No Wonder He's Disconnected

by Edward

At a certain point, I think, you have to wonder if the blame for the President's obvious disconnect from reality shouldn't be placed at the feet of his handlers. I mean, often I've imagined that on the morning of 9/11, W was simply picked up and thrown over the shoulder of a Secret Service agent who packed him into that plane destined for the bunker. Whether his first instinct was to get back to DC, in order to see what he could do to comfort his people, didn't really matter. He could only actually "run the show" if those around him let him. He could only know what was really going on, if his handlers didn't actively stand between him and reality.

I think of this in response to a post on Brian Williams' blog:

I am duty-bound to report the talk of the New Orleans warehouse district last night: 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.

The kindest conclusion one can jump to it seems is that the Secret Service lit up the streets for security reasons, so they could guarantee the President's safe passage. Assuming that's the reason for the short-lived rejuicing of the Warehouse District, then, it's unkind to assert this cruel teasing of the district's residents was Bush's fault. He probably wasn't even looking out the window while his limo cruised these streets, he was probably still practicing how to pronounce "debris." But if he had, it wouldn't have occurred to him that the illumination had been arranged, at what must have been considerable trouble, just for him. Why would it?

The less kind assumption is that Bush's handlers arranged the lit streets to convince the POTUS things were better than they actually are. To keep his spirits up, so he could smile reassuringly and project that patriarchal confidence his pollsters need him to right now. Had he journeyed through a heart of darkness, he may have had doubts himself, and those might have revealed themselves as he spoke to the nation in the form of a crinkle across his brow or a twitch in the corner of his mouth. No, only the sort of inner peace known to those who've seen the light would do for this career-salvaging performance.

What's really cruel about all this is how freakin' hard the writers at The Onion need to work to parody it.

Lumina diem.

Comments

[Opus]

That's a fair-minded post, Edward, and you're probably right that Bush was just oblivious in this instance. Would you also assume he's oblivious to the lengths his staff goes to shield him from discontent or disagreement -- such as the ejection of the folks from the Denver social security event?

If so, don't you think that this should be a primary question from reporters at the very next opportunity?

Meanwhile, Bush is perfectly aware of appointing Karl Rove to coordinate reconstruction, and he's perfectly aware that he's not supporting an independent investigation of the governmental failures after Katrina. These are also things that every reporter should demand answers for.

I guess I'm not very sympathetic to the man.

(Apologies if this is all being hashed out in other threads. Life's been busy and I haven't read them all.)

[ral]

Thank you, Edward. I had a similar reaction when I read that item.

I have to ask, though, how much is cause and how much effect. We have, for example, the recent reports of President Bush's aides as afraid to tell him bad news (even to the point of dry heaves). Then there are the many examples of attacks on -er- "partisan Democrats" like Joseph Wilson, Richard Clarke, et al.

Punishing the bearers of bad news leads to a predictable result: disconnection from reality. This is a basic management principle that applies to any organization. Our MBA President ought to know this. So, who is really to blame (besides us voters, that is)?

[Anderson]

A metaphor for our media's noncoverage of this President. The lights came on a week or two ago, but they're going off again.

[lily]

I really do think the executive sets the tone. The staffers quickly learn which executives want to hear the bad news so it can be dealt with ad which prefer to make their own realities. It is hard for me to believe that staffers would systematically mislead their ex. unless they thought they would be punished for sharing the truth.
Of course he might have them all so well-trained in reality-avoidance that it has become the natural way of operating, taken for granted by all.

[Edward_]

cause and effect?

That's probably the best way for a historian to approach this question.

I'd like to be generous to W here, but as this Newsweek article makes clear, Bush's closest advisors have to virtually draw straws to see who's the unlucky schm*ck that has to deliver him bad news. That's rather repugnant in a POTUS, if you ask me.

[slarrow]

Beg pardon--I'm new here and don't know any of you very well. But is there the slightest chance there's a little bit of projection going on here? That because you think he's oblivious and this offers you such a perfect metaphor to hang that on, you're leaping beyond the evidence given?

To my mind, the security situation makes a lot of sense, as does the notion that the lights needed to be turned so that the President could actually see what the place looked like (which would spike the "disconnected" conclusion, incidentally) even in the dark. (This is presuming that Brian Williams has the full picture when he blogs, also.)

