Man, you need to start a blog and link it in your sig here telling us about what's going on over there from your perspective -or- just start a thread here on the BBS.
It was a decent speech, (a great speech by Bush's standards) and if the administration actually followed through, it would be a historic opportunity to address long festering issues of poverty and race, while rebuilding the region. But guess who's in charge of the reconstruction effort. Karl Rove!!! Why is Bush's chief political advisor, with no experience in disaster relief and reconstruction, in charge of what will be the largest federal reconstruction project of our life times? Because like with everything else this Administration does, politics trumps substance, and with billions and billions of dollars to disburse, this is too good of an opportunity to waste. By ELISABETH BUMILLER and RICHARD W. STEVENSON Published: September 15, 2005 Bush to Focus on Vision for Reconstruction in Speech Republicans said Karl Rove, the White House deputy chief of staff and Mr. Bush's chief political adviser, was in charge of the reconstruction effort, which reaches across many agencies of government and includes the direct involvement of Alphonso R. Jackson, secretary of housing and urban development. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/15/politics/15bush.html
David Corn Thu Sep 15,11:10 PM ET Bush's Big (and Easy) Speech in New Orleans http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/2...tj9wxIF;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl The Nation -- George W. Bush does not do the Big Speech thing well. How many times has a fretting White House dispatched Bush to deliver a Big Speech to rally popular support for the Iraq war? Four, five, more? I've lost count. And I seem to recall a Big Speech meant to revive his Social Security plan. None of those other Big Speeches did much for Bush or the flagging policy he was trying to advance. In fact, he hasn't succeeded with a Big Speech since the immediate post-9/11 period. Still, on Thursday night, it was time to try again--this time while standing in front of a podium in an empty Jackson Square in New Orleans. On this occasion, Bush's aim was not to shore up an initiative upon which the public had soured but to change the Hurricane Katrina narrative from what-went-wrong (a tale in which Bush and his aides played prominent roles) to what-we're-going-to-do (a brand new story in which Bush can recast himself as a hands-on leader, not a fly-over incompetent.) Will this work? Can Bush pivot from being a president who presided over a post-disaster disaster and earned well-deserved criticism from across the ideological spectrum (neocon commentator Bill Kristol conceded Bush is not always "good on execution") to being a chief executive able to oversee the most massive reconstruction in American history in an effective and visionary manner? One speech is not going to bring about such a transformation. His administration's response to Katrina sparked outrage and disappointment that will not soon recede. My hunch is that many Americans are in a show-me mood. After Bush won the last election with less than 51 percent of the vote, this fellow claimed he had amassed political capital that he could spend as he saw fit. He was wrong. And his political capital--if recent polling is to be believed--seems to be, like his budgets, in deep deficit. That was before Hurricane Katrina, when the mess in Iraq and high gas prices were dominating the bad news. So Bush will not be getting off cheap with a moderately well-delivered speech in which he expressed noble sentiments and presented reasonably sounding--though generalized--proposals for assisting the victims of Hurricane Katrina and for rebuilding the Crescent City and other areas of the Gulf Coast. There is, as he might say, much hard work to do. It remains to be seen if his administration--which, this tragedy has demonstrated, fancies cronyism over competence--can do a better job in NOLA than it has in Iraq. In Jackson Square, Bush declared, "We will do what it takes. We will stay as long as it takes." Where have we heard that before? There will be tough decisions and policy and political battles ahead. Can Bush rise above himself? In this speech, he offered broad strokes and grand promises of assistance and reconstruction. But he mentioned only three specifics, calling for setting up $5000 employment training funds for displaced workers, selling off federal property in the area to homesteaders, and creating a Gulf Opportunity Zone. This last idea is based on a policy hobbyhorse long favored by conservatives: create tax-free-zones free of regulations in hard-hit areas to encourage companies to set up shop there. Can this be done in a manner so that corporations don't end up dumping employees elsewhere and rushing to the GOZ to take advantage of depressed conditions there? With all money that will be heading toward New Orleans and the region--the estimated price tag for reconstruction appears to be several hundred billion dollars--won't there be enough incentive for businesses to flock to the region? Bush clearly has decided to throw money at what he called "one of the largest reconstruction efforts the world has ever known." But this enormous project will be managed by folks who don't like government. The Bush White House and Republicans in Congress were poised to cut tens of billions of dollars from Medicaid, student loan programs and food stamps prior to Katrina. But now Bush has committed himself to spending far more than that on reviving the Gulf Coast and NOLA. Can the Bush gang manage this task better than they have managed contracting in Iraq? Bush, sensitive to this point, noted that he would dispatch inspectors general to guard against fraud. (Good idea. Why not do the same in Iraq?) But he and his gang have not been so fastidious about the use of taxpayer funds elsewhere. Can he devise a system in which Halliburton and other mega-firms are not the big winners? Does he care to? Or course, there was no mention of how to pay for this. That was in keeping with standard accounting practices in Bushland. He said about suspending--or, dare one say it, pushing back--the tax cuts he has handed to the wealthiest of Americans. He has placed his war in Iraq on the national credit card, further weakening the financial standing of the country. Will he do the same with New Orleans? Bush did acknowledge that Katrina has revealed the fault lines of race and poverty in American society. How could he not? He conceded the federal government had not responded appropriately. Again, how could he not? He said he would review the government's performance, and he endorsed a congressional investigation (which, as of now, is to be controlled by Republicans). He offered no words of support for an independent and bipartisan investigation. Consequently, it seems that Republicans will be investigating Republicans. Perhaps Bush will put Dick Cheney in charge of his review. Toward the end of the speech, Bush proclaimed, "I, as president, am responsible for the problem and the solution." But prior to his photo-op speech from Jackson Square, he had already proven the first part of that statement. He has much distance to go--to wade, to slog--to prove the latter.
