Will Bush ever top 50% again?

[TexasTiger 13,002]

Has Bush bottomed out? Can he go lower? Can he recover past 50%?

[Captain Liger 0]

Polls concerning the President's approval rating (and polls in general) I feel are a crock. When was the last time you were called by Gallop, or any other poll agency, and asked what you think about something? I know I've never been called and I don't know anyone that has and I know a lot of people. I guess all these polls on how the President is doing are coming from New England, California, and the Pacific Northwest which ultimately give the poll takers the results they want.

[quietfan 233]

Of course no polls are perfect...that's why they include a range of possible error in their results. But they generally fairly accurate (at least the older, well-established, ones like Gallup). If they were not, they wouldn't stay in business very long.

In my 51 years, I have only known one aquaintance who once answered a phone poll from one of the major polling services (--Gallup?, USA Today?, Time?, I forget which he said it was). But just because I have no personal contact with the pollsters doesn't mean they are inaccurate. I mean, typically, a poll may only talk to a few thousand people out of a national population of about 250 million, so what are the odds that anyone I know would be in that small sample group? If the sample is carefully selected using proper statistical methods, however, it can still be a fair reflection of the general population.

Or in other words, while I might hesitate to accept the EXACT number reported in a poll, I believe they are accurate enough to say that Bush's approval rating is under 50% and the lowest it's ever been. Whether it rises back above 50% is too dependent on future events to speculate on, IMHO. Depending on how Bush handled it, another 9/11-like event or a red hot economy could get his numbers back up.

[Guest Tigrinum Major]

I know a lot of people.

224396[/snapback]

Yeah, and I know some of the people you know. That is nothing to be bragging about.

On the original question, no, I don't think it will for a couple of reasons.

He doesn't have to worry about re-election and therefore will continue to make unpopular decisions such as the ports deal. He also will continue to be under the attack of Democrats that are positioning for 2008.

[otterinbham 0]

I don't think he will for two fundamental reasons. Mind you that I voted for the man twice.

1) I think he has made some huge mistakes. The Prescription Act will be a disastrous piece of legislation. The slow response to Katrina continues to be a festering sore on his presidency. While the war in Iraq will, over the long haul, continue improving, there remains the question of whether we should have been there in the first place. He has not delivered on legislation such as Social Security reform. And a host of other, smaller problems.

2) Bush is a terrible communicator. With the shining exception of the days immediately after 9/11, he has been unable to really communicate his vision to the American people. Remember his awful first debate with John Kerry? Now, compare his public performance with some great presidents such as FDR and Ronald Reagan. Both were profound communicators of vision. Neither ever promised that we would have an easy time of it, yet they inspired most Americans, despite their failings. Because the man makes very few direct appeals to the American people, he cannot really explain his position on any issues. Further, the positive achievements of his administration (Economic growth, Afghanistan, Tax Cuts, etc. etc.) simply are not stressed in his discussions with the people.

Remember that, first and foremost, Americans elect a leader. Bush has not impressed anybody with his ability to map out a vision or his ability to follow that vision. I have faith that we will prevail against our enemies. But I believe that it will be despite the man in the Oval Office, not because of him.

[TrueBlue72 0]

TM is right, it doesn't really matter. Bush won't be running for reelection; Cheney won't be running, so the Republican candidate will have no strong connection to the Bush administration. The longer the Dumbacrats run on the slogan "We Hate Bush" and try to undermine him, the later they are to the next election and more likely they are to have their arses handed to them again.

So you liberals celebrate your "victory" in Bush's poll numbers; it's a lot like the moral victories that Bammer celebrates for "winning" the 4th quarter.

[SouthLink02 8]

Polls are great when they work in someone's favor

Polls are terrible and can't show reality when they go against someone

[quietfan 233]

I don't think he will for two fundamental reasons. Mind you that I voted for the man twice.

1) I think he has made some huge mistakes. The Prescription Act will be a disastrous piece of legislation. The slow response to Katrina continues to be a festering sore on his presidency. While the war in Iraq will, over the long haul, continue improving, there remains the question of whether we should have been there in the first place. He has not delivered on legislation such as Social Security reform. And a host of other, smaller problems.

