Morning friend. I'm just passing through.
OF course not. It was Karl Rove! 8^)
I like GW and think he is by far many times better than Kerry, but he is failing to be a leader.
He has allowed himself to look like he is hiding from Cindy and now he flys over the hurricane damage in AF 1, A leader must appear to be leading and you do that by being on the scene. He should have been doing a helicopter fly-over with Governor Blanco and Governor Barbour. He should have lander at the Superdome and hugged some of the suvivors and promised aid from the Feds.
I know this is all for TV but that is whjat a real leader must do to instill confidence.
I can only think of the superb performance by Guliani after 911 and even GW's own performance at ground zero.
Cindy who?
Upon returning to Washington, Congress should immediately repeal the just-passed transportation bill and reexamine our priorities in light of the devastating damage done to the region by Hurricane Katrina.
Michael Reagan has been on a tear lately. Writing has definetly improved.
Where's Bono?
Rove did it.
There was a hurricane just as bad as Katrina in the Gulf 25 years ago. Bad dude by the name of Allen. Happened about the same time as well.
I was in Houston at the time. Went to bed thinking Allen was coming right at us. Thought I'd spend the next couple weeks helping my parents deal with a damaged house instead of going off to college.
Woke up and the sun was shining. The storm had veered to the west and stalled off Brownsville. It sat there long enough to wind down to a Cat 2 and also for its surge to settle down - and then it went ashore along the most sparsely-populated section of the Texas coast.
The difference between the two storms was not global warming. They both got just as strong and just as large (Allen was probably larger and would have been even worse if it had come directly at Houston). The difference was pure luck.
But these liberal asswipes don't care about doing a bit of research. They are so eager to attack Bush for anything that they are unwilling to look at historical perspectives or science. And if you point out the lack of science or history in their views, they have the nerve to say that YOU are anti-science.