Barack Obama. Criticism Continues and Keeps Coming
© copyright 2007 Betsy L. Angert
Please dive in, be a voyeur, and venture into the world of battering Barack. Tucker Carlson on Obama's church: "It's hard to call that. YouTube.
When you are a threat, even if a peaceful one, criticism follows you. Barack Obama is receiving a barrage of barbs. The Junior Senator from Illinois is too inexperienced, too fat, too thin, too handsome, too elite, and not eloquent enough. He is "clean," not as clean as he could be, and too conservative. Barack is not Black enough. Mister Obama declares that, for now, his race is perchance a novelty. However, he surmises, the uniqueness of his tone will wear off.
A New York Times reporter did respond to the charge of his color.
The arguments being raised about Mr. Obama’s blackness — or his lack of blackness — seem positively antique at a time when Americans are moving away from the view of ancestry as a central demographic fact and toward a view that dispenses with those traditional boundaries. Even so, the complaints about Mr. Obama provide an interesting opportunity to examine the passing of the old and the rise of the new.While the discussion of Obama's race may wane, adversaries can always turn to his philosophical positions. His middle name, 'Hussein' was ruled a reason for concern. Throughout cyberspace and the mainstream media, talk of the terrorist, Obama, loomed large.The claim that the candidate isn’t really black because his mother is white carries little weight under either system. It makes no sense at all to the young Americans who checked more than one box when identifying themselves by race in the last census. They subscribe to a fluid notion of race and seem perfectly willing to let people describe themselves racially any way they choose.
Nor does the charge make sense in the black community itself. That community has historically and eagerly embraced as black anyone and everyone with any African ancestry to speak of. That embrace often included interracial families, who lived in black communities long before they were accepted elsewhere. It included even blue-eyed, sandy-haired people like the civil rights leader Walter White, whose black ancestry was imperceptible to the naked eye.
Senator Barack Hussein Obama is or was said to be a Muslim. He studied in a madrasa, a group of buildings used for teaching Islamic theology and religious law, typically including a mosque. Perhaps, no, probably this American man is actually an insurgent. Those on the right recounted tales declaring that obviously, Obama was trained to hate the United States and all white people. The Senator responded.
“If your name is Barack Hussein Obama, you can expect it, some of that. I think the majority of voters know that I'm a member of the United Church of Christ, and that I take my faith seriously,” Obama said in an interview with The Associated Press.The critics looked at the religious practices of this Illinois Senator once again, this time acknowledging his Christian faith. They assessed his spiritual affiliations. Now, they joyously state, Obama's Christian church advocates separatism. Principles such as those read and heard in the United Church of Christ are certainly not Christian according to conservative talk show host, Tucker Carlson. The Journalist joins his broad conservative coalition and fuels an inflammatory flame.“Ultimately what I think voters will be looking for is not so much a litmus test on faith as an assurance that a candidate has a value system and that is appreciative of the role that religious faith can play in helping shape people's lives,” he said.
Tucker Carlson criticized Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL), a presumptive candidate for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination, for being a member of a church that Carlson claimed "sounds separatist to me" and "contradicts the basic tenets of Christianity," a subject Carlson said he was "actually qualified to discuss." Carlson was referring to the "Black Value System" advocated by the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, of which Obama is a member.The faithful Senator assailed such claims in June 2006. At that time, he was speaking to another conservative pundit, Alan Keyes. The "Black" political opponent, Mister Keyes suggested in an opinionated oration, "Jesus Christ would not vote for Barack Obama." Christ would not vote for Barack Obama because Barack Obama has behaved in a way that it is inconceivable for Christ to have behaved." Although Senator Obama was encouraged to ignore the taunt, he concluded he could not. I offer a portion of Barack Obama's response to the sinister Alan Keyes.
Mr. Keyes's implicit accusation that I was not a true Christian nagged at me, and I was also aware that my answer did not adequately address the role my faith has in guiding my own values and my own beliefs.Thus, I suspect Presidential candidate Barack Obama will address this recent twist on an old assault. The junior Senator has addressed others.Now, my dilemma was by no means unique. In a way, it reflected the broader debate we've been having in this country for the last thirty years over the role of religion in politics. For some time now, there has been plenty of talk among pundits and pollsters that the political divide in this country has fallen sharply along religious lines. Indeed, the single biggest "gap" in party affiliation among white Americans today is not between men and women, or those who reside in so-called Red States and those who reside in Blue, but between those who attend church regularly and those who don't.
