little bit insulting.  You know, people of faith aren’t stupid by dint of their being of faith.  I mean, I just disagree.  I think that’s stupid, in fact, to suggest that.  I think that ultimately you have…

[ MAHER ] It’s a mental block…

[ AFFLECK ] …well, there may be on some ends of the extreme of whatever religious spectrum you want to look at.  But there’s certainly a gamut and just saying ‘well, somebody who is religious whether they are Jewish of the temple or Orthodox Jew or a Christian who goes to church once a week or four times a week or believes that every word that’s in the bible is literal or like the President thinks ‘well, it’s not all literal but I believe in it’ doesn’t inherently make them stupid.

–snip–

[ SULLIVAN ] Bill, I’m a person of faith and I rather resent being called stupid.

[ MAHER ] I’m not calling you stupid.  I’m saying…

[ SULLIVAN ] Yes you did.

[ MAHER ] No I’m… I’m saying it’s a mental block.  Because I know…

[ SULLIVAN ] You have a mental block when it comes to people of faith.

[ MAHER ] No – I had a mental block when I was a child when they taught me this nonsense and when I got to be an adult, I got over it.

–snip–

[ MAHER ] This week – let me just expand on why I feel this way – this week it just happened that God pulled off a hat trick.  On the same day… the same day there were three major holidays.  The feast of St. Francis of Assissi for the Christians, Ramadan started, and Roshashana all fell on the same day.  Now if all three groups feel so fervently [Rushdie chuckles] – you know where I’m going – isn’t it obvious somebody’s wrong?  And if somebody’s wrong, aren’t they all wrong?

–snip–

[ SULLIVAN ] Bill, they actually have drug tests to be in the cabinet for President Bush.  That’s one reason why some people aren’t represented there. [laughter and groans]  People of faith are not talking about what is known.  They’re talking about what is not known and what we cannot know.  And genuine people of faith are not going to make these assinine statements like Franklin Graham or these nutcases you point out.  They’re going to be humble in front of God.  They’re going to recognize that there are some things that science cannot tell you.  The meaning of the universe, the point of our lives, what morality is, what happens to us after death, how we should treat our fellow human beings… Those questions, I think in true people of faith who don’t seek to impose it on other people are just trying to find a way to live their own lives in a good way.  And by demonizing all people of faith, you.. you.. what you do is you play into the hands of these fundamentalists.  The United States is based upon a separation of church and state and that’s why religion is so strong in this country [my emphasis added].  The Republican party has betrayed that tradition and you’re rigvht to call them on it.  But don’t – don’t conflate that with the greatness of many religions and the greatness of many people of faith.

[ MAHER ] I’m sorry, but they are – excuse me – they are your fellow travellers.  They – the people who believe in miracles and – and you know – impregnating people from a God and flying up to heaven – you either…

[ SULLIVAN ] And the people who are visiting prisoners in jail and the people who are feeding the hungry and the people who are caring for abandoned children and the people who do good every day of the week are also my fellow travellers – and they’re YOUR fellow travellers.

That was literally one of the most thought-provoking and interesting exchanges I have ever seen on teleivison.  Just for the record, I believe in God and consider myself a Christian (though it has been suggested to me that my worldview fits more with Hinduism).  I am not indoctrinated, however.  Rather, my “faith” is something I just feel and isn’t something I can readily explain.  I suppose that puts me somehwere in the mid-spectrum of the breadth of religious beliefs and disbeliefs across progressives.  

Maher started with a very interesting point – he is an atheist and he feels totally unrepresented in his atheism.  I think that that’s a legitimate statement that holds true across the history of American politics – if there’s a well-known atheist or politically atheistic group that has ever weilded influence as to atheistic values and concerns, I can’t name them (not that that means anything).

Yet Maher, who I think is brilliant and with whom I generally agree, is quite arrogant in his atheistic rhetoric.  He does routinely impugn “people of faith” as being somehow unintelligent or, at best, woefully misguided. He lumps religious extremists in with all people who believe   I think that’s a HUGE mistake, especially if progressives and Democrats want to reclaim the “big tent” supremacy.

For once, on this subject, I agree with Sullivan.  His statements about what is unknown ring true with me on an emotional level, and I didn’t feel that he was trying to impose his point of view on people who don’t share it.  He seemed, to me, to speak for the majority of “people of faith” who are totally drowned out by extremists of their ilk.  Moreover, I thought his observation about playing into the hands of fundamentalists was absolutely spot-on.  Perhaps, just perhaps his statement about religion being so strong in this country is because of the separation of church and state is one where we can find some common ground.  Perhaps it is a winning message, one that welcomes the diversity of religious beliefs out there in the wonderful American democratic experiment yet also reinforces the legislative necessity of protecting religion by keeping it out of government and public institutions.  It doesn’t seek to impose a particular viewpoint of any variety yet reinforces the Constitutional imperative of the separation.  Freedom of religion is freedom from religion.  Sullivan may have just hit upon what can unite us in our differences around this incendiary topic.

A disclaimer: I am not a proponent of Andrew Sullivan’s views, generally speaking.  Moreover, I think it’s important to note that I don’t equate his comments on religion with a broader discussion of religious extremism and the damnable creep of religiousity back into our government.

Is this not a point on which we can have some discussion and reach some semblance of common ground?  I fear an religious split in our party that will substantially weaken our ability to accomplish the one thing to which we all are so dedicated – winning elections in the future.

Comments are welcome.  Please be considerate even if you don’t agree.

(Cross-posted at Daily Kos, My Left Wing, and my blog.)

[editor’s note, by RenaRF] This is in response to Barack Obama’s diary at Daily Kos earlier today.  I was almost crying when I typed it.

