1
   

A Bid to Repair a Presidency

 
 
Reply Fri 16 Sep, 2005 07:30 pm
washingtonpost.com
A Bid to Repair a Presidency
By Dan Balz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, September 16, 2005

The main text of President Bush's nationally televised address last night was the rebuilding of New Orleans and the Gulf Coast, but the clear subtext was the rebuilding of a presidency that is now at its lowest point ever, confronted by huge and simultaneous challenges at home and abroad -- and facing a country divided along partisan and racial lines.

Hurricane Katrina struck at the core of Bush's presidency by undermining the central assertion of his reelection campaign, that he was a strong and decisive leader who could keep the country safe in a crisis. Never again will the White House be able to point to his often-praised performance after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, without skeptics recalling the fumbling and slow-off-the-mark response of his administration after the hurricane and the flooding in New Orleans.

His response to these criticisms last night was a speech largely shorn of soaring rhetoric and stirring turns of phrase of the kind that marked his efforts to rally the country after the terrorist attacks. Instead, as if recognizing that his own road back will be one marked by steady but small steps, he spoke with workmanlike focus, spelling out the details of what has been done and will be done to help those displaced by the storm.

Katrina has added an enormous new burden to a presidency already bending under the stresses of public dissatisfaction with Bush's policies in Iraq and growing anger over rising gas prices. Bush's objective last night was to set out a strategy and commitment for recovery along the Gulf Coast. But the critical question is whether the damage will limit his ability to govern effectively in the remaining 40 months of his presidency and whether he will successfully rebuild the Gulf Coast and Iraq, let alone win approval for other major initiatives on taxes and Social Security.

In again taking responsibility for the federal government's failures, Bush signaled last night that the White House has decided not to contest the widespread perceptions that his administration failed in the early days of the crisis. By embracing those criticisms, they hope to make the issue a sideshow that will play out sometime in the future. Instead, after a halting start, the White House appears intently focused on demonstrating the president's capacity to manage the huge rebuilding effort ahead.

Bush's advisers believe that, despite the partisan finger-pointing over what happened, most Americans are not looking back and will judge the president on what happens going forward. But as Iraq has shown over the past two years, the facts on the ground shape public confidence in the president more than words or promises.

There is nothing certain about the success he hopes to demonstrate. The rebuilding at Ground Zero in New York has taken four years, and although the work in New Orleans and along the Gulf Coast will begin almost immediately, the scope of the reconstruction virtually guarantees debates and delays that could sap public patience. Already there are signs of a brewing battle between business and government elites and organizers working with those displaced over whose voices will be heard in shaping the reconstruction.

Second-term slumps hit every reelected president, but often they come later than this one. Bush has little time to waste to rejuvenate his governing capacity, given the reality that lame-duck status awaits him in the not-too-distant future. But just as it will take time to rebuild New Orleans and the Gulf Coast, it may take many months for Bush to rebound from what now troubles his presidency. Given the added burdens of Iraq and the economy, the president's road to recovery "will be longer and more difficult," said Ross K. Baker, a political science professor at Rutgers University.

The road back will also be contentious. Republicans and Democrats are at swords' points over who should investigate what happened -- a congressional committee as the GOP favors or an independent investigation proposed by the Democrats.

The president also may face opposition to his proposal to give the federal government and the U.S. military greater authority in a time of such disaster. There will be no hesitancy on either side to spend what it takes to rebuild -- Bush last night envisioned one of the largest reconstruction efforts in history -- but already sharp differences are emerging over the policies that animate that rebuilding.

The policies Bush outlined last night bear the distinctive stamp of a conservative president, a hallmark of an executive who has never shrunk from seeking to implement a right-leaning agenda even in the face of a divided country. They are long on tax relief and business grants and loans, and focused on entrepreneurial ideas. Bush already has drawn fire from Democrats for suspending the law that requires contractors to pay prevailing wages on federal projects in the regions, and there will be a battle over the proposal to provide private and parochial school vouchers to children of displaced families.

