Unfortunately, the Father does not vote. (He's not even a U.S. citizen!) So, if one cares about actually helping New Orleans -- and the rest of America, for that matter -- then one has to do what one can to get rid of the current, completely worthless Congressional GOP leadership. (Getting rid of the current, completely worthless administration would be a worthy goal, too, but that's not going to happen for a few years yet.) And part of getting rid of the current, completely worthless Congressional GOP leadership is pointing out to the country that, indeed, the current Congressional GOP leadership is completely worthless.

Right, because local and state officials don't have any responsibility for New Orleans. I'd say if anyone has been shown "completely worthless" in the wake of Katrina, it has been New Orleans' complete imbecile of a mayor.

"Why do you look at the speck in your brother's eye, but pay no attention to the log in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, 'Please, brother, let me take that speck out of your eye,' yet cannot even see the log in your own eye? You hypocrite! First take the log out of your own eye, and then you will be able to see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye." -Luke 6:41-42

Yes, Eric, the Bible does instruct us to be humble in our 'acts of righteousness', an instruction that extends to acts of charity. Indeed, promenading our deeds of goodwill, putting them on display for all to see, is explicitly advised against by the Good Book. The use of Matthew 6:1-4 in support of your criticism of the Democratic censureship of the inept federal response, however, was inappropriate.

Admittedly, I'm proud that you, someone who would never, ever, and I mean never, perform your own acts of good will in the streets to be honored by men ("Well done Eric."/"Thanks for doing that Eric. God Bless You."/"God bless you guys. Linked to my blog."/":::applause:::"/"good work") have decided who may and may not be commended for their acts of kindness. Apparently, praise for volunteer efforts is exclusively allowed for church groups, Republicans, individual citizens, groups of citizens, etc. - just as long as they don't fall under the Democratic moniker. Because then, it's just a publicity stunt, a plea for others to "look at me".

If you choose to criticize politicians for using charity as an opportunity for grandstanding and what you consider their unfair criticism of Bush, fine. But if you're going to quote a passage from the Bible in support of you argument, you'd better be certain that you 1) comprehend it and 2) adhere to it yourself.

To Phil: "the current, completely worthless Congressional GOP leadership..."

As opposed to prior, completely worthless Democratic leadership? Give me a break! If there is going to be any lasting change in this country, it will have to come with a totally new approach to politics that has nothing to do with Democrats or Republicans. Lately, the Republicans I've heard/seen have sounded more like the Democrats of the 1960s, and the Democrats sound like the socialists of the 1970s.

There is a desperate need for change, but please do not insult the collective intelligence by placing all of the blame on the Republican party. I would wholeheartedly agree they represent the lesser of two evils, but the current economic and political situations are not the result of "the current, completely worthless Congressional GOP leadership..." I thought you were smarter than that.

To "Anonymous":

The Houmatoday.com article specifically said, "The choice of New Orleans for the Democratic National Committee meeting that begins Thursday was part of a political calculation, as is a three-day agenda for the 400 delegates that combines party business with community service. ... Democrats hope their reconstruction work leaves an image with voters that lasts through the congressional midterm elections."

It is not fair or even reasonable to say that Eric "decided who may and may not be commended for their acts of kindness," in light of the source article, which you might have read before posting your comments. His application of that particular Scriptural passage to the scope of the article was on-target, whether you agree with the conclusions or not.

Thank you, LC1.

I'm hardly surprised that an anonymous troll popped up to accuse me of hypocrisy for criticizing the DNC's grandstanding after having shared my experiences in Slidell, LA last fall.

The difference, as any reasonable person can see, is that I was sharing my story with the small community of ITA readers--many of whom I consider friends--whereas the DNC is quite blatantly staging their actions for political points. If I had used the occasion to claim that liberals were doing nothing but bashing President Bush whereas I actually did something to help (I am not claiming that even now, because I know many liberal folks did a lot to help), then the hypocrisy claim might have some merit.

And as I said, I do applaud the Democrats who rolled up their sleeves and helped in New Orleans this week. My criticism is for the party officials who are cynically using the situation to smear President Bush and the GOP in Congress.

