The danger posed by Hurricane Isaac to the coast of the Gulf of Mexico may soon overtake the Republican National Convention as the top story of the week. The troubles of the GOP are rightly overshadowed by the potential for loss of life and property in the states bordering the Gulf. But while Republicans must sit back and watch and pray along with the rest of the country that the disaster is not as great as some fear, they will also be watching for liberal attempt to rehash the aftermath of the last big hurricane to pound New Orleans. While some in the party are grousing about the way the choice of a Florida city during the season of tropical storms has played havoc with the convention schedule, what they really ought to be worried about is the way the media will use the hurricane to rehearse the alleged sins of George W. Bush during Hurricane Katrina in 2005.
Though the post-invasion mess in Iraq is still thought of as the George W. Bush administration’s worst problem, the true turning point during his second term was what happened after the levees failed in New Orleans. Bush is staying away from Tampa, allowing Mitt Romney his week of glory without any reminders of his unpopular Republican predecessor. But courtesy of Isaac, the networks and cable TV channels are going to be able to put the 43rd president back in the public eye. More than the Democrats’ unseemly attempts at political guerrilla warfare in Tampa, any media hyping of the Isaac-Katrina analogy will be both a distraction from the GOP convention narrative and a way to bludgeon the Republicans by digging up the canards hurled at Bush back in 2005.
Bush never really recovered from the widespread impression that his appointees were not on top of the crisis and the publicized delays in getting federal help to the stricken city. The collapse of local authority, the way first responders fled and the abdication of responsibility by both the city and state of Louisiana had far more to do with the crisis than anything the federal government did. But it was Bush who got the lion’s share of the blame. The plight of the poor refugees in the Superdome wasn’t merely put on his shoulders but falsely asserted as proof of administration racism.
Should President Obama decide to arrive on the scene of any flooding or damage this week, it will not merely upstage the GOP infomercial. It will also be a not-so-subtle reinforcement of his recurring campaign theme in which he blames everything that’s wrong with the country on his predecessor.
Hurricane Isaac won’t fix the country’s economy or lower unemployment, which are the real obstacles to the president’s re-election. But the timing and the path of the storm may provide the Democrats with an unexpected bonus of campaign fodder that could undermine any GOP hopes for a post-convention bounce. And there’s absolutely nothing the Republicans can do about it except pray that the hurricane proves to be a minor annoyance to the Gulf rather than a full-scale disaster. Residents of the coastal region, both Democrats and Republicans, will be praying along with them.
If the country is so far gone that they can remember Katrina and somehow attribute it to Romney (when it wasn't even Bush's fault), yet they can't remember what Obama said a few weeks ago about "you didn't build that" or his blatantly broken promises and lies, then there really is no hope Are we that stupid, dim and feeble minded? Or is it that we are just bought-off, having reached the tipping point in the last decade. I suspect, alas, it it is both.
> Are we that stupid, dim and feeble minded? Or is it n> that we are just bought-off, having reached the tipping n> point in the last decade. I suspect, alas, it it is both. n n nThere is a third possibility: the GOP is the victim of a looming demographic disaster… To barely win this election, Mitt Romney will have to win an unprecedented 61% or better of the white vote. Back in 1988, the result would have been an electoral landslide. Not anymore. We already know Romney will lose the Latino, African American and minority vote big-time. It seems his overwhelmingly male, pale and stale followers are acutely aware of this too. So they are desperate to turn back the clock before it is too late. n nBTW, Rasmussen fans — have you noticed that Obama's job approval is now 50% approve vs 49% disapprove and he is leading Romney 47-44? Nah, can't be true:-)
"male, pale and stale followers" Dear Marcus…you sir, are a racist idiot. You assume a traditional and Catholic Latin majority will not have an issue with a party that is in complete opposition to the cultural and religious mores of Hispanic culture. Good luck with that.