Dear Senator Obama,

Thank you so much for your thoughtful post this morning.  My reply to you, contained within this diary, is solely my own thoughts and impressions and is intended to provide some insight for you.  I have a deep and abiding regard for your character and it is to that which I appeal.

In no way do I mean to criticize you or attack you, though the overall tone of my following response may be interpreted that way.  My issues with your post are multiple, the most acute ones being related to the fact that I think you are viewing and responding to symptoms and not considering the root causes.

And so I’ll begin.
I think the defining statement of your letter was this:

…win the right to appoint [judges] by recpaturing the presidency and the Senate.  And I don’t believe we get there by vilifying good allies, with a lifetime record of battling for progressive causes, over one vote or position.

That excerpt says two important things:  First, it tells us that we simply must be focused on taking back control of the executive and legislative branches.  We are in violent accord on that issue, though I will foreshadow that we disagree dramatically on what needs to be done to make that occur.  Second, it immediately chastisizes those of us who have stepped up and criticized Democratic senators who voted to confirm John Roberts.  I will ask you to consider this: What if the criticism you reference is really a broad metaphor for an across-the-board abandonment of progressive values on the part of Democrats?  Please keep that question with you as you read this, because I would submit to you that it’s not just about the Roberts nomination.

Senator, we haven’t forgotten all the efforts made by Democrats on everything but the Roberts nomination.  My mother raised me with a variety of truisms, one of which is particularly apt for this particular discussion: you reap what you sow.  If Democrats portray weakness as a party, Democrats will be labelled and branded as weak.  Coming back and gently, articulately criticizing us for actually calling the Democratic party weak reminds me a bit of a situation with my now 20-year old stepson.  In going through his room, I found something which allowed me to catch him in a lie.  When confronted with that lie, he was angry that I had gone through his room.  He totally missed the fact that he had lied and that I had a right to be disappointed in him.  The methods employed in proving the lie are irrelevant.  I don’t find decrying criticism from your own camp entirely dissimilar.

As I stated in a comment to your diary, the definition of insanity is doing what you’ve always done yet somehow expecting different results.  Democrats have striven for congeniality in their approach to opposing the majority and have been repeatedly and squarely defeated in that tactic.  Nowhere have I seen a cohesive and unified “calling out” of the opposition on their tactics.  Coming back to common sense truisms, Senator, I would say that the only way to deal with a bully is to stand up to that bully.  When the bully knows that he can intimidate you and muscle you to achieve his end goals, he will do so.  Fighting back is the only thing he understands and Democrats have not been fighting back in any meaningful way against the bullying tactics of the majority party.  For example:

• Where is a coordinated and public admonishment on the part of Democrats for the lies and deceptions perpetrated by the majority party in going to war in Iraq?
• Where is a coordinated and public demand on the part of Democrats for accountability on
  • the Downing Street Memo?
  • the outing of Valeria Plame?
  • the assertion that Iraq was seeking uranium from Niger?
  • the billions of dollars missing from efforts in Iraq?
  • the policy that condones torture?
• Where were unified Democratic legislators simply screaming at the tops of their lungs about all the unnecessary deaths in the wake of hurricane Katrina?
• Where is a unified Democratic voice yelling for the resignation of Tom Delay?
• Where is a unified Democratic voice demanding a full accounting of the Able Danger fiasco?

The above list doesn’t even approach being exhaustive – I’m sure what little I have provided gives you a flavor for the generalized frustration progressives across the country are experiencing.  “Calling out” Democratic Senators on the issue of John Roberts is the result of an accumulated sense that the Democratic party is, at the least, ineffective and, at worst, irrelevant and obsolete.  Espousing ideas that issue a call for comity further speeds the certainty of irrelevance.  Our hopes and our hearts die with every capitulation – each of which is one of the 1,000 cuts that will eventually spell our death.

Ask yourself this: why is it that the vast majority of progressives who frequent Daily Kos are able to sum up the Republican party’s platform in six words?  Strong Military.  Lower Taxes.  Family Values.  Yet this pool of often brilliant thinkers can’t do the same for our own party.  It’s not because we don’t agree with a platform that has been put forward – it’s that the Democratic message itself is contrary and lacks unity.  Don’t ask us to rally around the party if you can’t provide us with the words we need to issue the cry.  You can’t have the support if you’re not willing to do the work required to put it in place.

Most importantly, we’re tired of getting punched.  EVERY DAY brings a new item that we hold as absolutely imperative that we find has been sacrificed on the altar of “statesmanship”.  It’s not time to make nice with the majority party.  It’s the time to get angry and knock them out.  They haven’t hesitated to do so with us and yet we’ve stood there, taking it, hoping that their eventual missteps would spell their own demise.

Well it hasn’t, Senator Obama.  It hasn’t.  The Republican party has shown time and time again its resilience in the face of consequences associated with their policies and actions.  They take the heat – they stick to the script and to the plan – they ride it out – and it works.  It works because no one is standing over them kicking them in the face when they try to get back up.  It’s not enough that the Democratic party start building frames of its own (and I see precious little of that type of activity) – we have to simultaneously obliterate the frames within which the Republicans operate.  Nothing short of a full assault will do and we’re running out of time and influence with which to do it.  I hope that it isn’t already too late.

Senator Obama, I do see great promise from you.  You are a skilled and inspiring orator and one of the best chances we have as we move into the future.  Hence my near-hysterical reaction to your letter, a letter which seemed to me to say the same tired old things and promote the same losing tactics.  More importantly, I’m dumbfounded by your lack of anger at the way you and other Democrats are simply kicked around by the Republican party.  They are humiliating you while you try to straighten your tie.  They’re punching you in the face while you try to shake their hand.  I realize that one-on-one relationships with opposing party members are not like that – but the end result is that you wind up beaten bloody and left to die while they walk away laughing.