Unfortunately, the Father does not vote. (He's not even a U.S. citizen!)

I hope He's covered in the President's amnesty program :-)

Somebody should show up to the confab with a huge poster of the waterlogged schoolbuses that Nagin didn't put to good evacuation use. And it should be accompanied by another poster with this news quote in huge block letters:

"Do the math. With 804 buses and 60 seats per bus, the city had the assets to evacuate 48,240 people per trip. To cover 134,000 people, that's three trips. And there was no shortage of time. Nagin declared a state of emergency and a "voluntary" evacuation on Saturday, Aug. 27, and Katrina didn't make landfall until Monday, Aug. 29."

- Ralph R. Reiland, PittsburghLIVE.com, 9/19/05

(1) The question at hand was about helping New Orleans now, not who was to blame for the disaster, so Eric's first reply & Alan's follow-up are simply non sequiturs here.

I will note, though, that the lion's share of such blame does go to the administration, though I agree that the local authorities could have done much better, and I'm certainly no fan of Mayor Nagin. (Alan's bus-counting post ignores the truly vast logistical difficulties of such an undertaking -- they are of a scale beyond the managing of any local government, and that's why it's the job of the federal government. And once the feds took over on 8/26, it was clearly FEMA's job, and FEMA blew it. But, again, that's not the question at hand here.)

(2) Eric indulges in one of the worst types of blogospheric arguments here: completely unjustified speculation about the inner mental lives of his opponents. For his accusation of cynicism to stick, it must be the case that the Democrats do not actually care about helping the city and/or do not actually think that they could do better. But why think that that is the case? It is much more plausible that they think that they can do a better job of helping New Orleans than the current, worthless gang running the GOP can. Even if you think that they are _wrong_ about that, all that is needed for Eric's point to be totally baseless is for them to believe it sincerely.

(3) It's not a "smear" when it's all true. And, again, all that is really needed for the purposes of dismantling Eric's accusation, is that the Democrats think it's true.

(4) Was the prior Democratic leadership similarly "worthless", as lc asserted without offering any evidence? There are some easy points of contrast here that would suggest that, in fact, the last batch of Dems did a much better job than the current batch of GOP leaders.

First, when Hurricane Andrew happened, and Pres. G.H.W. Bush's FEMA fell down on the job (not nearly as badly as the agency did with Katrina, though), the Democratic Congress showed real leadership in starting to turn that agency around. FEMA then really shone during the Clinton administration, under James Lee Witt (appointing _qualified_ people to run agencies really does make a difference, it seems!) Second, one can compare the legislative results of the last Democratic Congress (the 103rd) to the current Congress (the 109th). The 103rd's accomplishments included such valuable bills as the Family & Medical Leave Act, a Deficit Reduction Act _that actually reduced the deficit_, and the Violence Against Women Act. I'm sure many in the ITA community aren't fans of, say, the Brady Bill, but at least it was a bill that was honestly trying to pursue the policy goals that its party affirms.

And what has the 109th given us? The anti-worker bankruptcy bill, an energy bill that's nothing but pork, a transportation bill that's nothing but pork... and that's not even counting the train-wreck that is the Medicare supplement (since that was passed by the 108th). And, much more to the point, our country had a lot less to deal with in the early-mid 90s than it does today -- so the fecklessness of the current Congress is all the more unfortunate and irresponsible (especially with regard to their refusal to perform their Constitutional duty of overseeing the executive).

With thanks to the columnists and journalists of various publications, here’s the basis for my claim that the previous Democratic administration was “worthless”:

In the 1990s, OPEC wanted to re-establish monopoly control by flooding the market with cheap oil. In 1973 OPEC cut off all oil to the West during the October war. The result was a sudden influx of investment in domestic and alternative production that peaked just before Clinton took office in 1992.

Clinton cooperated with OPEC by destroying domestic production. Clinton's main weapon was a war of propaganda waged by Al Gore. Gore led the attack on the U.S. energy industry using "green" policies of radical environmentalism. Despite the many variables in domestic energy, there is a basic flaw in the anti-energy argument. It is far more "environmentally friendly" to pump oil from static fields here in the U.S. than it is to import foreign oil in fragile ocean-going tankers.