Conservative leaders have been all too happy to exploit this gap, consistently reminding evangelical Christians that Democrats disrespect their values and dislike their Church, while suggesting to the rest of the country that religious Americans care only about issues like abortion and gay marriage; school prayer and intelligent design. Democrats, for the most part, have taken the bait.
At best, we may try to avoid the conversation about religious values altogether, fearful of offending anyone and claiming that - regardless of our personal beliefs - constitutional principles tie our hands. At worst, there are some liberals who dismiss religion in the public square as inherently irrational or intolerant, insisting on a caricature of religious Americans that paints them as fanatical, or thinking that the very word "Christian" describes one's political opponents, not people of faith.
Now, such strategies of avoidance may work for progressives when our opponent is Alan Keyes. But over the long haul, I think we make a mistake when we fail to acknowledge the power of faith in people's lives -- in the lives of the American people -- and I think it's time that we join a serious debate about how to reconcile faith with our modern, pluralistic democracy.
And if we're going to do that then we first need to understand that Americans are a religious people. 90 percent of us believe in God, 70 percent affiliate themselves with an organized religion, 38 percent call themselves committed Christians, and substantially more people in America believe in angels than they do in evolution.
This religious tendency is not simply the result of successful marketing by skilled preachers or the draw of popular mega-churches. In fact, it speaks to a hunger that's deeper than that - a hunger that goes beyond any particular issue or cause.
Each day, it seems, thousands of Americans are going about their daily rounds - dropping off the kids at school, driving to the office, flying to a business meeting, shopping at the mall, trying to stay on their diets - and they're coming to the realization that something is missing. They are deciding that their work, their possessions, their diversions, their sheer busyness, is not enough.
They want a sense of purpose, a narrative arc to their lives. They're looking to relieve a chronic loneliness, a feeling supported by a recent study that shows Americans have fewer close friends and confidants than ever before. And so they need an assurance that somebody out there cares about them, is listening to them - that they are not just destined to travel down that long highway towards nothingness. And I speak with some experience on this matter. I was not raised in a particularly religious household, as undoubtedly many in the audience were.
My father, who returned to Kenya when I was just two, was born Muslim but as an adult became an atheist.
My mother, whose parents were non-practicing Baptists and Methodists, was probably one of the most spiritual and kindest people I've ever known, but grew up with a healthy skepticism of organized religion herself. As a consequence, so did I. It wasn't until after college, when I went to Chicago to work as a community organizer for a group of Christian churches, that I confronted my own spiritual dilemma.
I was working with churches, and the Christians who I worked with recognized themselves in me.
They saw that I knew their Book and that I shared their values and sang their songs. But they sensed that a part of me that remained removed, detached, that I was an observer in their midst. And in time, I came to realize that something was missing as well -- that without a vessel for my beliefs, without a commitment to a particular community of faith, at some level I would always remain apart, and alone.
And if it weren't for the particular attributes of the historically black church, I may have accepted this fate. But as the months passed in Chicago, I found myself drawn - not just to work with the church, but to be in the church. For one thing, I believed and still believe in the power of the African-American religious tradition to spur social change, a power made real by some of the leaders here today.
Because of its past, the black church understands in an intimate way the Biblical call to feed the hungry and cloth the naked and challenge powers and principalities. And in its historical struggles for freedom and the rights of man, I was able to see faith as more than just a comfort to the weary or a hedge against death, but rather as an active, palpable agent in the world.
As a source of hope. And perhaps it was out of this intimate knowledge of hardship -- the grounding of faith in struggle -- that the church offered me a second insight, one that I think is important to emphasize today.
Faith doesn't mean that you don't have doubts. You need to come to church in the first place precisely because you are first of this world, not apart from it. You need to embrace Christ precisely because you have sins to wash away - because you are human and need an ally in this difficult journey.
It was because of these newfound understandings that I was finally able to walk down the aisle of Trinity United Church of Christ on 95th Street in the Southside of Chicago one day and affirm my Christian faith. It came about as a choice, and not an epiphany. I didn't fall out in church. The questions I had didn't magically disappear. But kneeling beneath that cross on the South Side, I felt that I heard God's spirit beckoning me. I submitted myself to His will, and dedicated myself to discovering His truth.
That's a path that has been shared by millions upon millions of Americans - evangelicals, Catholics, Protestants, Jews and Muslims alike; some since birth, others at certain turning points in their lives. It is not something they set apart from the rest of their beliefs and values.
In fact, it is often what drives their beliefs and their values. And that is why that, if we truly hope to speak to people where they're at - to communicate our hopes and values in a way that's relevant to their own - then as progressives, we cannot abandon the field of religious discourse.
