13% said George W. Bush is "most responsible for the problems in New Orleans after the hurricane"; 18% said "federal agencies"; 25% said "state and local officials"; 38% said "no one is to blame"; 6% had no opinion. -- 29% said that "top officials in the federal agencies responsible for handling emergencies should be fired"; 63% said they should not; 8% had no opinion....So 31% put the blame on the federal level and 25% put it at the state/local level. Why do they break down the federal response into Bush and federal agencies and then aggregate the state and local numbers? I guess it's the usual obsession with what everything means for Bush's popularity. No one cares anywhere near as much about the political fortunes of a particular mayor and governor. Yet the actions at the state and city level were quite different, and it's important to think hard about which level of government to trust in various situations.
10% said George W. Bush has done a "great" job in "responding to the hurricane and subsequent flooding"; 25% said "good"; 21% said "neither good nor bad"; 18% said "bad"; 24% said "terrible"; 2% had no opinion. -- 8% said federal government agencies responsible for handling emergencies have done a "great" job in "responding to the hurricane and subsequent flooding"; 27% said "good"; 20% said "neither good nor bad"; 20% said "bad"; 22% said "terrible"; 3% had no opinion. -- 7% said state and local officials in Louisiana have done a "great" job in "responding to the hurricane and subsequent flooding"; 30% said "good"; 23% said "neither good nor bad"; 20% said "bad"; 15% said "terrible"; 5% had no opinion.
I like that ordinary people don't go for the demands that someone ought to be fired. We've heard a lot of demands of this kind in recent years, and they usually strike me as beside the point — political rhetoric heated up and served by the party out of power. The new person will have to struggle with the real world difficulties too, and he or she will have less experience. Meanwhile, there will be a superficial impression that action has been taken. And the party out of power can gloat. It's not surprising that Bush doesn't respond to that sort of thing. But it is quite nice that the average person perceives the nature of the political game and disengages.
UPDATE: I talk about more recent polls here.
पोस्ट्स
३७ टिप्पण्या:
I wonder how peoples understanding of the rights and responsibilities of State and local governments and the laws limiting the role and power of the Federal government influenced this polls result.
"most responsible for the problems in New Orleans after the hurricane"
I'm an average ordinary person who wants to know who it is I should give credit for the successful evacuation of the 80% of New Orleans' population in the two days before the storm hit.
Also, is there a poll on who is most responsible for the problems in the rest of the coastal states after the hurricane or does CNN/USA Today/Gallup not find anything there to be poll worthy?
Actually, I think the Dems and the MSM are shocked by this polling. If you have been watching the MSM and reading the Times, one would have expected the blame Bush crowd to be in the 50%. I think the MSM assumed that the public was with them in their blame for Bush. Now it appears that the public is not with the MSM. Therefore, prepare to see the MSM take a different tact (and not report the results of the poll either...)
Madcat, do you think we should have replaced Brigadier General Eisenhower after the failure at Kasserine Pass? Instead some idiot had the gall to promote him...
madcat: spamming. is that a game?
No worries, madcat. Far be it from me to criticize other commenters' blogging etiquette.
Re: The new person will have to struggle with the real world difficulties too, and he or she will have less experience.
Less experience? Less experience than running an Arabian Horse Association? Or is your point that now we have someone who has done a thoroughly awful job during a disaster, but he *has* experienced the disaster; thus, we better keep him around.
Good Lord, your standards are low.
Jill: Yes, my point really is that whenever you fire someone, you are losing the experience they have in that job. That's not a low standard, that's a recognition of one of the factors in a rational decision that includes multiple factors.
Actually, I think the Dems and the MSM are shocked by this polling. If you have been watching the MSM and reading the Times, one would have expected the blame Bush crowd to be in the 50%.
I agree. I watched the Noon News on my NBC local affiliate today (checking for news of Ophelia) and for the absolutely first time (I don't have cable/Fox News) saw on TV what I would consider a scathing report on the hurricane preparations by the local and state officials. I was actually kind of stunned by this completely different slant and paid special attention at the end as to who had filed the report. It was Kitty Pilgrim of CNN which a quick Google revealed is a business reporter and regular correspondent for the Lou Dobbs show.
I'm not ready to defend Brownie, but on the issue of experience The MSM is being rather unfair to the man. He has been on the job for four years which is almost a career in washington. During that time we have had a number of hurricanes and other assorted disasters. Fema's response in those cases was lauded as exemplary. If Brown was better than average when Hurricanes hit Florida why is he suddenly incompetent here. It could be that the lack of local leadership in this case really was a deciding factor.