OPEC in 2001 just squeezes harder, having learned never to let the U.S. go cold turkey again. The Clinton economy was built on artificially low cost foreign energy that has suddenly become very expensive. The United States is now more dependent on foreign energy than ever before.
Blackouts on the West Coast, skyrocketing gas and oil prices and an unstable stock market all add up to a recession in progress. There are no fast answers for eight years of declining domestic oil production and climbing oil consumption.

In February 1999, Energy Secretary Bill Richardson visited Saudi Arabia when prices were at their lowest. Richardson reportedly pressed Saudi Oil Minister Ali Naimi on the "oversupplied market" and expressed concern about "extreme price volatility."

Former Saudi minister Sheik Ahmed Zaki Yamani told a Houston oil conference that Richardson had "saved the oil industry" during that visit because his "intervention" had "persuaded" the Saudis to change policy by raising prices.
After Richardson's visit, Petroleum Intelligence Weekly, an industry newsletter, quoted Saudi officials as wanting "a price of $18 to $20 as soon as possible."

In 1999, then-President Clinton pressed OPEC to raise prices in order to finance the brutal Russian war in Chechnya. Clinton needed Russia's help settling that pesky little war in Kosovo. However, Bill was unable to aid Boris Yeltsin directly because of the rampant corruption inside Moscow.

Clinton quietly used OPEC oil diplomacy to supply Russia increased energy profits. The influx of cash into Moscow was mainly obtained through Iraqi oil sold by the U.N. and distributed through Russian suppliers. The cash paid for the Russian war and a new round of rampant corruption, centered on the former Soviet GAZPROM state oil company.

The oil sales helped Saddam Hussein re-arm his military with a brand new Chinese-built air defense system. The move is also now seen as a major blunder that triggered the 2001 recession.
Clinton removed $2 billion in trade with China from national security scrutiny. Among the results: 77 supercomputers – capable of 13 billion calculations per second – that could scramble and unscramble secret data and design nuclear weapons. These were purchased by the Chinese without a peep stateside. At least some of them would be used by the Chinese military.

President Clinton signed national security waivers to allow four U.S. commercial satellites to be launched in China, despite evidence that China was exporting nuclear and missile technology to Pakistan and Iran, among other nations. One of these satellites belonged to Loral. Nine days later a Chinese Long March rocket carrying a $200 million satellite belonging to Loral failed in mid-flight.

During the 1990s, Clinton also sponsored a so-called trade boom with China that actually busted America. Hundreds of billions of dollars flowed out of America in the largest single trade deficit in history.

Today, firms backed by the People's Liberation Army dominate consumer markets in America. American workers, unable to compete against the slave labor amassed by the PLA, are losing manufacturing jobs to China at a rate never before seen. Chinese army firms compete unfairly against U.S. companies inside America for financing on the stock market, and even for U.S. government-backed loans.

For example, documents from the files of Chinagate figure John Huang show that $200 million in World Bank loans for a Chinese "Technology Development Project" actually went to weapons research labs and businesses wholly owned by the Chinese army. Huang later cited his Fifth Amendment rights more than two thousand times when asked under oath if he had ties to Chinese intelligence.

With the transfer of the Panama Canal, four of Panama's ports ended up being controlled by a company partially owned by Hutchison-Whampoa Ltd., which in turn was owned by Li Ka-Shing, a billionaire so close to the Chinese power structure that he was offered the governorship of Hong Kong.

Another owner of the Panamanian ports was China Resources Enterprise, called an "agent of espionage" by Senator Fred Thompson. CRE was also a partner of the Lippo Group, owned by the Riady family that played a central if mysterious role in the rise of William Clinton. According to congressional testimony by ex-JCS [Joint Chiefs of Staff] chief Admiral Thomas Moorer, Hutchison-Whampoa won the right to pilot all ships through the Panama Canal, including U.S. naval vessels.

Speaking of the Panama Canal, former President Jimmy Carter was instrumental in negotiating that 1994 nuclear agreement, and that just days after Carter was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, North Korea admitted it had not lived up to its word. [In case you miss the connection between the Panama Canal and former President Carter, that was part of his legacy to the U.S.]