2) Bush is a terrible communicator. With the shining exception of the days immediately after 9/11, he has been unable to really communicate his vision to the American people. Remember his awful first debate with John Kerry? Now, compare his public performance with some great presidents such as FDR and Ronald Reagan. Both were profound communicators of vision. Neither ever promised that we would have an easy time of it, yet they inspired most Americans, despite their failings. Because the man makes very few direct appeals to the American people, he cannot really explain his position on any issues. Further, the positive achievements of his administration (Economic growth, Afghanistan, Tax Cuts, etc. etc.) simply are not stressed in his discussions with the people.

Remember that, first and foremost, Americans elect a leader. Bush has not impressed anybody with his ability to map out a vision or his ability to follow that vision. I have faith that we will prevail against our enemies. But I believe that it will be despite the man in the Oval Office, not because of him.

224419[/snapback]

IMO, this is one of the best, objective, well-thought-out opinions of the Bush presidency that I've heard coming from a Bush voter, otterinbham.

And a good example of why he will struggle to ever get back above that 50% barrier: His support among his own moderate followers, like you, is waning for the very reasons you describe.

And I agree with TM: With no re-election to worry about, I don't think he really cares much what the polls say. I think he's sort of acting like a lame duck already, two years before anyone will succeed him.

[otterinbham 0]

TM is right, it doesn't really matter.  Bush won't be running for reelection; Cheney won't be running, so the Republican candidate will have no strong connection to the Bush administration.  The longer the Dumbacrats run on the slogan "We Hate Bush" and try to undermine him, the later they are to the next election and more likely they are to have their arses handed to them again. 

So you liberals celebrate your "victory" in Bush's poll numbers; it's a lot like the moral victories that Bammer celebrates for "winning" the 4th quarter.

224420[/snapback]

True enough, except for one serious flaw in your thinking. There will be another election. And if Bush continues to show this level of incompetence and this poor leadership into 2008, the Republican Party will pay for it at the polls. That's something I'm not really wanting to contemplate.

Again, I voted for Bush twice. But I'm not such a blind Bush partisan that I cannot recognize serious, serious flaws in this man's leadership. Personally, I think he utterly botched things in the conquest and occupation of Iraq, a war that turned out to only be tangential to the War on Terror. I think he has demonstrated fiscal recklessness with his Medicare Prescription act.

I also think Katrina demonstrated a sobering point--Namely that the much ballyhooed Department of Homeland Security (Which includes government response to natural disaster as part of its charter and provenance) is ill-prepared to deal with any emergency whatsoever. If we cannot provide more effective assistance to survivors of a middling class 3 hurricane, what do you think is going to happen when somebody detonates a tactical nuclear weapon in Washington, New York, or Chicago?

In short, the public at large has come to see W as an inarticulate boob who is enabled by his cynical handlers--and he has done very little to dispel it personally. And when clear-headed party stalwarts such as George Will, Andrew Sullivan and William F. Buckley are having their doubts, then you know the president has a serious image problem on his hands.

[CCTAU 3,341]

I also think Katrina demonstrated a sobering point--Namely that the much ballyhooed Department of Homeland Security (Which includes government response to natural disaster as part of its charter and provenance) is ill-prepared to deal with any emergency whatsoever. If we cannot provide more effective assistance to survivors of a middling class 3 hurricane, what do you think is going to happen when somebody detonates a tactical nuclear weapon in Washington, New York, or Chicago?

In short, the public at large has come to see W as an inarticulate boob who is enabled by his cynical handlers--and he has done very little to dispel it personally. And when clear-headed party stalwarts such as George Will, Andrew Sullivan and William F. Buckley are having their doubts, then you know the president has a serious image problem on his hands.

Only the boobs who buy into the liberal media bull. I agree he hasn't used the best approach when it comes to PR, but he is not afraid to make the tough decision. NO demoncrat ever makes the tough decision.

His plan for SS was derailed by the demoncratic party who wishes to keep us all enslaved. The prescription drug act was in response to all the socailist demoncrats who are claiming socialized medicine is the answer. He is giving them jsut enough to see that it won't work. But hey, the dems know it will work when done "their" way.

And Katrina. Please don't get me started on that one. You said SLOW response. Do you do ANY of your own research or are you finally starting to beieve the lies the liberal media keep perpetuating. The federal response to Katrina was the fastest and most comprehensive in the history of FEMA. It took them more time to get aid to the victims of Andrew. And most of those people were white. So don't give me this slow response bull. The states of MS and AL seemedto fare pretty well. But hey, their state governments called and asked for help early. Like its designed. Once again for all you slow people out their, "FEMA is NOT a first response agency."

