Bush: I'm A Culpa

In a refreshing development that many thought they would never see, President Bush claimed responsibility for the failings of the federal government's response to Hurricane Katrina. I'd like to take a moment to praise Mr. Bush for doing so, because it was the right thing to do. Granted, it was also the politically expedient thing to do, because it temporarily diffuses the heat surrounding him. It is well known that the Bush-Rove strategy has always been to never admit error because the admission might be used by the opposition to open the floodgates (no pun intended) to other criticism and posturing. So Bush's grudging claim of responsibility was certainly newsworthy.

Then again, it really was kind of a half-baked claim, wasn't it? "[T]o the extent the federal government didn't fully do its job right, I take responsibility." What exactly is he taking responsibility for? This is like saying, "I don't know what I did wrong, but I'm sorry." The folks on Free Republic are upset that he even allowed for that much - they think the federal response has gone swimmingly from the beginning. But, in truth, it was Michael Brown who took the fall. Remember back in the Bush-Kerry debates (and previously in a televised news conference) when Bush was asked if he had made any mistakes as president? After hemming and hawing, he would only concede that he had made mistakes in some of his political appointments. I think that selecting a failed horse show commissioner to head the nation's emergency management agency would qualify as one of those mistakes. But you're not likely to hear Bush tell you any more about how he might be "responsible" for what went wrong, be it his policies, his priorities with regards to emergency response to natural disasters vs. terrorism, or the decision to put FEMA under the jurisdiction of Homeland Security and at an additional arm's length from the White House. All you'll get out of him is that he appointed the wrong man. So Bush's claim of "responsibility" is really nothing new, and nothing for either the Left or Right to get excited about.

E.J. Dionne (who, curiously, is the only non-Rightie listed on the links page of Ann Coulter's website - she must have slept with him) wrote a column titled "End of the Bush Era". It has to be recognized that Bush still has over three years left in his term, which is an eternity in politics, so it might be perilous for Dionne to engage in the business of writing political obituaries. But there is no doubt that the Bush presidency has been weakened, and the Right can't blame the MSM for that. Even people who are in total agreement with Bush's agenda must admit that his execution has often been lacking. That is a question of competence. And Bush boldly claimed in 2000 that he is "a uniter, not a divider". He had unity on 9/11 and squandered it. That is a question of leadership.

In blogs on the Left, you'll often see comments from Rightie visitors that go something like this: "Instead of bitching, why don't you come up with some ideas and actually win an election?" Or: "Maybe if you stop getting highjacked by your extremists you might win some elections." I find it curious how so many Republicans want to offer advice to Democrats about how to win an election. But it occurred to me that maybe it's possible that these Repubs actually DO want the Dems to win some, to keep a healthy balance of power, because they don't like the direction in which America is going under the current one party rule. I really get the sense that there has been some kind of tipping point in public opinion. Whether the Dems are capable of seizing the opportunity is to be determined. I see them as much a part of the problem as the Republicans - but that's for another time in another post.