I’m pretty moderate as far as this site goes and yet I’m ready to take to the streets and do what the Democratic party won’t or cant – it’s that important – and I’m frankly shocked that you don’t see it.

Hope springs eternal but it IS fading, Senator.  It’s sad when average people are willing to be more courageous and daring than our elected leaders.

LEAD, damnit.  Stop telling us why we’re wrong and lead.

Respectfully,

RenaRF

(Cross-posted at My Left Wing, Street Prophets, Daily Kos, ePluribus Media, and my blog.)

I am entirely too tired to do any kind of serious analysis piece on the march today.  I have no more insight to add other than that I thought it was awesome.  It was wall-to-wall people of all ages and walks of life and the message was anti-Bush and anti-war with almost no exception.

Yes, there were moments of disorganization and frustration but given that it was about 500,000 people, I think it went wonderfully.

What follows after the fold is my photo journal with a few comments about each picture.  Enjoy.

Like all good radical anti-war protestors, we started our day at Starbucks.  I had coffee and a cinnamon scone – armed for marching.

Carne Asada Burrito introduces himself at Starbucks.

Damnit Janet and Carne Asada Burrito at the Starbucks.

On the way to the rally we saw this protestor and really dug her sign.

PastorDan tries to straighten the bloggers’ marching banner.

When asked to pose “like a married couple”, this is what PastorDan and MrsPastor chose as representative.

MrsPastor distributes the cookies.

The bloggers start to arrive – represented were Kossacks, MyLeftWingers, BooTribbers, ePMers, and Street Propheteers.

We get our shit together long enough to pose for a group picture – thanks to ElizabethD for ensuring this happened.

Crowd shots at the outer edges of the rally.  This doesn’t approach giving an appreciation as to how many people were there – people were everywhere.

We make our way to the corner of 15th and Constitution and line up to march.

One of the signs in our delegation.

Another sign seen while waiting to start the march – the picture doesn’t it do it justice – it was a great glossy poster of the Administration modelled after a Godfather-like movie promotion.

We pass some college students protesting the war, using their signs to cover the signs of the very small wingnut contra-protest contingent.

We saw this guy about 1/3 of the way into the march route.

The dignitaries, including Cindy Sheehan and Jesse Jackson, marched right along with us.

Not sure what this was about, but love the suit.

Even babies know the war has to end.

And finally, this gentleman reminds us something that’s important.

Hope y’all enjoy it.

(Cross-posted at Daily Kos)

Just shy of three weeks since hurricane Katrina ripped through the Gulf, wreaking havoc on particularly Lousiana and Mississippi, tales of common heroism are emerging as a bright spot in what has otherwise been a bleak and desolate event in American history.

I have been unable to turn away from the tales of human tragedy and suffering.  I know that there are literally millions of other Americans out there who feel the same way.  I don’t remember a time when I felt so impotent – so totally hamstrung by my lack of proximity to the region and my inability to do more than donate money and write letters to my Senators and Congressman and the President of the United States himself.

I’d like to offer a little inspiration after the jump.  Make it with me.
There is so much that can be written about what went wrong – speculation is endless as to how many lives were sacrificed to bureaucratic ineptitude and the failure of the Federal government to step up and honor its solemn responsibility to protect and defend American lives.  But that’s not the focus of this story.  I want to put aside talk about the missteps and mistakes that failed American people in their time of need and focus on the common acts of everyday heroism that this disaster inspired.

I’ll start first with the Daily Kos community.  Starting on Saturday, August 27th, diarist DarkSyde brought us face to face with the potential for tragedy unfolding in the gulf region.  As a community, we embraced DarkSyde’s expertise and knowledge and consistently recommended his diaries up the recommended list.  We were aware, I think quite early on, of the potential devastation that this storm would yield.  It’s no surprise, then, that the Daily Kos community realized very soon after the storm’s passage that the damage to life and property was catastrophic.  In a desperate attempt to start relief flowing to the stricken region, I posted a diary that simply summarized for the Daily Kos community the charitable organizations that were poised to rush relief to the region.  In one week, Kossacks reported a whopping total of $15,161.08 donated to the charities listed in the diary.  That total doesn’t even approach the total received from Kossacks – it was only a total of those who self-reported their donations.  Each of you who answered the call, either through donation or through getting up from where you were and heading down there or down to a shelter that you knew had been organized in your community or who answered the call to volunteer your time – each is an uncelebrated hero of the Katrina disaster.  Your hearts were vast and deep beyond measure in the face of human suffering.

::

Another stand-out organization is the United States Coast Guard.  As early as Monday night after the storm blew through (8/29), US Coast Guard personnel were in their helicopters and flying into storm and flood devastated areas trying to locate survivors.

US Coast Guard personnel rescue stranded people on August 29th after hurricane Katrina

TheIndyChannel.com reports that the Coast Guard has rescued over 6,500 victims of hurricane Katrina in the Gulf Region and their efforts continue to this day.

US Coast Guard personnel continue to search for survivors of hurricane Katrina on September 14th

::

42-year old San Diego resident and energy company executive David Perez felt so compelled to do something to help victims of hurricane Katrina  that he chartered a jet (at a personal expense of $250,000) to go to Baton Rouge and bring out 82 people who lost everything to hurricane Katrina.

A distraught evacuee is comforted by Red Cross volunteers on arrival in San Diego

“I’m providing people an opportunity to get out of hell, and I was willing to take them anywhere they wanted to go,” said Perez.

::

Who can forget RobertInWisconsin’s diary about Edgar Hollingsworth.