Because when we ignore the debate about what it means to be a good Christian or Muslim or Jew; when we discuss religion only in the negative sense of where or how it should not be practiced, rather than in the positive sense of what it tells us about our obligations towards one another; when we shy away from religious venues and religious broadcasts because we assume that we will be unwelcome - others will fill the vacuum, those with the most insular views of faith, or those who cynically use religion to justify partisan ends.
When attacks against the man prove to be ineffective. Thus, those intimidated by a Barack Obama Presidency must go further. They have. The Prime Minister of Australia, John Howard, a close bud and ally of the not so popular President George W. Bush is lashing out. Howard spoke of the Senator's proposed policies.
In a nationally televised interview on Sunday, Howard said Obama's plan meant that the leaders of Al Qaeda in Iraq should "be praying as many times as possible for a victory, not only for Obama but also for the Democrats" in presidential elections due late next year.Prime Minister Howard has aspirations and needs. He too is running for office amidst much criticism. Many Australian citizens do not favor a man closely associated with America, its failed policies, Mister Bush, and the American President's mishandling of Iraq. Aussies too want out of Iraq and wonder whether it was wise to have ever entered into such a war.
In the AP interview, Obama laughed off criticism Saturday from Australian Prime Minister John Howard, who said Obama's plans for Iraq “encourage those who wanted to completely destabilize and destroy Iraq.”Senator Obama stressed that a leader must have forethought and consider what is really being said and done. The validity of Intelligence must be a consideration. For him, in reference to Iraq, it always was.“It's flattering that one of George W. Bush's allies feels obliged to attack me,” Obama said.
Obama said that if Howard did not think enough was being done in Iraq, he should consider sending more Australian troops to the region. Australia has about 1,400 troops in Iraq, mostly in noncombat roles.
“I don't think there is a more significant set of decisions than the decision to go to war,” Obama said. “I think the war was a tragic mistake and it never should have been authorized.”The Prime minister retorts; he has no political agenda. He merely wishes to make his position known. Howard is protecting the interest of his prized people and the allied Australian armed forces stationed in Iraq.Obama told reporters he thinks his early opposition to the war shows “it was possible to make judgments that this would not work out well” and that it speaks “to the kind of judgment that I will be bringing to the office of president.”
The senator has called for capping the number of U.S. troops in Iraq and then beginning to withdraw them on May 1. He wants a complete pullout of combat brigades by March 31, 2008.
Prime Minister John Howard of Australia denied Monday that he had a political motive when he said terrorists in Iraq would be praying for Senator Barack Obama, a Democratic hopeful, to become U.S. president.One must wonder; what will come next. It seems America and even Australia has substituted the well-known Mac Attacks for the barrages against Barack, battering on Obama. Admittedly, Senator Obama may be too much of a conformist for me; however, I am impressed that this man does not let criticism stand. He does not avoid addressing the assertions; nor does he wait for moss to grow beneath his feet.Howard, a steadfast supporter of President George W. Bush in the Iraq war, insisted that his criticism of Obama's plan to withdraw U.S. combat troops in Iraq by March 31 next year was in Australia's national interest because Obama's plan would represent a defeat for Australia's most important military ally.
You go Barack; be real. Call upon your challengers; ask them to substantiate their claims. I am certain criticism will continue to come. Perchance that is good. I might not have considered your positions as thoroughly as I am were you not there, actively speaking to the allegations. I thank you for exemplifying what for me is a "great communicator." Might I say, you are quite "articulate," unlike many that state you are such.
Dear Earl Ofari Hutchinson . . .
I thank you for digging up the real dirt, the treasures that truly threaten the "Right." This information is valuable. Barack Obama's Illinois State Senate record reveals he might be a viable Progressive candidate.
Please review the evidence the Conservatives are sure to use against Barack Obama . . .
The Senator . . .
This record will give Republicans much to criticize. An entrant that votes to raise taxes surely will not be popular. maintaining a healthy infrastructure is not an American priority, or at least it has not been for decades. No one remembers that with sufficient funds, we could perhaps preserve our schools, sustain quality libraries, police, and fire services. This nation has not focused on these fundamentals for quite some time.
Therefore, our fellow citizens might not understand an aspirant suggesting we support our offspring and ourselves by allowing reasonable levies. They may not understand the need to save our communities before they crumble further.
