Bush Speaks About Hurricane Katrina Relief
By Justin Gardner | Related entries in Blogging, Hurricane KatrinaAnd Joe Gandleman responds with a MASSIVE post. Honestly, it’s almost too long to read in one sitting, but give it a try.
Here’s an excerpt:
STYLE: This was clearly a well-rehearsed and delivered speech. The tone was fine but, again, the timing of the speech â€â€? coming after the huge controversy over the federal performance, local and state failings, the resignation of FEMA chief Michael Brown plus new allegations about Michael Chertoff â€â€? in practical terms are likely to have diminished its impact.ERRORS: There was no massive political blunders here and it didn’t seem like a typical partisan speech. A minimum of Peggy Noonan-like rhetorical flourishes (in other words: that’s a plus).
BIGGEST ROADBLOCKS: The cost (will conservatives go along with it and what will have to be jettisoned from the agenda to do it?). The linering issue of the investigation: Bush seemed to skirt or downplay the kind of investigation pressed by GOPers in Congress and be reaching out for some kind of broader investigation (but it was vague enough that time will tell on that one).
LIKELIHOOD TO CHANGE MINDS: At this writing it’s too early to tell but at first glance it seems unlikely to spark a huge poll shift. It may gain some irked voters back, but is unlikely to change Democratic minds. Independent voters in recent surveys have leaned more towards Democratic positions. BUT if the speech signals of a serious disaster relief effort that truly entails bipartisan “input” and a detatchment from political manuevers, it could be a good start.
WHAT IT MEANS TO VICTIMS: Mobilization of the private sector and a seeming perception that this could be a disaster that could be used to put some conservative approaches into action.
IMAGERY: Is a President in a button down shirt standing in front of a building a more majestic and institution reinforcing image than a President dressed in a suit and tie talking from the Oval Office? Apparently some bigwigs think so.
I too agree that Bush’s numbers will go up because he offered so many solutions. But that’s trivial right now, and only confined to the blogosphere.
Let’s hope he delivers on his promises…and then some…
UPDATE
Marc Schulman is decidedly unimpressed with Bush’s Katrina relief speech.
As memories of 9/11 faded, out-of-sight, out-of-mind prevailed. With Katrina, heads have come out of the sand, as it’s now abundantly evident that the US isn’t prepared to cope with the aftermath of an act of catastrophic terrorism. Four years after 9/11, the ability of the federal government to provide security has now been called into question. As a perception-changing event, Katrina is to Bush as Tet was to Johnson. And the massive spending that will be required to undo the damage done by Katrina is to Bush as the Great Society was to Johnson.
What do you think?
This entry was posted on Friday, September 16th, 2005 and is filed under Blogging, Hurricane Katrina. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
September 16th, 2005 at 8:29 am
I watched the speech and was favorable to it (with the caveat that I’m rather favorably disposed toward the president). For the rhetoric and feeling aspect of it, I think he touched all the right aspects. I truly believe the American people really enjoy helping others, and seeing their government mobilize to rebuild not only the city, but the lives within it, will strike the right chord. Bush put the disaster into perspective by reminding us how we recovered from San Francisco, Chicago and the Dust Bowl, and were stronger for the effort afterward.
I agree that the engagement of the private sector is a good way to apply conservative principles to the effort. I’m glad to hear there will be oversight on the spending, and hope those inspectors general live up to my expectations.
I happen to think that there are a lot of wonderful opportunities presented here for the taking by both our government and the general populace.
First off, this is going to be expensive. $200B is already earmarked. No matter how efficiently the money is applied, if it comes in underbudget with all the projects completed, the rest of the money WILL be spent, somehow, on something.
Second, this is a geat opportunity to practice some real fiscal discipline, which we haven’t seen evidence of in the better part of a decade. The cost of this should be offset by trimming the fat out of other spending bills, but I have zero faith in that happening. Every Rock-n-Roll Hall of Fame, St. Louis Rain Forest, Goth Culture Prevention Program and Alaskan Bridge to Nowhere is going to be defended tooth-and-nail. As was referenced in another post on this site via Andrew Sullivan, the Republicans are only fiscally conservative when they’re in the minority, and the Democrats have never been known to be so. A President with backbone could make this happen and take the Congress to task for pork on every bill from here until the end of his term, but Bush hasn’t displayed this type of backbone in the last five years, and I have little faith he will do so in the next three.
Next, while Bush did say all the right things about taking responsibility on the federal level, he also very gently expressed that municipalities and states are partners in this overall preparedness. As you could probably decipher from my moniker, this is of utmost importance to me. I hope that the general populace becomes more engaged in their local/regional preparedness readiness, as the Department of Homeland Security concurrently engages all the major cities in making their disaster plans viable and workable. These things need to be more than just a piece of paper that local officials point at to show that they’ve taken this seriously. And while the disasters of 9/11 and Katrina were totally different in scope, people have been able to witness what happens when you have competent officials in place, and what happens when you don’t.
This also segues into holding our federal officials accountable in looking out for their constituents, aside from bringing home the pork. First and foremost among this is Bush’s tragic mistake of appointing unqualified (or at least UNDERqualified) Michael Brown as head of FEMA. But our representation in Congress let us down on that, too, and should not be let off the hook. Just imagine if they had taken that confirmation as seriously as they take Supreme Court nominations. And actually looked for at the leadership qualifications of the nominee to an executive position, rather than just the ideology. Nobody there cared, few enough even showed up, and most of the questions were submitted in background. He was rubber-stamped, and an average guy who seemed to do okay on smaller-scale disasters was allowed to be in-place as the point-man during the worst natural disaster in recent memory. Our representation in Washington failed us in that respect.
I’m guilty as well, and not necessarily casting stones. I couldn’t tell you when Brown was nominated, when he had his confirmation, and even if I did, I couldn’t have cared less at the time. Same goes for my mayor and my governor at the lower levels…while I paid more attention to them, it was never through the prism of how they were going to act and lead during a crisis, since at the time the only real public model for such were Pataki and Giuliani, and it was kind of a given that everybody was of their caliber under pressure.
So if nothing else, that’s the good side of all this…we’ve had a slap across the face followed by a dash of cold water, and hopefully we’ll start taking this s**t seriously.
September 16th, 2005 at 10:48 am
Well put LF. A very reasonable and thoughtful comment and it’s much appreciated.
I didn’t think it was a bad speech, but I do think we’re in for a rough ride due to some strict ideological preferences of his administration.
So perhaps the ideology should be put aside when something as catastrophic as Hurricane Katrina happens? Supply side economics “works” when business is booming, but maybe we need to revisit more of WPA model when entire cities are wiped off our map.
Agreed?
September 16th, 2005 at 11:38 am
I watched the ABC News Special on Hurricane Katrina prior to Bush’s speech, and after that I really had a bad attitude towards the speech ahead of time. However, I listened with an open mind, and I think it was pretty good. Much better than the statements he’s been making in the last few weeks. (Part of me suspects that those statements were made with little or no prep by anyone – since they were his own they stunk. Obviously, a lot of people help him write and prepare for these addresses – and those people did a fantastic job. Of course kudos to Bush for following directions!) Bush made a lot of specific promises last night, which I thought were great. If he can manage to make good on them, I will have a lot more respect for the man. Of course, that doesn’t take away from the fact that things went wrong on the front end, but I criticized Bush for saying that he “took responsibility” a few days ago because I wanted to see some actions to back up those words. Now, I may see them.
September 16th, 2005 at 8:02 pm
Please visit http://shitcanchertoff.com
September 19th, 2005 at 1:56 pm
WPA model?