Limbaugh blamed "unchecked liberalism" for the inability to "save" New Orleans residents during Hurricane Katrina
Rush Limbaugh blamed "unchecked liberalism" for the failure to "save" New Orleans residents who perished -- or otherwise suffered -- during Hurricane Katrina. Limbaugh stated that New Orleans is "a microcosm -- a model of exactly what unchecked liberalism does. It creates destitution. It creates hopelessness. It creates a mess!"
On the May 8 edition of his nationally syndicated radio program, Rush Limbaugh blamed "unchecked liberalism" for the failure to "save" New Orleans residents who perished -- or otherwise suffered -- during Hurricane Katrina. Limbaugh stated that New Orleans is "a microcosm -- a model of exactly what unchecked liberalism does. It creates destitution. It creates hopelessness. It creates a mess!" Limbaugh added: "Such a mess [that] they couldn't even save some of the people who were there [in New Orleans] to get them out of town, even though they had the mechanism and the advance warning to do it."
As Media Matters for America has noted, Limbaugh previously linked the humanitarian disaster in the wake of Hurricane Katrina to "the welfare and entitlement thinking of government."
From the May 8 edition of The Rush Limbaugh Show:
LIMBAUGH: Now, here's what we're seeing, folks. One of the things -- and I know this is going to irritate some of you in New Orleans, and I'm sorry, but it's the truth -- when -- when -- after Hurricane Katrina, and there was such misery, and there was such suffering, we were all stunned because New Orleans has been run by Democrats. Louisiana had been run by Democrats for decades; liberal Democrats to loot -- to boot. New Orleans should have been a -- a utopia. There should not have been any racism because liberals don't believe in it, should not have been any unemployment because liberals don't like that. Everybody should have been earning lots of money because liberals support paying people more than the minimum wage. There shouldn't have been any discrimination because liberals are not racists. There shouldn't have been any poverty because liberals won't tolerate it. They have a war on poverty -- and yet, what did we find? We found out it was the exact opposite! We had a microcosm -- a model of exactly what unchecked liberalism does.
It creates destitution. It creates hopelessness. It creates a mess! Such a mess they couldn't even save some of the people who were there to get them out of town, even though they had the mechanism and the advance warning to do it. So, this is what happens when you take a government-dependent, crime-ridden neighborhood and relocate it to another city. Shazzam! You get the same thing! You can take people out of the city, but you can't take the city out of the people, and the way they've been raised, the way that they have been coddled by government and so forth. So, now, Houston has -- has a problem here. And if -- if something like this happens in the future, will any other city be as eager to offer assistance if the -- if the likelihood is that a similar group of people are going to be your new inhabitants?
And just because liberals oppose racism, want to limit poverty, support regulated capitalism, it doesn't mean that we can always overcome the powers that stand opposed to those things.
Read history, Rush. Liberals are ALWAYS right in the end, and the populace always ends up embarassed that it didn't embrace those liberal ideals earlier.
KEVINO,
Kudos! I couldn't have said it better myself. Now, for all of those conservatives who preach self-reliance, let's give them some examples on how they can truly be self-reliant:
No social security. No government subsidized utilities, farmers, or heavy industry.
There is more that you can do, my dear conservatives, to be more self-reliant - but you need to start with baby steps...baby steps. When you're old enough to start receiving social security, I'll expect that you send that check back to the government for use in promoting more self-reliance.
Louisiana has been under liberal democratic rule for decades? Which decades?
Brian
I, for one, have two likely options, and neither are very pretty, to be honest about it:
1) Apartheid-era South Africa's Group Areas Acts, as gave what amounted to "privileged" status to white nationals @ the expense of blacks and "coloureds" (to use the regime's term-of-choice for those of mixed race).
2) Singapore's "Asian Values" ideal, linking a free-market socioeconomic model to a "law-and-order" regime reeking of Puritanism on steroids (as in, to take one example, denying unmarried mothers the right to buy into government-sponsored housing as a "morals risk").
