For our convenience, the Moderate Voice’s Joe Gandelman has taken the time meta-analyze Katrina response—an exercise that, I’m sad to note, says more about Mr Gandelman than it does about the Katrina responders it purports to analyze. From “Did George Bush Really ‘Blow It?’”:
[…] when [LA Senator Mary] Landrieu talked about blame [on CBS’s “Face the Nation”], she was responding to the full-court press by the White House in recent days, using the phrase the “blame game”  a phrase that has become the phrase-of-the-day for GOPers who are the administration’s staunchest defenders. It’s the administration’s political mantra du jur.
Why can you conclude that? Because those who use the phrase “blame game” often launch into an attack blaming local and state officials (who also performed poorly and probably cost lives) and seem to be trying to shift attention and responsibility on them, while defending the White House.
Indeed, you can now see several responses to this tragedy:
1. The “Blame Game” Warners: You don’t see this phrase used by independent voters, Democrats or Republicans who are lambasting the administration. It’s used by White House spokesmen, the staunchest partisans (who defend everything the administration does and says), and those who in effect get the establishment line out (radio and cable TV talk show hosts).
2. The Gang Bangers: They note that there is enough BLAME to go around to ALL levels. That means the White House doesn’t escape responsibility for its actions, escape any criticism, or fail to be put under the microscope in a non-whitewash investigation. The Gang Bangers want the truth to come out about all levels of government so that flaws can be corrected for a more competent  and life-saving  response next time.
3. The Good Jobbers: Related to the blame gamers. They argue that the White House did a wonderful job during this crisis and it’s therefore a conspiratorial liberal news media working with Democrats (which implies some Republicans are actually Democrats, or media moles, since some Republicans have also strongly criticized the feds) are going after the White House strictly for political gain.
4. The Bush Is The Only Oners: They will argue that local and state officials had nothing to do with it at all, and that the shockingly poor storm response was due to not only federal bungling but the federal government hating or ignoring black Americans.
Larger policy issues of getting experts in disaster relief to staff key positions, the development of viable contingency plans that can be slapped into place in a flash, better federal/state/local coordination, etc. all get shunted aside as some of these groupings skirmish for political war.
It doesn’t take a nuanced reader to understand where Gandelman’s “objective” and “moderate” heart really lies—clearly, Gandelman falls within the Gang Bangers camp, where those who are independent enough of mind, it is intimated, can stroke their chins and nod sagely while acknowledging that, “we all know there is plenty of blame to go around.” I say that ‘clearly’ Gandelman falls into this category because the other options are framed in such a way that nobody would want to be placed in any of them—at least, not as they are described. After all, who wants to be a rigid, unbending partisan ideologue who will defend and / or attack the President no matter what the circumstances (The Blame Game Warners and the Bush is the Only Oners), or, for that matter, a Good Jobber?—which describes people who “argue that the White House did a wonderful job during this crisis and it’s therefore a conspiratorial liberal news media working with Democrats (which implies some Republicans are actually Democrats, or media moles, since some Republicans have also strongly criticized the feds) [who] are going after the White House strictly for political gain”? [my emphasis]
No, the only category any reasonable or independently-minded person would wish to be placed into, were the items on Mr Gandelman’s list the only choices, is the Gang Bangers—the non-partisan thinkers who won’t let anyone off the hook, the kind of intellectuals who, to review, “[…] note[s] that there is enough BLAME to go around to ALL levels,” which means “the White House doesn’t escape responsibility for its actions, escape any criticism, or fail to be put under the microscope in a non-whitewash investigation. The Gang Bangers want the truth to come out about all levels of government so that flaws can be corrected for a more competent  and life-saving  response next time.”
Notice anything amiss? In Mr Gandelman’s analysis, the highest form of good is the willingness to spread blame around evenly—to appear fairminded even if, when looked at objectively, you are really acting on the same impulses as those in the other categories: namely, to take the facts and use them to fit a pre-figured narrative, in this case, one of overriding “fairness.”
But what, precisely, is so admirable about being willing to spread blame around evenly if, empircally speaking, blame is not in fact evenly distributable? Or, put another way, how is forcing a conclusion of evenly distributable blame onto a narrative still in the process of unfolding any different than, say, forcing the conclusion that Bush is solely to blame (or, alternately, that Mayor Nagin is solely to blame) onto the narrative— two rhetorical missteps that Mr Gandelman takes pride in pointing out?
I have no doubt that, were my site to be placed into one of Mr Gandelman’s categories, I’d be lumped in with the “Good Jobbers”—those who see a conspiracy of media perfidy which is responsible for laying blame at the door of the feds. But such is incidental, ultimately, to whether or not the feds did in fact do a good job by the standards of federal response—and that, as I’ve taken great pains to point out over the last week or so—has hardly been determined either way, and has been the focus of many of my posts.
Consequently, I took the opportunity to ask Joe, in his comments, why there is no category available to those of us who really do just want the truth – those who are unwilling to conclude until all the facts are in—and so are unwilling to “knowingly” impute to FEMA failures (beyond typical bureaucratic snafus) until such time as substantial federal response failures are actually proven?
