Kerry and Edwards Separately Blast Bush Over Katrina

It appears that John Kerry was not the only one to blast Bush today. AP News reports that “Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts and former Sen. John Edwards spoke separately” today on the “government’s handling of the catastrophe and on the broader issue of poverty in the United States.” Good to see both of them out there separately, speaking the truth to power. Needless to say the spin machine is already at work spinning.

Here’s some quips from the AP News:

In a blistering critique, Kerry said former FEMA Director Michael Brown was to Hurricane Katrina “what Paul Bremer is to peace in Iraq; what George Tenet is to slam dunk intelligence … what George Bush is to ‘Mission Accomplished’ and ‘Wanted Dead or Alive.’ … The bottom line is simple: The ‘we’ll do whatever it takes’ administration doesn’t have what it takes to get the job done.”

In prepared remarks to be delivered at Brown University in Providence, R.I., the 2004 Democratic presidential nominee said the government’s response to the disaster revealed a “broader pattern of incompetence and negligence” in the Bush administration.

Kerry also criticized Bush for suspending the wage laws.

Edwards, “said the hurricane was a sober reminder that widespread poverty exists throughout the nation. He said it will persist if the poor are concentrated in specific neighborhoods far from jobs.”

“If the Great Depression brought forth Hoovervilles, these trailer towns may someday be known as Bushvilles,” Edwards told an audience at the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank in Washington.

The former North Carolina senator criticized Bush for suspending the 1931 Davis-Bacon Act that sets wages for workers on federal contracts. Democrats contend the waiver will allow lower pay.

“When the only shot many people have is a good job rebuilding New Orleans, the president intervened to suspend prevailing wage laws so his contractor friends can cut wages for a hard day’s work,” Edwards said.

The text of John Kerry’s speech is available in a post below.

Related Posts:
— Who’s Spinning What? Reaction to Kerry’s Speech

— Kerry’s Was Harsher by Far

Bookmark and Share

About Pamela Leavey

Pamela Leavey is the Editor in Chief, Owner/Publisher of The Democratic Daily as well as a freelance writer and photographer. Pamela holds a certificate in Contemporary Communications from UMass Lowell, a Journalism Certificate from UMass Amherst and a B.A. in Creative Writing and Digital Age Communications from UMass Amherst UWW.
Bookmark the permalink.

68 Responses to Kerry and Edwards Separately Blast Bush Over Katrina

  1. Bluesage says:

    In 2004 I supported Kerry and then the Kerry/Edwards ticket. I worked to bring as many votes as I could to them and donated more money than ever in my life. But then I also spent most of the campaign yelling at them through my television to find their voices and kick some ass. It’s not as though we had no ammunition. The Swift Boat thing and the delayed and passive response to it was mind-boggling. I wanted the John Kerry I had so admired since the early seventies and he just wasn’t there. He should have kicked the Bob Shrum’s and the rest of the loser DLCers to the curb and gone with his strength and wisdom and fighting spirit. He didn’t.
    Another I have admired for his wisdom and integrity and superior intellect is Al Gore. The problems this country and the world is facing now and into the future after eight very long years of Bush are huge. Al Gore, with eight years of VP experience (and a legitimate right to govern, as we all know) can step in to domestic and global situations and bring that experience with other world leaders and his true American spirit and passion to heal this country and our place in the world. This would be a campaign that would write itself and sell itself. Think of Lennon’s song, Imagine. Imagine what could have been. Imagine what could be now.

  2. Ron Chusid says:


    Kerry did get bad advice wtih regards to handling the Swift Boat Liars and reportedly was not very happy with some of his advisors afterwards. Otherwise they were hammering Bush pretty hard. Unfortunatley the media did a poor job of covering the issues or the specifics of Kerry’s attacks.

  3. KJ says:

    Bluesage, I campaigned for Gore. I too admire his intellect and believe he had a grasp of the future of technology that very few in his arena comprehended. However, Al Gore’s choice, understandably, after Selection 2000 was to walk away. He did not assume the mantle of the Shadow President– which was there for the taking– and which many of his supporters (ah, a majority of Americans?) were desperate for him to put on. He left us voiceless. I remember those times very well. I remember how long it took him to speak and how marginalized his speech was, delayed because of the events of September 11, 2001. I remember waiting and waiting and waiting for Al to find his voice. By the time he did, it was too late. I’m sorry, for me, it was too little, too late.

    John Kerry, on the other hand, didn’t stop after Election (or Selection, who knows?) 2004. He has continued to work for me and I continue to work for him.