And how do we know the Oxycontin Cow isn't actually playing facetiae here, perhaps in common with much of the Xtreme Conservative propaganda machine?
Bush and his new and improved FEMA failed the test MISERABLY, and all Rush does is blame the victims and the Democrats.
It creates stupidity. It creates bloviating.
Earth to Limbaugh: Liberalism did not create the failure to properly prepare for the disaster or the delayed response to it.
It was not a liberal who proclaimed himself a "fashion god" while at the scene of the disaster.
many of you, like clockwork, can't get past your limbaugh hatred or your oxy jokes for one second to actually address the points he is making. of course limbaugh, in his patented inflammatory, partisan and overly simplistic analysis, loves the controversy but the broader point is this - being too dependent on government is not good, and katrina was prime evidence of that. being more self sufficient and relying less on govt.'s help and assistance can save your life, literally. giving people the opportunity and an environment to succeed through their own hard work and initiative is the best way to help those less fortunate in our society. not promising them govt. programs and expanding the welfare state by saying " we will take care of you, no matter what". katrina proved that is not the case.
...with certainty is that Bush took a fully functional and neccessary government agency and fu-cked it up. The poverty that was revealed during the disaster is due to a combination of failures that can be attributed to failed policies from both spheres that includes right wing indifference to the hardships of others. MLK once said it's a cruel to ask a bootless man to pull himself up by his bookstraps. That said poor oversite of some of the social programs contributed to long term dependence on the programs. To address these problems you have to address the root causes and correct those and provide the bootless man with help in becoming becoming fully independent and functional. The programs themsleves were not the problem, it was that they were often administered poorly and they didn'contain the neccessary measures to monitor the effectiveness of the programs. They should be managed like a business, with clear measures to evaluate the successes of the programs.
Social Assistance programs should provide the following temporary financial assistance with:
Limits for the time you can recieve financial assitance that are to receiving MANDATORY job-educational training. 4-5 year maximum is sufficient time
Mentoring Programs for both the parents and particularly for the children of the poor. You don't learn how to be responsible through osmosis,you have to be taught this.
Rehab services- counseling for substance abuse.
just my two cents.
being too dependent on government is not good, and katrina was prime evidence of that.
Even a staunch conservative would agree that public safety is the government's job.
You may not be familiar with this phrase but it appears in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution. If you think it means nothing then just say so. I find it odd that when conservatives say, "we shouldn't depend so much on government," or "we should cut entitlement programs," by "we" they mean the poor. Conservatives never object to the government aid that the rich receive.
So tell me, should the preamble read, "and promote the corporate welfare"?
that's the most amazing liberal spin on the constitution i have ever read. so "promoting the general welfare" means giving money to people through welfare? too ridiculous to comment on further.
The Preamble declares that: "We the People of the United States .... do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." The meaning is clear that all authority originates from the People.
The meaning of the word Welfare in the Constitution is different from its current usage. The constitutional meaning of welfare is: 1. health, happiness, or prosperity; well-being. [
Welfare in today's context also means organized efforts on the part of public or private organizations to benefit the poor, or simply public assistance. This is not the meaning of the word as used in the Constitution.
So as I see it, while you can argue about the need for welfare programs, it clearly says the government should promote health, happiness and prosperity. But conservatives don't like regulating pollution, and can't stand minimum wage. So how do you justify that?
you answered it exactly. it says promote, create an environment for, to further, etc. it does not say take from one and hand to another - that's what charities are for, and if it weren't for our heavy, ridiculous tax burden charities would fourish. also, welfare is a 20th century phenomenon. before it existed, charities and churches were the main source for assisting the poor. so your argument is baseless.
'Are there no prisons?' asked Scrooge.
'Plenty of prisons,' said the gentleman, laying down the pen again.
'And the Union workhouses.' demanded Scrooge. 'Are they still in operation?'