I'd suggest you stick with the "kind" conclusion--unless, of course, you're just savoring the notion of the Oblivious, Disengaged, Cold Mean President. Then, by all means, enjoy yourselves. No skin off my nose (especially since I'm closing out my Internet activity for the weekend soon.) Cheers!

[Edward_]

welcome slarrow

But is there the slightest chance there's a little bit of projection going on here?

Rule #1 around here. Always suspect that.
Rule #2. Unless it's one of my posts.
Rule #3. Never take Rule #2 seriously.

have a great weekend.

[Jesurgislac]

Slarrow: That because you think he's oblivious

Well, we know Bush is frequently oblivious. He's made that quite clear. The question is, when is he really oblivious, and when does he know and just not give a damn?

Opus: Meanwhile, Bush is perfectly aware of appointing Karl Rove to coordinate reconstruction, and he's perfectly aware that he's not supporting an independent investigation of the governmental failures after Katrina. These are also things that every reporter should demand answers for.

Yes, but will they? I was wrong that Michael Brown would still be head of FEMA by December 5, but I still think that things are likely to be back to "normal" in the media - ie, no one must blame the President for anything that went wrong - by then. Especially with Karl Rove in charge of "reconstruction".

[Morat]

Why do we tend to suspect the worse? Because, after five years of Bush, "pessimism" has a better track record than "optimism".

Unless you bury your head in the sand, a position many find comfortable but I can't really bring myself to do. I'd rather face the crappy, awful, unhappy real world than live in a fuzzy pink happiness of my own imagination.

I suspect that's why I'd make a better President than Bush, but also why I'd shoot myself rather than take the job.

[freelunch]

slarrow-

Oblivious is a fairly neutral conclusion about our President's style. The Newsweek article strongly implied that he was so hostile to bad news that he made it impossible for the government to function properly. The man is surrounded by yes-men. It really doesn't matter if these people became yes-men after they were appointed or were appointed because they were yes-men, the effect is the same. Competence is neither respected nor rewarded in this administration.

The sad part is that our President appears to have no one who has the guts to tell him the story about the lights going out, and he is a worse leader for it.

[geoduck]

I mean, often I've imagined that on the morning of 9/11, W was simply picked up and thrown over the shoulder of a Secret Service agent who packed him into that plane destined for the bunker.

That's one thing I've always wondered about 9/11: why didn't the Secret Service immediately bundle him out of that classroom? The country was experiencing a coordinated attack on multiple fronts, and Bush was in a public-announced location.. Did his handlers stop them?

[243]

why didn't the Secret Service immediately bundle him out of that classroom?

Maybe they wanted to hear the end of the story?

[dmbeaster]

The obvious inference has nothing to do with security or keeping Bush oblivious -- it is another Potemkin village scenario. Wherever he goes, his advance men try to make the appearance as wonderful as possible, even if the image is a phony contrivance. Hence, the restoration of power in the are he visits to create a sense of progress or accomplishment. Other examples were the phony food station set up for one of his appearances (and then dismantled on his departure), or the Coast Guard helicopters and rescue personnel diverted in order to be backdrop for photo ops.

There may be other reasons for the power going out, such as a failure in equipment after the start-up. But the inference that matches behavior to date is the Potemkin village.

[Francis]

243, great post.

[liberal japonicus]

What to make of this?

President Bush ruled out tax increases to pay for hurricane and flood recovery today, saying instead that federal spending would have to be cut to help the Gulf Coast recover.

Given our expeditures in Iraq, does anyone here see this as being remotely plausible?

[liberal japonicus]

Sorry, that was from the NYTimes front page

[DaveL]

he was probably still practicing how to pronounce "debris."

Ouch.

[bob mcmanus]

"President Bush ruled out tax increases to pay for hurricane and flood recovery today, saying instead that federal spending would have to be cut to help the Gulf Coast recover.

Given our expeditures in Iraq, does anyone here see this as being remotely plausible?"

At the point deficits go over say, one trillion annually and rising, and the Republicans remain disciplined and refuse tax increases, Democrats will vote to slash the big three entitlements programs and anything else necessary. Not if, but when.

A compromise is possible along the lines of large entitlement cuts and a VAT or other middle-class tax increase. There are other equally distasteful scenarios. "Monetizing" or inflating out of the debt is not really an option, as it hurts the rich and doesn't work anyway. Default is possible. It is incomprensible that the world will continue to eat our debt indefinitely, but remotely possible.

