This may in fact have influenced people’s perceptions. I can’t understand why. I read the Constitution and see nowhere where it says the President is flood-water-parter in chief, or that people who choose to live in a low-lying coastal area historically prone to flooding and hurricanes don’t owe it to their own damn selves to move, or to evacuate when OMG a hurricane comes in the middle of WTF hurricane season?!?! Not to mention that the Constitution explicitly delegates all non-enumerated powers (including, you know, local health and safety) to the states and their tributaries. Bush may not have “done something” to fix the mess the idiots in N.O. created, but then I hardly care as it is not his job to do so, so my opinion in 2005 was not worsened.
The Constitution does on the other hand require that war be declared by Congress. By 2004, it was clear that GWB (with total collusion from a spineless Congress, mind you) had subverted this, and had subverted national sovereignty to go into war for the neocon moles in his administration. Those policies worsened, in the sense that they persisted, beyond 2004, but they were plainly out there. I think one of GWB’s great “achievements” (actual or accidental) was that in 2004, and even now, many conservatives still thought he was, well, conservative, though the non-conservative nature of his foreign and domestic policy (federalizing educational matters, huge spending) were readily apparent. His “base” remained super-energized, it appears, and sufficiently “anti the other clique” to define proper policy as anything that kept GWB and his clique in office.
Oh please, Septimius Severus got into office over the will of the people, Caracalla was really a puppet and Geta wasn’t even old enough, let alone be a decent candidate. I wish people would stop crying about that one.
Here is George Bush in Florida when hurricane Frances hit. Here is GWB handing out rice to motorists, with his brother Jeb just visible in the frame.
Here and here are pictures taken of George Bush the day Katrina hit. Two days later, here is George’s involvement in Katrina, flying over the wreckage while people died.
Do you really think both responses were appropriate? If not, which was not the correct response?
My dad has been a registered Republican as long I have been politically aware, and I was politically precocious. He voted for W in '00 and '04. Around '06, he un-registered as a Republican because of Bush’s suckitude. What seemed obvious to me in '04 only became obvious to my dad about one or two years too late. I think he represents a large chunk of the American public. Last time I talked to him about politics was during primary season, and he was supporting Huckabee. Alas, some people are incorrigible.
If we are speaking constitutionally or in terms of the actual duties of a President, the one that did not imply that a President is a weather prognosticator, distributor of rice, disaster relief specialist, or custodian of local health and safety. So are you implying it’s Katrina? Then, he got it right there. If he was doing more in Fla. while visiting his brother, I’d say, get back to work and leave disaster relief to the local professionals.
What? You don’t have local professionals, even when you live on an exposed, hurricane plagued shore? Well then, Ray Nagin and everyone else in N.O. – the answer’s simple – you’re dumbasses.
I was first eligible to vote in 1976. If I look at each election from then to now, I could have predicted the winner using the “best personality” selection criteria.
I’d like to think that’s just coincidence but I fear that it is not.
Regarding Dean’s scream: I never saw that an “angry Dean” but that is how it was presented in the media. I thought it was just ineffective cheer leading.
Short answer for 2004:
Swing-voters looked at Bush and said “meh”
. . . But unfortunately, in their minds Kerry was even worse!
Actually, much the same can be said of 2008:
Swing-voters in 2008 looked at Obama and said “meh”
. . . But “meh” was as good as it ever got for McCain (among swing-voters, that is)
Shows the great importance of swing voters!
The policies may not have changed, but the visible outcomes changed, and as a result, the consensus certainly shifted.
It’s hard to overstate the role of Hurricane Katrina in the change in the public’s attitude towards Bush. Before then, it could be argued whether we were progressing in Iraq, or just fucking things up worse every day: you have your opinion, I have mine, and neither of us are there. Under such circumstances, most people are willing to give the benefit of the doubt to their leaders.
But everyone could see that Katrina was a disaster of epic proportions. Some still try to pin the blame on the city and state governments, but outside the ranks of the true believers, few bought that theory. In the public’s mind, this was clearly a Bush fuckup. And that made them (or a big chunk of them, anyway) come to the conclusion that Iraq was probably a clusterfuck too.
Since then, the mixture of incompetence and corruption has continued to chip away at Bush’s remaining support, bringing it down to Nixonian levels. And by the time ‘The Surge Worked,’ it didn’t matter as far as public opinion was concerned: they wanted us to be gone from Iraq, win, lose, or draw.
So there’s no reason to see a tension between the consensus about Bush now, and his election to a term of his own back in 2004.
*ETA: How did I miss kid chameleon’s post? I’m a day late, if not a dollar short!