'They are. Still,' returned the gentleman,' I wish I could say they were not.'
'The Treadmill and the Poor Law are in full vigour, then?' said Scrooge.
'Both very busy, sir.'
'Oh. I was afraid, from what you said at first, that something had occurred to stop them in their useful course,' said Scrooge. 'I'm very glad to hear it.'
'Under the impression that they scarcely furnish Christian cheer of mind or body to the multitude,' returned the gentleman, 'a few of us are endeavouring to raise a fund to buy the Poor some meat and drink, and means of warmth. We choose this time, because it is a time, of all others, when Want is keenly felt, and Abundance rejoices. What shall I put you down for?'
'Nothing!' Scrooge replied.
'You wish to be anonymous?'
'I wish to be left alone,' said Scrooge. 'Since you ask me what I wish, gentlemen, that is my answer. I don't make merry myself at Christmas and I can't afford to make idle people merry. I help to support the establishments I have mentioned-they cost enough; and those who are badly off must go there.'
'Many can't go there; and many would rather die.'
'If they would rather die,' said Scrooge, 'they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population. Besides-excuse me-I don't know that.'
'But you might know it,' observed the gentleman.
'It's not my business,' Scrooge returned. 'It's enough for a man to understand his own business, and not to interfere with other people's. Mine occupies me constantly. Good afternoon, gentlemen!'
Scrooge - the role model for the modern conservative.
Prior to the advent of social saftey nets, the poor generally died very very young from poor health directly attributed to poor nutrition and improper housing. Charitable organizations mostly ran shelters and what were called charity "HOSPITALS" These were essentially dens for the innocubation of contagious deadly infections - the people were terrified and often only went there when they were forced to by the GOVERNMENT. That world was an ugly ugly place to be if you were poor. I certainly hope you don't advocate a return to that.
I meant to write incubation.
your entire assumption seems to be that all welfare is about giving money from the haves to the have nots. Most aren't. Your hangup seems to be about that one program that tries to let people keep a shred of dignity. Is it abused? Sure, all programs are. But whining about a program that is small potatoes compared to the whole spending bill seems petty at best.
The Weekend
The End of Child Labor
Workers Rights
Equal Rights for Women
Equal Rights for Minorities
Health Insurance
Pensions
Affordable home ownership
Privacy
Social Security
etc.
I'd love to see a comparable list of conservative accomplishments. Like, uhh, umm... oh, I know! The defeat of the Equal Rights Amendment! That sure was a biggie.
Honestly, can anyone point to any significant event in this country's history and say that it was a triumph of conservatism?
I remember hearing Hugh Downs on a radio program about a decade ago say: "Every advance that occurs in this country comes from a liberal turn of mind." (Going from memory here, so it may not be perfectly accurate.) Hear, hear!
you said: ". . . it does not say take from one and hand to another. . ." I SAY--This is exactly what the rich do every waking minute. They force wages on employees that are less than they would be willing to work for, (which I feel is a form of thievery) then complain that the poor aren't paying their fair share of the tax burden. Think about it for a minute, and try to do it with an open mind. It's sick, isn't it? If I made a million each year, I would happily pay 1/2 of it to our government to help insure that I made that money next year, and the next, etc. I say happily, because I certainly have so much more to lose than a person slightly ahead of the poverty level. It's time for right wingers to wake up.
what you choose to zero in on and respond to today. You're not usually this right wing knee jerk talking pointy.
you can call it a talking point if it makes you feel better to marginalize another's argument. i don't deal in left vs right rhetoric. i have stated my opinions on self reliance, government dependence and why i believe that turning to this inept, bloated and cumbersome bureaucratic government to help you out in a crisis is a mistake. it failed the katrina victims at every level, feds, state, local. blaming one of the other is fun partisan nonsense, but solves nothing. promoting self reliance is the most humane and sensible path for everyone. many liberals here get all riled up and defensive when it's brought up, that's too bad and not worth arguing when one's entrenched ideology is at hand. you have your opinions, i respect them. i have mine. enjoy the discussion.