At other points in his presidency, Bush was strong enough to intimidate and often defeat his Democratic opponents. Although the Democrats remain relatively weak, Bush's own problems have emboldened them to challenge him at every turn and to believe they are better equipped to deal with the challenges in housing, education, health care and urban poverty that the hurricane and flooding have produced. Competing visions of how the federal government should respond will produce a vigorous debate -- far from the united response to 9/11.

The public appears to have little patience with partisan bickering right now, which complicates the Democrats' effort to challenge Bush, but every recent poll indicates the public knows who controls both the White House and the Congress, and Republicans likely will pay a greater price in next year's midterm elections for any perceived failures by Bush or the federal government.

Among the most worrisome elements of the aftermath of Katrina to the administration is the vast racial divide that has opened up over the federal government's response, with an overwhelming majority of African Americans believing the slow reaction was racially motivated and a similarly large majority of whites saying race was not the reason.

Bush and his advisers have denied there was any racial motivation in the government's response, but they know there will be a continuing political cost if they do not turn those perceptions around. The racial gulf threatens not only the administration's hope of slowly attracting more black support at the polls, but also the fabric of an already divided society. "It is something that all leaders across the country need to engage in, and this president will," said a senior administration official.

The president directly addressed the racial divide last night, noting that the Gulf Coast is afflicted with "deep, persistent poverty" and saying that poverty "has roots in a history of racial discrimination, which has cut off generations from the opportunity of America." He pledged bold action to "rise above the legacy of inequality."

For those who doubt Bush's ability to manage multiple challenges, administration officials would point to his nomination of Judge John G. Roberts Jr. as the next chief justice of the United States, which appears to be moving easily through the Senate.

But what confronts him in the Gulf Coast and Iraq is far more complex. His speech last night was only the beginning of the effort to repair his storm-damaged presidency. He has proved in the past his commitment to stay the course once he sets it. The question is whether, in his weakened condition, he can continue to persuade the country to follow.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 2,001 • Replies: 56
No top replies

 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Sep, 2005 07:42 pm
BBB
I think we and the Media have missed something important in Bush's speech.

Some called it pandering, and it was. But I'm beginning to think it was clever pandering. Remember what Molly Ivins said about Bush? He's good at politics but stinks at governing.

Remember what is upper most in Bush mind. Protect and enhance his presidential legacy.

Could it be that Bush's over the top pandering is deliberate. Is he certain that the fiscal conservatives, both Republican and Democrat, will not vote to approve the hundreds of billions of dollars that his proposals would cost?

Has he and Karl Rove figured out a way to win no matter which way the Congress votes?

If Congress refuses to approve the funding, Bush wins because he then can blame the congress. Once again it's not his fault.

If Congress approves the funding, Bush wins. But if Congress requires that a lot of programs be eliminated to create the money to fund Bush's proposal, then Bush will win again. He will be successful in getting rid of more of the New Deal programs that has been his goal all along---all in the name of helping the hurricane victims. He will win by wrapping himself in pity for them.

The Republicans will be resistant to reversing Bush's tax cuts to the wealthy, which will put even more pressure on Congress to eliminate programs due to the financial crunch. Republicans never want to raise taxes; it is the kiss of death.

If Congress votes to add the costs to the deficit rather than cut programs and keep the current tax cuts and it leads to rapid inflation and a recession or depression, then Bush can blame the Congress and it's not his fault.

Bush wins no matter what and people won't blame him. After all, he tried to help them per his speech. Blame everyone else for letting them suffer.

Damn smart politically. Amoral as President.

BBB
0 Replies
 
RichNDanaPoint
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Sep, 2005 07:51 pm
Too little too late Laughing
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Sep, 2005 08:00 pm
BBB
RichNDanaPoint wrote:
Too little too late Laughing


Welcome to A2K; enjoy yourself here among the rabble.

