While the White House scrambles like mad to cover its butt and avoid any and all questions about what went wrong in the response to Katrina, at least some Republicans are breaking the party line talking points and saying what is obviously true, that the response at the Federal level was appalling and heads need to roll. Robert Novak has this column about those reactions. He writes:
Democrats have seized on the administration's performance in handling Katrina to bash George W. Bush, but Republicans are not much happier with him. The common complaint is that the President has let the lawyers take over. Chertoff, a former federal judge and assistant attorney general, is a quintessential lawyer who has surrounded himself at Homeland Security with more lawyers. Michael D. Brown, who as head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is Chertoff's subordinate, is also a lawyer. Neither Chertoff nor Brown was experienced in politics or large-scale management before joining the Bush administration.
Chertoff's inexperience was shown when he said "I've got this down" into an open microphone, thinking he was safe because the cameras were off and not realizing his words were transmitted via satellite. He clearly saw himself as an advocate tailoring what he said to a lawyer's brief.
Political deafness mixed with lawyerly evasion was shown on "Meet the Press" when Chertoff claimed the breaking of the New Orleans levees "really caught everybody by surprise." Russert cited repeated forecasts of this disaster by the New Orleans Times-Picayune, but Chertoff insisted he did not say what he had just said.
Russert gave Chertoff a good going over, but that performance did not provoke Republican complaints (except for the usual grousing from White House aides). When Republican House members participated in a telephone conference call Sept. 1, the air was blue with complaints about the handling of Katrina. There was much hand-wringing about Republican prospects in the 2006 elections. Politics aside, however, the GOP lawmakers were unhappy with their administration's performance...
Criticism of FEMA was even voiced at Tuesday's Cabinet meeting, of all places. While all other Cabinet members were silent, Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Alphonso Jackson blew the whistle. He said HUD's readiness to send emergency housing to New Orleans was thwarted by FEMA's red tape.
Rep. Christopher Shays of Connecticut is more liberal than nearly all his fellow Republicans, but he has tried to be a Bush loyalist. He is a member of the Homeland Security Committee and chairs the national security subcommittee of the Government Reform Committee. Consequently, it is noteworthy when he accuses the administration of "a real sense of arrogance. Loyalty and never admitting a mistake matters more than the truth. It has a Nixon feel to me."
Shays is on the money here. This juvenile blather about the "blame game" is a ridiculous talking point designed solely to get the heat off the administration. And it is symptomatic of a disease that has afflicted our government for a long time, regardless of what party is in charge. The politicians expend infinitely more effort engaging in PR campaigns to convince people that they're doing a good job, or didn't screw anything up, than they expend on actually doing a good job and trying not to screw things up. It's not just that we have lawyers running everything, it's also that we have an army of PR flaks behind them and the whole system is geared to sell an image of competence and engagement rather than create an actual reality that would mitigate the need to sell such an image. They view the task of government as that of a movie director, creating a pleasing fiction for an audience.
- Log in to post comments
In 25 minutes of watching Faux News this morning, I think I heard the phrase "blame game" 10 times - four or five times from Orrin Hatch.
Calling accountability a "game" gives support to John Stewart's statement that "When someone doesn't want to 'play the blame game', they're to blame."
You've hit on something very much on target. We seem to have lost, at the highest levels of the Federal government, and in many state houses too, the concept of "public service" as a career path. Not "government job" but "public service." This is tied to the way a depressing number of federal political appointees seem to have forgotten that while they report to, and answer to, the President, they are in fact employed by the American people, and their first and final loyalty, always, must be to them, and not the man who happens to have appointed them. Of course they must be loyal to the administration and its policies, up to a point. But loyalty to a president and a party should never, for an honorable man or woman, be allowed to trump loyalty to public service as a --- no, the --- end of honorable conduct for a government employee.
Pollyanna-ish of me? God, I hope not.
A recent NYT story detailed extended debates in the WH right after the storm struck about "how it would look" if a Republican President simply siezed control of the National Guard troops in a state with a Democratic governor to conduct relief operations in a city with a Democractic mayor and voting majority. "How it would look" had to be resolved before the Administration acted. It took a while, and the debate determined to some extent what was and was not done. And when.
I can't help wondering how things might have been different had Mr. Bush, on hearing the first phases of that debate, exploded with "I don't give a flying fuck how it will look. And I don't give a crap if the governor or the mayor likes it or not. Get the Guard moving into New Orleans NOW."
The irony is, had he done something like that, the administration's PR image, which seems to drive policy more than concern for the public good does [and not only involving storm relief] would have ended up being a whole lot better than it now is.
I occasionally query the freshmen who fetch up in my American history sections about whether, in studying American history in HS or American government or civics, anyone talked about, or asked them to think about "honor" and "honorable conduct" and what living in a republic might require of both voters and office holders in that regard. Generally they look at me a little strangely and say no.
Maybe I am being a Pollyanna after all....
Someone really should remind politicians that George Orwell's book 1984 was a cautionary tale, not a how-to manual.
The only way to get any politician off the blame game (or you and I for that matter)is to insist that they speak primarily to their own responsibility. And...regarding New Orleans, just about all of them bear some measure of it, either through ignorance, incompetence, design, or indifference.
Imagine that -- speaking to their own responsibility. What a concept!
Robert Novak is a transparent partisan hack. No, the problem is not "lawyers taking over," it's incompetent appointees, plain and simple. A competent administrator can listen to lawyers and still keep his mission straight in his head. Novak is trying to weave his hatred of lawyers (and, beneath that pretense, his comtempt for the law) into a completely unrelated issue.
Raging Bee, Robert NoFacts has been well known for a number of years as being a partisan (Republican) hack. Sometimes he's useful, but anyone who believes what he writes, merely because he writes it, has too many holes in his head.