For these stances, Barack Obama will certainly be skewered. A few will say he is a thinking candidate, not a pandering politician. Others might assess these policies and work to protect their personal pocketbooks. Yes, in Barack Obama there is much to condemn, or is there? Stay tuned. This is the Election 08.
Refer to the references for rants and rages against Barack Obama. . .
Posted by Betsy L. Angert on February 12, 2007 at 11:35 AM in American Dream, Black History, Past/Present, Black Men, Bush 43 Administration, Communities, Communities and Communication , Compassionate Conservatives, Elections, Fear, Iraq War, Manipulated Media, Politics, Presidential Politics, Propaganda and Politics, Religion, Religious Right, Xenophobia | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Procreate or Annul the Marriage. Washington Initiative
© Copyright 2007 Betsy L. Angert
After marrying, my Mom tried diligently for four full years to give birth to a child. She went from specialist to specialist. Batteries of tests were run, and then, re-run. Although she and my father were both fertile and they were a couple that thoroughly enjoyed intercourse, they could not seem to produce a baby. My Mom, a scientist at heart, concluded that perhaps, she was not fecund when most women were. Perchance her cycle was different. Once considering that possibility was enough. From then on, she was able to plan her pregnancies. My Mom gave birth to three children, none born in the first three years.
Apparently, if a Washington State initiative passes, couples such as my parents would be required to have their marriage annulled. "Naturally," gay partnerships, would not, could not be considered. Obviously, such a union would not be classified as marriage material. The Religious Right, may have felt embolden after the state Supreme Court upheld a ban on same-sex marriage, however they did not propose a plan to go further. They did not restrict what constitutes marriage in a manner that might seem feasible to them. Numerous pious persons say the bible deems the purpose of matrimony is procreation. Thus, the Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance took action.
This organization, [WDMA] has filed papers stating
marriage would be limited to men and women who are able to have children. Couples would be required to prove they can have children in order to get a marriage license, and if they did not have children within three years, their marriage would be subject to annulment.Organizer Gregory Gadow proclaimed in a printed statement, “For many years, social conservatives have claimed that marriage exists solely for the purpose of procreation ... The time has come for these conservatives to be dosed with their own medicine. If same-sex couples should be barred from marriage because they can not have children together, it follows that all couples who cannot or will not have children together should equally be barred from marriage." As absurd as this measure is, it may have purpose. Profundity is always welcome and wise, though the dynamics for introducing such depth could go awry.All other marriages would be defined as "unrecognized" and people in those marriages would be ineligible to receive any marriage benefits.
I have other relatives, friends too, that though bountifully able to produce babies struggled to do so. Many discovered they could not produce. For one or both the machinery was not as it was meant to be. Infertilty is common. Some couples, when first married cannot afford to give birth to a newborn. Times are tight. They plan to become parents; however, for now there is a need to wait. Many fathers and mothers want to provide a secure and stable home for their offspring. They are building a nest egg and attempting to establish a foundation. Furthering their family is in the plans; it will be, though in the future. First, they need to find the funds. Down payments on homes are steep.
Some persons purposely choose not to have children. They may marry late. They may fear being the best of parents; theirs were not. There are a myriad of reasons for not bring children into a marriage.
There is much to be considered when preparing for progeny. Customs and conventions do not always equate to wisdom.
That being said, I am baffled. Conservatives claim the Progressives want too much government in their lives. Yet, when it comes to "privacy" issues, it seems the traditionalists want greater restrictions, even, or especially, in the bedroom. They actively wish to stamp out sex, unless the intent is to procreate. The Right seeks to further scrutinize what goes on in the boudoir.
Supporters must gather more than 224,000 valid signatures by July 6 to put the initiative on the November ballot.Perhaps, enthusiast are not working to change the law. Perchance they are only wishing to discuss how ridiculous the people in America are. When, we as a nation, determine the definition for family we forget circumstances within our own. I understand the logic; I fear unexpected results.Opponents say the measure is another attack on traditional marriage, but supporters say the move is needed to have a discussion on the high court ruling.
Please peruse the Initiative . . .
Initiative 957Consider this assessment. Fewer Americans married with children - Census Bureau statistics show that married people with children account for 25% of American households. USA Today (Society for the Advancement of Education), Then, make your own. What does "marriage" mean to you.
If passed by Washington voters, the Defense of Marriage Initiative would:
add the phrase, “who are capable of having children with one another” to the legal definition of marriage;
require that couples married in Washington file proof of procreation within three years of the date of marriage or have their marriage automatically annulled;
require that couples married out of state file proof of procreation within three years of the date of marriage or have their marriage classed as “unrecognized";
establish a process for filing proof of procreation; and
make it a criminal act for people in an unrecognized marriage to receive marriage benefits.