BBB
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Sep, 2005 08:01 pm
Your mind reading skills suck.
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Sep, 2005 09:11 am
Mr. Bush in New Orleans
New York Times Editorial
Mr. Bush in New Orleans
Published: September 16, 2005

President Bush said three things last night that desperately needed to be said. He forthrightly acknowledged his responsibility for the egregious mishandling of the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. He spoke clearly and candidly about race and poverty. And finally, he was clear about what would be needed to bring back the Gulf Coast and said the federal government would have to lead and pay for that effort.

Once again, as he did after 9/11, Mr. Bush has responded to disaster with disconcerting uncertainty, then risen to the occasion later. Once again, he has delivered a speech that will reassure many Americans that he understands the enormity of the event and the demands of leadership to come.

But there are plenty of reasons for concern. After 9/11, Mr. Bush responded not only with a stirring speech at the ruins of the World Trade Center and a principled response to the Taliban in Afghanistan. He also decided to invade Iraq, and he tried to do it on the cheap - with disastrous results, for which the country continues to pay every day.

This time, Mr. Bush must come up with a more coherent and well-organized follow-through.

Clearly chastened by the outcry over his slow response to the disaster and his administration's bumbling performance, Mr. Bush said last night that he was prepared to undertake "one of the largest reconstruction efforts the world has ever seen." If he is sincere about his commitment to New Orleans and the other damaged localities, and to the displaced residents, he may have a fight on his hands in persuading Congress to support such an ambitious and necessary effort. Obviously, any official with even a minimal sense of responsibility would understand that this work will have to begin with a promise to give up on any more of the Republican Party's cherished tax cuts.

The speech, as good as it was, marks only a moment of clarity. Mr. Bush's problem in dealing with Katrina has been, at bottom, the same one that has bedeviled the administration since 9/11. The president came to office with a deep antipathy toward big government that has turned out to be utterly inappropriate for the world he inherited. The result has not been less government, but it has definitely been inept government.

We have already seen what happened to the Federal Emergency Management Agency when it was taken over by an administration that didn't like large federal agencies with sweeping mandates. For Iraq, the White House asserted that open-ended and no-bid contracts doled out to big corporations run by people known to government officials would mean swifter, more efficient operations. What we got was gross inefficiency, which has run up costs while failing in many cases to do the jobs required.

Given this history, it's impossible not to worry about what will happen to the billions of dollars being committed to New Orleans, especially since the Army Corps of Engineers' top man in the reclamation effort was once the corps' top man overseeing contracts in Iraq.

The administration is staffed several levels deep with officials who share their leader's distrust of large, expensive federal undertakings. But it is now faced with an unprecedented task: housing hundreds of thousands of homeless people, making sure their children are educated over the short term and eventually getting them a start on a new life. There is no way to do that without a focused federal effort.

Last night, the president was particularly strong when discussing the nation's shocking lack of preparedness for disaster, and the stark fact - obvious to every television viewer around the globe - that the people left homeless and endangered by Katrina were in the main poor and black.

The entire nation, he said, saw the poverty that "has roots in a history of racial discrimination, which cut off generations from the opportunity of America." Polls show that black Americans are far angrier and more skeptical than whites about the administration's actions since the storm. Mr. Bush's words could begin a much-needed healing process. But that will happen only if they are followed by deeds that are as principled, disciplined and ambitious as Mr. Bush's speech.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Sep, 2005 09:53 am
Bush's speech is simply pie in the sky. Even if the government with all it's bureaucracy and inefficiencies could implement his grandiose plans the funds are not available. The BS that cutting expenditures in other areas would make the funds available is pure fantasy. And of course the policiy of tax cuts and more tax cuts for the wealthy is simply out of the question.
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Sep, 2005 11:42 am
Brandon9000 wrote:
Your mind reading skills suck.


How are yours Skeezix? Can you guess what we think of you after comments like these? Laughing
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Sep, 2005 01:11 pm
blueveinedthrobber wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
Your mind reading skills suck.


