GOP Candidate Hopes Katrina Victims Don't Move Back
Halliburton and other connected corporations aren't the only ones seeking to profit from the Katrina disaster. The Huffington Post also finds a political opportunist:
Lousiana State Senator Craig Romero (R) visited Washington earlier this month under the ausipces of raising money for Katrina disaster relief, Roll Call reported today. But the trip was also an opportunity for Romero to drum up support for his run for Congress in Louisianan's 3rd district now held by Democrat Charlie Melancon.Compassionate conservatism?
The Huffington Post has acquired pages from a packet of candidate information that Romero handed out to special interest groups: A main selling point of Romero's candidacy is that if Katrina's victim don't move back home, the district will go Republican.
In the 2004 election, 50.2 percent voted for Democrat Charles Melancon and 49.8 percent for Rep. Billy Tauzin (R).
Romero's campaign information includes a pie chart that shows the district's make-up without the residents who were displaced by Katrina. Leaving those residents out, the chart says the district would be have voted 57.1 percent Republican and 42.9 percent Democrat in the 2004 election.
3 Comments:
"Compassionate conservatism?"
It feels sort of calculating, it feels cold, but that isn't the same thing as malicious.
From what I can tell, settling elsewhere may well be a good thing for many of the displaced people. It's hard, sometimes, to pick up and go find something better than what you've got, and no one is going to say that the hurricane was a *good* thing, but since it did happen and we're looking at what almost amounts to a diaspora from New Orleans, it may well be better for many of those people to rebuild in other places since they *do* have to rebuild no matter what. I should be up to them.
Assuming for those people that rebuilding in New Orleans is automatically best for them, and therefore any suggestion that they may not return is wishing bad things for them... well, it's not necessarily true.
That's right, you're showing compassion when a tremendous tragedy befalls others and your reaction to it is "how can this help me?"
There's no malice when you coldly calculate what the devastation visited upon others will net you.
Quick, somebody fetch a dictionary.
*snort* Sorta-kinda like all the hay making by the Dems in the wake of Katrina? Can you really claim that no one was making an effort to emphasize the Democratic Party's place as defender of the poor and downtrodden? Is that not *using* the devistation for what it will get you?
Should any of the Democrat politicians in LA consider the next election in the light of the changes caused by Katrina? Would it be malicious for them to do so? Or when they sit down to plan their strategy and fund raising should they put anything directly caused by the hurricane off-limits? Should, you know, the democratic person who hopes to replace Nagin pledge not to ever mention his performance during the emergency? If the Democratic party in LA gets together to brainstorm damage control for the party, are you going to condemn them for being cynically concerned with their own promotion?
I suppose in order to be less than a monster a Republican, seeing how the political situation might change, has to agree not to run for office at all? If they *won* it would certainly be because of Katrina, one way or the other.
Post a Comment
Return to Facing South's main page