NYT vs. Bush
The New York Times appears to be losing whatever patience it once had for President Bush. Today's editorial, harshly titled "
Waiting for a Leader," blasts the president for his weirdly casual demeanor yesterday when addressing the hurricane victims. "One of the worst speeches of his life," the Times calls it. That's the second passionately anti-Bush editorial in the last three days.
I don't know if these editorials have any impact, but they are fun to read; it's nice to see the Old Grey Lady unleash her bark. More than that, they may reflect the nation's growing disillusionment with the president; it's just possible that the Times could be an outlier of widespread discontent.
From a political perspective, this hurricane is fascinating. Generally, hurricanes and other natural disasters are a godsend for a president. He can direct federal funds and relief supplies to the area, and easily look sympathetic and authoritative simultaneously. So far, Bush has come across as weak and slow. Stories of looting and carnage—rape in the Superdome? Jesus—create the legitimate impression that the government is overwhelmed. And I'm sure that, at some point, more and more people are going to make the connection between the number of National Guards-people overseas and the number of National Guards-people who are not in the hurricane-affected areas.
President Bush never told Americans that they were going to have to sacrifice for the war in Iraq...but now the sacrifice has come anyway. And that will make Americans wonder all the more just why we went into Iraq in the first place.
