Personally, I prefer the survey done by Pew about Katrina and the probable political aftermath. And the numbers are very, very bad for the Administration. And if they don't turn those numbers around significantly, those will be bad numbers for a good portion of the Republican Party come the next 14 months.

The only real reason to pay attention to a second-term President's pos/neg numbers and approval ratings is a base idea of how to project his party's performance in the next election. This holds true regardless of party or officeholder, at least from what I can see. I might do some digging around on my next day off to see what I can see regarding the historical trend of presidential approval ratings and second mid-term elections. (Very small sample size, unfortunately, but the numbers will still be out there.)

Katrina will be viewed only as a temporary downturn for the Republicans in the long run. Given the magnitude of the failure of government at all levels to salvage a great American city, it is simply remarkable that the numbers are as good as they are for the administration. They reflect an unmovable block of voters who will stand behind this president and his party no matter how great the incompetance. This block represents a substantial portion of the American electorate. The conservative revolution, it seems, is only beginning. When the terrorists hit again, and they will, the administration's numbers will jump back.

I'm completely amazed at how people are talking doom and gloom for the GOP for an election that is 14 months from now, based on the perception that the federal response to a hurricane was slow by a couple days. Seems to me like a case of wishful thinking on the left.

Personally, I think this is a classic case of group think on the part of poll respondents (i.e. average Americans). They see all the TV coverage, all the people criticizing the federal government and the President, etc. They hear pundits saying this could really hurt the President's job approval, etc. So when the pollster calls up and asks what they think of the President, they just say what they think they're supposed to say, although I doubt most could explain what they think the President should have done that would have made things in New Orleans a lot better.

So unless something else happens to cement this downturn in Bush's approval rating, I think it will prove to be rather fickle.

In the end all politics are local.

The only locals who seemed to screw up in this case were democrats (which is truly a shame since this could have produced a Giuliani type democrat, and god knows the party could use one.)

As a side note I don’t think the media really understands the reality of the answers from the polls. If I was asked "Do you approve of the President's handling of the hurricane?" my answer would have be no. (he should have federalize the LA National Guard, placed New Orleans under martial law, and had looters shot on site, as well as arresting the LA governor when she tried to stop the red cross from entering the city). Are any Democrats going to agree with that position?

So unless something else happens to cement this downturn in Bush's approval rating, I think it will prove to be rather fickle.

Given the historic new lows of Bush's approval ratings, and that he had been hovering in sub-50 territory for some time now, it's a reasonable hypothesis to think that this is, in fact, the cement.

I think this event will be a more or less permanent black eye for federal Republicans, Louisiana Democrats, and New Orleans Democrats.

Though, I don't mind saying that a lot of Bush's problem is "perception". If he hadn't stayed on vacation, if he hadn't gone somewhere other than the Gulf Coast on his first post-Katrina departure from the ranch, if he hadn't had that photo-op with the guitar, and most of all if he hadn't said that "Brownie" was doing a fine job, he'd have many fewer perception problems, whatever the reality might be.

Yeah, that must be it, a perception problem. Someone ought to get the happy-talk word to the homemless, destitute victims of Katrina: cheer up! it's not that bad! (maybe) You'll survive. Don't worry, be happy!, go on vacation, like Bush! Remember what his mother, Babs Bush said, So many of you were so badly off in the first place that this (hurricane thing) is really working out rather well for you!

oh, yes, those of you who cannot prove proof of registration shall be turned away from the polls next spring and fall. LOL!!!!!!!!!!

I suspect that in Mr. Bush's case, perception really was reality. The fact is, he didn't take this seriously enough, and his actions for the first two days of the disaster (staying on vacation, playing guitar, cutting John McCain's birthday cake) proved that.

Perhaps if he had put as much energy into the evacuation before and the rescue after as he had into the spin campaign he launched to save face, the American people might have a bit more positive opinion of him right now?

I see that the story of Hurricane Katrina in the moonbat camp goes like this: [Nero] Bush [fiddled] played guitar while [Rome] New Orleans [burned] drowned! This would be funny except for the way the mainstream media has implicitly endorsed that angle.

"..based on the perception that the federal response to a hurricane was slow by a couple days."

I don't think that's just a 'perception', more like a fact. Outside of some Bush die-hards, I don't know of anyone arguing that the federal (or any of the levels of government in all fairness) response was timely.