When the Clinton administration announced the agreement in 1994, more than one person pointed out at the time that the assumption that the militantly Stalinist regime would abide by its terms was based on little more than blind faith.

David A. Keene, co-chairman of Americans for Missile Defense, declared, "The North Koreans’ persistent eschewing of weapons inspectors undoubtedly raised red flags,” but left-wingers in Congress and the Clinton administration "believed for years that they offered protection.”

Now they admit they have been secretly building a massive arms production program. Given their decades-long record of deceit, added Keene, "is anyone surprised that they couldn’t be trusted?”

Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and Wendy Sherman, one of her assistants in the Clinton State Department, said they did not know that the North Koreans were lying. They simply assumed the Stalinist nation was abiding by its word, despite experiences with communists, ignoring the fact that it was Lenin, the father of 20th-century communism, who once said treaties were "like pie crusts,” to be broken.

Constrat that to Tom DeLay's call in 1998 for the suspension of the $4 billion to $6 billion agreement to build two light-water nuclear reactors and to provide other assistance to North Korea until the president could certify that the North Korean government agreed to cease its efforts to build those weapons and the means to divert them, based on intelligence sources that contradicted Albright’s assertion at the time that the North Koreans were not in violation of the Carter-negotiated treaty.

And that’s just a sample.

Let’s look at more details on how “worthless” the previous Democratic administration was:

-The only president ever impeached strictly on grounds of personal malfeasance
- Most convictions and guilty pleas
- Most Cabinet officials to come under criminal investigation
- Most witnesses to flee country or refuse to testify
- Most witnesses to die suddenly
- Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions
- Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions from abroad

And how did the Clinton administration stack up to prior administrations?

- Number of independent counsel inquiries since the 1978 law was passed: 19
- Number that have produced indictments: 7
- Number that produced more convictions than the Starr investigation: 1
- Median length of investigations that have led to convictions: 44 months
- Length of Starr-Ray investigation (7/00): 67 months.
- Number of Starr-Ray investigation convictions to date (including one governor, one associate attorney general and two Clinton business partners): 15
- Median cost per Starr investigation conviction: $3.5 million as of 3/00
- Total cost of the Starr investigation (3/00) $52 million
- Total cost of the Iran-Contra investigation: $48.5 million
- Number of Clinton Cabinet members who came under criminal investigation: 5
- Number of Reagan cabinet members who came under criminal investigation: 4
- Number of top officials jailed in the Teapot Dome Scandal: 3
- Number of individuals and businesses associated with the Clinton machine who have been convicted of or pleaded guilty to crimes: 47
- Number of these convictions during Clinton's presidency: 33
- Number of indictments/misdemeanor charges: 61
- Number of imprisonments: 14
- Number of congressional witnesses who have pleaded the Fifth Amendment, fled the country to avoid testifying, or (in the case of foreign witnesses) refused to be interviewed: 122 (9/99)
- FBI files misappropriated by the White House: c. 900
- Estimated number of witnesses quoted in FBI files misappropriated by the White House: 18,000
- Number of witnesses who developed medical problems at critical points in Clinton scandals investigation (Tucker, Hale, both McDougals, Lindsey): 5
- Problem areas listed in a memo by Clinton's own lawyer in preparation for the president's defense: 40
- Number of witnesses and critics of Clinton subjected to IRS audit: 45
- Number of names placed in a White House secret database without the knowledge of those named: c. 200,000
- Number of persons involved with Clinton who have been beaten up: 2
- Number of women involved with Clinton who claim to have been physically threatened: 5 (Sally Perdue, Gennifer Flowers, Kathleen Willey, Linda Tripp, Elizabeth Ward Gracen)
- Number of men involved in the Clinton scandals who have been beaten up or claimed to have been intimidated: 9
- Number of persons in the Clinton orbit who are alleged to have committed suicide: 7
- Number known to have been murdered: 2
- Number who died in plane crashes: 11
- Number who died in automobile accidents: 3
- Number killed during Waco massacre: 4
- Number of key witnesses who have died of heart attacks while in federal custody under questionable circumstances: 1
- Number of medications being taken by Jim McDougal at the time he was placed in solitary confinement shortly before his death: 12
- Number of unexplained deaths: 3
- Total of above deaths: 31
- Number of northern Mafia killings during peak years of 1968-78: 30
- Number of Dixie Mafia killings during same period: 156