California National Guard troops rescue Edgard Hollingsworth from certain death

The California National Guard troops had been specifically instructed that they were not to break into houses as they attempted to locate any unlikely survivors – they could merely call out, knock and look in windows.  Thank God that they didn’t follow orders on this occasion.  They broke into the home and rescued Hollingsworth, a fellow American and a human soul, from the grips of death.  Countless National Guard troops are repeating similar acts of heroism, risking their lives and safety to find survivors and bring them to safety.

::

Texas Oil Tycoon Boone Pickens (no, I’m not making this up) chartered a Contintntal Airlines flight to airlift 80 dogs from Louisiana to temporary foster homes in San Diego and San Fracisco.  Dubbed “Operation Pet Lift”, Pickens spent $50,000 to charter the jet in an effort to airlift 200 pets out of the region.  Sadly, bureaucracy allowed only 80 to be airlifted.

Continental Airlines volunteer flight attendants care for the animals of “Operation Pet Lift”

::

There are too many stories for me to find them and document them properly here.  I know that I have seen coverage on both CNN and MSNBC about the following:

• A Houston-area woman opened her home to 27 evacuees of the Katrina disaster, expressing a deep desire that these people feel welcomed and comforted in the wake of losing everything.
• A Houston-area woman literally pulled off her shoes and brought them to an evacuee getting off a bus at the Astrodome.
• A San Diego area man has assembled volunteers to go to the stricken area to feed and provide water to pets still stranded in New Orleans.  Responding to a lack of space in animal shelters, the man expressed a desire to ensure these animals’ lives until rescue can be secured.
• The entire staff of Charity Hospital worked tirelessly to protect the lives of their patients when evacuation was constantly delayed.
• A New Orleans area man took his kayak and paddled through the flooded streets assembling volunteers and commandeering boats to rescue survivors in the immediate Katrina aftermath.

::

Countless stories of common heroism arise from the hurricane Katrina disaster.  I found myself wondering earlier today if I would have acted heroically had I been in the area when disaster struck.  Would I risk my life to save my neighbor?  Would I go until exhaustion or death overcame me to do my part to save every soul still living?  I hope so.  Seeing all of these stories has been inspirational to me in a time when I have had deeply dark feelings about our government and the state of the country which I so dearly love.  These stories have pulled me back from the precipice and I had to take the opportunity to really acknowledge and highlight the common decency of everyday people.  Heroes walk among us – every day.

The title of the diary is somewhat misleading in that this is not a rant against George W. Bush or his Republican administration.  But in considering each of these people, and groups of people, it was evident that our President doesn’t deserve the quality and caliber of the average American whom he leads.  They are, to a person, too good for him.

Please share any stories that you have heard about heroism or exeptional acts of self-sacrifice in the Katrina disaster, and thanks for reading.

(Cross-posted at Daily Kos and The Impeach Bush Coalition)

A note to the community.  This entire diary arose out of a quote on impeachment grounds (featured in the diary) that I found on the internet and posted in another blog (yes, I DO visit other blogs).

The blog in question is the Impeach Bush Coalition of blogs, of which my blog is  a member.  While I realize that some will react to the subject of impeachment by deeming me a “tinfoil hat wearer”, I would like everyone to know that the reason I wrote the diary was to seriously explore the question of the impeachability of George W. Bush mainly (but not limited to) his actions during the hurricane Katrina disaster.  What’s below the fold is not a rant.

Impeach Bush is THE number one search phrase on Technorati followed closely by Katrina.  People are talking about this.  What follows is an attempt to open a discussion on realistic probabilities.

Make the jump.
I am going to assume that many progressive bloggers really do want to impeach Bush.  Let’s face it – the vast majority (if not all) of us have wanted him gone since an instance of Judicial activism put him in office in 2000… But just wanting him gone and actually building a credible case for his removal are two different things.

I’m not a lawyer.  I have no exceptional knowledge of the Constitution or the law outside of what I can glean from reading other blogs and from doing some research on the internet.  My opinions and reasons may lack legal rigor – but they need to be put out there as a jumping-off point for serious vetting.  Great journeys begin with a single step and this is mine, offered with the hopes that bright people will mold and change and add and grow this into something entirely possible.

Some Background

Two Presidents in the history of the United States have been impeached.  Andrew Johnson, 17th President of the United States, and William Jefferson Clinton, 42nd President of the United States.

Johnson, a Southern Democrat who ascended after Lincoln’s assassination, was impeached when he violated the Tenure of Office Act (a law passed by Republicans in Congress designed to eliminate Johnson’s power to dismiss office holders without the Senate’s consent) by attempting to fire Secretary of War Edwin M. Stanton.  Bill Clinton, in the infamous “Monica Lewinsky Affair” was impeached for grand jury perjury and obstruction of justice.  Neither President was convicted (source can be found here).

The most infamous near-miss is, of course, Richard M. Nixon, who resigned rather than face impeachment.

Impeachment procedures are spelled out in the US Constitution in Aricle I, Sections 2 and 3.  Impeachment grounds are defined in Article II, Section 4.  The grounds themselves are deceptively simple:

Section 4 – Disqualification

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

(All Constitutional source material can be found here.)

Impeachment then, to me, seems to have a vague standard as to grounds.  I found one very interesting quote, however, and one from which I believe there are substantiated grounds to impeach the 43rd President of the United States, George W. Bush.  It says:

…many experts agree that there are different standards for impeachable and criminal conduct. In the words of Dean John D. Feerick of Fordham University School of Law, in an article published in 1984, “Most authorities agree–and the precedents are in accord–that an impeachable offense is not limited to conduct which is indictable. Conduct that undermines the integrity of a public office or is in disregard of constitutional duties or involves abuse of power is generally regarded as grounds for impeachment. Since impeachment is a drastic sanction, the misconduct must be substantial and serious.”

