OT: Katrina's Wrath

LX-i wrote:

> I agree.  However, once accusations are made, they just cannot stand
> unchallenged.  Heck, even CNN is running things like "What are the
> political implications of Katrina for President Bush?"  I agree - there
> should be none.  Last I checked, the One who controls the weather does
> not live at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue!  :)

It doesn't matter what should be.   Politics is about perceptions.   In
1927 Coolidge had an engineer, Herbert Hoover handle the flooded
Mississippi, which he did quite well (at least politically).   In fact,
he did so well that Florida, which had devastating hurricanes in
adjacent years, voted Republican for the only time during the Democratic
hold on the South, voting for Hoover in the next election.

But Brown is perceived as being a crony appointment.   Right now there
are a lot of people who perceive the administration as a group of rich
old boys who tell each other what they want to hear and who don't listen
to the real world (see who Bush put in as ambasor to the United
Nations).

People wanted to be "patriotic" in supporting the war on Iraq, but when
the National Guard is overseas when they are needed here, their support
wanes.

The same communications problems plagued the Katrina relief as did 9/11,
and people wonder if Homeland Security has been worth the cost.

The President learned years ago to campaign as a good old boy instead of
as a member of the Yale elite.   That doesn't mean he actually gets laws
passed that benefit rural America, so if his image changes to that of a
rich man who only listens to other rich men, his power base will shrink.
And that image is changing.

Politics is rarely about substance - it is about image.   And for
whatever reason, the President's image has taken a beating from Katrina.