Posted on 09/17/2005 1:21:06 PM PDT by RWR8189
PRESIDENT BUSH, LIKE NO president in modern times, has guarded himself against a second-term slump. His most competent aides--the first team--stayed on at the White House. He has a sweeping agenda to keep staff busy and out of trouble. He has a majority in both houses of Congress. The economy, thanks to fresh tax cuts, is booming. Besides all that, Bush has always been lucky in politics.
But with Katrina, his luck betrayed him. There's little defense against a natural disaster that ranks among the worst in American history. Nor is the timing of such an event predictable (Bush and most of his top aides were on vacation). The president's partners in responding to the disaster were a panicky mayor of New Orleans and a do-nothing Louisiana governor. And even if the president had been inclined to deploy federal troops immediately, federal law discouraged him from doing that. So he didn't.
It's the turn in the president's luck and his difficulty in coping with it that has rattled both Bush and his aides. Obviously he can't dismiss his slow response to the hurricane as attributable merely to bad luck. The public wouldn't accept that from a president who prides himself on strong leadership in a crisis. Laying the blame where much of it belongs--on Louisiana officials--would be an act of political pettiness. Americans expect a lot from their presidents, especially when big things happen. Bush couldn't erase those expectations even if he tried. Wisely, he hasn't tried. But the situation has left him a bit flustered.
Two days before his first national address last week on the disaster--and to the surprise of his aides--the president gave an impromptu preview of his speech. The setting was a brief session with reporters as he welcomed Iraqi president Jalal Talabani to the White House. Bush was asked if Americans should be concerned that after Katrina the country isn't ready to deal with another disaster or terrorist attack. The president's response was basically yes.
"Katrina exposed serious problems in our response capability at all levels of government," he said. "And to the extent that the federal government didn't fully do its job right, I take responsibility." The press reveled in this answer, saying it came from a president who never admits mistakes.
The idea of accepting responsibility was on Bush's mind since he had already decided to include it in his speech to the nation from New Orleans two days later. And despite the premature comment, he left it in the speech. "Four years after the frightening experience of September 11th, Americans have every right to expect a more effective response in a time of emergency," he said. "When the federal government fails to meet such an obligation, I as president am responsible for the problem, and for the solution."
Indeed, he is. While Louisiana governor Kathleen Blanco continues to blame the Bush administration for her own failures, the president has fully taken command. He would have liked to give his major speech a week earlier. In fact, he seriously considered it. But he didn't "have his ducks in a row," a Bush adviser said. There hadn't been enough progress in immediate relief efforts on the Gulf Coast and his recovery plan hadn't been pulled together.
In the meantime, Bush has indulged in micromanagement, something he normally eschews. In briefings and discussions, he has delved into specifics. Having visited the disaster zone four times and talked extensively to officials on the ground, Bush has focused on making sure that what he's told in Washington reflects what's actually going on in Louisiana and Mississippi. This is partly a reaction to his feeling that he didn't get an accurate picture of what was happening in New Orleans in the days just after Katrina.
The recovery program Bush announced in his speech is characteristic of his brand of conservatism. It isn't small government conservatism: Washington has a huge role and the cost will be stupendous. But the federal government's job, in Bush's scheme, would be mostly as a catalyst and an example-setter. Of course his "worker recovery accounts" would be a handout to the hurricane victims. The $5,000 per person stipend is higher than initially planned by the administration. Bush himself insisted it be boosted from a lower figure.
The president's proposal would create a Gulf enterprise zone, slashing taxes and waiving regulations to make the area attractive to entrepreneurs. His emphasis on entrepreneurs may sound like Republican boilerplate, but Bush believes it. "It is entrepreneurship that creates jobs and opportunities. It is entrepreneurship that helps break the cycle of poverty, and we will take the side of entrepreneurs as they lead the economic revival of the Gulf region."