The department of homeland security is new and is in response once again to demoncrat whining. Any new department has growing pains. All we hear are idiots like H. Clinton who say that GW is making all the wrong moves, but they offer nothing new. And when he does do something in response to their requests, it doesn't do well and is all his fault.

People are tired of fighting the media becuse they have nothing to fight with. Those of us educated and informed enough to know realize that Bush is making decisions now that will benefit a future demoncratic president who will sit on his ass and do nothing till it all falls apart and another republican with balls has to make ALL the tough decisions that hid predecessor ignored. People didn't like Reagan. Now he is revered. In twenty years, we'll see GW as a strong president who made the right and tough decisions. Albeit unpopular ones.

[quietfan 233]

Speaking of polls, this just out:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11759590/

Updated: 10:49 a.m. ET March 10, 2006

WASHINGTON - More and more people, even more Republicans, disapprove of President Bush’s performance, question his character and no longer consider him a strong leader against terrorism, according to an AP-Ipsos poll documenting one of the bleakest points of his presidency.

Nearly four out of five Americans, including 70 percent of Republicans, believe civil war will break out in Iraq — the bloody hot spot upon which Bush has staked his presidency. Nearly 70 percent of people say the U.S. is on the wrong track, a 6-point jump since February.

“I’m not happy with how things are going,” said Margaret Campanelli, a retiree in Norwich, Conn., who said she tends to vote GOP. “I’m particularly not happy with Iraq, not happy with how things worked with Hurricane Katrina.”

Republican Party leaders said the survey explains why GOP lawmakers are rushing to distance themselves from Bush on a range of issues — port security, immigration, spending, warrantless eavesdropping and trade, for example.

...

The poll suggests that most Americans wonder whether Bush is up to the job. The survey, conducted Monday through Wednesday of 1,000 people, found that just 37 percent approve of his overall performance. That is the lowest of his presidency.

Bush’s job approval among Republicans fell from 82 percent in February to 74 percent, a dangerous sign in a midterm election year when parties rely on enthusiasm from their most loyal voters.

Bush’s approval among men dropped from 49 percent last month to 41 percent this month, and the drop was especially pronounced among those men without a college education. The biggest losses were among white males.

By comparison, Presidents Clinton and Reagan had public approval in the mid 60s at this stage of their second terms in office, while Eisenhower was close to 60 percent, according to Gallup polls. Nixon, who was increasingly tangled up in the Watergate scandal, was in the high 20s in early 1974.

On issues, Bush’s approval rating declined from 39 percent to 36 percent for his handling of domestic affairs and from 47 percent to 43 percent on foreign policy and terrorism. His approval ratings for dealing with the economy and Iraq held steady, but still hovered around 40 percent.

...

About six in 10 said Bush is likable, up slightly from 52 percent in November, and slightly lower than 63 percent in August. In August, 50 percent of Democrats found Bush likable, while 28 percent said that in November and now it’s at 38 percent.

Almost half, 46 percent, said Bush is dependable, down from 55 percent in August. Not quite half of men, said Bush is dependable, down from 62 percent in August. A third of minorities said Bush is dependable, down from 44 percent in August.

Fifty-seven percent said Bush is strong, down from 64 percent in August. The drop was especially large among young men, age 18-24, who went from 71 percent in August to 59 percent now. Just over half of older women, 53 percent, said Bush is strong, compared with 66 percent in August. And 84 percent of Republicans say Bush is strong, compared with 91 percent in August.

Poor marks for Congress

The AP-Ipsos poll, which has a margin of error of 3 percentage points, gives Republicans reason to worry that they may inherit Bush’s political woes. Two-thirds of the public disapproves of how the GOP-led Congress is handling its job and a surprising 53 percent of Republicans give Congress poor marks.

“Obviously, it’s the winter of our discontent,” said Rep. Tom Cole, R-Okla.

By a 47-36 margin, people favor Democrats over Republicans when they are asked who should control Congress.

While the gap worries Republicans, Cole and others said it does not automatically translate into GOP defeats in November, when voters will face a choice between local candidates rather than considering Congress as a whole.

In addition, strategists in both parties agree that a divided and undisciplined Democratic Party has failed to seize full advantage of Republican troubles.