(My emphasis added – source can be found here.)

What follows is my interpretation of “impeachable offenses” as perpetrated by George W. Bush, 43rd President of the United States, in his conduct during the 2005 disaster of Hurricane Katrina.

Fact #1:

In December of 2004, the Federal government, via the Department of Homeland Security issued its United States National Response Plan.  Thanks to an excellent diary by georgia10, I am now fully enlightened that the National Response Plan is essentially a contract that the government signs to ensure that “Incidents of National Significance” receive right and proper Federal support.  The President’s role in this is to:

“…lead the Nation in responding efficiently and ensuring the necessary resources are applied quickly and effectively to all Incidents of National Significance.”

Further, under the President’s oversight as spelled out above, Federal agencies are expected to provide:

• initial and/or ongoing response, when warranted, under their own authority and funding;

• alert, notification, pre-positioning and timely delivery of resources;

• proactive support for catastrophic or potentially catastrophic incidents using protocols for expedited delivery of resources.

The National Response Plan also lays out the circumstances by which the Federal government can expedite and circumvent certain restrictions and regulations when incidents of national significance are declared.

On Friday, August 26, 2005, Louisiana Governor Blanco formally requested that the President declare a state of emergency as hurricane Katrina approached.  On Saturday, August 27, The President complied and issued this Statement of Federal Emergency.  When the President signed this document, he invoked Title V of the Stafford Act which deemed hurricane Katrina an Incident of National Significance and transferred responsibility to the President of the United States.

At best President George W. Bush is guilty of dereliction of duty.  Somewhere in the middle of the severity scale he’s guilty of criminal negligence.  At the severe end of the spectrum he’s guilty of involuntary manslaughter through his failure to execute the duties prescribed by the National Response Plan.  Each and any of these offenses shows a disregard of Constitutional duty.

Fact #2:

In July of 2004, FEMA completed its now-infamous “Hurricane Pam” exercise.  Hurricane Pam was a simulation of a Category IV hurricane hitting parts of southeast Louisiana – a Category IV hurricane that was not as strong as hurricane Katrina.

From this CNN article on September 9th, the simulation predicted:

… the flood would leave swaths of southeast Louisiana uninhabitable for more than a year.

Flood waters would surge over levees, creating “a catastrophic mass casualty/mass evacuation” and leaving drainage pumps crippled for up to six months. “It will take over one year to re-enter areas most heavily impacted,” the report estimates.”

More than 600,000 houses and 6,000 businesses would be affected, more than two-thirds of them destroyed. Nearly a quarter-million children would be out of school. “All 40 medical facilities in the impacted area [would be] isolated and useless,” it says.

Local officials would be quickly overwhelmed with the five-digit death toll, 187,862 people injured and 196,395 falling ill. A half-million people would be homeless.

“Federal support must be provided in a timely manner to save lives, prevent human suffering and mitigate severe damage,” the report says.

The President knew.  The Hurricane Pam simulation was on the record in this Administration.  The President’s claims of “no one knew the levees would fail” is patently inaccurate and disingenuous.  Plenty of people knew – but he didn’t.

It seems to me that stupidity and lack of intellectual curiosity should be some kind of crime given the loss of life that it has perpetrated in the case of Katrina.  However, I would again say that the President was criminally negligent through this ignorance and that he failed to show proper regard for his Constitutional duty to protect the American people.

Fact #3:

On September 13th, 2005, two owners of a nursing home in St. Bernard Parish, Louisiana were charged with 34 counts of negligent homicide for failing to evacuate all the residents of the nursing home they managed.  A quick summary of the story reveals that the owners had a good business reputation and simply waited too long to evacuate the patients in their care.  As the water started to rise, they evacuated as many as they could and left the others to die.

Louisiana Attorney General Charles Foti Jr. said the following:

“We feel we have criminal negligence,” Foti said. “They did not follow the standards of care that a reasonable person would follow in a similar circumstance.”  (Source – CNN.com)

Indeed.

I don’t see a very far leap from these business owners and their failure to safeguard the lives of those in their care with the President of the United States, responsible via the National Response Plan and a delcared state of emergency in Louisiana and his failure to not only safeguard the lives of his citizens but also his failure to save untold hundreds in the predicted flooding that ensued.  That’s criminal negligence again and the addition of negligent homicide.

A few stray facts:

Returning to the Presidential Statement of Federal Emergency Assistance on Louisiana, note the parishes listed in the statement.  Now take a look at this US Census map of the parishes in Louisiana.  NONE of the parishes in the greater New Orleans area are listed in the Presidental statement.

Dr. Bong Wei, Chief of Staff at Chalmette Medical Center in New Orleans, told CNN’s Anderson Cooper that an offer to help the sick and dying at New Orleans’ Armstrong Airport was rebuffed by FEMA.  They told Dr. Wei that neither he nor his staff could help with the sick people due to liability concerns.  A FEMA official suggested that Dr. Wei and his staff could help by mopping floors, which they readily did.  People died around them and they weren’t allowed to render assistance, assistance they were qualified to render and which was desperately needed.

In Conclusion

I omitted volumes more than I included.  There are countless stories that bolster any eventual charges – I welcome their addition to what I have outlined here.

I don’t think anyone will ever be able to separate the unnecessary loss of life from those which would have been claimed by the fury of a natural disaster such as Katrina.  But after that storm passed, as the levees broke and New Orleans rapidly flooded, as no help arrived, as people went hungry and died of dehydration, all of those deaths are the responsibility of George W. Bush.

