Maybe it’s a little too soon to get excited, but this development made me a lot more hopeful for the course of our country.
I quoted Sen. Lindsey Graham the other day as saying, "I think the president is learning from Katrina. I see this president adjusting." I said then I thought I saw some of the same things.
I’m even more encouraged now. The president who refused twice to accept Donald Rumsfeld’s resignation after the Abu Ghraib debacle did enormous strategic harm to this nation and its war effort may actually be learning that sometimes you have to own up to mistakes, and act to rectify them.
I still don’t think he’d accept Sec. Rumsfeld’s resignation if it were offered again — after all, the Bushes value loyalty (a little too much), and Rummy’s too high up in the family — but the president’s recent attitude toward his administration’s handling of Katrina is at least encouraging.
Well, the new W who can admit error arrived on day 1698 of his presidency. But it is encouraging as you say. What is encouraging is that the outrage expressed by so many, across the political spectrum, actually did in the end have some effect on the actions of our leaders. It’s a lesson worth remembering. Less encouraging are the poll numbers out today showing the starkly different perspectives on the Katrina response from white vs. black point of view. Sadly, it’s another reminder of the deep divisions in our midst. But again, if Sen. Graham is right that the President has “learned” from Katrina, an opportunity exists for him now to reach across that divide.
Phillip, Bush has been reaching across that divide his entire political career. The most direct evidence of that is the people he has surrounded himself with as his most trusted aides. What would you suggest that he do to close the divide? I hope the answer is not more welfare giveaways, race based quotas, racial preferences, or slavery reparations. My take on this is like two people shaking hands. If only one extends the hand to shake (as Bush has) and the other does not, there will be no joining of hands.
Bush does not speak ill of his political opponents in the House and Senate except in very general terms. Nor does he dump on governors and other elected officials, no matter how idiotic they act. See my latest post. While I agree that he’s too non-judgmental of his subordinates, I continue to disagree with your assessment of Rummy. Abu Ghraib was an aberration – six morons who tried to lose the war – that can’t be tied to the Big Dog no matter how hard the WaPo tries. Try this quiz or take a look at this timeline.
In another positive step, the aptly named LA gov has also stepped up to the plate.
If you really do want a scapegoat — somebody to fire — this guy looks like the best suspect. He wears two hats – head of Louisiana’s Department of Homeland Security and commander of the LA NG. It looks like he also kept the Salvation Army out of New Orleans, in addition to the Red Cross.
Conservatives’ greatest disappointment is the Bush administration’s inability to reduce expenditures. I durn near spilled my Chianti when I read this. There are those who say DeLay was being ironic, perhaps setting a trap. I’m not laughing yet, in fact I may cry along with this guy.
Last week I noted that there was a bit of spare change in the highway bill. Looks like the grand rebuilding of the Big Easy will be added to the tab my great-grandchildren will have to bear.
David, the point about Bush’s “most trusted aides” gets a little close to the “hey, some of my best friends…” riposte. No, you know in your heart that “reaching across the divide” does not mean “race-based quotas” or “slavery reparations.” It does mean, among other things, reversing the policies of income redistribution to the wealthy and re-orienting the billions and billions spent on neo-con geopolitical experiments like Iraq towards the truly dire predicaments we face at home (for example, 45 million without health insurance).
On a positive note, even since Mr. Warthen’s blog above, the President’s comments to the UN get my vote for the most encouraging words I’ve heard from his mouth since he took office.
Phillip –
I posted my response to your comment, but since TheColumbiaRecord is moderated, it won’t appear for a bit.
In taking issue with your comment on income distribution, I note that almost anything the feds fund that’s high tech will skew the income distribution upwards: alternative energy, biomed, higher ed, etc. funds folks who in the fourth and fifth quintiles (over $53K in 2001 dollars). I cite and comment on Greenspan’s remarks, but here, for the first time, cite this analysis. Here’s the pertinent excerpt:
The writer goes on to say that because of our tax code, non-salary benefits are both cheaper for the employer and more valuable to the employee.
To get a good idea of where I’m coming from, I suggest A New Road to Serfdom? and this little ditty on dirty little secret of the poverty rate