Do you think that Katrina is Bush's second chance?

[catherine]

After reading the following article I was wondering if US citizens think that Bush can repair the damage that Katrina did to his presidency.

Bush's Second Second Inaugural Address
The president tries to start this term all over again in New Orleans.
By John Dickerson
Posted Thursday, Sept. 15, 2005, at 8:41 PM PT


We've become accustomed to these fraught addresses from President Bush: the cadences of loss and resolve, the biblical echoes, and the strain of a voice trying to whip up hope. We heard them over and over after 9/11 and before the Iraq war. But tonight was different. President Bush has never spoken from a position of such weakness. The country is as uncertain about his leadership as it has ever been. He created the very Department of Homeland Security that failed to prepare itself or citizens for Hurricane Katrina or manage its aftermath. Bush has spoken at length about compassion for the least among us and yet their condition has not improved.

Second terms usually start on the steps of the Capitol. George Bush hopes that his starts in Jackson Square. Before the storm, his second four years had been defined by impotency. The war he started in Iraq became even bloodier and looked more hopeless. Cindy Sheehan appeared to be working harder than he was. Gas prices jumped and he admitted there was little he could do to help. He had to install John Bolton in the United Nations after the senators who wouldn't confirm him had gone home for the summer. His plan for revamping Social Security fell flat in the turf almost right out of the gate.

Katrina is his disaster, but also his chance. The president announced his plan for "Gulf Opportunity Zones" tonight. No one has a better Gulf Opportunity Zone than he does. Thanks to Katrina, at least now he can act. Bush can shuttle to the newly uplifted: visiting homeowners in their gleaming kitchens, or small-business owners turning profits in the reviving Gulf. Iraq will never offer up such made-for-television opportunities.

Katrina allows the president to cut away from all the other miserable news and do one of the things he does best: spend money. Bush may talk like a fiscal conservative, but he spends like a liberal. He binges for his priorities. Tonight he made a lot of promises. The federal government will pay to rebuild infrastructure, pay rent for the displaced, pick up state expenses, and deliver mobile homes. If you have any favorite federal programs you'd like enacted, please bring them to the front of the room. The costs to rebuild the Gulf will skyrocket, but Republican leaders are also going to have to pay hush money outside the region: funding projects from politically key areas. Lawmakers will find ways to tie their requests to Katrina.

As a political matter, tonight's immediate goals were limited. By standing alone and detailing his plan, Bush hoped to court disaffected Republicans with an image of leadership that will conjure memories of his post-9/11 performance.

The larger goal is harder: to restore the image of Republican competency with the broader voting public. That's important for Bush's legacy and Republicans up for election in 2006 campaigning on safety and leadership. Polls show Americans now view Bush's leadership abilities at their modest pre-9/11 levels and onl y half the country trusts his ability to handle terrorism, his former strong suit. On the question of homeland security he seemed to invite more doubt. "I consider detailed emergency planning to be a national security priority," he said tonight. Yikes. It wasn't before?

The president has hitched his second term to the Gulf reconstruction, and that may require a surprising amount of political courage. Congress has been willing to spend like crazy in the past few weeks, but that profligacy will end. Fiscal conservatives in his party are furious at the new government spending. Conservative Democrats and independents in key districts outside of the affected area are also already balking: Why is the president pandering to the Gulf? Why doesn't he show as much effort helping me get a job or lowering my gas prices?

Bush will be rebuilding his presidency along with New Orleans. He has the money to spend—as he did after 9/11, as he did in Iraq. The question is what it always is with the president. His resolve and certainty are not in doubt; his competence is. Is his administration capable enough not to waste those billions, but to turn them into a genuine Gulf recovery?

John Dickerson is Slate's chief political correspondent. He can be reached at slatepolitics@gmail.com.

Article URL: http://www.slate.com/id/2126384/

[Free4Life11]

Second chance at what?? I'm a little confused.

[catherine]

To kick start his second term!

[dcentity2000]

Oppositions don't win elections; Governments lose them.