And the reason is clear: Mr Gandelman has made up his mind—and being independent of mind and non-partisan of heart commits one, in his assessment, to divvying out blame in equal shares like one distributes cubes of birthday cake—which means that his meta-analysis is just as flawed as the various analyses he aims to summarize.
For my part, I simply will not place blame until I’m convinced blame has been earned. Which is not to say that I haven’t already drawn several conclusions—I have; but rather to note that, from my perspective at least, the investigation in ongoing. And that scapegoating because you think yourself “fair” and like to affirm your moderate, independent bona fides is just as wrong as scapegoating because you are a Machiavellian hyperpartisan looking to use a pre-figured narrative to score political points against your ideological enemies.
That said, there are a couple of areas where FEMA in particular comes into blame and we might even get to whack the National Security Adviser Stephen J. Hadley or DHS Chief Michael Chertoff over the head with a stick.
1. <a href=”http://suspect-device.blogspot.com/<Suspect Device</a<is a blog written by a participant in the Hurricane Pam exercise. He makes first-hand observations/ comments about FEMA stepping in during the exercise planning session with a general ‘Don’t Worry About It, We’ve got you covered’ tone. This is a FEMA-Blame angle that I hadn’t considered.
Certainly that “Don’t Worry, FEMA’s Got It†mindset would explain Mayor Nagin’s and Governor Blanco’s approach of doing absa-fricking-lutely nil in terms of protecting their constituents. Like ordering a timely evacucation.
As a further example of purely state-level belated revelation, Governor Blanco issued an Executive Order two days <i<after </i<Katrin’a landfall which directed school districts in her state to prepare a list of buses and drivers. She even asked that a peace officers accompany each bus.
A list.
Swell.
It’s not like she had statutory authority to commandeer anything in the state to deal with the hurricane. N’ah. Oh wait, it’s part of her order.
2. To find actual examples of malFEMAnce you need to glean them from original reporting. Examples of direct FEMA-caused delays involve their failure to guarantee reimbursements to other Federal agencies. That is, it seems, an actual problem with FEMA’s intended function.
While nitwits seem to think that FEMA-capped people can simply ‘take control’ of the local scene or that the Feds can take over the National Guard, this is not the case. More worrisome is the mindset that federal action would be preferable to local authorities acting properly – there is a basis, though, for pointing out FEMA’s failure to coordinate relief.
NYT Article which cites government agencies not sending help until FEMA signed off.
Apparently, the muscle behind FEMA was at one time the National Security Adviser. They were authorized to knock some Interagency heads together and make the executive decision.
<a href=”http://www.bxa.doc.gov/DefenseIndustrialBasePrograms/OSIES/offsets/Offsets 9 Final Appendices.pdf”>Cite to Procurement Code</a> – Page 22/ Sect. 201 c-e search “FEMA’ T
hat’s an older regulation, but after a cursory search, I couldn’t find anything in the GAO docs or the National Homeland Security that dealt with which office is responsible expediting interagency approvals for things like the communications equipment. Figure it’s either Hadley or Chertoff.
But that specific type of situation, one where the DoD won’t send communicaitons devices (e.g Sat Phones) to Louisiana until FEMA cosigns the invoice is a Federal/FEMA problem, but one that is entirely dependent on local authorities initiating requests in a timely manner.
btw –
Turing word – “no turing word”
He’s tricky like that.
A fine example of why Joe Gandleman is by far the least interesting writer for Donklephant, a daily read of mine.
Damn, you’re good! One of the best ‘independent thinker/voter’ metaphors I’ve ever seen. Keep up the good work!
People read this guy Gandelman? With that analysis?
He’s flogging for Sen. Mary Landrieu whom he claims is responding the the WH’s “full-court press” regarding the phrase “blame game” used by the Administrations “staunchest defenders”.
So apparently the Administration shouldn’t respond to criticisms reported and repeated in the media, nor should they suggest a moderation in placing blame before there’s been an opportunity to assess what’s gone wrong. (In fact, the blame game started as soon as people were displaced, as if as a result of a natural disaster, no one should suffer any deprivations. Such expectations are naive and juvenile.)
The result of this meta-analysis is that no one can be innocent of operating from political motivation with a partisan agenda. Except of course, those of us that know everyone deserves some of the blame. Suggestive that the overriding narrative is all of us should feel shame and guilt because some have suffered from this hurricane.
Which is to say, Mr. Gandelman is living down to the most popular and simplistic stereotype of moderates.
Also, it appears, the most accurate.
It would be interesting to see the blame polls in states that have had lots of FEMA experience, like Florida or California. Out west, we know through experience that the first responder is oneself, then the locals, and then FEMA comes in later when every local resource has been used up.
THE RACIST BUSH ADMINISTRATION HAS INTENTIONALLY LEFT THOUSANDS OF POOR AFRICAN-AMERICANS TO DIE.