here is a tidbit about last night's *show* ... Brian Williams http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9314188/#050916 I am duty-bound to report the talk of the New Orleans warehouse district last night: there was rejoicing (well, there would have been without the curfew, but the few people I saw on the streets were excited) when the power came back on for blocks on end. Kevin Tibbles was positively jubilant on the live update edition of Nightly News that we fed to the West Coast. The mini-mart, long ago cleaned out by looters, was nonetheless bathed in light, including the empty, roped-off gas pumps. The motorcade route through the district was partially lit no more than 30 minutes before POTUS drove through. And yet last night, no more than an hour after the President departed, the lights went out. The entire area was plunged into total darkness again, to audible groans. It's enough to make some of the folks here who witnessed it... jump to certain conclusions.
You know what we really need here is a reality TV show about living in post-Katrina NOLA. If the show is risque enough, Fox might air it.
Bush proclaimed, "I, as president, am responsible for the problem and the solution." See http://www.9-11pdp.org/press/2005-09-14_report.pdf ... What were those poll numbers again?
Something I forgot to add when I started this thread was that GWB kept mentioning Alabama and Mississippi (Republican strongholds) along with Louisiana (battleground state which might be heading back to blue thanks to W). Not to diminish what kind of damage a Cat 4 storm with a 25+ ft surge to the coastal regions of Alabama and Mississippi, but the flooding of NOLA is where most of the damage (% wise) exists. The more I thought about the speech and the political nature the Rove WH, the more I am certain that the Rove WH will find some way to line Republican pockets with paybacks. The rebuilding of NOLA must be Rove's nightmare. NOLA is likely a Democratic stronghold. Spending big $$$ in NOLA may not change that. Where would the political win be for Rove to exploit? The easy solution to Rove's problem would be include Alabama and Mississippi into the debt relief package, disproportionately so.
I'm glad you brought up AL and MS because I've heard some complaints coming from those states too about the slowness of Fed. relief. Unfortunately in terms of media attention and aid those states, especially the rural areas, are being overshadowed by NOLA.
Bush Katrina Ratings Fall After Speech September 18, 2005--Thirty-five percent (35%) of Americans now say that President Bush has done a good or excellent job responding to Hurricane Katrina and its aftermath. That's down from 39% before his speech from New Orleans. The latest Rasmussen Reports survey shows that 41% give the President poor marks for handling the crisis, that's up 37% before the speech. Fifty percent (50%) of Americans favor the main proposal from that speech--a federal commitment of $200 billion to help rebuild New Orleans. Twenty-seven percent (27%) are opposed and 23% are not sure. The spending plan has not been well received by conservative voters--just 43% favor the huge federal commitment partisan while 37% are opposed. This is especially striking given how supportive the President's base has remained throughout his Administration. The President's reconstruction plan is favored by 66% of liberal voters. Still, only 10% of liberals give the President a good or an excellent rating for handling the crisis. Following the speech, the President's rating for handling the Katrina crisis fell eight points among Republicans (from 71% good or excellent to 63%). The President also draws good or excellent marks from 11% of Democrats and 31% of those not affiliated with either major political party. Fifty-seven percent (57%) of black voters support the federal reconstruction spending while just 17% are opposed. Among white voters, 49% favor the spending and 29% are opposed. This is the first Bush Administration proposal hat has attracted more support from black Americans than from white Americans. Consumer confidence has recovered from its post-Katrina lows, but not from the surge in oil prices that preceded Katrina. Hmmm. Looks like his Republican base did not like what they heard. Maybe GWB should not have played the racial card.
The Hurrieder President Bush Goes, The Behinder He Gets 3 polling days after George W. Bush's prime-time speech to the nation from Jackson Square in New Orleans, a "can't win" dynamic is unfolding for the President, according to exclusive SurveyUSA data gathered Friday 9/16, Saturday 9/17 and Sunday 9/18. The number of Americans who now approve of the President's response to Hurricane Katrina is down: 40% today compared to 42% before he announced the Gulf Opportunity Zone. The number of Americans who disapprove of the President's response to Katrina is up: 56% today compared to 52% before the speech. Bush went from "Minus 10" on his Response to Katrina before the speech to "Minus 16" today. One way to make sense of these numbers is to look at the number of Americans who today say the Federal Government is doing "too much" for Katrina victims. That's up to 16% today, more than triple what the number has been on 7 of the 19 days that SurveyUSA has conducted daily tracking since the storm. The more cash President Bush throws on the fire, as compensation for what some see as an inadequate initial response, the more it antagonizes his core supporters. Consider, for example: the number of Whites who today say the Government is "not doing enough" for Katrina victims is statistically the same as the number of Whites who say the Government is doing "just the right amount." (41% "right amount"; 40% "not enough.") The number of Blacks who today say the Government is "not doing enough" is 51 percentage points higher than the number of Blacks who say the Government is doing the "right amount" (70% "not enough"; 19% "right amount.") That's a 53-point disagreement between Whites and Blacks on this question. What other poll results point to the conclusion that the President is damned if he does, and damned if he doesn't? 41% of Americans today say that the city of New Orleans should be rebuilt with "private money," the highest that number has been in the 19 days since the storm. The number of Americans who today say New Orleans should be rebuilt with "public money" is 27%, as low as it has been in 19 days of daily tracking.
