Dems offer PROactive gov't; Repugs offer REactive gov't

[npincus]

that should be a mantra for 2006.

Had Dems been in the WH now, they would have enforced evacautions well BEFORE Katrina hit, and/or certainly have gotten there with food, water and HELP immediately... Repugs and their contempt for "big gov't" authority and intervention in states affairs had them passively on the sidelines "waiting" to be asked for help... doesn't this all make sense now to even the biggest nitwits?

[cally]

1. I like it...but do you believe most of the undecideds would

understand what that means?

[Deep13]

2. We need to spell it out.

Clinton stopped a major terror attack. Bush just swept-up and made political hay out of one.

[TwilightZone]

3. You just read my mind.

I had just started typing up a post with this EXACT same thought, inspired by Bush throwing $200 billion at Katrina after the fact.

[electropop]

4. Repugs don't even offer reactive government.

Not proactive, not reactive, just non-responsive.

[TwilightZone]

5. No, they're reactive, all right.

They threw a ton of money at the families of 9/11 victims. Now, they're throwing a ton of money to Halliburton...er, to victims of Katrina.

Just about everything they do is reactive.

Hell, even the death penalty is reactive. Don't prevent crime; just kill 'em after the fact.

[zbdent]

6. Problem is, if Sandra Day O. had voted for Gore instead of W, this

country would be still embroiled in the civil war that the Repukes were ready to break into . . .

[maxsolomon]

7. 3 syllable? Hulk patriot! Hulk no understand! Hulk smash!

make hulk feel dumb! hulk smash smart peeps!