The Charges:

• Dereliction of Duty
• Involuntary Manslaughter
• Criminal Negligence
• Negligent Homicide
• Disregarding Constitutional Duties
• Undermining the Integrity of the Office of the President of the United States

Impeach George W. Bush.

++++++++++++

PostScript: I encourage each of you with an individual blog to check out the Impeach Bush Coalition’s web site.

This diary has drawn from diaries, comments and discussions that have taken place here and on Daily Kos since the Katrina disaster began unfolding.  The excellent and sometimes brilliant contributions of diarists from this community is behind a lot of the ideas put forward.  So thank you all for the inspiration.

[editor’s note, by RenaRF] One additional note.  I really got this diary under my skin (despite feelings of total trepidation about doing an impeachment diary) after reading “How Bush Blew It” in this month’s edition of Newsweek.  If you have’t read the article, go and get it – it will make your jaw drop.

Further, the resignation of Michael Brown as head of FEMA and yesterday’s Presidential “responsibility-taking” have caught my attention.  This is NOT an Administration known for admitting mistakes nor known for turning its back on those who have been loyal to it.  The advance damage control is very telling – we shouldn’t let up not one inch until this guy is gone.

Update [2005-9-14 8:19:19 by RenaRF]: Although this is a diary about impeachment, it is critical to note that the other two Presidential impeachments occurred when the opposition held Congress.  Clearly that’s not the case today.  Which, therefore, makes the 2006 Elections that much more critical.  I don’t see any of this is a quick process.  I DO see it beginning with regaining control of Congress.

(Cross-posted at Daily Kos)

I swore to myself that I wasn’t going to write a diary today.  I was going to take a day off from writing and blogging after what has been a busy two weeks.

I was doing really well – I had taken about 30 minutes over lunch to read other recommended diaries and post a few comments, but otherwise I was actually outside doing non-computer things.  My plan was working.

And then I checked email and received one which I have posted below the fold.  I had to put a diary up and share it with everyone.

Make the jump.
Ok first – this was a personal email sent to me by a very dear friend who has been, historically, a Republican.  He’s not the type that simply spews right-wing talking points, however – not one that advisorjim would refer to as a “Dittohead”.  Like any good progressive, I have always considered him workable territory.  Reason and facts just might have an effect with him.

He and I were catching up earlier this week and I was talking about the diaries that I have posted here at Daily Kos and the ones that others had been posting as well.  The information on the entire Katrina disaster, since before the disaster (starting with DarkSyde’s excellent warning diaries) has been remarkable.  This community has brought tales of survivors, activism, caring, fundraising, outrage, fact- and fault-finding, outing and tears to bear on this disaster.  It’s a remarkable place, is Daily Kos.  The many things I have learned reading the excellent diaries of Daily Kos users was information I was imparting to him.  The conversation had a lot of “Well did you know…” and “Did you see where…” etc. and so forth – filled with facts that this site had armed me with.

After a lot of ranting and frustration on my part, I was joking about being placed on some kind of “no fly” list as a result of a letter I sent to the President and about which I posted a diary.  He asked if I would send the letter along in an email because I referenced that it was the one things that I’ve written of which I am proudest.  So I sent it to him.  After the conversation and the email, this was the reply I received:

Wow!  That is an emotional but controlled admonishment.  A very powerful ending.  I want you to know something.  I have reached a turning point in my eroding support for this president.  Your fair but painful observations are to be recognized as a real light on the circumstances and characters involved.  How have we come to this?  It IS time for a substantial overhaul.  Whatever support you need from me, you have it.  Let me know how I can help you continue your much needed efforts.  Keep me in the loop on your postings and letter writing campaigns.  I’m sick in my heart at what has happened and I agree with you totally about Bush and his administration.  Thank you for your patient and consistent presentation to someone who didn’t want to see the shameful shortcomings of these people.  Any good that may have been gleaned from their policies can no longer keep us from holding them responsible for the unimaginably bad judgment and ensuing fatal decisions.

I have reprinted this here with his permission, by the way.

This really does go to show that there is a whole block of Republicans out there for whom there is a line.  That line was crossed, I think, by the government’s woeful disregard for the survivors of hurricane Katrina.  There aren’t a lot of ways to parse and spin the starvation and dehydration of American citizens it seems.  In some ways I find it ironic as well – because Bush is a self-styled “war President”, those who buy/bought into his mission and rhetoric further seem to assume that he could have and should have marshalled the resources to get New Orleaneans some water.  Talk about being hoist on one’s own petard.

I’m posting this mainly as encouragement of the activism that has sprouted exponentially on this site since August 29th, the landfall of Katrina.  Activism does work, and it works even better when there’s an example of the real human cost of ineptitude.  Hurricane Katrina is a metaphor for failure and one that can be applied to a host of other examples provided in the actions of this Administration.

Just one person changing their mind doesn’t make a movement – but one person talking to another person who talks to his/her family members etc. and so forth IS a movement.  Ours has begun, and it’s WORKING.  That’s what I wanted to share.

(Cross-posted at Daily Kos)

I posted this over at my blog and decided that it would be well worth putting it out there to this resourceful and intelligent community.

With just shy of four years under our collective National belts since the terrorist attacks of 9/11, there are still lessons to be learned and applied as we look at the current situation in the wake of Hurricane Katrina and the debacle that unfolded shortly thereafter.

More after the fold.
I’m an avid reader of Daily Kos. More information and knowledge passes through the diaries that dKos users post than I can possibly get to – but I definitely try to check the recommended diaries with regularity because they encapsulate a progressive’s call to action.  There have been literally thousands of diaries at Daily Kos highlighting the spectrum of issues – if you have considered it, someone has diaried it over there. If it hasn’t been diaried, then open an account and write about it.