  4. Rick Vance says:

    Is this an “I told you so” moment or what! To all my friends and relatives who so firmly believed that Bush was the sane choice for President, they only have themselves to blame for the absolute disaster this pampered, spoiled and underachieving frat boy has been as “commander-in-chief”. Although John Kerry may not have run the strongest campaign in ’04 I still couldn’t grasp why anyone thought that an admitted alcoholic and possible drug user and someone who had, through sheer ineptitude, been an abject failure in the private sector was qualified to run this country! I couldn’t fathom that supposedly intelligent Americans who even heard of the shady business dealings of this robber baron (Harken Energy or the illegal land grab for his baseball team) thought that he had the moral character or the honesty necessary to be the “leader of the free world”. I really can’t comprehend why after all that has come out since 9/11 and the subsequent whitewash and cover-up, including facts that show this man purposely ignored repeated and dire warnings and then allowed members of Osama bin Laden’s family to leave this country without a single question being asked, could be “re-elected”. It boggles the imagination that someone who had such long standing and deep rooted ties to the Saudi royal family could block any serious investigation into a Saudi connection to 9/11 even after it was widely known that 15 of the hijackers on that horrible day were in fact Saudi citizens. And I really can’t get my head around the idea that someone who used family connections and political influence to get out of fighting in a war he says he supported, even though he still has yet to come up with a plausible explanation for the year or more that he failed to serve, was better equipped to lead our country in the “war on terror” than a highly decorated combat veteran! And the final hypocrisy of this mental midget is his claim to be chosen by God to lead, his pious posturing and his false monopoly on faith. He and his partners in crime, whether elected or appointed, more resemble the Pharisees who sold out Jesus to the Romans. And his corporate cronies, who’s agenda and profit margins are more important to this administration (just ask the victims of Hurricane Katrina) are just like the corrupt and greedy money changers that Jesus threw out of the temple in Jerusalem. The legacy of this man as President will rank far below that of Hoover, Nixon, Reagan and Bush the Elder!

  5. cali dem says:

    Wow! These two speeches have really struck a cord and brought the negative peeps out. Some people just can’t stand it when Dem leaders speak out forcefully and in unity.

    Sen. Reid has also announced today that he will vote “no” on the Roberts’ confirmation.

  6. Cali Dem

    I saw your post on the Daou! I agree wholeheartedly.

    Good to hear the news on Reid. I think more will do the same.

  7. Nick says:

    I don’t mean to dis Kerry in any way, but I have to think Edwards played a part in Kerry’s winning 40% of the vote in rural counties-compared to Gore who only won 37% of the rural vote and Clinton 1992 who only got 38% of the rural vote. Sure there were other factors, but I find it hard to believe that Edwards didn’t play a part in this.
    What’s this stuff about Kerry being DLC? Anybody know who the DLC labeled a DLC star for the future in the 1990s? HOWARD DEAN. I swear there are some folks on the “left” who are just as if not more superficial than the right-wing nuts on TV.

  8. L.M. Ward says:

    Too little, too late. If they had done this about Iraq last year, we might now be in this situation today. Why, oh why, are the Dems so afraid to speak out? They are as bad as Bush, taking three weeks to say what should have been said immediately after Katrina struck and the devestation was there for all to see.

  9. Teresa says:

    NO, NO, NO, NO, NO!

    The time is exactly right for Katrina. You never speak like this in the middle of the crisis when attending to the immediate suffering comes first. After it stops, THEN you start the other work. This has been perfecctly orchestrated. I wish you all would understand that these politicians are professionals and they know what they are doing.

  10. L.M. Ward

    Thanks for sharing. We don’t play the too little too late game here.

    I can’t speak for John Edwards but Kerry has spoken out multiple times on Katrina. When Katrina struck he was in Iraq. He has sent out emails urging people to donate, he has sponsored and had passed legislation in the Senate to help Katrina victims, he has personally flown to LA with a plane load of supplies and handed them out himself.

    Do the research, everything he has said and done involving Katrina can be found here –

    As for Kerry speakking out on Iraq last year, obviously if you haven’t been paying attention recently, you weren’t paying attention last year either!

  11. Gar says:

    Those who can’t handle a few honest comments about Kerry & spout off for others to get their facts straight should go take a look at the vote Kerry cast to give Bush carte blanche in Iraq. Then they should go look at the Kerry press releases & numerous public comments where Kerry said he would have done so again even after no WMD were found in Iraq. That gaffe blew the election on top of taking the month of August off.

    And to those that say I can’t support anyone you are dead wrong. I supported Gore, the 2000 recount effort financially & then I supported the Draft Gore movement. Supported & donated money to Dean & Democracy for America. Was a member who donated money to MoveOn & volunteered my time. When Dean threw in the towel I donated money to the Kerry campaign & volunteered my time to help. Donated money to democrats outside of my state that took a stand. I donated money to the democratic party of my state & volunteered my time, worked the polls. We were promised that the democrats were fighting for us. Well I go into the polling place to vote & guess what??? The democrats didn’t even bother to field a candidate to oppose the republican senator in my district & I was forced to vote for the independent. And this is what I gave my money & time for??

