Fables of the Reconstruction
You've probably seen this New York Times tidbit from yesterday:
Republicans said Karl Rove, the White House deputy chief of staff and Mr. Bush's chief political adviser, was in charge of the reconstruction effort
But new to me was this Washington Post item from last week:
Karen Hughes has another view. The Bush confidante, now undersecretary of state for public diplomacy, held a meeting with her staff in Foggy Bottom yesterday and was asked about the international ramifications of the response to the New Orleans flooding. The problem, Hughes replied, was not a failed relief effort but a foreign press that did not appreciate the federal government's good work.
"There are a lot of things being said about us around the world that aren't true," said the woman in charge of polishing the American image abroad. "We've marshaled the resources of our federal government" to help fellow Americans, she said, and if people think otherwise, "we need to aggressively challenge that idea around the world."
The New Republic's Joseph Braude makes the case for why Hughes' spin is "irrelevant to the part of the world where her work matters most," and amounts to "an obsession with safeguarding President Bush's image." Seems to me that naming a lifelong political strategist to head up crucial reconstruction efforts is tantamount to announcing that the "obsession with safeguarding President Bush's image" is about the only big idea this administration has left.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
They've taken CYA to a new high.
My non-existent ESP is sensing John, RC Dean, M1EK and joe making frequent apperances on this thread....
Whatever one might think of where blame should or shouldn't be assigned, and regardless of what (if any) role you think the feds should take, a political strategist hardly seems like the best person to run the effort:
Strategist: Excellent, the homes were completed ahead of schedule!
Construction worker: But we've only completed one block!
Strategist: Wait, you mean there's more to the neighborhood than the block along the motorcade route?
Nurse: We're running out of medications.
Strategist: But they have enough pills for this afternoon.
Nurse: They'll need more.
Strategist: I had no idea that people actually continue taking medications once the camera crew departs.
Karl Rove is in charge of the reconstruction effort?
George Bush has learned his lesson from the Brown/FEMA debacle - when appointing an unqualified political hack to a position of responsibility, make sure it's Karl Rove.
They can be concerned about image and still get results right?
At least they got the lights back on in NO (sorta).
...there was rejoicing (well, there would have been without the curfew, but the few people I saw on the streets were excited) when the power came back on for blocks on end. Kevin Tibbles was positively jubilant on the live update edition of Nightly News that we fed to the West Coast. The mini-mart, long ago cleaned out by looters, was nonetheless bathed in light, including the empty, roped-off gas pumps. The motorcade route through the district was partially lit no more than 30 minutes before POTUS drove through. And yet last night, no more than an hour after the President departed, the lights went out. The entire area was plunged into total darkness again, to audible groans. It's enough to make some of the folks here who witnessed it... jump to certain conclusions.
BTW, I know I am biased on this matter, but I'd like to encourage folks to keep on giving to the Red Cross. You're helping keep some of my relatives fed, clothed and housed in shelters when you do.
For those of you without available funds, call your credit card companies, and ask if your "rewards points" can be convernted into Red Cross donations. Citibank does this.
Sweet Enola Gay, Karl Rove is in charge of the reconstruction?
I can't get cynical enough about these guys. I try but they always pull a new low.
Great REM album.
Reminds me of my college days 100 years ago.
Michael Stipe had hair and actually looked healthy.
I've had it with Matt Welch and all of you and your conatant sniping, picking, and all-out attacks on the President and the administration. Everything that happens is an excuse for a vicous attack on the President. Why don't you just call yourself Democrats and get it over with? I wouldn't mind so much if you would just be honest and admit that your heart's desire is the triumph of the Democrat Party. There is no other possible motivation for your ceasless offensive against the President, the Republican Party, and everything they stand for.
BTW, Karl Rove happens to be one of the most able men in Washington. Everyone on both sides of the aisle acknowledges this. He may lack administrative experience but he is very suited to a minister-without-portfolio position and he is an excelent choice.
But of course if you admitted that you wouldn't be helping your friends the Democrats, would you?
A Citizen:
We're often accused of being pot-smoking Republicans (smirk), so your accusations are a breath of fresh air.
A Citizen,
What do Republicans stand for again? That's right, snooping around my bedroom.
I wouldn't mind so much if you would just be honest and admit that your heart's desire is the triumph of the Democrat Party.
That's not what I desire. The collapse of both major parties would be a good start though. 🙂
There is no other possible motivation for your ceasless offensive against the President, the Republican Party, and everything they stand for.