Dale Liston, n nYou seem to assume Hispanics will automatically reject Democrats before long because of divergent views on cultural issues.. There is little evidence for it: African Americans tend to be more socially conservative than your average urban white liberal yet very few of them support the GOP. n nAs for Romney's support … I am merely stating facts here. The polls that do provide a breakdown across gender and racial lines almost uniformly suggest he is faring poorly with most groups and this explains why he has been unable to break a ceiling of 45-46% so far. Does anyone in this forum seriously dispute the GOP needs more support from women & minorities, and that the party is too reliant on elderly white male working class voters without a college degree?
Oh, dear, do you have to resort to racism and sexism? Gallup and the WaPo polls have Romney up one by the way, for compulsive poll watchers.
Ah, naturally you're male and pale, that figures.
Exactly – if all it takes is something like this to set the republicans back, what the heck is the point?
Oh, for crying out loud. n nI just checked and Isaac isn't even a hurricane at this point. It may—repeat may—make landfall as a Category One hurricane. But it's being treated here and elsewhere as the coming apocalypse. This is little more than media hype, largely fueled by the propinquity of the Republican National Convention. But in all probability, this storm will cause no major damage or loss of life. It's no Katrina. And if Obama tries to pretend that it is, he'll simply make himself look foolish. n nMy suggestion: Take a chill pill! All this hand-wringing about a potential disaster has about as much basis in reality as the typical DNC press release.
If President Bush could save the free market by suspending it w/bailouts then he could have acted in advance of Katrina being that it was expected to wreak havoc. n nHis judgement was bad. That can happen to any President. But when President Obama was asked about how he would handle another hit like 9/11 he said the first thing he would do is make sure the first responders were ready. That's exactly where a leader's focus should properly be in those first hours of any emergency. n nLA's Governor was worthless before and during the crisis but President Bush was the Governor's leader and responsible too for the welfare of LA residents. n nI think you're overreacting to Isaac vs. Katrina. Really. Katrina was the turning point because it was the last straw heaped upon the fallout from Iraq. n nYou're anxious for good reason because you pretend that Bush's two terms are viewed by the electorate unfairly. n nIsaac can't sink Romney. I think he'll win because we've little to lose by electing him. President Obama is not a good or prudent leader. But we're not going to forget President Bush's mistakes either.
This is a bunch of hooey. The President of the United States has no business running around managing "first responders." Whoever he is, he's no expert in disaster management and his personal interventions would probably just complicate things. Given the constraints of our federal system, there's only so much that a president can (or should) do in such a situation. n nI've always believed that President Bush was unfairly blamed for the havoc wrought by Katrina. If anyone deserved blame for the that disaster, it was the dysfunctional state and local governments in Louisiana. n nProbably the biggest mistakes made by the Bush Administration were in the area of public relations. Exaggerated and completely false stories about the situation in New Orleans were allowed to pass unchallenged, e.g. the bodies supposedly piling up in the Superdome, widespread civil disorder and looting in the city, snipers firing at helicopters, etc.The media had a field day with these fairy tales, reporting them with little or no fact checking. n nI sometimes think that Katrina may have inspired Obama's "blame Bush" strategy.
I'm not so sure the President is a Governor's leader. I'm not sure what you mean by that, really. Governors, presumably, know their state better than the President. They can call out the Nat'l Guard if necessary, and they have in their possession emergency plans. One could assume that the Gov of LA is aware of the danger of hurricanes to NO, and that even LA and NO would have evacuation plans for the worst case scenario. Anyone who ever lived in NO knew something like Katrina would happen some day. The fact that it was such a disaster was the fault not just of Blanco and Nagin but previous governors and mayors and a bureaucracy that apparently has the collective IQ of tse-tse fly. To blame the resultant fiasco on Bush is beyond stupid, actually, especially when, as I recall, he told Blanco she better order an evacuation. Rather than being the last straw from the Iraq fallout, the excoriation of Bush for Katrina was the result of almost unbelievable media malevolence and Democratic perfidy. Both entities covered themselves in shame. Disagree? Well, go back and read about the cannibalism (Randall Robinson) and murders in the SuperDome – never happened. 10,000 dead – off by a factor of 10. Incredible, really, that anyone involved kept their job.