[EDIT]: I wonder who said that?



Rich::

[Tigger_Magic]

It is so much fun watching the media get worked into a frenzy over poll numbers without taking a moment to consider the question "why." President Bush chooses to take action on a number of issues and fronts. In doing so, some of his choices are going to rankle some people; they're not always going to like or approve the choices of action he makes.

I'd rather have a President who actually does something while in office (and whose poll numbers may sink as a result) than have a President who does nothing (and whose poll numbers consequently remain high).

It's sad that the media equates popularity with leadership, when in reality the two have practically nothing to do with each other. One does not need to be popular in order to be a great leader.

[DisDuck]

Tigger... I agree popularity has nothing to do with leadership but can you point out what 'leading' Bush has done that has been beneficial to this country other than Afghanistan? Iraq was not about to lob missiles at the US now or in the next millinia. AQ had no operative within the borders of Iraq nor had declared war on the Shi'ia. 100's of thousands of jobs have gone off-shore and what has been the response.. 'go retrain' for the jobs of the future. What jobs of the future? Who is going to retrain or hire someone over 55 or even 50? Some state and local governments have off-shored their own work. Why does not our 'leader' go 'whoa there'? This is not right. Last night Bush admitted that after 4 years we are not prepared. What has happening in those 4 years then? It has been under his Leadership that 'nothing' has happened. So did he appoint the wrong people?

[Tigger_Magic]

Well, gee we've had only 26 straight months of job gains with 3.7 million new jobs created since May 2003. We currently have the lowest unemployment rate since October 2001. But don't let the facts about employment growth interfere with your beliefs.

Home sales continue to set records with new housing starts continuing to be strong. Inflation overall is still well contained within the U.S. despite a growing economy. Consumer spending remains at a healthy pace.

The President has taken steps to secure Social Security for the future, even though everyone may not like his ideas.

I don't judge this President's or any President's entire administration on the basis of a single incident or response. YMMV.

[DisDuck]

How could we have had 3.7mill jobs created since 2003 when even Bush during the debates never quoted that figure. According to all accounts by all sides if you took the number of people at work prior to recession and number of people at work on election day then up thru that point there had been a net job loss. The low point of job loss was in the 2002 thru 2003 years with a comeback after that period but the comeback did not equal the number lost.

As to the housing boom in terms of numbers of owners. How about population increase over the last 30 years. These people are now grown-up and need someplace to live so of course buying would increase.

As to consumer spending there you are right but read the labels of what is bought. How much of it is made here.

[wvrevy]

Leadership has nothing to do with popularity ? :rotfl:

News flash...If you're "leading" and nobody is following, you aren't a leader...you're just a guy taking a walk.

Only people I see following Bush these days are people that look like this guy:

http://leighhouse.typepad.com/blog/images/kool_aid.jpg

He's "led" us into a war that has cost hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of lives, and has largely been a failure...he "led" us into a period in our history more partisan than any most of us have lived through...he "led" us through the worst attack in American history by sitting frozen while the attack was taking place...he "led" us into a period where gas has more than doubled in price during the last couple years...he "led" us into deficits larger than any seen since the cold war...

With a "leader" like that...who needs enemies ? :rolleyes:

[Tigger_Magic]

Ah, DisDuck, always seeing the glass as half-empty. ;) At least it's better than wvrevy's perspective of not seeing the glass at all!

[Jack Splat]

Second chance? Wow, I thought he was on chance 436 myself, but that's just me.

[dcentity2000]

I'm curious, why permit even the first fail?



Rich::

[DisDuck]

Actually, Tigger I see the glass as half-full. My DW thinks I am too much of an optimist. It is the Libertarian in me that responds this way. Jobs are increasing but from my perspective they are not the jobs that will sustain the current level of consumer spending. When this bubble bursts I think it will be a much deeper recession then the previous because at least there was a budget surplus to absorb some of the hardship.

[LandscapePro_318]

I don't buy into the notion that his presidency is damaged. For that matter I don't buy into "slate" at all.

