Will Democrats keep Juan Coles' New Orleans prediction from becoming true?

[Karmadillo]

We've already allowed the Republicans to steal a Presidential election. If we're to be a genuine Opposition Party, does it make sense to let them steal our states and abuse our constituents? Does our response to New Orleans suggest a Black Commentator article of September 8, 2005 was more insightful than one might hope when it stated, "The Democrats are dying a slow political death. Their inaction and acquiescence in New Orleans is just the latest symptom presented by a terminal patient"?

http://www.juancole.com/

9. New Orleans will for the most part not be rebuilt and will increasingly be eclipsed by Baton Rouge. Louisiana as a result will become a solid Red State. The Republican Party has no particular reason to rebuild a predominantly African-American city that reliably voted Democrat, just as its leader, George W. Bush, apparently had no particular reason to implement relief work there with any urgency or efficiency after the flood. Most of the $25 billion in reconstruction aid promised by the Federal government will never arrive.

http://www.blackcommentator.com/149/149_freedom_new_orleans_demise_of_democrats.html

New Orleans and the Demise of the Democrats
by Margaret Kimberley

“They have M-16s and they’re locked and loaded. These troops know how to shoot and kill, and they are more than willing to do so.” – Kathleen Blanco, Democratic Louisiana Governor

“But I want to thank the president.” – Mary Landrieu, Democratic Louisiana Senator

“…you and I are not in a position to make any judgment because we weren't there.” – Bill Clinton, former Democratic President

Democrats made these mean spirited and ignorant statements. The entire country is facing the plight of the people of New Orleans, coping with the dangers of Republican hell and Democratic high water. One party is proud of its viciousness while the other claims not to be vicious but proudly proclaims its willingness to shoot desperate refugees.

The degree of Democratic callousness in the New Orleans tragedy may be shocking at first, but it is actually consistent with the direction the party has taken for the past two decades. The Democrats are dying a slow political death. Their inaction and acquiescence in New Orleans is just the latest symptom presented by a terminal patient.

In the summer of 2005 President Bush’s approval ratings took a dive. The plunge was not the result of any shrewd political moves by the Democrats. Iraq is dragging Bush down. His approval ratings are akin to Richard Nixon’s at the time of his resignation during the Watergate scandal. The issue that could have catapulted John Kerry into the White House is rearing its head yet again, but Democrats refuse to take up the challenge.



Not only do they refuse to fight, but they aren’t shy about admitting their cowardice. Party leadership boldly states for the record that they will continue to support a president whose policies have now become a liability for his own administration. They repeat John Kerry’s losing talking points as if they were religious scripture. Hillary Clinton, the likely nominee in 2008, advocates sending more troops to Iraq. Only one Democratic Senator, Russell Feingold, has publicly called for a withdrawal of American troops.

more...

[rfkrfk]

1. levee project decisions, are made by the Orleans Levee District

a state agency

as for when, this or that neighborhood gets
the electricity turned back on, I don't know who
makes that decision

[Karmadillo]

2. I assume Cole is referring to the impact national Democrats

could have. Wetlands need to be restored and the massive reconstruction required to return New Orleans to what it was (or, hopefully, better) has to come from Washington.

[rfkrfk]

5. wetlands restoration is a tricky issue

I don't want Washington to be involved in the decision.

for example, how do you restore a wetland
that has become too low?, and needs levees
to be comparable to olden times.

most of the levees downriver of N.O. are either
gone or substandard, as they have sunk into the swamp.

note, the 'Mississippi River Gulf Outlet',
is very controversial, is that what you are refering to?

[liberalpragmatist]

3. Unfortunately Democrats aren't in a strong position to effect change

Democrats need to be VERY forceful in tying the Bush administration constantly to Katrina and the failure to redevelop New Orleans. That's the only way we might keep New Orleans from being lost. And even then, we aren't in a great position to effect change, as Republicans control the money and have no interest in rebuilding New Orleans or rehousing the poor.

[rfkrfk]

6. Dems need to cut shrub out of the deal

why should he decide this?

this is a state issue

[liberalpragmatist]

7. But who authorizes the funds?

The state government doesn't have enough money - they're reliant on federal funds. And with Republicans controlling Congress, it's going to be hard to make it work.

[rfkrfk]

9. the state of La. gives a budget to the Orleans Levee District

the Levee district spends the money on casinos, marinas,
and other stuff.

here is a link.

http://www.orleanslevee.com/documents/Mission%20Statement.htm

[wiggs]

10. Effecting change

An important change the democrats CAN and MUST work towards is how the administration is perceived and how issues are understood by the public. This is a basic problem that has not been adequately addressed since 9/11.

[AndreaCG]

4. I doubt it

[jobycom]

8. What's this about Hillary? Last I heard she was calling for withdrawal

of troops, not sending more.

http://www.politicalgateway.com/news/read.html?id=5481

I don't agree with her "slow withdrawal" stance, but I don't see where she's called for more troops in Iraq.

[Karmadillo]

11. The article is from September 8.

She may have changed her position since then.

http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0539,fergusoncamp,68174,2.html

What Hillary Told Cindy
Sheehan and company get face time with senators Clinton, Reid, Lieberman. McCain’s next.

by Sarah Ferguson
September 22nd, 2005 10:14 PM

<edit>

Clinton was noncommittal when asked whether she still supports sending more troops to Iraq. “We’ll see,” she said, then disappeared into the Russell Senate office building.