“While I don’t dispute the fact that we have challenges in the current environment politically, I also believe 2006 as a choice election offers Republicans an opportunity if we make sure the election is framed in a way that will keep our majorities in the House and the Senate,” said Ken Mehlman, chairman of the Republican National Committee.

Criticism that boomerangs

Stung by criticism, senior officials at the White House and the RNC are reminding GOP members of Congress that Bush’s approval ratings may be low, but theirs is lower and have declined at the same pace as Bush’s. The message to GOP lawmakers is that criticizing the president weakens him — and them — politically.

“When issues like the internal Republican debate over the ports dominates the news it puts us another day away from all of us figuring out what policies we need to win,” said Terry Nelson, a Republican consultant and political director for Bush’s re-election campaign in 2004.

Bowing to ferocious opposition in Congress, a Dubai-owned company on Thursday abandoned its quest to take over operations at several U.S. ports. Bush had pledged to veto any attempt to block the transaction, pitting him against Republicans in Congress and most voters.

All this has Republican voters like Walter Wright of Fairfax Station, Va., worried for their party.

“We’ve gotten so carried away I wouldn’t be surprised to see the Democrats take it because of discontent,” he said. “People vote for change and hope for the best.”

[SouthLink02 8]

The federal response to Katrina was the fastest and most comprehensive in the history of FEMA.

As someone who stayed for the Hurricane, are you ******* kidding me?

First, let me say this is not a BASH bush thread....Nagin/Blanco/Bush ALL SCREWED UP.

It was arguably one of the worst, most botched up responses ever seen in this country.

Hell, ask the men who stayed in Baton Rouge, such as National Guardsmen and Helicopter flyers. They had no idea what to do, when to do it, and struggled just to communicate with other agencies. Or let's ask the Firefighters who came down from Illinois, Minnesota, and New Jersey who were stationed outside the city and stayed there for a month before they left on their own.

Anyone want to guess how long it took men to get to those in Lakeview? The city that was completely whipped out? Nearly 10 days after the levee's broke...yes, 10 days.

It was a JOKE. Why did it take a week for men to enter the city? No, No...NOT TALKING ABOUT THE SUPERDOME...how about the other parts that had just several inches of water left?

Why did Brown go to Nightline and say he sees the people and has sent people men and then no one was even close for 2 more days? Can someone explain why it took 7-8 days for men to enter the city? Anyone?

And please, not the entire city was undriveable water....I can't stand people using that excuse.

One more thing, I am not a liberal.

[otterinbham 0]

I also think Katrina demonstrated a sobering point--Namely that the much ballyhooed Department of Homeland Security (Which includes government response to natural disaster as part of its charter and provenance) is ill-prepared to deal with any emergency whatsoever. If we cannot provide more effective assistance to survivors of a middling class 3 hurricane, what do you think is going to happen when somebody detonates a tactical nuclear weapon in Washington, New York, or Chicago?

In short, the public at large has come to see W as an inarticulate boob who is enabled by his cynical handlers--and he has done very little to dispel it personally. And when clear-headed party stalwarts such as George Will, Andrew Sullivan and William F. Buckley are having their doubts, then you know the president has a serious image problem on his hands.

Only the boobs who buy into the liberal media bull. I agree he hasn't used the best approach when it comes to PR, but he is not afraid to make the tough decision. NO demoncrat ever makes the tough decision.

His plan for SS was derailed by the demoncratic party who wishes to keep us all enslaved. The prescription drug act was in response to all the socailist demoncrats who are claiming socialized medicine is the answer. He is giving them jsut enough to see that it won't work. But hey, the dems know it will work when done "their" way.

And Katrina. Please don't get me started on that one. You said SLOW response. Do you do ANY of your own research or are you finally starting to beieve the lies the liberal media keep perpetuating. The federal response to Katrina was the fastest and most comprehensive in the history of FEMA. It took them more time to get aid to the victims of Andrew. And most of those people were white. So don't give me this slow response bull. The states of MS and AL seemedto fare pretty well. But hey, their state governments called and asked for help early. Like its designed. Once again for all you slow people out their, "FEMA is NOT a first response agency."

The department of homeland security is new and is in response once again to demoncrat whining. Any new department has growing pains. All we hear are idiots like H. Clinton who say that GW is making all the wrong moves, but they offer nothing new. And when he does do something in response to their requests, it doesn't do well and is all his fault.