Fianally, I think that the average American recognizes that it takes time to mobilize resources even in favorable conditions. It is really a sign of how good we are at this that people demand instant and flawless responses to things like this.
It is one thing to say that my five kids should be able to turn off the TV and get in the van to go somewhere in less than five minutes. The reality is that it usually takes fifteen.
"...Ike got where he did based on merit, he wasn't an incompetent political hack who achieved his position because he knew someone who ran FDR's campaign..."
There were quite a few who believed Ike was an incompetent leader. After all, Eisenhower never had a combat command before North Africa and he failed miserably in his first scuffle with the Germans at Kasserine.
I don't know about Brown. My point is that there is a lot more to leadership than one particular incident.
I agree with boneusa. We have no idea what was going on. Example: Nagin talked about the private meeting between the gov and the pres and how she wanted 24 hours to think about it. We have no idea what the pres offered, why she wanted the time, or any other info. There's a political culture in NO, and we don't know what it is (though rumors are, it's not good). There are laws and limitations on the actions of governors and presidents, and we have no idea what role those laws and limitations had. There are logistical problems of which I doubt most people (me included) understand the full scope.
It's easy to look at a catastrophe and, from the midst of it, start yelling that someone has been ineffective, as if there is certain knowledge that things done differently would've produced a different result. Unfortunately, we don't REALLY have that certain knowledge.
Iraq is an example of not having that certain knowledge. We went in, did what we did, and we have the situation we have now. Had we not gone in, perhaps Saddam would've benignly resided in his palaces and caused no trouble. On the other hand, perhaps he would've reconstitued his bioweapons program and paid Zarqawi to deliver a serious blow to Los Angeles. We will never know. (And the right and left fervently disagree on which would've been the case.)
I literally just heard a Red Cross executive say that he thinks FEMA is about where they should be based on his experience. Go figure.
Actually I think there will be a series of firings in the wake of Katrina, just not in the government.
Neal Shapiro just stepped down as head of NBC News, Klein at CNN can consider his days numbered, the NYT leadership is in shambles, and the less said about the ChiTrib/LATimes the better.
Those that agreed with Bill Maher who said last week, "We got our media back" are now beginning to realize that what he really meant is that the small cadre of coastal elites finally lifted the thin veil of feigned objectivity from their snarling contemptous maws with regards to their opinion of the current administration and the plurality of americans that support them.
That plurality is noticing, and listening, and once again they are tuning out the shrill voices from left of center and they are making choices (possibly for a long time to come) about what brand of news they will continue to consume.
Some have already pulled way back (ABC, NBC) others continue the charge (CNN, CBS, NYT) while others are getting a lot of credit for being much more of an honest broker than they had previously been deemed (FNC), if you want proof read the coverage at the TVNewser blog, never a fan of FNC, they have been commenting that the best most consistent coverage has come from Rupert Murdoch's evil empire and the ratings numbers show that the viewers are agreeing.
Ann, Brown's experience gained on this job ought to be a tiny, microscopic, miniscule, don't give it much credence, factor in deciding whether to keep him on. As for calling for his being fired, this is a unique situation, and not just political symbolism. FEMA still has much work to do, and need good leadership to get it done.
I just can't follow that logic--the man performed poorly, is performing poorly, wasn't qualified for the position to begin with, but it's okay, he'll grow on the job? Only with jobs that don't have "emergency" in the title can I see that as a rational factor.
Defending Brownie on the grounds that, having the experience of miserably failing to protect our nation in the aftermath of this tragedy is, after all, experience, only reveals that this blog is not reality-based.
Brownie blew it. Chertoff blew it. FEMA and Homeland Security blew it.
In the wake of a catastrophic failure, there needs to be accountability.
Case closed.
Things are changing so fast that it may take some time to see who should get the ax and how protocols need to change.
What's really surprising to me is how the polling against Bush is falling, in spite of (or maybe because of) the histrionics of the Dems. Is Harry Reid actually serious that we should investigate the issue of Bush's vacation? They seem completely tone deaf. I can't see one good thing for them using this campaign, except maybe keeping Dems in control of LA reconstruction money.
madcat when you say "I've acknowledged mistakes by both locals and feds, Democrats and Republicans, I've tried to no avail to convey that this is NOT about politics... it's about the horror of all the lives that were lost last week and the desperate need to make sure it never happens like this again" it means nothing. You've criticized Bush and/or one of his appointees, and that's pretty much beyond the rules of the right-leaning blog commenters. While most of the posters here are reasonable and simply argue from a set of assumptions that are at odds with my values and beliefs about government, there are others that I'd bet supported every flea-bitten investigation of every shady rumor about Clinton, starting the day after he was first elected. But question Bush's judgment or actions and it's suddenly "hold on, we don't know this, we don't know that, can we really make that judgment?, you're just a deranged Bush hater..." Get used to it, because it's going to keep happening. I think a few folks might actually be software programs, set to search blog comments for certain terms and churn out canned, frequently non-sequitur, responses.