Reports of cannibalism were not Bush's problems, people devastated and begging for help were. n nThe predicted strength and direction of Katrina should have forced President Bush to have some Feds already there with a plan ready to go immediately. IIRC, he didn't think he should involve the Feds as it was an issue LA and its leaders should handle. And I think that wasn't good judgement. n n
Of course reports of cannibalism were Bush's problem. They are the reason that you can post such tripe 7 years later! The media breathlessly reported all sorts of nightmares that served to prevent anyone looking honestly at the disaster. And how many people even now know that most of those stories were fiction? Reality was bad enough, but the "Bush doesn't care" meme was certainly strengthened by the fraudulence. nAs for the argument that Bush should have been ready with the Feds – in what way? Again, that's just silly. Should he have parachuted into Baton Rouge with dozens of FEMA bureaucrats and brushed Blanco aside on the indisputable grounds that she was/is a moron? He could then have invaded New Orleans itself and removed Nagin, I suppose. The President doesn't push aside state and local leaders lightly, my friend, and I'm not sure we'd like living in a country where he did. And how in G-d's name could the Feds have a plan ready to go immediately? Do you think the President has such things lying around in his desk? "Wild fires in Idaho – Drawer 3. Hurricane threatens Savannah, Cat. 4 – Drawer 23, but Cat. 3, Drawer 26." Get real. Federalism has its purposes.
Katrina was the equivalent of a terrorist attack in terms of the damage that it did. It was predicted, it required a military-like plan to be able to take off immediately to 1) control ensuing chaos and 2) get supplies to the people as quickly as possible. But President Bush didn’t have such a plan in effect and he should have. It was less a matter that he didn’t care and more a matter that he wasn’t all that competent.
Trying to sell separation between those suffering in NO and the President is nonsense. Maybe not to you, but to most Americans we’re one Nation. n nNot recognizing that a predicted disaster of this magnitude can’t be met by State provisions alone was a huge error. n nThe flaming on about the media when a lot of people are able to sift through sensationalism may feel good but it’s not worth much. n nLastly, there’s not an iota of empathy in your posts for the residents of NO, just lamenting that Republicans are victims of the press. n nI’ll be voting for Romney hoping he surrounds himself with qualified people, including FEMA.
Give me a break – I know people who lost everything as a result of Katrina, having been a long time resident of NO. I'll save my empathy for the proper forum, thank you. nA lot of people are able to sift through the sensationalism? Sure – but many more aren't, and that's what matters. I think you know that. I'm not flaming on about the irresponsible media – you simply can't deny that the sensationalism drove much of the animus toward Bush at the time and continues to cloud people's perceptions now. n And I still can't get over your expectation that the President should have been so involved in preparing for and responding to the event. Hurricanes happen quickly, as do all natal disasters. They are terribly difficult to track, and their strength is hard to predict. Had Katrina moved a few score miles west, it would have been a problem but not nearly so serious. Is the federal government supposed to essentially shut down while all systems, including the military, are put on hold, every time a potentially major storm is looming on the distant horizon? As for state responsibilities – I sincerely hope that San Francisco and LA and the government of CA have plans in case of devastating earthquakes. In the event of one, I do not expect the US government to have to brush aside the state and local governments in order to get anything done. nSelling separation between the suffering and the President is nonsense? That statement is lunacy. None of the people I know who lost their homes blamed Bush, first of all. Second, at what point do we release the President from responsibility for people's suffering? You seem to view the president as a modern day pharaoh. If I lose my home as a result of a fire on a National Forest, do I get to blame the Chief Executive because he oversees that department, too? nFinally, you are guilty of being blinded to the benefits of 20/20 hindsight. It is not difficult to imagine a scenario in which Bush had taken your advice, pressured state and local officials, had the military ready to go and then, poof – Katrina hits as a Cat 2, Blanco and Nagin whine about the bullying, and the Dems and media go on a weeks long condemnation of Bush as a tyrant. Reality is more complicated than your cookie-cutter response suggests.