Contemplate the references . . .
Posted by Betsy L. Angert on February 10, 2007 at 02:14 PM in American Family, Approval or Love, Art of Loving, Have or Be, Civics, Civil Rights, Communities, Compassion, Conflict, Complex, Compassionate Conservatives, Emotional Decisions, Emotional Intelligence, Empathy and Evolution, Ethics, Looking at Life, Looking for Love, Marital Status, Marriage, Quality of Life, Question Everything, Religious Right | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Bush Boasts of Military Service, Gerald R. Ford's ©
This morning I stood in the kitchen and watched the ceremony. Former President Gerald R. Ford was laid to rest. Dignitaries spoke in memorial. Of course, the current President of the United Sates was asked to address a mournful audience. His words surprised me and did not.
Days earlier, at the first official commemoration of President Ford, there were no signs of George W. Bush. Our nation's leader was busy planning his war. Finally, he decided to fix a strategy in stone. Sadly, the plan is surge. This decision flies in the face of a Ford proposal released last week. However, that matters not. George W. Bush trusts that history will receive him well. Bush will be considered steadfast as he "stays the course" regardless of success.
Thus, the junior George could not be bothered with ritual rites of passage when Ford's body first arrived for viewing in the Capital. For George W. Bush the thought of travel to Washington District of Colombia seemed far away. Young Bush always preferred Crawford, Texas. He longs for more time on the ranch. The death of a President is no reason to shorten a "working vacation."
When Bush junior was asked to consider the prospect of returning to the beltway and honoring the former President fully, he likely reflected on the recently reported interviews. For two years prominent journalist, Bob Woodward met with Gerald Ford. They discussed the situation in Iraq, the Bush plan or lack there of, and Ford's own former staff members, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld. The elder statesman, now citizen Gerald R. Ford had little good to say. He disagreed with the initial strategy and from his words; we could surmise the now proposed "surge" was not a welcome coming.
It might be assumed; Gerald R. Ford was reprimanding George W. Bush; he disapproved of the attacks on Iraq. Although President Ford insisted the interviews and his opinions not be made public until after his passing, oh, the timing of his departure left much to be desired in the Wonderful World of Bush. Perchance Bush contemplated and concluded, the gall of Jerry Ford. How dare this former statesman ridicule me publicly? How could President Ford question the judgment of a man that followed his lead? George W. chose a Cabinet reminiscent of former President Ford's. For forty-three, that demonstrated the ultimate respect for the man, Ford, and his choices.
Then there was the press, the punitive gesture from the former President.
In the tape-recorded interview, Ford was critical not only of Bush but also of Vice President Cheney -- Ford's White House chief of staff -- and then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, who served as Ford's chief of staff and then his Pentagon chief.George may have been miffed. He may not have felt revered himself; thus, he would reciprocate. He would show no reverence. For a Bush boy like George W. one rebuke deserves another. By staying in Crawford, revenge would be his."Rumsfeld and Cheney and the president made a big mistake in justifying going into the war in Iraq. They put the emphasis on weapons of mass destruction," Ford said. "And now, I've never publicly said I thought they made a mistake, but I felt very strongly it was an error in how they should justify what they were going to do."
In a conversation that veered between the current realities of a war in the Middle East and the old complexities of the war in Vietnam whose bitter end he presided over as president, Ford took issue with the notion of the United States entering a conflict in service of the idea of spreading democracy.
"Well, I can understand the theory of wanting to free people," Ford said, referring to Bush's assertion that the United States has a "duty to free people." But the former president said he was skeptical "whether you can detach that from the obligation number one, of what's in our national interest." He added: "And I just don't think we should go hellfire damnation around the globe freeing people, unless it is directly related to our own national security."
The Ford interview -- and a subsequent lengthy conversation in 2005 -- took place for a future book project, though he said his comments could be published at any time after his death. In the sessions, Ford fondly recalled his close working relationship with key Bush advisers Cheney and Rumsfeld while expressing concern about the policies they pursued in more recent years.
"He was an excellent chief of staff. First class," Ford said. "But I think Cheney has become much more pugnacious" as vice president. He said he agreed with former secretary of state Colin L. Powell's assertion that Cheney developed a "fever" about the threat of terrorism and Iraq. "I think that's probably true."
Hummmph! Criticize my calculations, my management style, my strategy, and my men. The great George W. Bush would have none of that. The President, after much pondering might have resolved he would not attend the funeral until ultimately, by all rights and reason he had to.