We get defensive because your bizarre assertion that liberals do not believe in self-reliance is a slanderous lie. People tend to get defensive when you lie about them.
You have read his "stuff" right?
I understand that the framers of the Constitution weren't thinking of the welfare program, my point was that what they wrote should mean something. To conservatives it obviously means nothing, except for government aid to the rich. You right-wingers only believe in a rugged, individualistic, reap-what-you-sow, self-reliant society when talking about the poor.
What have you to say about corporate dependency on the government?! Anything?
Farmers are required to leave 10% of their field for gleanings for the poor, so I would say its not true that welfare is a 20th Century phenomenon. Isnt that taking from one and giving to another? I guess the concept of social responsibility is just to much for those of you with pinup posters of Ebeneezer Scrooge on their bedroom walls
However, the farmers weren't required to give the 10% to the gov't who consumed most of it and then handed back the poor what was left.
many of you, like clockwork, can't get past your limbaugh hatred...for one second to actually address the points he is making.
If I say "liver cancer sucks," would you come back with "you just can't get over your 'cancer hatred' long enough to find out what cancer is saying?"
Rush Is Wrong. He has proven himself to be so consistently wrong, in fact, that I no longer feel the need to re-asses his comments every time I hear them.
--"being too dependent on government is not good, and katrina was prime evidence of that. "--
It certainly was "wrong" of the stranded citizens of New Orleans to think they could depend on this administration to come to their aid promptly. Those who depended on Bush being reponsive and concerned made a mistake, in some cases a fatal one. That was obvious when Bush did a flyover and peered out the window on his way home from yet another vacation. It was unwise for residents to expect FEMA to respond to them and "Manage" this "Emergency", because they didn't.
All these people should have pulled themselves up and out of the water by their own high-water boots.
bush screwed it up, but no more than the inept mayor or the governor of lousiana. but they are democrats and they get a pass. face it, people who are totally dependent on govt. risk their own livelihood when disaster strikes. but instead of promoting the idea of self reliance - something you liberals despise, you use it an opportunity to bash conservatism, which is so absurd it's laughable. maybe rush was more right than i thought.
bush screwed it up, but no more than the inept mayor or the governor of lousiana.
Really? That's not what Rush said.
i meant the comments about unchecked liberalism and govt. dependence, as opposed to self reliance. rush never blames bush for anything. i don't share that part of his partisanship.
but they are democrats and they get a pass
They didn't get a pass. They've been reamed about this as well. I think it's common knowledge now that all levels of gvt. failed here. But responsibility gets tougher at the top. When some sailor screws up and beaches a ship, he gets his pay cut for a month. The CO, who was asleep in his cabin, loses his commision and is forced to retire. Bush should take WAY more heat than the locals, even though it's their fault too. That's why he gets the big bucks.
face it, people who are totally dependent on govt. risk their own livelihood when disaster strikes I don't think anyone just chose to sit around and wait for the gov. I think that people who HAD NO OTHER OPTIONS waited for the gov.
but instead of promoting the idea of self reliance - something you liberals despise That's just wrong. I think that people of all politcal stripes adhere to the concept of self-reliance as THE path to success. The difference is that liberals understand that one cannot always control events. In my mind, the people who honestly believe the whole "people are poor because they're lazy" line have simply never had anything happen to them that was outside their control. Now, I'm not saying that there aren't lazy people, or that the lazy deserve to be coddled. But I am saying that I bet you'd change your tune if your life got totally screwed up by events that were outside your control.
--"bush screwed it up, but no more than the inept mayor or the governor of lousiana. "--
One of those three had the vast power and resources of the federal government at their command. That person, George Bush, failed to act, failed to command, failed to lead, "screwed it up", to use your phrase. Therein lies the reason for the sad tale of Katrina, not in "liberalism".
