The blurred line between crises

I’ll describe the disaster, you name it. There’s a problem in the Gulf region, the seriousness of which the president has been reluctant to appreciate. Objective experts have offered Bush warnings, which he has ignored. The White House has had trusted loyalists responsible for addressing the crisis, but they turn out to be tragically inept. The result is a catastrophe, with mass casualties, a $200 billion price tag, and a political mess that embarrasses the United States on the global stage and causes Bush’s approval rating to tank.

OK, it could be one of two things. It’s those similarities, however, that are apparently causing Bush some trouble — so much so that he’s now inclined to combine the two.

At an event at the Pentagon yesterday, for example, a reporter asked the president about “the country’s ability to pay for these hurricanes.” Bush responded:

“I’m going to work with Congress to prioritize what may need to be cut. The other day I said that we’re open-minded about offsets. What’s a priority for me is to win this war on terror and secure the country, and to help the people down there to the extent that the law allows.”

What does the war have to do with hurricanes? Nothing. And yet, the segue between fighting in Iraq and assisting hurricane victims in the U.S. was seamless, if not awkward.

Oddly enough, this keeps happening. Earlier this week, Bush linked terrorism and hurricanes while speaking to the Republican Jewish Coalition.

“You know, something we — I’ve been thinking a lot about how America has responded, and it’s clear to me that Americans value human life, and value every person as important. And that stands in stark contrast, by the way, to the terrorists we have to deal with. You see, we look at the destruction caused by Katrina, and our hearts break. They’re the kind of people who look at Katrina and wish they had caused it. We’re in a war against these people. It’s a war on terror.”

Again, he was mixing the two together as if they were two sides of the same coin. He did the same thing a week and a half earlier at an event with Iraqi President Talabani.

It seems to be part of a new strategy. Not surprisingly, it doesn’t make a lot of sense.

It’s almost as if the president (or more likely, Karl Rove) has decided the way to boost the president’s standing with the public is to attach the war to every challenge, whether it makes sense or not. As John Dickerson noted, this is, at best, a flawed strategy.

The political problem Bush faces, of course, is that the majority of the country does not support his leadership on either event [Iraq and Katrina], or see what they have in common. If most people mention the two in the same breath, it is probably to link them as Bush administration screw-ups. Logic aside, it’s hard to see how Bush’s political standing will improve through his effort to connect one major policy failure to another.

Of the two disasters, Iraq remains the bigger political problem. According to the USA Toda/CNN/Gallup poll, 41 percent of the country trusts his leadership in handling the hurricane; only 32 percent approve of his leadership in Iraq. Bush’s standing on Katrina is likely to improve as he signs more bills and heralds signs of recovery. Iraq doesn’t provide such obvious opportunities. All that Bush can do there at the moment is continue to reframe his old arguments. This may explain the metaphoric association he is now trying to draw. Using Katrina as a rallying cry, Bush implies that the problems facing us in the war on terror are intractable (like poverty) and inevitable (like the weather).

The idea, as far as the White House is concerned, is probably to boost Bush’s standing as someone who can be counted on in a pinch. Bush, they say, can handle a crisis, so we can trust him to handle Iraq and Katrina.

Except this doesn’t make any sense. First, no one seems to approve of his handling of either. Second, by forcing to the completely different crises together, Bush is only reminding everyone of his tragic failings.

I realize political circumstances may be getting desperate at the White House, but if this is their best strategy, they’re in even more trouble than I thought.

Yes this is strategy in more than one way. First strategy, is the obvious change the subject and talk about what they want to talk about and answer the question they want to answer not the one asked. Second strategy, distration from the real question. Last strategy is a bit fuzzier. It is a strategy of playing to what he thinks is is strength. The administration has framed everything in terms of 9/11 and by the adminstration’s extension, Iraq. They think Iraq is a winning discussion/strategy and he is sticking to it even if he looks stupid doing it.

It is more than a bit pathalogocal.

  • I’m beginning the suspect that Bush has no moral center, at all. He may not even be a fully formed human.