Originally posted by wvrevy.....He's "led" us into a war that has cost hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of lives, and has largely been a failure...he "led" us into a period in our history more partisan than any most of us have lived through...he "led" us through the worst attack in American history by sitting frozen while the attack was taking place...he "led" us into a period where gas has more than doubled in price during the last couple years...he "led" us into deficits larger than any seen since the cold war...


Actually, he decided to enforce the sanctions imposed by the U.N. and agreements he signed after the first gulf war. By rights after the first “incident” of Sadam shooting at out guys in the “now fly zone” it could have started at that point.

From a global security viewpoint, there must be SOME type of buffer zone between those nuts in Iran and the oil fields in Saudi. Like it or not those oil fields must be protected. That is unless the environmentalists want to shut the H*** up and let us get to the oil we have here.

Partisanship? Yea. ROFL He may have been foolish by letting Ted Kennedy write the education bill, but partisan? Bush has reached out to the other side of the aisle more that he ever should have. It’s pointless but he tried. Nope. I think that “era” was ushered in by the Tom Daschel crew after “Slick” got caught lying to a grand jury while under oath. (Sorry it never was “just about sex”) When Al Gore got beat (not a single re-count to date has shown otherwise) it got worse. After the Kerry debacle…

I didn’t see the President “sitting frozen”. Oh wait, no he didn’t run screaming from the room full of children. Perhaps that was the required plan of action to satisfy the left. I do seem to remember several democrats admitting to “sitting numb” for 20 minutes trying to comprehend what had happened.

As far as gas prices go, the environmentalists have been made sure not a single refinery has been built in the last 30 years. Lack of supply means higher prices. Throw in the increased world demand for oil and “whoop there it is”.

Last info I heard the deficit was already cut in half of the projections. Gee, seems tax cuts work now just like they did when Regan did it. (Forget the “tax cuts for the rich” bit, it doesn’t fly.) If we can cut the “pork” and MY and your congressman lives on, we’ll be fine.

I think he’s done great considering what we’ve been through.

I don’t buy into the “poll numbers ploy”. Any poll results depend on “how” questions are asked and of “whom” they are asked. The media in general have become quite adept at “creating news” by running polls designed to progress their point.

I shudder to think where we'd be if Al Gore had been the Pres. on 9/11 or Kerry were in oval office now.. Now that's frightening...

Mike--Louisiana Resident

[WDWBetsy]

I shudder to think where we'd be if Al Gore had been the Pres. on 9/11 or Kerry were in oval office now.. Now that's frightening...
Mike--Louisiana Resident

Yeah - Gore and his administration probably would have paid more attention to the August 6, 2001 PDB (http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB116/pdb8-6-2001.pdf) . I really don't believe we would be in the Iraq mess. IMHO, I believe Bush was itching to invade Iraq. Am I glad Saddam is no longer in power? Sure. But before you start a war, you should probably have a better plan. :confused3

John McCain promoted Bush by saying, "He has been tested and has risen to the most important challenge of our time, and I salute him." Well, he certainly didn't rise to the most important challenge of 2005. He putzed around eating cake, posing for photos, promoting the Iraq war, and playing a little guitar. :rockband:

If Kerry were in office, I believe the response time by our federal government would have been faster. He's been in a war and knows how to react. That's my opinion. I shudder to think that people actually believed Bush's re-election claim to be the best candidate to keep America safe. Yeah - I feel a whole lot safer. :rolleyes1 He just said last night that four years after September 11th, Americans expect better. He took responsibility for the federal government's problems, and for its solutions. I'll keep my fingers crossed. And work to make sure my community improves our disaster plans.

[TnKrBeLlA012]

I never thought I would say this but I think Bush did not do a good job in the handling of this. Nor do I think Kerry would have either. What happened in New Orleans was a disaster waiting to happen. The people who had the power could have done something years ago when they were told of what could happen. They did nothing. Now we will all pay for this. The President is now srambling to repair the damage that has been done to him. Too little to late is what I think. I just wonder how prepared we will be if something else happens. Bush has really let me down. I hope my views change but for now I only hope the men and women we have over in Iraq will be leaving soon. What we are still doing there makes no sense. I for one believed in this war in the beginning but I have sinced changed my mind.