"I think this is a classic case of group think on the part of poll respondents"

It may be, but by the same reasoning I guess we can disregard any of those poll numbers in the past that agreed with the president's handling of Iraq and the war on terror, as those two issues are definitely more complicated than the response to Katrina and I would think that the 'average American' would be even more inclined to "just say what they think they're supposed to say".

I totally agree with you though, Eric, on the fickleness and tragically short memory of some of the American voters...

"[Nero] Bush [fiddled] played guitar while [Rome] New Orleans [burned] drowned! This would be funny except for the way the mainstream media has implicitly endorsed that angle."

It would be funny if it wasn't true, which it unfortunately is. Don't know why bringing notice to that fact is considered 'moonbat'. Perhaps our president shouldn't have put himself in that position at that particular time; it was kinda 'tacky' at the very least, you have to admit.

No, it's entirely a non-controversy manufactured by opportunistic leftists. You want to make "Daily Show" type jokes with the photos, go ahead, but don't pretend you're making a serious point. (Note: "you" means the people pushing this angle.)

The facts are, this was a celebration at a Navy base of the 60th anniversary of V-J day, obviously planned long in advance. A guitar was presented as a gift--backstage. What do you expect the President to do? Clear his schedule and do...what exactly? Walk around the disaster area feeling people's pain?

The substantive criticisms of the Bush administration vis-a-vis Katrina are for things that took place months and years before the levees broke. The biggest political mistake he made was not immediately making a WTC-style inspiring speech--but that would have done nothing to help the victims on the Gulf Coast.

Regarding the poll numbers, the difference between post-Katrina reactions and Iraq and WoT reactions are that people have had years to absorb and process information about the latter, but only days for the former. I would say the hit Bush has taken from Katrina is similar to the boost he got following 9/11. Both have basically been visceral reactions. (Although since more people felt personally affected by 9/11, the reaction to Katrina will be shorter-lived.)

The only thing the president should have done was recognize that 'the response' to the hurricane and flooding was obviously going too slowly and correct it. I don't think it's even primarily Bush's fault; I think there were failures at all levels of government and a lot of it so far sounds like it was caused by excessive bureaucracy, and there would have been no better president to cut through that bull and get something done than Bush. Unfortunately it was an opportunity for him wasted. The Daily-Show-esque guitar photo has a little more punch when it comes on the heels of days of inaction.

To be fair and to his credit, I did hear that Bush had already approved emergency funds before the hurricane even hit. I wish he would have kept more on top of it after that point, but he was also admittedly blind-sided by problems at all levels.

The Daily-Show-esque guitar photo has a little more punch when it comes on the heels of days of inaction.

Well, actually, the photo was taken on Tuesday, August 30, late morning or early afternoon. I can't recall whether it was the wee hours of Monday morning or of Tuesday morning when the levee broke. So it was, at most, a single day of "inaction."

"So it was, at most, a single day of "inaction.""

Yep, just about a day; he was playing guitar early in the afternoon on Tuesday. Then he returned to Texas for his last night of vacation, a day and a half after the first levee break.

I suspect that people would be complain even if GW was out there slinging sandbags.

Those who don't like him are going to find fault, those who do don't.

The rest of us realize that he was a bit tardy and is now playing catch-up from a PR perspective - but to expect any president of any party to be personally involved with the minutea of emergency management is to not understand the delegation of effort required at any executive level.

"to expect any president of any party to be personally involved with the minutea of emergency management is to not understand the delegation of effort required at any executive level."

True, but I don't think it's unreasonable to expect the president to understand that his delegates are not competent and not doing their job. That certainly doesn't require getting involved with the minutea; in this case it required watching the evening news. I think Bush's response was slow but that he's recovered well after appreciating how bad things were, and I look forward to seeing what went wrong with this response only as far as improving the overall process and being better prepared next time.

I do think that Bush should take a hit for appointing Brown, and I would hope that Americans of all meaningless labels ('leftist', rightist, etc) would agree that that was a mistake. But that also doesn't mean that it should be harped on excessively when there's obviously bigger issues to address.

Bush's poll numbers are down! I don't think he is planning to run for re-election anyway since the constitution (amendment) forbids it. Will his popularity (or un-popularity) affect other candidates? I don't think so, but minimally at best. What does it all prove? Don't rely on the federal government to handle local problems as quickly as local government can (providing they are not as hopeless as Naigan and the Louisianna governor).