Seriously

It’s difficult to take Mark Hyman seriously on the issue of governmental response to Katrina, given his attempts to characterize the disaster as the fault of Democrats and his refusal to acknowledge the role of George Bush in assuring the aftermath of the hurricane was horrific.

Hyman spends his most recent commentary on the topic praising an overview of the coordination (or lack thereof) among federal, state, and local governments when it comes to responding to hurricanes done by the non-profit group, First Response Coalition.

That’s fine, but the upshot of the report, that more coordination is needed among states and between states and the federal government, requires leadership at the national level that takes the government’s role seriously.

But has Bush shown serious leadership on this issue?

Was Bush’s appointment of a political pal with no disaster experience to be head of FEMA an example of serious leadership? When Bush was briefed about the possibility of levees being breached in New Orleans but then later claimed no one could have foreseen this possibility, was he exhibiting serious leadership? When his administration decided to pin the blame on “Brownie” rather than looking at errors made throughout the administration and by the president himself, was it a case of serious leadership? When Bush was out having fun and speechifying about pet political issues rather than coordinating disaster relief, was he demonstrating serious leadership? Is Bush’s antipathy to the original mission of FEMA and his attempts to take it out of the disaster relief role a show of serious leadership? Is this attempt to weaken precisely the agency that’s needed to foster coordination among federal, state, and local governments an example of serious leadership?

On this issue, as with so many others, both Hyman and Bush are seriously out of touch.

And that’s The Counterpoint.


Hyman Index: 3.14