Maybe to someone who is wedded to either major party perhaps. BTW, your statement is an example of one of the more common fallacies. Care to take a guess at what it is? 🙂
A Citizen,
Karl Rove is one of the most able at distributing money to supporters and at ruining those that oppose him, including by feloniously leaking their wife's classified status as a CIA officer.
A Citizen,
What do Republicans stand for again? That's right, snooping around my bedroom.
I wouldn't mind so much if you would just be honest and admit that your heart's desire is the triumph of the Democrat Party.
That's not what I desire. The collapse of both major parties would be a good start though. 🙂
There is no other possible motivation for your ceasless offensive against the President, the Republican Party, and everything they stand for.
Maybe to someone who is wedded to either major party perhaps. BTW, your statement is an example of one of the more common fallacies. Care to take a guess at what it is? 🙂
You guys aren't pot-smoking Republicans? Will shit, now I don't understand you at all. 🙂
A Citizen- Might I suggest an action to punish Mr. Welch and his awful criticisms of the President?
Organize a boycott against certain businesses that help fund this America hating website! Go rally the public to the defense of the President by having them punish RIGHTTALK.COM, Lightning Jiu-Jitsu and Carpet Grinding Pervert Matt Furrey for supporting Mr. Welch's slander.
Please do. Know that I am with you. And many others on this board are as well.
I know some people here don't like it when I do my identity speculations, but just for fun can I ask if "A Citizen" is really Mona?
Then again, Mona would include a threat to cancel her subscription.
:->
Thoreau--
Mona would also mourn the good old days when real libertarians wrote for the magazine.
I don't know why everyone keeps disrespecting the lightning ju-jitsu.
Here's one of it's claims:
"Now You Can Instantly Cripple Street Punks, Thugs and Vicious Predators with the Same Lightning Ju-Jitsu Tactics Used by the Heroes of World War II"
Actually, I'm cutting to the quick and using my lightning ju-jitsu against "heroes of World War II", and I'M TOTALLY KICKING THEIR ASSES.
I can't believe how effective it is. I'm like Jackie Chan against these bastards.
LJJ works!
Why don't you just call yourself Democrats and get it over with?
Because I'm not one, and probably never will be.
I wouldn't mind so much if you would just be honest and admit that your heart's desire is the triumph of the Democrat Party.
Then you wouldn't mind me lying.
There is no other possible motivation
Lovely phrase. How long have you been reading Chomsky?
for your ceasless offensive against the President, the Republican Party, and everything they stand for.
Cease the day!
What the hell are you talking about? We invented ju-jitsu!
My step uncle trained 200 soldiers in Jui Jitsu for WWII. Within a few hours of arrival in Europe, all but him and one other guy were blown up by German bombs.
Captain Awesome,
As obsolete as a bayonet.
*That last post should have read step grandfather.
Obviously, A Citizen doesn't actually read Reason or this blog very often.
You see, A Citizen, we hate both parties.
Now go call the White House and see if they'll set up an appointment so you can fellate Mr Bush.
God, am I the only one who thinks A Citizen's post was an attempt at satire?
We're often accused of being pot-smoking Republicans (smirk),
I know this isn't really serious, but I always feel the need to point out that republicans DO smoke pot. Libertarians just aren't hypocritical about it.
Except for me, of course, I'm more sXe than Ian Mackaye.
"I've had it with Matt Welch and all of you and your conatant sniping, picking, and all-out attacks on the President and the administration. Everything that happens is an excuse for a vicous attack on the President. Why don't you just call yourself Democrats and get it over with? I wouldn't mind so much if you would just be honest and admit that your heart's desire is the triumph of the Democrat Party. There is no other possible motivation for your ceasless offensive against the President, the Republican Party, and everything they stand for."
This is the kind of stubborn stupidity that keeps me from going back to the Republican Party.
You know, I realize that every politician is all about ass covering, bribery, corruption, and general incompetence....and no doubt any Democrat would be just as bad in many respects...
But, DAMN! I mean, Karl Rove? At least the other ones put on the appearance of being about something other than cynical partisan calculations. They keep up a nice pretense of being public servants rather than our rulers. But these guys are just blatant about it: Everything they do is about image and ultimately their grip on power. Hence a political strategist is in charge of reconstruction.
Yeah, I know, the other guys would be just as bad in their own way. But since the other guys aren't in charge at the federal level right now, I'm going to go ahead and gawk at the utter fuckedupedness of the Bush administration.
Will the mayor of NO and the governor of LA put their campaign managers in charge of reconstruction efforts?
Oh, and I almost forgot to state the obvious...