Democrats might want to turn the region into one gigantic public housing project, but Bush doesn't. He wants to promote home ownership, a key component of his vision of an "ownership society." Bush wants to open unused federal property to housing. Federal land would be given, through a lottery, to poor people for free. "In return," he said, "they would pledge to build on the lot, with either a mortgage or help from a charitable organization." Republicans, including those appalled at how much Bush wants to spend, will like this idea.
For political salvation, Bush needs more than a big plan. He needs his luck to return. Fortunately for him, the worst predictions of post-Katrina horrors aren't coming true. Instead of 10,000 dead in New Orleans, it's likely to be fewer than 1,000. Rather than pipelines and refineries out of commission for months, they're coming back on line in a matter of days. With luck, the recovery plan will get off the ground quickly, despite Democratic opposition and Republican qualms. And if it does, Bush's personal political recovery will be close behind.
Fred Barnes is executive editor of The Weekly Standard. His book on President Bush, Rebel-in-Chief, will be published in January by Crown Forum.
So the polls mean less than usual and he can simply do his job.
False premise Fred ole buddy.
No reason this can't turn out to be a win-win.
Depressing, but alas, the way of the world.
That's Bill Clinton not George Bush.
Again the press is wrong in their work.
Most presidents are not fortunate enough to inherit a recession. Or a major terrorist attack in a US city. And wasn't President Bush lucky that North Korea and Iran are both moving toward nuclear capability at the same time? While our troops are fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq?
Some guys have all the luck.
"Some guys have all the luck."
Well stated, good comment.
Send that to Fred.
Yes, this is some of Dick Morris stuff. He believes the 9-11 atttack was "lucky" for Bush, because he responded well and unitied us after the attack. But of course Bush and his advisors took on the war in Afghanistan and Iraq. The outcome of these wars is still uncertain.
Morris also thinks Katrina will end up being lucky for Bush. The media will cover story after story of grateful people seeing their very important city being rebuilt. Bush will ultimately not have to take responsibility for the storm, the people not evacuating fast enough, or the levee breaking. He will instead get to look presidential in news conference after conference.
In fact, the liberals already see Morris's point, because they are falling into the non-partisan mindset of defeated competitors. Donna Brazile just made a speech to this effect.
Now as far as this being luck or not, I believe leaders make their own luck, and Bush does have leadership skills and the ability to put good teams together. (I may not like everything he does, but neither does anyone else. In the end he will go down in history as a good man in office at a critical time.)
Yeah Barnes! Hurricanses are such lucky things to happen to a President. Ask Bush 41 about Andrew! Yutz!
Fred needs a vacation. I suggest Baghdad, Afghanistan or New Orleans.
Maybe Fred should submit to drug tests when he writes stuff like this.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1485930/posts
Misunderestimated: A Timeline of President George W. Bush's Successes, Despite Media and Democrats
September 16, 2005 | newyorker77
Posted on 09/16/2005 12:37:42 PM PDT by new yorker 77
MISUNDERESTIMATED:
1993, Summer - Mocked for trying to unseat Governor Ann Richards.
1994, Nov. – Defeats Governor Ann Richards to become Governor of Texas.
1998, Nov. – Becomes first Texas Governor to win re-election.
1999, Fall – Mocked for announcing a run for the Presidency.
2000, Winter – The media nominates John McCain for the Republican Party.
2000, Oct. – Mocked by media before three debates with Al Gore.
2000, Oct. – Wins all three debates against Al Gore.
2000, Nov. – Dirty trick unleashed by Gore Campaign and media.
2000, Nov. – Dan Rather calls Florida for Gore one hour before polls close.
2000, Nov. – Bush Wins election when Katherine Harris certifies Florida’s election.
2000, Nov. – Democrats try to steal election through courts.
2000, Dec. – Supreme Court stops Democrats from stealing the election
2001, Spring – Bush gets his first round of tax cuts passed.
2001, Summer – Jim Jeffords hands Senate control to Tom Daschle and the Democrats.
2001, Aug. – Bush Job Approval hits all-time low according to lib media polls.