But now is not the time to point fingers.
The primary purpose of being a moderate is so that you can stroke your chin, look wise, and say things like, “The truth, I suspect, lies somewhere in between.” Then everyone applauds you for your circumspection and non-partisany goodness.
TW: “million”, as in number of times I’ve seen it.
I think it’s telling that he attempted to portray Crazy Mary Landrieu as merely “responding to the full-court press by the White House”. This is the same Mary Landrieu who said on the floor of the Senate, “I intend to find out why the federal response, particular the response of FEMA, was so incompetent and insulting to the people of our states,” It’s the very same Mary Landrieu who threatened physical violence against anyone, including the President of the United States, who tried to place any blame upon state and local officials. And it’s the very same Mary Landrieu who, in her appearance on Fox News Sunday, tried to claim that the unused school buses were flooded BEFORE the storm hit.
And that ‘toon of his dummy is downright creepy.
I think Bush screwed up. In hindsight, it is easy to see that he should have just grabbed a couple of SEAL teams and a sump pump, gone to NO, and blown away anybody who got in the way of his placing that pump in the canal breach. In three or four hours, VOILA! – the situation would have been under control.
Instead, ChimpyBusHitlerMcHaliburtonNero PLAYED HIS GUITAR!!! Oh! The humanity…
Well, I realize I’m just piling on Gandelman, here, but I never was impressed with him. There was a while when Glenn linked him fairly frequently, but to me, his entire blog persona of “the moderate voice” always seemed like just the put-on that Jeff’s post reveals.
One can have a quirky set of views on various issues that cross political boundaries, but specifically calling oneself “the moderate voice” (unless, of course, it merely means you don’t automatically impute your ideological opponents to be human scum, in which case, welcome to 90% of the blogosphere, pal) signifies an effort at cheap grace of just the sort Jeff deminstrated.
Fie, FIE! I say. A pox on both your houses!
Damn, this “moderate” stuff is easy!
What she was trying to say, but that neothug bastard Wallace kept hectoring her, was the mercenary drivers FEMA rented from Halliburton flooded the buses engines out and they wouldn’t start!
Hey look! Another moderate.
She also mentions lies about WMD, skeletal National Guard because of Iraq, sucking up to the Saudis (okay, she’s got a point there but in making it she reveals her complete ignorance of economics and markets), and, of course, Halliburton.
Mike C:
I’m pretty sure that anybody who believes this piffle is no moderate, but a full-fledged moonbat.
I guess being a “moderate” means wanting to have it both ways. F’rinstance:
“Moderates” Then: “There aren’t enough troops in Iraq to get the job done properly! I’m OUTRAGED!”
“Moderates” Now: “All our troops are over in Iraq, when we need them down in the Gulf Coast. I’m OUTRAGED!”
I have outrage-fatigue, but it’s because I’m tired of everyone being so constantly outraged.
IMHO and experience (over half a century of breathing)there is no such thing as moderate, unless it is the weather. Certainly not in any subject that makes News.
Right is right. Wrong is wrong. Evil is evil. Good is good. When a “pinch” of wrong is added to right – you end up with wrong. Likewise with evil. One needs to be passionate about right and wrong – good and evil. If you are moderate about either; then you are accepting that which is wrong or that which is evil.
There is nothing wrong about being open-minded. If you are willing to listen to opposing views, you may learn something. But accepting or apportioning something “wrong” as valid just to appear to be “fair minded” is just as bad as refusing to accept facts presented.
My sister is a “moderate”, unfortunately she has never had an original thought in her life.
No, no, you don’t understand. I’m a moderate, and everyone who thinks like me is a moderate. Everyone who doesn’t is a fascist extremeist.
Simple, really.
Word: Methods, as in “His methods are madness. Just to be clear.”
This is precisely why a Senate investigation into the Katrina response is premature and foolish. There are way too many unknowns at this point for such an exercise to be meaningful. It will quickly reduce itself into partisan dribble. As for Joe Gandleman, I enjoy reading him. By his own admission, he leans left of center. I understand why conservatives see moderates as left-leaning- many are. It just doesn’t trouble me.
Hmmm.. I have a new phrase – Moderately Pregnant.
It’s about the same as Political Moderate.
TW: Who needs a stinking TW? I’m signed in!
Is that Joe “GAY PORN COCK OF LIES!” Gandelman?
Fuck him. Not literally, of course.
Unless you like that kind of thing, that is. Wouldn’t want to be non-inclusive.
Don’t you have to be a moderate to fuck a moderate? Isn’t there some type of law that says you can’t have sex with someone of another political pursuasion?
Unless it is some type of metaphorical ass fucking.
tw:except, Except when?
I must respectfully disagree with Jeff. Although Gandelman obviously wants to create the impression that he is a Gang Banger, the actual content of his posts at TMV demonstrate that he is much closer to a Bush Is The Only Oner. Afaik, he’s not devoted any significant space to the role of the state and city officials.
I only mention it BECAUSE OF THE HYPOCRISY!!!