First things first, from a Katrina victim speaking of immediate knowledge. In any area where the National Guard in Louisiana dragged someone out of a house, there was a danger of contamination or pollution that was a health hazard. Some of the crud in the flood waters in New Orleans etched stainless steel after less than 20 days of immersion. I know some folks whose heavy gauge stainless restaurant hardware did exactly that.
The governor of Lousiana DOES have the power to force evacuations from areas for public safety. (I got out voluntarily while the getting was good so I didn't have to wade around in the two feet of water that flooded my house.) But if you are going to ping governor Blanco, at least ping her for the right reason. The dumbo argued with Mayor Nagin about the authority involved - essentially a political power pissing match - while the water level rose and the pumps faltered. Both of them needed to be shaken firmly.
Second, I'll try to clarify the issues involved in having a political party change in Congress by defining the theory of American Government:
1. If no party has a super-majority in both houses of Congress, nobody can push legislation through that is unilateral in nature. In other words, it becomes necessary to compromise. In GWB's previous Congress, he didn't have a super-majority but he had a simple majority - so simple bills that didn't have minimum-margin limits (called a super-majority) could be passed and he could sign them pretty much as a rubber stamp assembly line. Now - it is a new game in town.
2. By basing one house on population and the other on geography, a new bill has to have widespread appeal to all regions of the country. Having one party control both houses thwarts this idea. Returning control to GWB's opposition makes things better regarding the need for compromise.
3. The Senate's election phasing means you can't get rid of all your opposition at once (without assassination). So an idea has to be good enough to attract support immediately or it will languish and die in the bowels of some committee. (Devil's Dictionary: A committee is the only animal with many stomachs and no brains.)
4. The convolutions of the American government are designed to slow down all actions, to give folks time to think. Time to react to new ideas. The issues with 9/11 empowered the war-mongers to be able to react without slowing down to plan. Bad idea. I'll be honest, Saddam had to go - but it was done really badly.
Where the USA has broken down (IMHO) comes under two categories:
A. The 9/11 attack polarized our attention to the exclusion of cooler heads. So the war-mongers got elected. Not saying we wouldn't have gone to war, but it might have been on different terms. The Democratic party victories will force all legislation to be the result of compromise. It might very well put a lot of GWB's programs down the commode. But at least he will be forced to consider a way to "throw the dogs a bone or two" in order to get things done. And THAT is sometimes a waste of money, but it at least forces some money in other directions than plain old war expenditures. And THAT is a good thing.
B. Lobbyists have a lot of influence because they spend a lot of money that is finely targeted to the Senators and Representatives who can push their agendas through. So a bunch of politicos are now beholden to someone else's money and can't vote for a good thing even if someone rubs their faces in it. Myself, I would take the approach as a variant of Shakespeare. First we'll kill all the lobbyists... This factor doesn't get affected by the party in power. The money gets spent either way.