[ducklite]

I wouldn't care how "good a job" he does at this point. He blew it so big time that I think he's irreperably damaged. Not being aware of the suffering of his fellow American's, basically being completely out of touch with what was going on when the rest of us saw it. Unfortunately, our government was caught with their pants down. He is the commander in chief and directly responsible for his cabinet, including Homeland Security/FEMA.

Anne

[Lisa loves Pooh]

I don't care about his presidency. Repairing it is of little importance. The victims lives and towns need to be rebuilt/repaired.

He already has his popularity contest twice...decisions about this hurricane should be based on only 1 type of popularity...the victims it affected...and any future potential victims of natural or manmade disaster. Not what the polls would look like if there were legally a way for him to have a 3rd election.

[shortbun]

Ah, DisDuck, always seeing the glass as half-empty. ;) At least it's better than wvrevy's perspective of not seeing the glass at all!

If that's what it is, I gotta agree-no glass. Kinda like the President's New Clothes. So what IS the President wearing these days? :sunny:

And yeah, Lisa Loves Pooh is correct. The focus SHOULD be on those in crisis OTHER than the President.

[catherine]

[QUOTE=LandscapePro_318]I don't buy into the notion that his presidency is damaged. For that matter I don't buy into "slate" at all. [QUOTE]

It seems to me that Bush thinks that his presidency is damaged, or else I don't think that he and his advisors would be killing themselves to win over public opinion.

Personally I think that Slate is very balanced in reporting issues.They have several columnists that write from different points of view, so you end up with points for and against the various issues.

[wvrevy]

So, what's your favorite flavor, LandscapePro ? ;)

I just love your spin job turning every problem this inept president has caused into somehow being the Democrats' fault. :rotfl: You even reverted to the "what was he supposed to do, run screaming from the room?" defense for his inaction on 9/11 (as if there were no middle ground between acting like an idiot and sitting there like a deer in the headlights).

So...every poll out there - even from conservative sources like the Wall Street Journal, Washington Times, and Faux News - is biased against the president ? Since every poll shows that the majority of the people asked think he's doing a poor job on virtually every issue, that's the only conclusion that supports your argument. Frankly, if you believe that, I think it may be time to break out the tinfoil hats. :teeth:

Oh, and even if you want to argue that public opinion doesn't matter, you forget that Congress has an election coming up in about 14 months, and you can bet that they certainly don't agree with that. If the president wants to salvage even a small part of his second term agenda, he's got to scramble to fool...I mean, convince people that he knows what he's doing. The big ticket item on his agenda - social security reform - is already DOA. If he wants any support for anything else, he has to win back some of the popularity he had during his first term, or congress will just keep distancing themselves from him.

[dcentity2000]

Actually, he decided to enforce the sanctions imposed by the U.N. and agreements he signed after the first gulf war.
I'm curious, when's the war on Israel?

From a global security viewpoint, there must be SOME type of buffer zone between those nuts in Iran and the oil fields in Saudi. Like it or not those oil fields must be protected. That is unless the environmentalists want to shut the H*** up and let us get to the oil we have here.
Darn environmentalists, always trying to preserve the earth ;)

Partisanship? Yea. ROFL He may have been foolish by letting Ted Kennedy write the education bill, but partisan? Bush has reached out to the other side of the aisle more that he ever should have. It’s pointless but he tried. Nope. I think that “era” was ushered in by the Tom Daschel crew after “Slick” got caught lying to a grand jury while under oath. (Sorry it never was “just about sex”) When Al Gore got beat (not a single re-count to date has shown otherwise) it got worse. After the Kerry debacle…
...