Woe to those, like the residents and mayor of New Orleans, and the governor of Louisiana, who naively expected the vacationing and blase Bush to rise to the occasion.
This idea conservatives pass around called "self reliance" is a horrible joke they pass on to rubes and dupes. Unless you reside out in the woods by yourself living off the land and don't use money for anything you are not self reliant.
It is a myth.
You're referring to was a lifelong republican before he changed parties to run for mayor in the first place. If you don't believe it, google it. That said, how about some specific failures by Nagin and the Gov. of Louisiana to back up your assertion.? Instead of facts, you offer generalites that might fly when you talk to rush. P.S.we're discussing "unchecked Liberals" not "elected southern democrats" big difference. Beyond that Rush didn't say it was a failure at the top, he said it was the dependency created by "unchecked Liberalism" that caused the problem.
Right On said:
"bush screwed it up, but no more than the inept mayor or the governor of lousiana. but they are democrats and they get a pass. face it, people who are totally dependent on govt. risk their own livelihood when disaster strikes. but instead of promoting the idea of self reliance - something you liberals despise, you use it an opportunity to bash conservatism, which is so absurd it's laughable. maybe rush was more right than i thought."
Where in the liberal handbook does it say that liberals despise self-reliance? Since when do we use self-reliance as an opportunity to bash conservatism? Again, you're pulling this out of your a$$, which you do so often. No facts to back it up. Did the mayor of New Orleans and the governor of Louisiana screw up? Of course they did. However, the federal governmant has a department IN PLACE to help deal with disasters for the common welfare of the American people. What happened? Why did it take so long to get these people help? It took so long because of the incompetance coming from the current administration, not liberalism, not conservatism, just plain incompetance. Incompetance does not have a political party - it just seems that lately, neoconservatism has had more than its share of incompetents, liars, swindlers and money-changers.
I don't want to bash Conservatism. As a fair-minded liberal, I can see that there are some good things about good, wholesome conservatism. These dolts who claim to be conservatives are NOT. They are neoconservatives and deserve to be bashed constantly, until they are either out of power or dissolve completely. Neoconservatives don't have the best interests of the American people at heart. They care only about their wallet and how much more money they can put into it. I cannot believe that someone who claims to be a conservative would back the likes of Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter and their ilk. It's like a chicken supporting Colonel Sanders. Get a grip.
This was a national disaster. This event was predicted by all of the scientists. The maintenance of the levees was the responsibility of the US Army Corps of Engineers. The Bush Administration consistently cut funding for the levees throughout their years in office. The Bush Administration sent many of the men of the LA National Guard to fight in Iraq. A lot of the LA National Guard's equipment was in iraq when it was needed in New Orleans.
We don't bash the idea of self reliance. But we do know for a fact that there is a segment of the population of this country that has been kept down by the majority for more than 300 years. You can talk equality all you want, but as much as we've advanced, we still have a long way to go before we can say there is racial equality in America. The majority of the people in New Orleans were poor, were minorities and were left to die by the government on every level, but especially on the Federal level. We as Americans, should be ashamed.
Why are millions of our tax dollars still supporting this organization if, as you put it, we can't depend on it for help when a devastating storm wipes out a city?
New Orleans and the state of Louisiana did not have the option to divert its federal tax revenue from a failed federal organization to a state-run relief agency. How were they to know that Bush and Brownie would fall asleep at the wheel?
The reason is very simple. With competent management, FEMA is an extremely effective organization that gets help out quickly to those who need it in times of dire emergency, especially disasters that cross state lines, where a Federal agency can coordinate efforts to help those in need.
When Bill Clinton was President, FEMA was headed by an extremely competent man, James Lee Witt, who was a forceful manager with extensive prior experience in disaster relief management.