The instant the planes hit the towers, with Bush in the White House and a one party gov't, I knew an America I used to love and admire was dead.

[Catsy]

To my mind, the security situation makes a lot of sense, as does the notion that the lights needed to be turned so that the President could actually see what the place looked like (which would spike the "disconnected" conclusion, incidentally) even in the dark. (This is presuming that Brian Williams has the full picture when he blogs, also.)

Here's the million dollar question, though: If they can turn on the power to a neighborhood for the President to come through, what's stopping them from turning it on and keeping it on? I would think that restoring power would be high on the list of things to do for the parts of the city that aren't under water.

It suggests to me that they're more interested in the appearance of doing good than in actually doing it.

[Albeit]

Jesurgislac: Well, we know Bush is frequently oblivious. He's made that quite clear. The question is, when is he really oblivious, and when does he know and just not give a damn?

Your hatred of Bush has squashed any common sense that you may have once exhibited.

Three days before Katrina hit it was hundreds of miles away and just a wimpy CAT 2. Only 24 hours before Katrina hit did we know for sure it would be a 4 or 5. It's the weather! It's not a 100% accurate.

If Nagin or Blanco or anyone else had anticipated that Katrina would have caused a breach they would have been screaming from the rooftops. But they didn't until it was too late! Because they didn't frickin' anticipate it. They didn't anticipate a levee breach during this hurricane until it was too late.

72 hours before it hit they weren't even sure it was going to New Orleans.

You've taken Bush's comments and tried to make him say something he wasn't saying. Do you really think the President of the United States of America doesn't understand that a city below sea-level sitting on the edge of the ocean could get flooded by a hurricane? If so, that says more about your state of oblivion that it does his.

Do you not have access to T.V.? If it was so obvious that a breach was going to occur why wasn't CNN telling everyone about it? Heck, if it was so obvious that Katrina was going to do this, why didn't you warn them? Let me take a wild guess. You didn't anticipate it.

Is this not obvious to even the moderately stupid that no one anticipated that this particular storm would breach the levees? Is it too difficult to grasp that saying we didn't anticipate it versus predicting it could happen are two different comments? Parsing his words in this manner is just a waste of time. This is exactly the kind of worthless attacks and blathering that Sebastion and Charles Bird were talking about the other day.

If a meteor strikes earth tomorrow are you going to wake up claiming that you anticipated it? Have scientists not predicted it could happen? Well, I'm here telling you right now that there is a 99% chance that in the future a major meteor will strike earth speading death and destruction. Please feel free to make out a check to the U.S. government for the Meteor Crusher Project.

Maybe Bush should spend more money on Star Wars so we could blow it to hell before it hits? We all anticipate a meteor striking earth at some point.

The stranded people in the Astrodome may speak horrible english, but they have common sense in abundance compared to many of the high IQ's posting here. They know enough to be thankful for a president reaching out to them in order to rebuild their lives.

Good luck, Slarrow. I anticipateand predict your commenting at ObWi will be both painful and unproductive.

[Albeit]

Catsy: Here's the million dollar question, though: If they can turn on the power to a neighborhood for the President to come through, what's stopping them from turning it on and keeping it on? I would think that restoring power would be high on the list of things to do for the parts of the city that aren't under water.

It suggests to me that they're more interested in the appearance of doing good than in actually doing it

That's not a million dollar quesion. It's an ignorant question.

Let's put a nail in Catsy's 2 cent question.

Security of the President: Important enough to turn on electricity for short period.

Security of repair crews working on grid: Important enough to turn off so it doesn't fry them as they continue making repairs.

Or would Catsy prefer the crews risk their lives during repairs?

[bob mcmanus]

Mark Thoma

Re my above economic comment timestamped .....Mark Thoma, soft-landing moderate-to-conservative economist, refutes my paranoid fantasies with the assertion that a dollar of spending cut is equivalent to a dollar of tax increase in terms of output. So spending cuts would neither ease the recession nor decrease the deficits. I think. I have studied economics blogs for three years without learning a darn thing. In any case, we rapidly approach a position indescribable on this blog, involving orifices and extrusions.

[Frank]

Albeit- You might want to check Making Light's archives before you claim that no one anticipated Katrina breaching the levees. I happened to be visiting there saturday night before Katrina hit and many people were talking about the likelyhood this would happen.

[Catsy]

That's not a million dollar quesion. It's an ignorant question.