Fortunately, the blog itself is more complex and wideranging than most you'll find, left, right or center, and that keeps me coming back.
tcd, madcat didn't say that at all. You're misquoting him, and I can see that for myself. My comments were not about you specifically, but in response to madcat's surprise at the tone of some--not just yours, I took it--comments.
madcat: I think I love you.
And yes, unfortunately, this is the way it works. People are completely partisan and hate the other side entirely. Meanwhile, they don't realize that they themselves come off as total idiots in defending every. single. aspect of their 'side.'
Oh, well. You could be Mother Theresa, and tcd would accuse you of being a lying liberal.
Hope all works out well with your loved ones involved with Katrina.
"...The Republican party is at great risk of losing their southern electoral stronghold right now..."
I just don't get where people are coming up with this? Do you actually think people blame Bush for the Hurricane and Flood? Gallup just did a poll where only 13% of the nation blamed Bush for the disaster.
The attacks on the Federal government are way over done. For example, someone above stated in regards to FEMA..."in the wake of a catastrophic failure, there needs to be accountability."
I am still trying to figure out where the "catastrophic" failure is? Is it the supposed 24 hour delay? Someone explain to me how that was "catastrophic." If you want an example of catastrophic failure, look at the HMS Titanic, or Rome's defeat at Cannae.
Conservatives criticise the Louisana governor and the mayor only to point out the fallacy of the left's attack on Bush. In reality most conservatives wonder why so many people choose to stay in New Orleans and face the music, and why so many people relied on the government rather than themselves or their families.
In the end, we want the government to maintain a civil society, not to bail us all out for our personal and community failures.
Adam, in a word, no. I did not indicate that it's not worth talking with anyone with whom one disagrees. My point, as I think Larry goes on to illustrate very well, is that one should not be surprised to find that there will inevitably be some with whom there is no point arguing.
Sloan, I don't think "the only reason conservatives criticize Blanco and Nagin is to point out the fallacy of the left's attack on Bush," but I did want to say that your comment is another illustration supporting my point that Adam twisted. You very cogently sum up the assumptions that sum up some conservative reaction to the Katrina crisis, i.e., what you say about the role of the federal government in emergency management. I don't think it's hypocritical or useless to debate that assumption with you or others who hold that view. I think that's vital to maintaining a strong American culture.
Madcat, I just dont get your hurry to can Brown as head of FEMA. Brown has performed well for the last three years, and the only identifiable error made could be that he was 24 hours delayed in providing relief. Although we really don't know the truth behind this.
FEMA is going to be charged with spending $50 billion over the next year. Brown has already shown he can do this efficiently and well in other disasters. Why would you dump him now? It doesn't make any sense from a practical/management point of view.
People keep calling Brown "incompetent" and then point to the one example of the supposed delay in providing relief to some citizens in New Orleans. It's ridiculous.
"...Plus, they're just black and poor anyways; it's not like anyone will miss them!..."
So are you implying that Brown delayed rescue efforts because he dislikes black and poor people?
Oh truly, Larry. The right is always so understanding and willing to listen to any valid points the left is willing to make. You're all so wonderful, and we're all so evil.
Time for an update. The American public, perhaps no a bit more removed, is realizing the Federal government's ineptitude and incompetence: 58% disapprove of Bush's handling.
Obviously the public thinks that now is a good time to start the finger pointing!
tcd, calling my posts "screeching" proves you really have no point other than to vilify. I am happy to be an object of your disdain.
tcd, I see some distinction in what you point to in your quote, but I do think madcat said a great deal more than that that mitigates the notion of Democrats being purely altruistic. My impression is that he is trying to challenge the zero-sum positions on left and right.
And I can tell you from my point of view, I want an effective FEMA, not a political scalp on my belt. Brown is not an effective leader, and sadly, but we can't count on Bush to objectively evaluate the performance of his ranking appointees. His years in office have shown that he passes the buck down much lower, and protects his own. And by the way, I'm not a Democrat.
I want a full, objective analysis of what went right and what went wrong with the city, state and national response to Katrina, and I accept that blame will fall on both parties, and all levels of government. My complaints are with people on the right and on the left who are determined to protect their parties or leaders from examiniation and accountability. Because this blog's commentators tend to lean right, and Ann Althouse, while a moderate, has a pro-Bush reflex, I end up repeating quite a bit of the Bush criticism in attempt at balance. I wish there were opportunities for more even-handed discussion. I'm open to it.