My point in bringing this all up is an interesting discussion in one of the diary’s comment threads over the past two days. I wish I could remember which user had the idea so I could ascribe appropriate credit, but there’s just too high a volume of comments to go back through and find it. The comment, in summary, indicated the writer’s deep belief that the progressive community had to find the Katrina-equivalent to the 9/11 widows. As I’m sure we all recall, the 9/11 widows were a compelling and powerful force that almost single-handedly, through shame and pressure and testimony and lobbying, forced the 9/11 Commission into being. Those women spoke absolutely from a position of power and sympathy. The fear at Daily Kos and other sites is that, as the stranded have been evacuated, the public pressure and attention on what in God’s name happened will fade. Any investigatory commissions will be watered-down and ineffectual – in essence, without a 9/11-widow-like presence, nothing will be learned or changed as a result of this tragedy.

So. The idea of a Katrina Victim presence takes on importance and power. But who should be on it?

Bob Johnson did an outstanding diary about Charmaine Neville, New Orleans resident and member of the famed musical Neville family.  From Bob’s diary, you can navigate to links of Charmaine Neville’s videotaped account of her frightening story (click here to view it if you’re on a PC and here if you’re on a Mac).  This is, in my opinion, required viewing for progressives who want to effect change in the wake of Katrina.  She is an articulate and visible presence with a harrowing story of what really happened, and a story that can’t be whitewashed.  I would nominate her for Katrina-Victim panel status.

Another great story has emerged around Dr. Gregory S. Henderson, a New Orleans resident and doctor who has just been scathing in his criticism of the way relief and aid efforts have been (mis)managed since Katrina struck the region.  The Wilmington Star-News has a nice article up about Dr. Henderson.  Further, this transcript from CNN’s Anderson Cooper 360 underscores his efforts and comments.  I think somehow (it’s a gut reaction) that it’s important that any 9/11-widow-type group have a diverse public face – faces of all colors, all income levels and all backgrounds.  Dr. Henderson goes a long way toward that end.

The only other person I think it would be interesting to talk to is the gentleman who, off-camera during Dick Cheney’s visit to Mississippi yesterday, expressed his true feelings.  “Go f–k yourself, Mr. Cheney,” he said – and then again, “Go f–k yourself.”  If you missed this particular clip, Crooks and Liars has provided it.  Click here for a Windows Media version and here for a QuickTime version.  The problem is I can’t find any reference as to who that individual is and he never appears on-camera before he is “escorted” away.  If anyone has that information, that would be excellent.

That is all I’ve come up with as to actual people that I’ve seen in the news.  I don’t think that these people can be politicized because they are not politicians – they are survivors.  And I, along with everyone else, am witnessing the attempt to shift blame and deflect and change the subject.  We cannot allow that to happen.

There are so many things which need to be investigated in the wake of this disaster.  I certainly don’t need to be convinced that there is plenty of blame to go around – Mayor Nagin and Governor Blanco need to be held accountable for their missteps prior to the storm hitting – but the lion’s share of the debacle rests with the Federal Government.  This was a disaster they knew was possible and imminent.  What this says about disaster response is that we are less prepared than we were before 9/11.  Imagine if this had been a terrorist attack on a moderate- to large-scale: if, knowing in advance of Katrina that a disaster loomed, the response was so utterly lacking, what kind of response can we expect to an unforecast disaster??  My God.

First and foremost on the list of things I think are critical to investigate is the role of FEMA and the harm done to FEMA by demoting it from cabinet-level independence to place it within the massive Department of Homeland Security.  This will be a complicated investigation – it will be difficult to separate the question of the competence of leadership at the very top of FEMA from the question of funding and preparedness when FEMA became a (relatively) small part of a much larger whole.  I caught this commentary from Jack Cafferty on CNN’s The Situation Room yesterday which I found appalling:

CAFFERTY: Indeed I do, Wolf.  Thanks very much.

Somewhere along the way, FEMA became a dumping for the President’s political cronies with little experience in disaster relief.  The Agency’s first director was Joe Albaugh.  He was President Bush’s 2000 campaign chairman.  Albaugh brought in the current failure, Michael Brown.  His previous work was with Arabian horses.  The number two guy, Brown’s top deputy at FEMA is a fellow named Patrick Rhode.  He worked for the President’s 2000 election campaign.  The number three guy at FEMA is Brooks Alchuler.  He used to work in the White House.  His job was planning Presidential trips.  And FEMA’s long-term recovery director is a guy named Scott Morris.  He produced television and radio commercials for the Bush campaign.

The Federal agency charged with handling national emergencies is staffed at the very top by a bunch of political hacks with virtually no experience that qualifies them to respond to something like Katrina.

But I digress.

He wasn’t kidding.

Further revelations have bubbled up as the dust is settling, and many important ones have been diaried over at Daily Kos:

• Dire Warnings: FEMA Ignored These Official Forecasts

• What REALLY happened in New Orleans: Denise Moore’s story

• Documents: FEMA Chief Waited Until After Storm Hit RandyMI

• FEMA — damning info w/link to Brown’s memo

• flipping the rock

• The Cover-up Begins: Cops attack Photographers in NO

• “Brownie, You’re Doin’ A Great Job”

• FEMA’s Brown padded resume: hardly a lawyer, either

• ABC: FEMA Employees Union blames Bush

• My Shocking Telephone Call to Joe Lieberman’s Office

That is just a tiny sampling of the information swirling out there and all of the balls that were dropped.  I’m missing more than I highlighted – I just wanted to give a flavor.

The Republican Administration is trying to baffle us with bullshit, folks.  They’re throwing so much crap and so many smokescreens that we run the risk of becoming distracted and confused.  A Katrina-Victims panel would speak volumes and speak them clearly with the authority of someone who has lived to tell of an ordeal.  If I can get the suggestion of a few more names of people who would be suited to carry this powerful message of accountability, I will do my best to contact the news agencies and individuals and see if we can’t get a face on this.  I will personally be visiting the DC Armory early next week to donate some relief supplies, and I will try to talk to survivors who are there for additional resources and ideas.  This needs a real, human face.  Your help is desperately needed.

(Cross-posted at Daily Kos)

Well, for giggles this morning, I decided to follow-up on a diary I did last week on what the editorial columnists are saying about the Katrina response and see where we stand today.

It’s still getting plenty of coverage, but in my unstudied opinion, the tone, while still critical, has been tempered.  I don’t know if that’s good or not – but I know this:  This Administration has gone, for me, from annoying and wrong to dangerous and deadly.  That changes the entire playing field.  If you accept the idea that we will be stuck with them for another 3+ years, then it becomes imperative that certain corrections be made to help ensure each of our safety.  The editorial pages are, for me, a barometer of pressure being placed on the Administration.  The more the pressure is applied, the more likely the Administration will make some substantive changes that will help me be safer.

You may disagree with that premise, but that’s why I scan the editorials so assiduously.  So, below the fold, is today’s roundup of columns and LTEs.  You be the judge.
Please – pro or con – if you have others that have caught your eye (guyermo has this excellent diary up about an editorial in the Star-Tribune), by all means include it in the comments.

The Boston Globe – FEMA’s Focus

Chertoff wants to eliminate the FEMA role in disaster prevention and have a separate office do its liaison work with state and local governments. This reorganization, planned before the hurricane struck, is supposed to focus FEMA on its core mission: responding to disasters. Elimination of powers diminishes agencies, however, not strengthens them.

The Boston Globe LTEs:

• Who Has Done More Damage?
• The Buck Stops in Washington
• What Did He Know and When Did He Know It?
• The Bush Administration Needs To Go

The New York Times – No Strangers to the Blues

The tragedy in New Orleans did not occur in a vacuum. There is no way, even in the face of a storm as violent as Katrina, that a great American city should have been reduced to little more than a sewage pit overnight.

The monumental failure of the federal government to respond immediately and effectively to the catastrophe that resulted from Hurricane Katrina was preceded by many years in which the people of New Orleans (especially its poorest residents) were shamefully neglected by all levels of government.

New York Times LTEs:

• Maybe It IS Time to Fix Blame

The Washington Post – Mr. Bush’s Storm

PRESIDENT BUSH’S response to Hurricane Katrina has been, to put it kindly, faltering. He has fallen short both rhetorically and substantively. The rhetorical failure is less important but perhaps more surprising for a politician with his strong communications skills. One of the highlights of Mr. Bush’s presidency, and one of the keys to his reelection, was his ability to rally a country stunned by the Sept. 11 attacks — perhaps most vividly in his visit to the smoldering ruins of the World Trade Center. President Bill Clinton rose to an earlier challenge after the Oklahoma City bombing, using the bully pulpit of the presidency to reassure and console the nation.

Washington Post LTEs:

• A Gumbo of Blame for the New Orleans Debacle

The Chicago Tribune – When Governments Fail Citizens

The initial federal response, through the Federal Emergency Management Agency, was a tangle of red tape. It wasn’t until several days after the flooding that the cavalry arrived: 6,500 National Guard troops. Relief supplies followed, order was restored and an evacuation proceeded.

Once the flood survivors are stabilized, Americans will demand that officials at all levels of government sort out what went so horrendously wrong. The president and Congress have vowed to investigate. One logical tool: an independent, bipartisan panel, like the 9/11 Commission, to autopsy these failings and prescribe remedies for the future.

Chicago Tribune LTEs:

• Politics and Disaster
• Bush’s Reputation
• Barbara Bush’s Comments

The Dallas Morning News – Is America Prepared? Leadership Was Lacking at Every Level of Crisis

If the terror attacks of 9-11 redefined the politics of disaster planning, then the emergency response to Katrina’s wrath does little to answer the question the nation posed four years ago:

Is America really prepared to respond to a catastrophic terrorist attack on our soil?

Dallas Morning News LTEs:

• Perhaps They’ll Notice

The Los Angeles Times – It’s Time for Action, Not Words

With “TURF WARS” consuming Louisiana and federal officials over who should have responded to what and when, the Times-Picayune of New Orleans on Wednesday gave the most clear-cut advice to the bureaucrats: Enough.

In an angry editorial, the Times-Picayune wrote that the feds, who accused local officials of hampering relief efforts by protecting their state’s home “turf,” are the ones engaging in an “awfully convenient dodge” of accountability. Further, establishing a federal commission to investigate the disaster response may help in the long run, the editorial said, but it “won’t address what ought to be everyone’s immediate priority: getting New Orleanians to safety and … the reconstruction underway.”

Los Angeles Times LTEs:

• Federal Response to Katrina is Under Fire
• Examining the Reaction to Hurricane Katrina

The Seattle Post Intelligencer – Gulf Coast is Apocalypse Now

There is a difference between politics and governance. The Bush administration is very, very good at politics, and the business of making itself look good. The administration is far less able at governance, the business of doing a good job. The distinction has been brought into sharp relief by the apocalyptic events in New Orleans, where failures in governance would not be spun away.

Seattle Post-Intelligencer LTEs:

• First Mother Can Keep Her Silver at Home

Have at it, folks – should we all be coordinating an LTE campaign with stronger language and rhetoric?