Let’s not forget these little tidbits:

Bank and mail fraud, violations of campaign finance laws, illegal foreign campaign funding, improper exports of sensitive technology, physical violence and threats of violence, solicitation of perjury, intimidation of witnesses, bribery of witnesses, attempted intimidation of prosecutors, perjury before congressional committees, lying in statements to federal investigators and regulatory officials, flight of witnesses, obstruction of justice, bribery of cabinet members, real estate fraud, tax fraud, drug trafficking, failure to investigate drug trafficking, bribery of state officials, use of state police for personal purposes, exchange of promotions or benefits for sexual favors, using state police to provide false court testimony, laundering of drug money through a state agency, false reports by medical examiners and others investigating suspicious deaths, the firing of the RTC and FBI director when these agencies were investigating Clinton and his associates, failure to conduct autopsies in suspicious deaths, providing jobs in return for silence by witnesses, drug abuse, improper acquisition and use of 900 FBI files, improper futures trading, murder, sexual abuse of employees, false testimony before a federal judge, shredding of documents, withholding and concealment of subpoenaed documents, fabricated charges against (and improper firing of) White House employees, inviting drug traffickers, foreign agents and participants in organized crime to the White House.

Still think my claim that the prior Democratic leadership was worthless is unsupported? “It's not a "smear" when it's all true.”

Si stultitiam requiris, circumspice.

Was that intended to be a slam that you didn't think would be understood, or were you agreeing with me? ;)

(1) The question at hand was about helping New Orleans now, not who was to blame for the disaster

And the federal government has poured billions of dollars into reconstruction. What more do the Democrats want? The reconstruction should be even more of a local responsibility than the immediate response was (other than rebuilding the levees, for which it makes sense for the Army Corps of Engineers to be involved). Surely the good folks of New Orleans and other gulf coast communities don't need Uncle Sam to hold their hand and show them how to build houses and other infrastructure.

(2)Eric indulges in one of the worst types of blogospheric arguments here: completely unjustified speculation about the inner mental lives of his opponents.

Please, phil. Don't play dumb. You and I both know a political show when we see one, and if there's anything we can count on from politicians, it ain't honesty and sincerity. The Democrats' admitted use of New Orleans as part of a political strategy may not meet your particular definition of "cynical," but to suppose their chief motivation is helping Katrina victims does fit the definition of "naive."

Gee, as a New Yorker who lived through 9/11, I was just THRILLED to see that tragedy exploited by Republicans when they decided to have their convention here. NYers weren't happy about it, but we took it in stride. We don't like it, but we understand that's the way politics is played nowadays. (It wasn't until Bloomberg/Secret Service decided to keep protestors and those random unfortunates who lived close by MSG away from the delegates by doing a massive sweep and throwing them into a filthy, rat infested former bus garage on a pier rigged up as a jail/holding pen for the weekend that we lost it. And I can't tell you what it felt like having our heroes from 9/11, the NYPD, doing those sweeps. Maybe lawyerchik1 has info on their legality.)

*Side note* Please allow me to dispel this notion of Eric's. Any Repub Conv "boost" to NYC's economy was offset by costs borne by us for security that WE had to provide and the INCREDIBLE inconveniences NYers suffered. EVERYONE who could afford to, hightailed it outta town in advance of that week (and pity those poor NJ commuters who had to commute into town via Penn Station.)

Hopefully, NO's mayor won't see his city's resident's as the same threat to vistiting Dems as Bloomberg did regarding Republican conventioneers.

The question at hand was about helping New Orleans now, not who was to blame for the disaster

That may be the question at hand for this comment board, but if it is for the Democratic leadership they should pack it in now and just hand over the reins to Hastert and Frist.