There were six days of mourning; George W. Bush participated only for moments.
When George W. Bush did finally eulogize the man of character in the formal church observance, he spoke well of the Mister Ford. However, his words haunt me. The current President of the United States has never seen battle, though he sends thousands to fight and die for his cause. Our strong and strident leader, in his youth, and even now, while in office, has done all that he could to avoid the front lines. Then in memorial he says while standing in front of church audience, America, and the Ford family . . .
Mrs. Ford, the Ford family; distinguished guests, including our Presidents and First Ladies; and our fellow citizens: . . .Yikes! As I listened, I was struck. I stood still, my mouth wide open and eyes crinkled. I thought aloud, "Did George W. Bush just say that?" Could he speak so highly of a deed he never contemplated and still think himself an honorable man.Gerald Ford showed his character in the uniform of our country. When Pearl Harbor was attacked in December 1941, Gerald Ford was an attorney fresh out of Yale Law School, but when his nation called, he did not hesitate. In early 1942 he volunteered for the Navy and, after receiving his commission, worked hard to get assigned to a ship headed into combat. Eventually his wish was granted, and Lieutenant Ford was assigned to the aircraft carrier, USS Monterey, which saw action in some of the biggest battles of the Pacific.
I wondered. Was President Bush promoting an action in response to a need for more troops? Recruitment numbers are down. Families are no longer asking their sons and daughters to volunteer for service. They are not proud of what our military might has accomplished. What is, is not what the Administration promised. Many active duty troops disapprove of the President and his plans. Soldiers have suffered at the hands of poor planning, flawed facts, and formalized folly. Young men and women do not revel in the idea of going to battle. The reality of not coming home is too great. What was George W. Bush intending. What will he do next.
Surge is the suggested strategy; however, many use, there are not enough troops to carry out the proposed plan. George W. Bush, always thinking ahead. Apparently, even in remembrance he is shrewd. If he deems enlistment attractive and honorable, perhaps more young men and women will do as he never did, sacrifice their lives in battle.
Ford Wears the Uniform. Bush Sends Those in Uniform to Die . . .
Technorati Tags
Posted by Betsy L. Angert on January 2, 2007 at 04:00 PM in Brutality, Self-Defense, Bush 43 Administration, Compassionate Conservatives, Gerald R. Ford, Iraq War, Loss of Life, Military Missions, Policy, Richard [Dick] Cheney, Vice President , Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, War is in the Wind, War Kills [Mind, Body, Spirit], Wars Bush Commanded | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Barbara Bush. Houston Residents. “Send [Katrina] Refugees Back” ©
Everyone was tense; however, few were given the opportunity to talk publicly. Yet, she was. The former First Lady Barbara Bush had the ear of Nation Public Radio, Marketplace listeners.
Mrs. Bush stated, "What I'm hearing, which is sort of scary, is they all want to stay in Texas. Everyone is so overwhelmed by the hospitality. And so many of the people in the arena here, you know, were underprivileged anyway so this is working very well for them." At the time she spoke, in September 2005, the nation was uncertain of how to react to her words.
Was her comment a flippant slip of the tongue? Did it demonstrate the difference between the classes and the masses? What were we to make of this terse judgment? One year later, we know. Mrs. Bush was speaking for her fellow citizens; they want the Katrina evacuees to go home!
Only days after the anniversary of Katrina, on August 30, 2006
More than 1,700 residents gathered in west Houston Wednesday night to blame evacuees for violent crime rates that have increased almost 14 percent in one district and homicides that have nearly doubled in another.The poor relations had worn out their welcome. They are unclean, unfit, and are clearly criminals. These poverty-stricken folks were well hidden in Louisiana and Mississippi, before the storm devastated their homes. However, now they are out and about; they are walking freely among the wealthy, white Texans. This will not do!
It cannot be; it cannot continue. Compassionate conservatism is nice. As a slogan, the phrase connects “us” with those of lesser means, those whose votes we need in order to stay in power. However, when destitute drifters enter our real lives, when they live among us and soil our sanctity, it is time to pull the reins in, or so say the genteel citizens of Houston.
In a town hall meeting, Mayor Bill White was empathically instructed to send the “refugees back to New Orleans.” The outraged citizens said,
In District 19, patrolled by the Houston Police Department's Westside division; violent crimes are up 13.6 percent over the same period last year. In District 20, homicides jumped from five to 11 over the same 7 1/2 month period from a year ago.