Under GWBush, FEMA was headed by an inexperienced lobbyist buddy of his first, then the totally incompetent and even less experienced college roommate of his lobbyist buddy. The second director, Michael Brown, has zero experience in managing disasters on any level. His main prior experience was as director of an association that managed judges for Arabian Horse shows, and he was fired from that job for incompetence.
Today's GOP wants nothing more than to privatize all Government functions. One way for them to do that is by rigging up a self-fulfilling prophecy that Government is inept and can't help people. So they appoint inexperienced, incompetent people for high-level positions that carry great responsibility. When the people, who they knew couldn't do the job, don't do the job, they stand back and point and say, "You see, Government can't help you." They then give no-bid contracts for the same work to their rich buddies, who don't do the job either, but hidden riders in the contracts indemnify them against any and all lawsuits resulting from failure to fulfill the terms of the contract. So they have absolutely no responsibility to do the job they were "contracted" to do.
It's a shell game. The GOP doesn't want our tax dollars going to Government agencies who can do a great job when directed by competent, caring, experienced managers. They want our tax dollars going to fatcats who don't give a damn about poor people, and don't care if they do the job they were hired to do as long as they get the dollars.
It's not about picking ourselves up by the bootstraps. It's about picking up frightened people from their rooftops after the worst natural disaster to hit this country in our lifetimes.
If we can't care for the least of our brethren, then we shouldn't be trying to export our beliefs and what we call our values throughout the world.
The money spent on the poor in this country pales in comparison to the corporate welfare and fraud that takes place every day. We've wasted billions in Iraq, only to watch as Iraqi's cheer and stone a helicopter that was shot down by insurgents. Every day, the cost of the war increases and no one from the right seems to care. Every day the right seems to blame the poor for more and more of this nations domestic ills. How did we get our priorities so screwed up?
Its just baseless assertion and insult without a whit of insight. Hurricanes as other natural disasters happen and WILL overwhelm the resources of those without them. I would be able to go to another city spend a week or more in a hotel room, I am not dirt poor. Unless you are somehow going to end poverty then there WILL be people who need government assistance to survive a natural disaster, this has NOTHING to do with liberal or conservative philosophy beyond the fact that conservatives, like say YOU, are trying again to sell economic darwinism. Telling those with little or no resources, You have failed therefore you are not worth spending money to save. If you cant rise up to the point you have resources to own a car and money in the bank or credit to pick up and leave on a days notice and take care of yourself you deserve to DIE. It is once again an attempt at the holy grail of conservative philosophy, the search for a convincing reason why SELFISHNESS is the apex of social virtue. I think you guys will find it at Shangri La
Right On, recently I did some research on my family history and traced back ancestors to the area I grew up in upstate New York. At the time when it was concidered the West, an absolute wilderness filled with Iriquois who wanted to forcibly remove all the white men and women. My point is, that despite the fear of death from the locals in a rather horrible fashion, not to mention the elements they had to endure; the town's first census revealed an organized effort to help the poor. It was the same in the surrounding areas. Government has been used as a tool to benefit the welfare of the populace since before the country was even founded. Conservatives try to rewrite history, but the fact is our founders were liberals by nature. It wasn't a debate, the poor were to be taken care of because the whole community benefits. More poor; more crime, more squalid livingc onditions, less wealth being distributed. It be nice if we could count on charity from the private sector. The fact is when the economy slumps, the wealthiest among us stop donating and stop spending. I've seen it at charity functions all the time. Also, most conservatives I know don't donate the extra pittance the Bush administration have granted them with his tax cuts. They find something else to spend it on, themselves. Rush Limbaugh is once again perpetuating a myth to divide us. What a traitor.
"the broader point is this - being too dependent on government is not good, and katrina was prime evidence of that. being more self sufficient and relying less on govt.'s help and assistance can save your life, literally. giving people the opportunity and an environment to succeed through their own hard work and initiative is the best way to help those less fortunate in our society"
Thats quite a statement there.... it makes me wonder though how dependent "too dependent" is. As for "giving an environment to succeed"... that sounds really helpful. Better yet, why don't we give them some room to breathe and stay away from there, put them to work and let them fend for themselves......