I didn’t see the President “sitting frozen”. Oh wait, no he didn’t run screaming from the room full of children. Perhaps that was the required plan of action to satisfy the left. I do seem to remember several democrats admitting to “sitting numb” for 20 minutes trying to comprehend what had happened.
He looked completely frozen; watch the footage again. Of course, I don't blame him - I did the exact same thing and regard it as a very human reaction.

I think he’s done great considering what we’ve been through.
...

I don’t buy into the “poll numbers ploy”. Any poll results depend on “how” questions are asked and of “whom” they are asked. The media in general have become quite adept at “creating news” by running polls designed to progress their point.
Yah, 66% of statistics are made up anyway ;)

Mike--Louisiana Resident
If that IS your real name ;) J/k.



Rich::

[Planogirl]

Those of you who shudder to think of what Al Gore or anyone else would have done in the same situation, I want to borrow your crystal ball. I shudder to think of what has been done by this very President and that's enough for em.

Also, as for popularity and leadership not going hand in hand, wasn't President Reagan considered both a leader and popular by many of you? Maybe it's just something that President W can't handle.

[Free4Life11]

I don't care about his presidency. Repairing it is of little importance. The victims lives and towns need to be rebuilt/repaired.

I agree, well said.

[ThAnswr]

Bush gave himself another chance to screw up the other night and he took full advantage of the opportunity.

As usual, he's a day too late and a dollar too short. The speech he gave Thursday night was the one he should've given on August 30 while the nation was watching in horror at the devastation on the Gulf coast and New Orleans was sinking into anarchy and third world conditions. Instead, Bush waited and gives a "here's the grand job we're doing" speech that went over like a fart in church.

This latest 2nd chance came about because:

1) No bounce in approval after 3 visits to the Gulf Coast.

2) No bounce from the 9/11 anniversary

3) No bounce from the "federal government......made mistakes.......I take responsibility.......yada, yada, yada" monologue.

4) Apparently no bounce from Thursday night's "don't worry, George is in charge" laundry list of proposals without a price tag and no way to pay for it.

What's next.........Bush in a "Ghandi" costume with Laura as Lady Godiva?

So in answr to the OP, this was his 3rd or 4th "second chance" and he blew this one too.

[dcentity2000]

No bounce from the "federal government......made mistakes.......I take responsibility.......yada, yada, yada" monologue.
Seriously, no bounce? Man, if the polls haven't changed after that he's really stuffed.



Rich::

[Free4Life11]

Instead, Bush waited and gives a "here's the grand job we're doing" speech that went over like a fart in church.

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

[ThAnswr]

Seriously, no bounce? Man, if the polls haven't changed after that he's really stuffed.



Rich::

Seriously and it doesn't appear as if there's going to be a bounce. I don't know if you watched the Thursday night's speech or not, but it was surreal. To my admittedly biased eyes, there was no "there" there.

[Lisa loves Pooh]

Seriously and it doesn't appear as if there's going to be a bounce. I don't know if you watched the Thursday night's speech or not, but it was surreal. To my admittedly biased eyes, there was no "there" there.

As I cower in my conservative corner...i must finally admit...

The man looked like a puppet and someone else was doing the talking. He's not good at the warm and fuzzy speeches....not that this was a warm/fuzzy....he has the same diction when he speaks of tragedy as when he speaks of something celebratory as when he speaks of Saddam and Osama. I have tried to find a change in tone--and they all sound the same. However, I must qualify my statement--that though not tone deaf...I do require the assistance of those who are more musically qualified to assist me when learning music. So perhaps, Bush does change his tone..but it is too subtle for me to pick up on it.

The words were good...I do not for the least bit think that he lost all ounce of being human and is doing this just for a ratings boost. There are political conequences to be thought about--of course...politics will NEVER evacuate out of Washington DC. However..I do think he finally got his ticket on the clue bus...even if it was just an iddy biddy clue.

At this point--the actions matter first and foremost to those in the devestated areas...and then secondly to those who are in disaster prone areas.

I don't care why---I just care that there is follow through and results.