2001, Sep. – 9/11/01 terrorist attacks destroy WTC and define Bush Presidency.
2001, Sep. – Bush has bullhorn moment at the WTC.
2001, Sep. – Bush galvanizes the nation in his speech before a joint session of Congress.
2001, Oct. – Democrats say Bush is dragging his feet on responding to the attacks.
2001, Oct. – The U.S. Military begins destroying the Taliban the next day.
2001, Oct. – Democrats say the War in Afghanistan is a quagmire in week one.
2002, Spring – Media and Democrats say Bush knew about 9-11 before it happened.
2002, Summer – Bush begins debate on removing Saddam Hussein.
2002, Sep. – Democrats say Bush is dragging his feet on dealing with Iraq.
2002, Sep. - Democrats demand Homeland Security Department.
2002, Nov. – Bush bets his popularity and the GOP wins back Senate, gains in House.
2002, Nov. – Homeland Security Act of 2002 passes to create new department.
2002, Dec. – Congress passes the Iraq War Resolution. Most Democrats support it.
2003, Mar. – War in Iraq begins.
2003, Apr. – Democrats call Iraq a quagmire one week after war starts.
2003, Apr. – Baghdad falls.
2003, Apr. – Media focuses on looting of Museum. Turns out most artifacts are fine.
2003, May – Bush gets 2nd round of tax cuts passed with GOP Senate helped elect.
2003, July – ‘Bad tan’ Joe Wilson becomes media darling when he lies about Niger.
2003, July – Uday and Qusay take permanent dirt knap.
2003, Aug. – Foreign terrorists begin car bombing. Media calls foreigners, insurgents.
2003, Sep. – Bush Job Approval hits all time low. Lower than previous low in Aug. 2001
2003, Dec. – Saddam Hussein is captured in Mosul. Democrats cry.
2004, Jan. – Dean implodes. Kerry becomes ‘electable’ savior.
2004, Jan. – David Kay becomes media darling with his WMD testimony.
2004, Jan. – Paul ‘mumbles’ O’Neill gets 60 Minutes red carpet.
2004, Jan. – Bush Job Approval hits new all-time low according to lib media polls.
2004, Feb. – Richard Clarke gets 60 Minutes red carpet. The horror. The horror.
2004, Mar. – Bush Job Approval hits new all-time low according to lib media polls.
2004, May – Abu Ghraib photos are paraded on 60 Minutes Wednesday.
2004, May – Bush Job Approval hits new all-time low according to lib media polls.
2004, June – 9-11 Commission becomes platform for the Jersey girls to bash Bush.
2004, Summer – Fahrenheit 9-11 anti- American propaganda film becomes media hit.
2004, Aug. – Anti-Bush liberals led by the very fat Michael Moore march in NYC.
2004, Sep. – Bush ends convention with a speech that crushes Democrats hopes.
2004, Sep. – 60 Minutes Wednesday gives America Memo-gate with a story on Bush.
2004, Sep. – 1,000th soldier dies in Iraq War. Democrats and media celebrate.
2004, Oct. – Bush mocked for poor performances against John Kerry in debates.
2004, Oct. – Afghanistan holds a successful First Presidential Election.
2004, Oct. - NY Times puts out fake story on missing ammo in Iraq.
2004, Oct. – Osama Bin Laden endorses John Kerry.
2004, Nov. – Fake Exit Polls produced by the AP on Election Day to discourage GOP.
2004, Nov. – Bush Wins Re-election 51 – 48 with over 62 Million votes.
2004, Nov. – GOP makes huge gains in both the Senate and the House.
2004, Nov. – Insane liberals claim the election in Ohio was stolen.
2005, Jan. – Sen. Barbara Boxer embarrasses herself by protesting the Election Results.
2005, Jan. – Democrats say the election in Iraq will be a blood bath.
2005, Jan. – 8 Million Iraqis vote. Their turnout nearly matches ours.
2005, Apr. – Lebanon defies Syria. Moves toward kicking them out.