Projection: it's not just for movie theaters anymore.

Security of the President: Important enough to turn on electricity for short period.

Security of repair crews working on grid: Important enough to turn off so it doesn't fry them as they continue making repairs.

I would be delighted to know if you're speaking from a position of special knowledge or insight on this, or just throwing out a possibility at random. Because frankly, your scenario doesn't make a lick of sense to me, and unless you can support it with substance, your tone suggests that it is nothing but chaff thrown out to distract and deflect.

Or would Catsy prefer the crews risk their lives during repairs?

When you're done slaying that straw man, let me know. There are horses going hungry in Louisiana as we speak.

[Edward]

Albeit

the speech the President made could have been made from anywhere. In fact, if the situation in NO is as desperate as you suggest (i.e., they can't leave the lights on they've managed to repair because it's too dangerous for the workers), then the President should have chosen another location. His needs regarding protection etc. clearly put the relief efforts back a stage or two if you what claim is true.

Given how spectacularly Jackson Square was lit for his speech, however, it's clear to me that just about anything is possible in NO if the federal Government wants it to be...the obvious priorities of the administration make me want to vomit.

[belle waring]

yeah...arabian horses!

[Edward]

I have studied economics blogs for three years without learning a darn thing.

Welcome to the club Bob. (We each throw in 3 bucks for meetings and there's an open bar after that...all the Pabst you can down.)

[hrc]

I keep wondering why it is that if his handlers are so good and so careful about having enough wattage illuminating Jackson Sq, why one of them could not trouble themselves to button Bush's shirt properly?

Are the wheels coming off? First the permission to pee memo and now this.

[Katherine]

OT: what the hell's got into Tony Blair?

[bob mcmanus]

I think these guys are great, tho not the most optimistic lefty blog.

Oldman looks at a FEMA Camp in Florida, One Year After

Ian Welsh on Reconstruction

[John Thullen]

Albeit: Welcome to OBWI.

Slarrow seems to be doing O.K. And Jes is a little hot-tempered.

But I suspect if a meteor strikes Earth tomorrow, she'll show up here, as will I, to wonder why a meteor striking Earth tomorrow would accidentally on purpose occasion the need for cutting Medicaid, especially for meteor-related injuries. And I suspect if science, or faith, (why discriminate?) proved that a tax hike, launched just in the nick of time, could deflect a meteor from hitting the continental United States, George W. Bush would let us take the meteor for the Gipper.

[liberal japonicus]

Albeit
You seem to be quite familiar with the atmosphere here at ObWi, and your commentary style rings a bell, but I can't recall you commenting before the Backlog thread. If you could point to your previous comments and they were under a different handle, I'm sure everyone here would appreciate it. I also feel a bit guilty chuckling at your handle, so if you you could explain what your reason for choosing it is, that would also be appreciated. Thanx!

[Edward]

Dr. V, my conspiracy theory friend, insists Blair's trying to scare the immigrants out of London, Katherine. He does business in London regularly (just got back) and says they've reached the saturation point of poor immigrants their economy can handle and the anti-terror measures are meant to give them leeway in closing the doors.

Not sure that explains it, really, but it's a better theory than assuming Blairs gone off the deep end.

[Edward]

Not that anyone on the right can get past the source (or that anyone on the right is actually still reading this anyway), but Maureen Dowd's column today suggests the less kind conclusion has more weight than the kind one:

As Elisabeth Bumiller, the White House reporter for The Times, noted in a pool report, the image wizards had put up a large swath of military camouflage netting, held in place by bags of rocks and strung on poles, to hide the president from the deserted and desolate streets of the French Quarter ghost town.

Read the whole thing, it very convincingly argues that history will end up seeing Bush senior as not only the true conservative, but the much wiser of the pair.

[Jesurgislac]

And Jes is a little hot-tempered.

Me? Gentle as any sucking dove. ;-)

[anonymous]

I mean, often I've imagined that on the morning of 9/11, W was simply picked up and thrown over the shoulder of a Secret Service agent who packed him into that plane destined for the bunker. Whether his first instinct was to get back to DC, in order to see what he could do to comfort his people, didn't really matter. He could only actually "run the show" if those around him let him.
True. Bush is not the most powerful person in the world (that is probably some anonymous Secret Service agent). As President of the United States his job is only to perform at photo-ops and he doesn't have any real power.