Being Dutch I fear I have a different opinion about "Gov't interference" than most Americans, but I sleep very well knowing that the Gov't took over Hans Brinkers role and built a massive system of dikes and that it provides health insurance, etc. etc.
If only J.K. Galbraith were still alive.
What is saddest of all is that a disaster turns into some kind of pseudo philosophical discussion on (political / economical) principle.
'Help' is originally a German word. In all the languages that use the word 'help' it means assistance (1. make it easier for (someone) to do something. 2 improve a situation . It seems only the English language has found an alternate meaning: "to help oneself".
Under Bill Clinton, poverty went down. The welfare rolls were dramitacally reduced and abortion was down. Under Bush all the numbers are up. No one is better off today than they were 6 years ago, unless you are a CEO or work on Wall Street. Then you blame the miserable social policies of this administration on the poor who are made even poorer under this President?
The fact is that with an incredible natural disaster, only the Federal Government is equipped to deal with the aftermath. And the leadership that this Federal Government has displayed is deplorable. That would have been the beginning of the end for Bush's pool numbers. That is what is "right".
Let's see...Nazi Germany, the Inquisition, the Salem Witch Trials, the Crusades, Jim Crow, the Taliban, ...
I'll take my chances with Liberalism, thank you.
Osama: The Other Right Wing Conservative
Nazis were conservatives?? I thought they were the National Socialist party ... sounds kinda "leftish" to me.
And not all "socialists" are liberal. If you can point out some of the Nazi party's liberal policies, then I might reconsider.
Hitler brought about an uprising against the German government becausethey had become "Too Liberal." There are far too many other similarities to the current regime to list in this forum.
Are you serious? Really? Are you?
Rush declares, truthfully, that liberals are opposed to racism and poverty. Presumably, "unchecked liberalism" would then do away with those things. However, as Rush points out, racism and poverty still existed in N.O. Thus it appears that "liberalism" was not, in fact, "unchecked" there.
It would be at least as accurate, or perhaps more accurate, to argue that the checks placed on liberalism helped to perpetuate the racism and poverty that in turn exacerbated the damage from Katrina.
It's ALWAYS easy to make blanket accusations, BUT usually harder to actually PROVE them. Rush's assertion that "Liberalism" is what did New Orleans in was a very simplistic explanation. And to suggest that Racism, Poverty and Crime is caused by "Liberalism" is a bit of a stretch by any standards. Rush's Blame Game is pretty transparent.
Rush recited a litany of ideals that Liberalism stands for and applied them to New Orleans, then dismantled each one as PROOF that Liberalism failed miserably. Of course he failed to point out that racism, poverty&crime also runs rampant in Red states&cities. So why is that? Wouldn't Liberalism be more "in check" in those states?
Racism, poverty and crime have ALWAYS existed. And IF we are being honest here, we have to admit they ALWAYS will. Neither Liberalism or Conservatism will undo that fact. We can make IMPROVEMENTS, but we'll NEVER eradicate it completely.
Sorry to be such a downer. BUT, I try to deal in reality...
Exactly. I wonder if Rush believes that poverty, racism, and hopelessness would disappear if liberalism didn't exist.
The problem isn't liberalism creating false expectations (my paraphrase here), it's conservative incompetence and the inability of conservatives to take responsibility for their own short comings and incompetence. Bush knew this was coming, he was warned and he said he would help and he ignored the dire situation in N.O. to go to a birthday party for McCain and then to go to San Diego for a fundraiser. Bush is Rush's man. Rush can't take responsibility for supporting that spoiled, irresponsible buffoon. Conservatives and republicans talk a tough game of personal responsibility, but until they start being responsible why should anyone take them seriously?
The roots of poverty in NO, and elsewhere in this country go far beyond conservative clichés about welfare and bootstraps, but if it makes you feel better about your callous selfishness, keep repeating them.
