29% of Louisiana GOP blame Obama for poor Katrina response

[Cyrisnia]

GOP News- up next in our breaking coverage!

Obama to blame for biblical flooding!

JFK ordered his own assassination!

Three Mile Island the work of George Clooney!

Steven Colbert implicated in crucifixion of Jesus!


Oh dear lord, how can they be that thick....

[Communal Ecotopia]

Perhaps, but then you have the 46% of Mississippi Republicans who want to ban interracial marriage (50 years after Loving v. Virginia!) and $deity knows what else, waiting in the wings.

At least the sample is larger. Not much larger, though, 400 people out of 700,000+ Republican voters in the state. I'm sorry, but small polling samples like these are not significant enough to be ... significant.

Except that about 1000 is the basic standard (averagely) for primary election polls and, for that matter, general election polls (see http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls ... -3990.html

[Imperial Esplanade]

---Modified title, as Hurricane Katrina is famous enough Hurricane is not needed in title---
---Added best attempt to make the poll less biased due to post...
Due to offended conservatives, added a "the pollers are trollin, nothin to see here, move along" option ----
In a survey of Louisiana Republicans, when asked who was to blame for the devastation from the poor government response to hurricane Katrina, 28% blames Bush, 44% did not know who to blame, and 29% blamed Obama.
They responded with these numbers despite the fact Hurricane Katrina happened 3 years before Obama took office.
Link.http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/lousiana-republicans-blame-president-obama-hurricane-katrina-response-article-1.1433096

This in my opinion shows just how out of reality the GOP base is with, well, reality.

What say you? Is the GOP delusional? Does Obama have magic powers of a planes-walker and summoned the Hurricane Katrina storm and then cast a befuddle spell on President Bush to make him look bad? Is Obama a time traveling operative a la quantum leap and took over Bush so he could not respond? Or some other answer.

Side note. How worried does this make you, considering with the gerrymandering and the unfair representation between cities and rural areas (that is more based on territory and not population so much, so the rural areas have a disproportional voice in relation to their overall percentage of the total population, so we will not likely anytime soon shake their death-grip on congress) that this minority that enjoys so much control over our government, is almost a third (at least in Louisiana ) delusional?


Or do you think they know the truth, and we need to open our eyes to the evils of the commie socialist fascist demonic warmongering Kenyan Muslim jihadist dictator wannabe that calls himself Barack (Hussein) Obama?( In a scratchy whisper)who is the devil....


Personally, I think this proves how delusional 29 % of Republicans in Louisiana actually are. You?

Well, that doesn't mean squat. I'm not buying into anything in this until the survey questions themselves are released to the general public.

Being from Louisiana myself, I can tell you right now that this report is nothing short of hogwash.

[Farnhamia]

At least the sample is larger. Not much larger, though, 400 people out of 700,000+ Republican voters in the state. I'm sorry, but small polling samples like these are not significant enough to be ... significant.

Except that about 1000 is the basic standard (averagely) for primary election polls and, for that matter, general election polls (see http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls ... -3990.html

400 is not 1000.

Look, I am no fan of the Republican Party. Anyone who has been around these fora nows that. I cannot, however, accept that this poll is indicative of anything real about the GOP.

[Waideland]

I don't see this as any different than the 40-some percent that blame still Bush for the current economy. As I've said before, most people are woefully ignorant of what's going on in politics. Not only can few people name the president, their representative, and their senator. I'd guess that even fewer can name their governor, state representatives, mayor, or city/county council. When you factor that in with the dismal understanding most people have of economics, logistics, etc, they'll blame any person that sounds familiar to them, as long as they have someone to blame.

[New Chalcedon]

I don't see this as any different than the 40-some percent that blame still Bush for the current economy. As I've said before, most people are woefully ignorant of what's going on in politics. Not only can few people name the president, their representative, and their senator. I'd guess that even fewer can name their governor, state representatives, mayor, or city/county council. When you factor that in with the dismal understanding most people have of economics, logistics, etc, they'll blame any person that sounds familiar to them, as long as they have someone to blame.

Blaming someone for what happens after they leave office is one thing - policies can and do have lingering effects for years, particularly policies that lead to the worst recession since 1929. Blaming someone for what happens before they enter office is entirely another.

But hey, nice bit of false equivalence there.