    The degree to which he is manipulated by circumstances and other people (Rove) in order to win approval and be proved right seems, to me, to border on the psychotic. “Stay the course” might be a sign of mental illness.

    It seems that from the last days of his vacation to the eve of this next major storm, he’s practically taken up residence on the Gulf Coast and turned Hurrican Alley into Photo-op City. And this now all has the appearance of Bush, literally taking over direct control of DHS and FEMA, which puts him into the category of people in charge who don’t know anything about emergencies.

    But he will certainly leave the impression of being That Hands-On President and don’t you ever forget it.

  • The Rude Pundit spoke of this and addresses it in a way only the Rude Pundit can.

    And, hey, as far as I care, let him tie the war in Iraq and the Katrina together. They both appear to be dragging him down and two anvils are better than one…

  • Bush’s inability to come up with any ideas and to accomplish anything constructive is becoming obvious–the elephant in the living room that many are just starting to notice. And now he’s floundering, pathetically trying to patch together some combination that makes him look good. Tough assignment.

  • I kind of like this one:

    ” it’s clear to me that Americans value human life, and value every person as important. And that stands in stark contrast, by the way, to the terrorists we have to deal with. You see, we look at the destruction caused by Katrina, and our hearts break. They’re the kind of people who look at Katrina and wish they had caused it.”

    So, um, we look at the destruction caused by our illegal
    invasion of Iraq, and our hearts [don’t] break. And we’re
    the kind of people who look at the wreckage of Iraq and
    know that we caused it.

    I kind of like the one, too, about doing what the law
    allows down there, because we sure didn’t worry
    about what the law allows over there.

    Very parallel indeed.

  • The only thing he has going for him is the fear factor. Terrorism = fear = support = control. So anytime he can mix in the fear factor, he will. He has to.

    Kind of ironic that one leader who governed through fear (Saddam) was taken out by another leader who governs through fear (Bush). Takes one to know one, I guess.

  • The difference between us and the terrorists is that when we look at the victims of Katrina, our hearts break? I seem to recall a certain segment of our population, who support this President, that looked at the victims of Katrina and said, Why didn’t they leave? It’s their fault for living there! Those lucky duckies get to live in Houston! We’ve been wanting to wipe out those housing projects for years, now God’s done it for us! It’s because of the gays! The abortions! They’re all looters and rapists – good riddance!

    Heartbreak, indeed.

  • He may also be so panicked in his present corner that he falls back into the only role that has won approval for him in the past. He may not be speaking from a very well vetted script at this point. He may be moving in his answers away from the posture in which he feels most uncomfortable (Katrina Screwup) and toward the one in which he has felt most comfortable (Commander Codpiece, Action Hero). His bubble may have broken but he may still not have his bearings. It’s possible that these are unconscious segues.

  • Interesting thought, Joseph. I would bet that when he sits at ease and lets his mind wander, it continues to go back to the bullhorn moment or getting out of the plane to strut across the carrier deck. It’s almost Walter Mitty-ish.

  • Bush’s tendency to link the hurricanes and the “terrorists” together in awkward and nonsensical ways can also be symptomatic of black-and-white — or more accurately, good-and-evil — thinking. Hurricanes, terrorists, war protestors, and so on all get lumped together in the “evil” category. It’s clearly a sign of inadequate intellectual development, and may also (as noted by other commenters) be a sign of increasing desperation, retreating into what has worked before, and so on.

  • “We are fighting Hurracaines in the Gulf Coast so we don’t have to fight’em in the streets of New York City”
    Bush next logical excuse.

  • More and more, Bush’s responses seem like word salad, and his demeanor is deranged. Today’s comment: “I won’t get in the way,” as he pointlessly rushes to Colorado.

  • What do you expect from a man who flunked Geography? He needs to get his advisors to buy him an atlas an notice that the Gulf of Mexico and the Persian Gulf are a little bit different.
    If this is the quality of leadership we get when hurricanes strike can
    you imagine what will happen if another terrorist attack happens? Or
    a serious challenge by Iran, China, or North Korea? It is too chilling to
    think about.