Cheney/Bush breezed into D.C. as a new breed of "can do" guys with an MBA corporate management style. And Americans bought it, hook, line, and sinker. Josh Marshall first suggested in a 2002 article in the Washington Monthly article (called "Confidence Men: Why the myth of Republican competence persists, despite all the evidence to the contrary.") that the new breed of "can-do" Republicans were simply blustery bumblers.

Despite Iraq and Bush's disastrous Social Security 'reform" effort, there didn't appear to be a lot of reporters, pundits, or even Democrats jumping on Marshall's bandwagon --- until Katrina. Katrina was the tipping point, that was when Americans began to seriously doubt Cheney/Bush's competence, and if Dems don't remind voters of that at every opportunity they are just not playing the game and should go home and never be heard from again.

It doesn't really matter what we use the word "cynicism" to pick out, but the important thing for your post is that you're talking about some sort of behavior that is somehow _bad_. But there's nothing at all wrong with saying: the other guys have done a lousy job, and vote for us & we'll do a better job. That is the ur-argument of any opposition party. Your idea seems to be that somehow the Democrats shouldn't point out the bad job that the GOP has done, and shouldn't point it out in the context of a concrete manifestation of that badness, just because that is somehow unseemly. This idea reveals a rather profound confusion on your part about what politics is for.

As for who should do what in the reconstruction, I think we would agree that the best way to do it is for the Federal government to provide lots of resources & expertise that the local/state government won't have, and then all together figure out a plan that best serves the needs as articulated by the local/state folks. Unfortunately, the GOP has done none of this -- they haven't provided nearly enough money (and diverted a significant chunk of those funds to other, unrelated projects, and a disproportionate share to GOP-governed Mississippi), and they've K St.-style let the show be run in accord with corporate & lobbyist interests, instead of deferring to the expressed needs & desires of the Louisianans themselves.

Seems like Eric wants the Dems to fight by Marquis of Queensbury rules with tough, wily streetfighter Karl Rove. Good thing Eric's not heading the Dems' re-election effort, because that's a recipe for disaster.

phil,

What the Democrat leadership did in New Orleans *was* unseemly. A similar move by the GOP would have had President Bush meeting with a group of families of 9/11 victims and using the occasion to blatantly accuse the Democrats of being weak-kneed in the war on terrorism. Yet, even when Bush uses a much, much milder reference to 9/11 in pointing out that it taught us we must take threats to our national security seriously, etc., Democrats cry foul.

JohnS--the Democrats' election efforts for the past 6 years *have* been a recipe for disaster. (Snap!)

I disagree Eric. I think they've been a disaster for the last 12 years!

However, what the Democrat leadership did in New Orleans tells me they're finally starting to get some fighting spirit.

I disagree Eric. I think their election efforts been a disaster for the last 12 years!

However, what the Democrat leadership did in New Orleans tells me they're finally starting to get some fighting spirit.

That analogy strikes me as inapt, in at least two ways. First of all, there's no evidential connection, even in principle, between the 9/11 victims' families and anything about the Democratic party. But there is a direct evidential connection between the ongoing suffering of those in New Orleans, and the inadequacies of this current government -- the fact of the former points vividly to the fact of the latter. Second, there may be some images that are too emotionally loaded (or, too emotionally loaded at a given time), such that using them is indeed irresponsible. Incorporating images of Ground Zero into Republican ads two years ago (almost exactly two years ago, if memory serves) might have been such a case. But the images involves in what Dean et al. are doing are no worse than what you see in a lot of ads for home insurance.

(And it's not like Rove Inc. hasn't played the 9/11 card over and over and over again, for many things that have nothing to do with 9/11, like invading Iraq but also like breaking unions.)

A better analogy would be: bringing in victims of the Taliban or Saddam, and having them speak to why an invasion of their horribly governed country would be a good thing. Again, there we have an evidential connection between what's being shown & what's being argued for. And we did see plenty of that in the run up to those wars, and I don't think that there was anything inappropriate about that. (Even though I didn't agree with the second of those wars, I certainly recognize that the suffering of many people in Iraq was part of the decision matrix that had to be considered.)