Beware! "Anti-B*sh regime" vs. "anti-government"

[annabanana]

When you see people you have considered neo-cons, i.e. the radical new "republicans" seeming to stray off the reservation, criticising the federal response to the Katrina disaster are they distancing themselves from B*sh? Or are they laying the groundwork for non-governmental "more efficient", "faith based", or "privatized" solutions? (more "starve-the-beast" stuff)

[atommom]

1. I think it's all part of the Dominionist, starve-the-beast strategy.

So I don't find their comments encouraging ... I just wonder what they've got up their sleeves.

[bee]

2. great point.

From what Ive personally heard from "them" its more about "faith based" leadership than anything. it scares me. :scared:

[Armstead]

3. They got their "private sector" response and it failed

Charity and corporate help may do good in the long term aftermath.

But the unmitigated disaster is proof that the public sector is needed in emergencies. They allowed that to fail, and people saw the results.

But the freepers won't make that basic connection, unfortunately.

[SpiralHawk]

4. Do you support America? Or George Bush? Which is it?

That's the questions I pose to Republicans: your country, or a "personality."

It always seems to plant a seed of reflection.

[annabanana]

5. the dichotomy is finally big enough

so that even the politically indifferent can see it.
This is the time to call for ACCOUNTABILITY! Don't let their cries of "finger pointing" and "blame game" divert the righteous anger!