  • No no no! You people, you are too *rational*, too intelligent for your own good.

    Who exactly buys Shrub’s conflation of hurricanes with war? *Someone* does. Rove doesn’t pick a message without testing it first.

    Who are those mythical people? They aren’t you and me. We’re baffled; this shit makes no sense– to us. But someone is buying it, enthusiastically, right now, and that someone will vote Repug in 2006. There may be lots of someones. Enough to maintain or extend the Repug majority.

    So, I ask you: whenever you hear Shrub spouting nonsense, know that nonsense has been field-tested to resonate with at least someone. Find out who that someone is. Find out why this shit works on them. Insulting them or waving them away as “stupid” ain’t gonna cut it: this is America and stupid people vote, in droves. Voter registratoin does not include an intelligence test (as the ghost of Alexander Hamilton nods and sighs in dismay) and this is the reality we must live in.

    Understand that we must figure out how to communicate with the kind of people who buy this drivel, and that is a prerequisite for establishing a new Democratic majority. It helps to understand exactly what Shrub is trying to accomplish, and why it works. And to do that we must first identify some specimen of voter on whom this does work, then take apart *how* it works.

  • Sorry, goatchowder, but even Forrest can tell you “Stupid is as stupid does”, we can’t help stupidity and your proposal sound more condescending that you realize. Democracy is not the rule of the lowest denominator, is a power struggle and the neocons are winning because they have the money, the media and the machine of the State behind them, not because there are idiots in Kansas.

  • >>So, I ask you: whenever you hear Shrub spouting nonsense, know that nonsense has been field-tested to resonate with at least someone. Find out who that someone is. Find out why this shit works on them. Insulting them or waving them away as "stupid" ain’t gonna cut it: this is America and stupid people vote, in droves.<<

    >Democracy is not the rule of the lowest denominator, is a power struggle and the neocons are winning because they have the money, the media and the machine of the State behind them, not because there are idiots in Kansas.<

    The point I think goatchowder was making is that whether it is "stupid" is not the point. When we see things like Bush’s clumsy transition from weather to terror before the RJC we need to recognize that we are getting an unfiltered peek into the machinations of Carl Rove — not into the disjointed workings of Bush’s mind.  Bush  is not free associating there at the podium — he has learned how to make it sound like he is in an attempt to transform his weakness with words into a false sincerity.   But the basic message is all planned out in advance and he sticks to it.
    And  message we need to look at is the one that tells us that Rove believes that if the two issues are linked in the proper way it will be difficult for us to be critical of the president’s response to Katrina.    The idea is to frame things so that it seems that anyone who advances such ideas comes off as rooting for Katrina — just the way the terrorists are claimed to be.
    Most people can be stupid some times and some people will always be stupid.  The question is are there enough people as stupid as Carl Rove hopes, and if there are, how can we wise at least some of them up before election time?
    Here in the blogosphere one way we can undercut this Rovian spin is to use care not to mix our justified criticism of the Federal Katrina response with cleaver, but overt, schadenfreude.

  • …we need to recognize that we are getting an unfiltered peek into the machinations of Carl Rove — not into the disjointed workings of Bush’s mind. Bush is not free associating there at the podium — he has learned how to make it sound like he is in an attempt to transform his weakness with words into a false sincerity. But the basic message is all planned out in advance and he sticks to it.

    Fred and goatchowder make a great point. What percentage of the population thinks today that Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9/11?

    I try to avoid listening to him speak because to me he sounds like a raving lunatic. But someone is hearing a different message from him. Repetition has worked for him in the past. If he ties these two things together enough maybe it will work again.

  • Someone did a poll of the un-decideds in Ohio that voted
    for Bush. His conclusion was they were naive, un-informed,
    and extremely dense. To them, Bush’s speeches sounded like
    the Gettysburg Address. Those zombies at his rallies weren’t
    acting.
    Good points by Diane, Fred, and goatchowder.
    The cure – massive grassroots operations and real Democrats for leaders.

  • Jim B so your lukewarm approach is the “correct” one? Who die and promoted you to Political commissar?

  • Comments are closed.