"Republicans said Karl Rove, the White House deputy chief of staff and Mr. Bush's chief political adviser, was in charge of the reconstruction effort."
The Bush Administration, Republican or not, is unbelievably incompetent.
"The Bush confidante, now undersecretary of state for public diplomacy, held a meeting with her staff in Foggy Bottom yesterday and was asked about the international ramifications of the response to the New Orleans flooding. The problem, Hughes replied, was not a failed relief effort but a foreign press that did not appreciate the federal government's good work."
Did I mention that the Bush Administration is incredibly incompetent?
...Did you know that that Gonzales, the former Bush Administration counsel, in spite of giving morally pathetic and downright foolish legal advice to the President--advice that led directly to America's disgrace at Abu Grharib--was actually promoted to Attorney General?
Does anyone else notice a pattern here? ...Who cares if the person you want to fill the job is competent--as long as he or she is loyal, that's all that matters.
...This Administration would just as soon have a well trusted retard rather than someone they can't be sure of, or so it would seem! ...and that's a character flaw of the President's. ...and as the last couple of Presidents have shown us, character flaws ain't got nothin' to do with being Republican or Democrat.
We used to be told that the GOP was the Daddy party and the Dems were the Mommy party.
Well, most people here would agree that the Dems are really the Nanny Party. And when the Nanny can't balance her checkbook she steals from your piggy bank.
The GOP is turning out to be the "Daddy, please stop drinking" party.
The GOP is turning out to be the "Daddy, please stop drinking" party.
That's pure gold, thoreau.
Glad you like it, Matt.
Are you the one who said that one party wants to run your life in the name of God, and the other party wants to run your life in the name of "4 out of 5 experts agree..."? Somebody said it, and that was also pure gold.
'tweren't me.
Also, I replied to "A Citizen," but the comments-robot ate it on account of some embedded links. All for the better, probably. Just pointed out that I'm not a Democrat, don't root for them, etc.
thoreau,
Sorry, buddy, but four out of five experts agree that government handouts breed a culture of dependency. Sorry you're so cold, and I really hope you aren't too weak to keep looking for a job, but four out of five experts agree.
Maybe the "Econ 101" folks shouldn't be dissing experts, hmmmmm?
"BTW, Karl Rove happens to be one of the most able men in Washington."
I think "A Citizen" meant to say "evil" instead of "able." They sound so similar, must have been a little brain fart.
I'm so confused - are we war-mongering, environment-hating, trickle-downing, puppy-kicking, Bush-loving Randroids? Or are we bleeding heart, America-hating, terrorist-sympathizing, politically-correcting, tree-hugging eco-faggots? Cuz I keep getting conflicting messages from the trolls, and I need to know which bumper sticker to buy.
joe-
One can enjoy a soundbite on its merits as a soundbite, without dissing every statement ever made by experts. Soundbites are supposed to be amusing points that contain a good bit of truth, not necessarily authoritative and generally applicable statements.
Taking things too literally is the sort of thing that some would refer to as "a full-on Gunnels."
"safeguarding President Bush's image"
The rest of the world thinks the President IS the US and you and he are peas in the same pod.
The world is as uninformed about the US as the US is in the rest of the world.
The world thought the US was all-powerful and the news reports about Katrina stunned them. Now they believe the US is hoplessly backward and is full of morons who loot and shoot at rescuers.
They think they've been tricked into believing the US is a superpower. And the bad guys out there may think that too.
So, IMO its about the image of the US, not of Bush and you'd better stop them thinking that way or the US's standing will really take a dive.
God, am I the only one who thinks A Citizen's post was an attempt at satire?
Nah, he's just a troll, and a particularly shitty one at that. "The Democrat Party?" Geez, why don't you just post a transcript of Rush Limbaugh's last show and call it good?
joe,
Of course, government handouts do create a culture of dependency.
Yes, as surely as Big Macs make you fat, and cigarettes give you lung cancer.
joe,
For which you have some liberty-limiting, nanny-state solution I am sure.
I'm sure that you're sure, Hak. If there's one thing I've learned about you, it's that you make the leap from "he's perceiving a problem" to "he wants a coercive solution" quite readily.
And if there are two things I've learned about you, the second is that you are very, very sure, even when you don't actually have any support for your opinion.
joe,
Right. Sure.
The problem is that you have on these very pages defended taxes on "junk food."
Actually, I've defended the reasoning behind them from what I deemed faulty criticism, but not the taxes themselves.
Again, jumping to conclusions about what I "have to" support.