--"liberals support paying people more than the minimum wage. "--Limbaugh
Yes, we do. As if there's something wrong with that. I guess to Limbaugh and his dittohead fans, there is.
Yeah, it appears Rush is saying that conservatives are in favor of racism, unemployment, poverty, and low wages. I knew that conservatives favor racism and low wages, but their love of unemployment and poverty are news to me.
you can't depress wages effectively unless you have a huge pool of unemployed workers who, after suffering long enough, will do dang near anything for a dime.
this is why the Bush Neocons want an open border and "guest workers." The endless supply of cheap labor keeps wages down and profits up.
"Brownie, you're doing a heckuva job". GWB
That quote should be on every DNC website and advertisement for Democrats running for re-election in November. It was a complete and total disgrace and thoroughly embarrassing at all levels.
Of course Rush has nothing to say about that.
This is the first presidency that's said too many stupid things to count. Maybe that's the stragegery! If they make enough mistakes, we can't choose which ones to use in time for november!
"the happiest day of my administration was when I caught a fish in my lake."
Katrina affected the rest of the country in ways that will take years to appreciate fully. It even seeped into the hearts and minds of many right wing stalwarts, although their criticism has been tilted towards the local and state (Democratic) governments.
Not that many of the right will admit that it softened the foundation of their ideology, but there's anecdotal evidence that it did. That's the only thing that could explain Joe Scarborough standing in the devastation and quoting Stalin (!) about one death being a tragedy, thousands of deaths being a statistic.
We should be happy that wingnuts such as Limbaugh are saying nuttier stuff: it means they're trying harder to be heard, because fewer and fewer people are paying attention.
. . . is what characterized the Katrina disgrace.
No wonder Limbaugh and his ilk hate liberals, they really are worse than the terrorists. They're against racism, poverty, and not paying everyone the minimum wage. Thank God for the racist, poverty loving conservatives.
hey synchophant , didn't clinton choose james lee witt as his fema director, a man with a lifetime of experience in emergency managment, who seemlessly handled virtually all fema mandated emergencies with grace and aplomb. didn't lbj , in the great hurricane of '66 in new orleans, appear, flashlight in hand, telling victims i am your president and we will get you through this. you seem to confuse ideology with competence. strange where are the limbaughs, bushes , cheneys, wofowitzes and the the other neocons when we need em , defending their ideaolgy rather than exhibiting courage as so many of the "liberal" victims of katrina so aptly showed.
This has become a common talking point among the neocons. They argue that it is reliance upon government that produces these tragedies. To make sure that we all get their point, whenever they get their hands upon any governmental agency they set out deconstructing it. Once they've f'd it up to the point of rendering it ineffective, they point their fingers Democrats.
When its pointed out that FEMA HAS worked effectively when under DEMOCRATIC control, the neocons then blame local (Democratic) government as the culprit. When it's pointed out that Katrina was a natural disaster of nearly unpresidented magnitude that was FAR from the ability of ANY local govt to handle, they then blame the very IDEA of Libralism.
Look, if they truly had their way, if Libralism was entirely disgarded, & antigovernment Conservativism were indeed triumphant, Katrina would have been a disaster of even greater proportions. We've all seen the results of disasters hitting other parts of the world (earthquakes, tsunamis, hurricanes, etc.), & all shook our heads at the carnage that resulted. Even the cons felt lucky that they lived in America, where help would always be shortly on its way.
Is that the kind of world that Whatarush & the other neocons are really trying to sell us on? Do they really mean to tell us that we'd be better off if we were all left to our own individual devices of survival, a world of every man, woman, & child for themselves?
Or does this just make it an easier sell to award no-bid contracts to Halliburton?
The greedy bastards.
Unchecked capitalism.
"Blame the Victim and the Lib'ruls" mentality from the neo-con crowd.
If it doesn't go wrong, credit a capitalist.