    Just because I would prefer a different democrat than Kerry in 08 doesn’t mean I’m not paying attention, can’t support anyone, sit around doing nothing or listen to GOP spin. God you people sound worse than the republicans that can’t handle someone having a different view. I worked my butt off for Kerry & was was sorely disappointed in his campaign, VP choice & premature concession. I differ with the characterization of the provisional ballots because Blackwell changed the rules after the fact to purge votes & the democrats did not offer a fight. I will say that Kerry did a very nice job in the debates. The Vietnam Democratic Convention fiasco featuring the ghost of past wars was a complete disaster & wasted a great opportunity to offer Americans a clear choice. Teresa Heinz Kerry was another disaster IMHO. I also noticed heavy censorship on the Kerry forum that I thought mimicked Bush’s suppressive behavior.

    I did my duty, was a good democrat & supported Kerry to get Bush out but that doesn’t mean I have to support him next time or that I like the failed republican lite strategies that continue to lose elections. The future is not the DLC model. Far too many democrats supported the credit card industry giveaway bill at the expense of average democrat. Until the democrats face up to the Iraq war & the corporate whore behavior that mimicks republicans to a lesser degree then they will continue to drift. Support should not come simply because the republicans stink up the place, it should be earned.

  12. Gar

    POINT BLANK – This blog was established for 2 reasons…

    1 – to support John Kerry
    2 – to support the Democratic Party

    Attacks on John Kerry or Teresa Heinz Kerry are NOT acceptable here.

    If you have issues with JK take them somewhere else – there’s a myriad of blogs that you will find like minded folks – this is NOT one of them. GOT IT? As owner of this blog, I have no problem with moderating you or anyone else who doesn’t get it.

  13. Gar says:

    With pleasure Pamela. I didn’t attack anyone but since you obviously stated that you intend to engage in the very censorship that I pointed out on the Kerry forum & can’t handle anyone that doesn’t agree 100% with everything you say I will gladly go elsewhere & not waste my time here.

    This is exactly what’s wrong with the democratic party.

    Little tip, moderators shouldn’t be injecting strong opinions or taking sides on issues. It sort of runs counter the the purpose of being a moderator. Pehaps you should be up front & post that this is not an open forum.

  14. Gar

    What’s wrong with the Democratic Party is people who think that criticism is useful when it includes snarky little digs at people who deserve respect. I made it clear in my earlier post to you when I said “don’t spout that crap here again.”

    This blog is not about to end up being another source for flame sessions for disgruntled Democrats on the internet. There is a wealth of blogs and forums that support that, The Democratic Daily does not.

    We’re here to support Democrats not tear them down. That’s it in a nutshell.

  15. Ron Chusid says:


    This is not an open forum. This is a blog to present our views. It is our full intention to inject our opinions and take sides on issues.

    Expressing differing opinions here is fine, but expect to hear a response if we disagree. Especially expect a response to weakly reasoned and factually incorrect comments such as your comments regarding Kerry above.

    The party does not benefit by routinely trashing its last candidate. This is especially true when done based upon bogus claims such as those common in the blogosphere (such as that Kerry didn’t attack Bush, Kerry supported the war, or that Kerry conceded the election when he could have won).

    The truth of the matter is that Kerry was one of the earliest Democrats to attack Bush and the war, while most Democrats were afraid to take on Bush in the post 9/11 era. For more on this, see my recent blog entry at:

    Most of the trashing of Kerry is based upon the Dean campaign’s need to differentiate Dean from the other north eastern liberal who started out well ahead of Dean. Dean ran an initially successful smear campaign agaisnt Kerry (and hopefully can do the same against the Republican, this time more honestly as he has the facts on his side). Fortunately most Democrats ultimately saw through the smears and voted for Kerry over Dean in the primaries, but the old smear campaign continued in the blogosphere. Those who already had a distorted view of Kerry were subsequently open to all the nonsense arguments regarding Kerry’s concession.

    The party would be much stronger if Democrats took advantage of the leadership of former candidates. Not only did Kerry strongly criticize Bush both before and during the 2004 election, he continued post-election. The Republicans are stronger due to waging such continuous campaigns. You never see Republicans attack their former candidates. In Europe, opposition parties are often successful by sticking with an opposition leader to allow him to gradually gain support and change the minds of those with earlier disagreements and misconceptions. Democrats appear doomed starting late with a new leader before each election. Such new candidates are successfully defined by the Republican noise machine as they are not yet well known, and then attacked by Democrats as well as Republicans should they lose.

    Unless we break this cyle, we will have an endless number of Dukakis, Gore, and Kerry loses. (There are not many Bill Clintons out there, and it is even questionable if a Bill Clinton could still win).

  16. Dave from Princeton says:

    Ron Chusid Says:
    September 21st, 2005 at 8:38 am

    Very well said Ron and of course done much more clearly and succinctly than I ever could. Thanks!

  17. Donnie From Houma, LA says:

    Gar Says:
    September 19th, 2005 at 6:13 pm

    Maybe I missed something Gar, but it sounded like bashing to me. “wishy washy, waffling politicians” doesn’t fit into what I would call “Eloquent Ajectives” on any day of the week. Time warp yourself to the present and get a clue.

  18. Ron Chusid says:

    Note that an expanded and slightly rewritten version of my response to Gar has been made a separate blog entry. I figured that my response applies to far more people than Gar.