I'll leave the first paragraph alone, because that can be a whole different thread (how relevant information is analyzed by the media, and what information is actually released to the media), but I will say that your second paragraph takes an interesting view.

Going by your second paragraph, that all you have to do is "taste the pudding", would mean that you knew exactly how things should have turned out, given the finances available, the issues with local authorities, and every other factor. No one on this thread is saying that everything was done correctly in this Presidency - but by the same token, I think it's quite a logical leap (including making a lot of assumptions about the process) to say that you can look solely at the results of a decision and know how things should have been handled.

I don't think you can decide whether or not every individual decision was correct, but you can decide if all of the decisions together equaled a successful outcome. That doesn't mean that you can decide how "things should have been handled" (although close analysis may indeed suggest ways things could have been done differently) , but you can decide if the way they WERE was ultimately effective.

I am intrigued by the idea that there are no good or bad presidents, and that we are "incorrect" if we criticize a president. I consider moral relativism to be a very, VERY slippery slope. I always think of the sociology experiment where college students were asked if Hitler was evil, and the number who made relativist arguments that no, he wasn't evil, there were extenuating circumstances. :rolleyes:

I think you're overstating things again. No one is saying that "there are no good or bad presidents," or that you're "incorrect" if you criticize a president. What we are saying, or at least what I'm saying, is that it's far too early to make some of these judgments.

Really? I thought he said it here.

An overall judgment? Perhaps - but I do think it is possible to have an opinion regarding certain actions taken by his administration at this "early" date.

I understand that's your opinion - while the news media and political pundits do make these types of observations during and soon after the end of someone's term. I just don't agree with the wisdom of it from my point of view as a history major and someone with a rather broad base of knowledge in Presidential politics (and politics as a whole).

History may say that Bush's presidency was a success or that it was a failure, or that it was something in between, but I don't agree with these final judgments so early, whether it's a negative judgment or a positive judgment. Once the Presidential papers are released, and more information is available, then I'll be more comfortable making a judgment one way or another.

By definition you won't have a "final" judgment until . . .well, I guess you never really do have a final judgment. I think political judgments regarding officials and their actions are in a constant state of flux. As more is known, as time passes, often that initial judgment will change. It doesn't mean that officials should somehow avoid having their actions discussed and analyzed - it just means that we should all realize nothing is written in stone.

This is actually exactly what I'm railing against. Maybe I'm not being clear, so I'll explain further.

My basic point is twofold:

1 - You're assigning massive blame to Bush for something that was nearly entirely out of his control (in multiple senses, including: act of God, literally singular in nature/scope/scale, actions of others overrode his actual role, etc.); and

2 - You're hand-wringing without giving any context, which because of #1 brings us the problem with tautology (by this I mean, I'd prefer if we got into specifics instead of saying "too slow" or similar).


My comparison was between your opinion and Bush's stated opinion, which you seem to feel rather strongly about. My opinion of your opinion (LOL) is based in an education in formal logic, etc., so I would hardly call it "uninformed" but yes, my opinion of Katrina would largely be regurgitated from media reports and my own biases, and wouldn't add much to the conversation. Hence, I didn't give it.

That doesn't mean you shouldn't give yours - feel free.

I mean, this is what I'm getting at - I'm sure there were mistakes made, and clearly it doesn't appear to be the most efficient from the outside, but I'm not sure why we expected a seamless operation out of a.) the Federal Government and b.) something that's never really happened before, ever.

In that regard, it seems silly to make sweeping judgment of the man.

It's fair if you feel like this, but I respectfully think it's pie-in-the sky and not really true.

I'm really not interested in telling you NOT to have an opinion, and if that's what you got from my previous post, well we're not really rowing the same boat.

No, you graciously allowed me to have an opinion, although you have tagged it as "meaningless tripe", but also made it quite clear that you regarded only opinions which come from those with professional/specialized knowledge as being worthwhile. I respectfully disagree.

I'm not going to hijack the thread with a discussion of Bush's role in the handling of Katrina, other than to say that my opinion is not an isolated one, and even some with professional/specialized knowlege have been critical of it. Bush directly addressed only one aspect of the federal response - the helicopters rescuing residents after the storm - and asked us to take that isolated aspect and let it be representative of the whole federal response. Is Bush trying to use synecdoche? I don't know. But if it is not fair to judge Bush for actions over which he did not have direct control, it is not fair for him to take credit for the same. That is one reason why I think he was "nervy".

eta - to get back on topic. Those of you who saw the press conference - what do you think of Bush's "defense"?

Your sentence was meaningless because it lacked any substance, not because you're a layperson or whatever.

Your condemnation of Bush's statements is ironic given the lack of expertise - he's "nervy" for defending himself, but you're fine judging from afar, that was my point.

I found it refreshing to see an elected official have a sort of comfort with speaking from the hip - we don't often see these guys "unplugged" and given that Bush is an unusually poor public speaker for a President, he seemed markedly more comfortable than I would have expected.

Now, it was still awkward - obviously nowhere near 30,000 people were pulled off roofs, so he's still not exactly factually correct - but it kind of reinforced my image of Bush as a guy who I'd probably want to drink a beer with, someone who is most likely a Peter Principle victim to a certain extent but likely not the functional retard he's been portrayed as in certain places. Maybe that's how low the bar has been set, but I enjoyed it much more than I expected. It's not 'normal' charisma, but there's still a little there for GW, at least enough to see how he got where he is now.

I think that approachable, guy I'd like to have a beer with vibe is a big part of Bush's appeal. I know that in the Texas gubernatorial race he came off as Joe Six-Pack, which is quite a trick when you are born into the kind of privilege he was. He was a good governor, but the thing most of America does not know is that the governor of Texas is not a powerful position. I don't know that it is a sufficient indicator of executive ability. (Warning - personal general opinion follows) I initially was impressed by the team he assembled, but I fear that some of them did not live up to their potential. It may be that events did not play to his strengths.


I will be interested in hearing his final speech, when he gets to control his message more than in a press conference.

Most politicians do this to some extent, especially at the higher levels of office. If you're in a position to run for the Presidency, you're probably not a "Joe Six-Pack," either because of your intelligence, your wealth, or both.

President-Elect Obama did a fantastic job of it during the election; he's a reasonably-wealthy, well-educated person who went to a private high school, and to talk to some people, they would tell you he's Joe Everyman. McCain did it as well during his campaign, trying to play down his wife's wealth. The fact is that there are very few people in the country who could truly relate to someone who is running for that high of an office.

Some do it better than others - I think Hillary faltered some (I'm thinking of the drinking beer incident- AWKWARD), and McCain TRIED to do it, but I don't know that he was successful. The whole "How many houses do you have" thing turned many off. Palin was masterful at it, but couldn't convince voters that hey, she's just like you, but she could be president. Palin and Obama have the advantage of having had middle-class upbringings. It's an interesting dilemma - to come off as approachable and human, but also competent and, for lack of a better word, presidential. Of course, it's all a matter of perception, and being able to get your image across through the media.