People are tired of fighting the media becuse they have nothing to fight with. Those of us educated and informed enough to know realize that Bush is making decisions now that will benefit a future demoncratic president who will sit on his ass and do nothing till it all falls apart and another republican with balls has to make ALL the tough decisions that hid predecessor ignored. People didn't like Reagan. Now he is revered. In twenty years, we'll see GW as a strong president who made the right and tough decisions. Albeit unpopular ones.

224505[/snapback]

What a bunch of nonsense. Essentially you've just admitted that Bush does not have the will to overcome obstacles. Eventuallly, REAL leaders manage to overcome the opposition party. Look at Reagan in the 1980s. Did he EVER have a Republican majority in the house of representatives?

Bush has had majorities in the house, and four years of majorities in the Senate, plus a few moderate Democrats, and he still couldn't get the Social Security reforms out of committee.

As far as bending to the pressure of the socialistic democrats wanting the prescription drug plan, he again authored the legislation and had a majority republican congress. Exactly what kind of pressure was the man bending to?

Essentially, all you're doing is making excuses for the man. Since when do great leaders need a continual drumbeat of excuses?

[SouthLink02 8]

Republicans in the House of Representatives plan to issue a blistering report Wednesday that says the Bush administration delayed the evacuation of thousands of New Orleans residents by failing to act quickly on early reports that the levees had broken during Hurricane Katrina.

Not liberals here

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/02/13/news/katrina.php

[Bottomfeeder 244]

He'll never break 40%, unless of course Cheney flies another couple of jets into a high rise, or something. Or, dirty bombs a metropolitan area somewhere in the conus. Only then can dubya grab a bullhorn and make empty promises to the sheeple of this country. God really needs to bless us instead of Haliburton.

[Tigermike 3,051]

Republicans in the House of Representatives plan to issue a blistering report Wednesday that says the Bush administration delayed the evacuation of thousands of New Orleans residents by failing to act quickly on early reports that the levees had broken during Hurricane Katrina.

Not liberals here

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/02/13/news/katrina.php

224541[/snapback]

I have to ask a question. Early reports of levee breaks during the hurricane? Even if Bush had ordered rescue during the hurricane who the hell would have gone? That storm didn't just pop up overnight, every news channel and every local radio and TV station was telling people "This is going to be bad!" "You need to get out!" "Don't wait!" "Get out! Get out!"

There is plenty of room to point fingers at plenty of people, I actually remember seeing 1,000's of school buses stranded and flooded. No one on the local level ever thought "Damn why don't we get all those school busses, load up people and get them the hell out of town!" "Crap if we use the busses to evacuate people, we might even save the busses!"

But ultimately people living in hurricane strike areas have to take some responsibility themselves. I lived in South Alabama for years, most in Mobile, but also Gulf Shores and I also owned a house on Dauphin Island. I know what it is like after the storm has passed. No power for weeks or months. The first two days you cook on the grill everything in the freezer and eat good for a while. Then you start in on the can goods for as long as they last. There is the debris to be cleaned up at your house and the neighbors to help. Then there are the older people in the neighborhood to check on and make sure they are taken care of, food & water, trees down, etc. There is also the job to take care of. cause someone has to pay the bills.

During that time I never thought it would be a good idea to stay on Dauphin Island and watch 20 & 40 foot waves wash over the West end. That thought never entered my mind. The thought never entered my mind to keep my wife and children in harms was either.

[SouthLink02 8]

There is plenty of room to point fingers at plenty of people, I actually remember seeing 1,000's of school buses stranded and flooded.  No one on the local level ever thought "Damn why don't we get all those school busses, load up people and get them the hell out of town!"  "Crap if we use the busses to evacuate people, we might even save the busses!"

I am convinced the right wingers OR ignorant of New Orleans (note: I said OF NEW ORLEANS...not that you are ignorant in general) use this argument.

There was no place to put the buses, no one to drive the buses, and not enough time to develop such a plan. Somehow acting as if knowing the thousands of buses would need to be used in such an event is the biggest load of Hindsight 20/20 crap if I had ever seen. I am NOT a fan of Nagin's either but give me a damn break.

I have seen and heard all the reports that stated the Superdome would be used as a shelter after the Hurricane but none of the reports ever detailed a breakdown of using buses to get them out. NONE. Most use talk of the National Guard and/or someone else taking them out of the area.