A plan and resources to prevent chaos and getting supplies to the distressed doesn’t require 20/20 hindsight and what you call cookie-cutter, I call logical in the face of the predictions of the strength of Katrina. n nIt requires a competent President, appointing able men to oversee disaster planning and who recognize that any individual State simply can't handle such a disaster alone. Katrina called for the Feds to mobilize a military-type plan in advance of the hurricane and, again, that doesn’t require 20/20 hindsight. n nYour replies to me have been mostly melodramatic without benefit of sound analysis but have at the last word.
Let me point out one other major flaw in your analysis. You use this as an example of Bush's incompetence. Assume you are correct that much of the disastrous impact of Katrina in NO could have been prevented by federal action. Doing so simply opens the door to a much more difficult analysis of all the things Bush did that prevented, for example, domestic terror attacks after 9/11. In other words, failure is inevitable. No matter how well we try to prevent bad things from happening, bad things, awful things, will happen. You have focused on one such event and extrapolated from that, ignoring the possibility, which is certainly a possibility implied by your conclusion, that the absence of other such disasters is the result of Bush's competence.
eecaire – I wanted to revisit this thread only to regret the tone I took in this discussion. Hopefully you'll see this! nCheers. nMike
I do see it but I saw it before now in your other posts to me. n nThanks and blessings,
Tobin better buy some diapers. It's supposed to make landfall at 90 mph. This is no biggie, though of course the idiot media will treat it as such. They expect (hope) that every hurricane will be the next Katrina now.
Assuming of course that it wallops NOLA the effects are marginal. I'm suspect that little if anything has actually improved in NOLA in 7 years.
Gov Jindal instead of Blanco. 'Nuff said.
Oh good – it was getting too happy around here. Now I can get gloomy again. nIf Republicans want to look under every rock imaginable for signs of imminent electoral doom, we'll all be in mental wards come November, unable to vote. That's how Obama could win. nMr. Tobin – I got dizzy reading this post. Romney, Bush, Bomney, Rush, Brush, Bushney – who the heck is our candidate again? And is it 2004, 2005, 2008, 2012? Help!
Except that some poll today – I'm too lazy to find it now – had Romney leading rather nicely amongst married women. Your cardboard characterization of the Republican Party is rather tedious. At any rate, I don't quite get your 61% stat. If only white people vote, he could with 50%, right? So you are making some pretty specific assumptions on voter turn out rates amongst a few different demographic groups, it seems to me, to get that number. Yeah, Romney will lose the black vote big time, but the question isn't the percentage of blacks who vote for Obama, but the percentage of blacks who vote. You could just as easily view this as a looming problem for Democrats (unless you think black or brown skin automatically makes one a Democrat – but that might be racialist, no?). If minorities don't vote, or if a relatively small number of them decide to vote Republican, the Democrats will be in a world of trouble. nRasmussen? Those of us who follow it do so for more than one reason. They focus on likely voters (which most pollsters are starting to do now), so a month ago they stood out. That's no longer the case. Looking at the RCP avg. we can start comparing apples to apples. But it's also a three day average, with many blips that seem to even out. Do I like seeing Obama up 3 in Rasmussen? Of course not, but I'm also not doing cartwheels when it has Romney up by 4. Do I think it is "true", as you say? Well, time will tell, won't it? Check back in a few days.
BTW – Rasmussen has Romney up 47-44. Nah, can't be true. Who was it said "check back in a few days"? Maybe you don't get the concept of a three day average. nBut, I'm not doing cartwheels. I'll wait until Nov 6 for that.