How are yours Skeezix? Can you guess what we think of you after comments like these? Laughing

If your past comments to me and others had been constructive and civil, I might care. At least I had a point, even if I didn't enunciate it in detail: you are far into a fantasy world of projecting thoughts and motives onto the Bush administration which have nothing whatever to do with what conservatives really think. We think that with few exceptions, the only failure of the Bush administration is to allow people like you to toss so much false dirt in his direction that some of it has stuck.
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Sep, 2005 09:22 pm
Brandon9000 wrote:
blueveinedthrobber wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
Your mind reading skills suck.


How are yours Skeezix? Can you guess what we think of you after comments like these? Laughing

If your past comments to me and others had been constructive and civil, I might care. At least I had a point, even if I didn't enunciate it in detail: you are far into a fantasy world of projecting thoughts and motives onto the Bush administration which have nothing whatever to do with what conservatives really think. We think that with few exceptions, the only failure of the Bush administration is to allow people like you to toss so much false dirt in his direction that some of it has stuck.


you can say so much less with so much more,,,, I admire that....
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Sep, 2005 02:42 pm
Brandon9000 wrote:
...the only failure of the Bush administration is to allow people like you to toss so much false dirt in his direction that some of it has stuck.


Shocked
0 Replies
 
LionTamerX
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Sep, 2005 02:46 pm
Not even Halliburton could repair this presidency.

Which doesn't mean they wont get a no-bid contract to try.

And of course, overcharge for the effort.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Sep, 2005 08:03 am
Brandon9000 wrote:
Quote:
...the only failure of the Bush administration is to allow people like you to toss so much false dirt in his direction that some of it has stuck.



What do you mean "Allow". Hadn't you noticed the republicans have not as yet been able to curtail freedom of speech.
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Sep, 2005 08:20 am
au1929 wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
Quote:
...the only failure of the Bush administration is to allow people like you to toss so much false dirt in his direction that some of it has stuck.



What do you mean "Allow". Hadn't you noticed the republicans have not as yet been able to curtail freedom of speech.


they have a crack team of organized and grass roots gerbils working on it... Laughing
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Sep, 2005 08:58 am
blueveinedthrobber wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
blueveinedthrobber wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
Your mind reading skills suck.


How are yours Skeezix? Can you guess what we think of you after comments like these? Laughing

If your past comments to me and others had been constructive and civil, I might care. At least I had a point, even if I didn't enunciate it in detail: you are far into a fantasy world of projecting thoughts and motives onto the Bush administration which have nothing whatever to do with what conservatives really think. We think that with few exceptions, the only failure of the Bush administration is to allow people like you to toss so much false dirt in his direction that some of it has stuck.


you can say so much less with so much more,,,, I admire that....

As usual, I state a position, and you state a comeback with zero relevant content - of course, a characteristic of people in the right.
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Sep, 2005 08:58 am
quack quack....
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Sep, 2005 09:00 am
au1929 wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
Quote:
...the only failure of the Bush administration is to allow people like you to toss so much false dirt in his direction that some of it has stuck.



What do you mean "Allow". Hadn't you noticed the republicans have not as yet been able to curtail freedom of speech.

I didn't mean "allow" in the sense of allowing free speech. I meant allow in the sense of not defending themselves adequately from a fog of false, often vague charges. Is that the best response you've got - to pretend that I'm against free speech?
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Sep, 2005 09:02 am
blueveinedthrobber wrote:
quack quack....

Typical of the quality of your support for your ideas. You have become an expert in making false assertions, and then refusing to counter or address any debate on them.
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Sep, 2005 09:06 am
bleat bleat... :wink:
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Sep, 2005 09:22 am
Brandon9000

No it was a response to the typical nonsence you spew. Wake up your hero is a dud.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » A Bid to Repair a Presidency
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 10/02/2024 at 04:31:19