As for the rest, I agree completely. Taking responsibility is a big part of one's self. I think many take New Orleans people complaining about FEMA as us bitching....not at all.

We just don't like the:

Daily Lies

Complete no action

Lack of any leadership

Hanging up on people

Lord, name something and FEMA can't do it

That article wasn't blaming Bush on the levees but showing that Republicans are laughing at FEMA/Bush response as well as liberals

[DKW 86 7,440]

Bush has is a lame duck and the Party is moving on.

If he recovers, so what?

If he doesnt, so what?

Slink has it right. Bush has not shown real leadership with Katrina. The locals wasted the Levee money that CLINTON sent them years ago. There is certainly enough blame for everyone. I also expect Nagin and Blanco to win easy re-election as well. Nothng is more corrupt than LA politics.

[Tigermike 3,051]

[SouthLink02 8]

TigerMike, you got that right.

Anyone want to lend me a bedroom this hurricane season?

[Tigermike 3,051]

If any of you are interested, here is a pretty good article that does not pull any punches.

The Battle of New Orleans

http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=9511

[AURaptor 1,126]

He'll never break 40%, unless of course Cheney flies another couple of jets into a high rise, or something. Or, dirty bombs a metropolitan area somewhere in the conus. Only then can dubya grab a bullhorn and make empty promises to the sheeple of this country. God really needs to bless us instead of Haliburton.

224547[/snapback]

Your insinuating that it was Cheney who was behind the the 9-11 attacks? I've seen some baseless, irrational and even reckless comments on this board, but this might take the cake.

[Bottomfeeder 244]

He'll never break 40%, unless of course Cheney flies another couple of jets into a high rise, or something. Or, dirty bombs a metropolitan area somewhere in the conus. Only then can dubya grab a bullhorn and make empty promises to the sheeple of this country. God really needs to bless us instead of Haliburton.

224547[/snapback]

Your insinuating that it was Cheney who was behind the the 9-11 attacks? I've seen some baseless, irrational and even reckless comments on this board, but this might take the cake.

224614[/snapback]

Merely speculation AURaptor. I'll find out the truth when I die.

[AURaptor 1,126]

Merely speculation AURaptor. I'll find out the truth when I die.

Mighty pointed speculation there, BF. Sounds far more like a accusation than speculation, to me.

[CCTAU 3,341]

The federal response to Katrina was the fastest and most comprehensive in the history of FEMA.

As someone who stayed for the Hurricane, are you ******* kidding me?

First, let me say this is not a BASH bush thread....Nagin/Blanco/Bush ALL SCREWED UP.

It was arguably one of the worst, most botched up responses ever seen in this country.

Hell, ask the men who stayed in Baton Rouge, such as National Guardsmen and Helicopter flyers. They had no idea what to do, when to do it, and struggled just to communicate with other agencies. Or let's ask the Firefighters who came down from Illinois, Minnesota, and New Jersey who were stationed outside the city and stayed there for a month before they left on their own.

Anyone want to guess how long it took men to get to those in Lakeview? The city that was completely whipped out? Nearly 10 days after the levee's broke...yes, 10 days.

It was a JOKE. Why did it take a week for men to enter the city? No, No...NOT TALKING ABOUT THE SUPERDOME...how about the other parts that had just several inches of water left?

Why did Brown go to Nightline and say he sees the people and has sent people men and then no one was even close for 2 more days? Can someone explain why it took 7-8 days for men to enter the city? Anyone?

And please, not the entire city was undriveable water....I can't stand people using that excuse.

One more thing, I am not a liberal.

224517[/snapback]

I'm sorry for you. But you need to read some responsible journalism. Just this month Popular Mechanics looked into this. Since you obviously did not go through Andrew, then you have nothing to compare the response to. Also, the National Guard is under state control. Ask the folks in Andrew if they felt it took a long time. Because it took longer to respond to them than it did to get to you. Like I said, it is not bush's responsibility to save you. It is not FEMAs responsibility to save you . They are not a first response organization. But you have bought into the lie that just because it happened to you, things should be different. Did it bother you when other tragedies struck and the response was "slow?" Probably not. We "can't see it from our house". And until we can, we just don't understand.

Your own mayor and gov. screwed the poogh for you, not the feds. Miss. and AL were hit worse, but they had decent response.