2005, Spring – Terrorists begin large car bombing campaign in Iraq. Democrats celebrate
2005, July – Bush Job Approval hits new all-time low according to lib media polls.
2005, July – Media puts Karl Rove in jail. Media resurrects ‘Bad tan’ Joe Wilson.
2005, Aug. – Media gives bullhorn to Cindy Sheehan.
2005, Aug. – Iraqis create their First Constitution.
2005, Aug. – Hurricane Katrina blows Cindy Sheehan off the map.
2005, Sep. – Media and Democrats blame Bush for the delay in the response.
2005, July – Bush Job Approval hits new all-time low according to lib media polls.
2005, Sep. – Bush sends General Honore to take control. The military succeeds.
2005, Sep. – Bush delivers speech that uplifts America and demoralizes Democrats.
2005, Sep. - On the verge of having John Roberts confirmed. The Teflon Bork.
I guess even Fred Barnes needs at least some approval from the MSM. Maybe he is not getting invited to all the cool cocktail parties.
[For political salvation, Bush needs more than a big plan. He needs his luck to return. Fortunately for him, the worst predictions of post-Katrina horrors aren't coming true. Instead of 10,000 dead in New Orleans, it's likely to be fewer than 1,000. Rather than pipelines and refineries out of commission for months, they're coming back on line in a matter of days. With luck, the recovery plan will get off the ground quickly, despite Democratic opposition and Republican qualms. And if it does, Bush's personal political recovery will be close behind.]
This final paragraph is typical of McJournalists who spend too much time in micro analysis of the politics of a situation, and not enough time looking at what is the right or wrong action to take.
Notice all the references to luck in just this one paragraph: "needs his luck"... "Fortunately for him"... "it's likely to be"... "with luck". As if what happens politically is NOT the result of deliberate actions taken by the president and his allies according to a political ideology, and altered by the deliberate actions of his political adversaries according to their ideologies.
These are real people who have lost their homes and their livelihoods in the Gulf region because of an inevitable natural disaster that had nothing to do with Washington DC, despite the moaning and finger pointing of some who would wish to benefit politically from it. But the government will have a large role to play in the rebuilding, and genuine ideological differences will be competing for dominance in that process. That is as it should be, and treating as if it's all a political "game" with the only winners and losers being politicians in Washington DC is reprehensible.
What do you Bush supporters have invested in Bush?
I can't think of a better guy then Fred Barnes where the Media is concerned. Yet he publishes something that isn't an adoration of Bush and the knives come out.
I care that Republican policies triumph over Liberal policies but my loyalty to politicians, any politician, is similar to my loyalty to my car mechanic. I'm supportive as long as they do a good job as I can judge the result.
I remember about the time of Reagan funeral thinking that Bush may go down in history as greater then Reagan. Now I believe he may surpass Carter in the mess he will leave.
I presume after using it on Barnes your knives are still sharp enough to use on me.
"who does President Bush make into the front runner for 2008?"
I don't believe Bush has that power.
All I could hear in my mind was the remembrance of Democrats saying Bush was "lucky" to have 9-11 happen on his watch.
No President is lucky to have disaster on his watch. Whether it be a force of nature or a declaration of war by fanatics.
Clinton had natural disasters on his watch. We were attacked by terrorists on his watch. Was Clinton simply "unlucky" fortunes conspired against his control for a legacy?
Bush isn't Lucky. Clinton wasn't Unlucky.
Our current President is simply a Leader. He gets things done because it's his role to defend and prosper the nation's fortunes. More than not, he succeeds because he understands his role and is competant to the task before him.
I realize it is easy to get swept into the mindset of viewing everything from a political standpoint especially when you eside in D.C. Fred's a good guy, but I think he'd be horrified if he could step back and realize how average Americans react to the mindset a tragedy is "lucky" or "unlucky".
Dear Fred, please take yourself and the rest of the Standard elites and go on sabbatical....forever.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.