[Waideland]

I don't see this as any different than the 40-some percent that blame still Bush for the current economy. As I've said before, most people are woefully ignorant of what's going on in politics. Not only can few people name the president, their representative, and their senator. I'd guess that even fewer can name their governor, state representatives, mayor, or city/county council. When you factor that in with the dismal understanding most people have of economics, logistics, etc, they'll blame any person that sounds familiar to them, as long as they have someone to blame.

Blaming someone for what happens after they leave office is one thing - policies can and do have lingering effects for years, particularly policies that lead to the worst recession since 1929. Blaming someone for what happens before they enter office is entirely another.

But hey, nice bit of false equivalence there.

If you weren't one of the ignorant idiots which I was referring to, you'd know that most of the policies which lead to the current economy were in place long before Bush took office, which makes your point mostly valid in regards to yourself. I suppose you blame Bush for the excessive HUD loans, Fannie and Freddy, and the cheap money flooding Wall St, all of which have their basis in laws and executive orders from the 90's or earlier. Same thing goes for people that blame Obama for the last 6 years. Anything a sitting president does, with the exception of vast sweeping changes like Obamacare, usually take at least 20 years for the economy to feel the full effect. Even with something like Obamacare, we won't see what the real end result will be for at least another 5 years.

[New Chalcedon]

If you weren't one of the ignorant idiots which I was referring to, you'd know that most of the policies which lead to the current economy were in place long before Bush took office, which makes your point mostly valid in regards to yourself. I suppose you blame Bush for the excessive HUD loans, Fannie and Freddy, and the cheap money flooding Wall St, all of which have their basis in laws and executive orders from the 90's or earlier. Same thing goes for people that blame Obama for the last 6 years. Anything a sitting president does, with the exception of vast sweeping changes like Obamacare, usually take at least 20 years for the economy to feel the full effect. Even with something like Obamacare, we won't see what the real end result will be for at least another 5 years.

Sadly for your case, it doesn't take a decade for the effects of regulatory capture to be felt. I'm certainly not excluding Clinton for his share of the blame (see the GLB Act of 1999), but to claim that Bush's appointment of asleep-at-the-wheel regulators doesn't bear at least part of the responsibility for the way Wall Street cratered is fatuous in the extreme. To suggest that his reckless tax cuts whilst funding two wars on the national credit card, turning inherited surpluses into ever-larger deficits, played no part in the fiscal situation facing Obama when he came into office is willfully blind.

And to say that his appointments of cronies to key civil-service positions for which they were entirely unsuited (see: Mike "Heckuva Job" Brown) or his sheltering of his Vice-President (That's Dick "I'm not part of the Executive Branch, so I don't have to comply with Congressional subpoenas, nyer nyer!" Cheney) didn't poison the political atmosphere in Washington - again setting the stage for today's gridlock - is just plain dumb.

Note, however, that there is a causal link - debateable though it may be - between Bush's policies and the legacy he left his successor that is inherently absent from the prospect of a President being blamed for a natural event that happened three years before he took office! It may or may not be just to blame President Bush for today's state of the US economy (I hold that it's more just than unjust, but there's certainly room for reasonable disagreement) - but it's by no means as inherently ridiculous as blaming President Obama for the botched response to Hurricane Katrina!

[Atramentar]

If you weren't one of the ignorant idiots which I was referring to...

To which you were referring. We wouldn't want people thinking you're ignorant, too.

[Farnhamia]

Blaming someone for what happens after they leave office is one thing - policies can and do have lingering effects for years, particularly policies that lead to the worst recession since 1929. Blaming someone for what happens before they enter office is entirely another.

But hey, nice bit of false equivalence there.

If you weren't one of the ignorant idiots which I was referring to, you'd know that most of the policies which lead to the current economy were in place long before Bush took office, which makes your point mostly valid in regards to yourself. I suppose you blame Bush for the excessive HUD loans, Fannie and Freddy, and the cheap money flooding Wall St, all of which have their basis in laws and executive orders from the 90's or earlier. Same thing goes for people that blame Obama for the last 6 years. Anything a sitting president does, with the exception of vast sweeping changes like Obamacare, usually take at least 20 years for the economy to feel the full effect. Even with something like Obamacare, we won't see what the real end result will be for at least another 5 years.

*** Warned for flaming ***

[Farnhamia]

If you weren't one of the ignorant idiots which I was referring to...

To which you were referring. We wouldn't want people thinking you're ignorant, too.

*** Warned for flamebait ***