Thanks for your good wishes, and be assured that I don't consider to have been rude--no apologies necessary.
Just wondering--is it time to update this post, Ann, with CBS and Zogby polls showing different figures, with b/w 58% and 60% disapproving of Bush's handling of Katrina? I'm not particularly enamored of poll chasing, but if the 38% figure called for it, does fairness demand keeping up with changes?
Explanation of the liberal view
1) Why Brown is incompetent
After refugees had been at the Superdome for 2 days, Brown said on national tv that FEMA was not aware of any refugees at the Superdome.
After the storm hit, Brown requested 1000 FEMA personnel to come down, and gave them 2 days to arrive.
2) Why liberals jumped into "bush-bashing"
The administration and its flacks rather quickly began pushing outright falsehoods to defend the federal delays, aka, Blanco wouldnt declare an emergency (she declared it before the storm hit), its the locals' job to call in the feds (DHS has primary authority and responsiblity once an emergency is declared, and, again, this was done before the storm hit), there was not one but TWO disasters (as if the levees breaking could have occurred without Katrina), and, most egregiously, the statement "nobody could have predicted the levees breaking" (in fact, of course, many had predicted such an occurrence in the event of a Cat 4 hurricane, and this reminds people of similar false statements like "nobody could have predicted terrorists using airplanes as weapons" when, naturally, it had been hypothesized).
These egregious face-saving falsehoods, on top of the fact that the appointees running the show all had zero disaster management experience (compared to Clinton's people, who are professors in disaster management), is what led to the liberal outpouring of rage.
3) Why Harry Reid questioned Bush's vacation
Bush continued to participate in photo-ops, including playing a guitar in public, after the crisis began. Secretary of State Condi Rice famously went shopping on 5th Avenue. These careless acts, when the heads of the administration should have been holed up in dark rooms planning the region's rescue and recovery, are appalling and, in and of themselves, signs of dire incompetence.
Elizabeth: Seems like those polls are asking a different question.
Looking at the CNN/USA poll, the first question aims at apportioning blame, but there was also a section of rating government performance, which is what the CBS poll today does. Would you mind elaborating on the difference, and why these two recent polls stating poor approval for Bush are not relevant?
"...These careless acts, when the heads of the administration should have been holed up in dark rooms planning the region's rescue and recovery, are appalling and, in and of themselves, signs of dire incompetence...."
How could they see if they are in dark rooms?
Heh heh--can't see in the dark! 'cause that's the point, Sloan, after all.
I've seen Bush as a sort of shadow Prince Hal, whose sun never comes out from behind the clouds of his immaturity to reveal the shining hero of Agincourt. But maybe I'm using the wrong metaphor; this adminstration increasingly reminds me of pre-revolution France. Condi's gone shopping (she does look hot in a fine pair of shoes!), the King is well-rested on his estate, and his viceroy's buying a home in the country while the southland floods. Mais oui, it is tacky of me to point this out; so unsophisticated, and lacking in humor. Your quip, on the other hand, captures the French court's appreciation of form over substance! Oh, and we even have Barbara Bush's "let them eat cake" line about the Astrodome refugees. The resemblance is downright eerie.
No doubt someone will froth up with a serious reply, critiqing my comparison in minute, analytical detail. But don't bother; it's just a flight of fancy--don't get your panties in a wad.
Well, I am always a sucker for historical comparisons. So I welcome yours. Regardless of the truth of the characteristics you cite about the French Court, your comparison doesn't bold well for the populist opposition who would then lead our great country into a devestating reign of terror followed by a more devestating dictatorship. Thus, perhaps it would be better for the people to understand the real reality of things to avoid the risk of uprisings because of populist symbolism.
I would chalk up the various sentiment to traditional American political criticism going back to accusations of Jefferson's slave mistress.
Sloan, yes, it's an omninous comparison all around, and I'm sure the images of mass upheaval in NOLA worked subliminally on my imagination as well. The failed Prince Hal metaphor still works, too.
Prince Hal Only in your eyes Elizabeth.
On the international side, George W. Bush's historical legacy will fall on the failure or success in Iraq. If the Iraq policy is successful, democracy will certianly spread throughout the region and Bush will be a grand historical figure who changed the world as we know it. If it fails, Bush will be forgotten.
On the domestic front, no one remembers good economies, so Bush will get nothing from the economy. I think Bush has a chance to resolve some of the New Deal problems with his ownership society ideas, but I think that will be delayed until the crisis is actually upon us (and for another President).
Bush may be able to set a legacy on the Supreme Court (for good or ill depending on what side you agree with).
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा