What the White House thinks it knows about the politics of Katrina:
1. "Federalizing" the response to a natural disaster in advance or immediately after the fact is not politically or legally feasible, especially when state and local officials of the other party resist such an effort.
2. Most of the TV-picture-generating problems of the last week were caused by the rank incompetence of the New Orleans and Louisiana governments, whose mayor and governor both publicly and privately behaved abominably, regarding evacuation, health care, law enforcement, civil order, etc.
3. The national media and the people of New Orleans do not care one iota about (1) and (2), and, for now, the White House has to largely accept that.
4. Decrying the "blame game" and focusing practically and rhetorically on helping people now - whether poll tested or not - is the lynchpin of the best-available strategy.
5. As long as John McCain (on Imus this morning), Rush Limbaugh, Tom DeLay, rightist bloggers, and their compatriots all continue to point directly or obliquely at the failure of state and local officials, and downplay the need for immediate federal culpability, the bottom will not fall out on Capitol Hill or in poll numbers.
6. A real investigation into past funding fights for protecting New Orleans and into FEMA's leadership and reaction is not going to be pretty, and that can and should be kicked down the road as often and far as possible.
7. The biggest real danger, perhaps, is that some bad breaks on the economy - involving a lethal brew of energy, steel, and housing prices - could have serious 2006 and legacy implications.
What the Democrats think they know about the politics of Katrina:
1. This is open season on a president whose coverage right now is at the level of Nixon's final days (Note Note: we actually got an email from a Democratic strategist making the comparison!!!) or Reagan during the height of Iran-Contra. The season is SO open, in fact, that Democrats are seeing fit to attack the President's mother's comments, Dr. Rice's shopping habits, and the First Lady's hair (OK, they haven't gone after the First Lady's hair - yet - but see our exclusive on that below.).
2. There are no two better manifestations for the degree to which Democrats think that this is THE moment they have been waiting for five years than Hillary Clinton's morning show romp (belatedly responding to those Democrats who for weeks have urged her to be more assertively and visibly anti-Bush) and Howard Dean's expected full-throated attack later today.
3. The President's poll numbers - even/especially among Republicans and conservative-leaning independents - are about to take a major hit, as all but the hardcore begin to see him as a lazy, incompetent, radical conservative (as if we were a nation of Begalas and Carvilles).
4. The President's entire agenda is dead in the water.
5. This story will go on and on, and it's likely to get worse for the President before it gets better.
6. Eventually, things will get so bad for the White House that Republicans running in 2006 will abandon him in droves, dissipating the GOP unity that has been a hallmark of the Bush era.
7. The President is so weakened that he will have to nominate Larry Tribe for the O'Connor seat - or, at least, he should.
Ask yourself: does the media filter of major newspapers and cable and broadcast TV entities agree more with the Bush list or the Democrat list?
(We will pause while you re-read the lists and answer the question.)
(Our pause is over.)
Although much of the politics of Katrina is taking place behind the scenes, with strategists constrained by the societal pledge to "keep politics out of this," senior strategists in both parties are now fully engaged on what all this might eventually mean in the short and medium term for American politics.
Democrats are still disorganized. Republicans are all still standing strongly with the President.
So in that sense, things haven't changed.
But Katrina is such a big, swirling, all-consuming story, that the President's life IS changed for the foreseeable future.
He can't pass Social Security. He can't be seen doing any other work. He can't go biking (we think).
Even in the first half of 2001, even when the press wouldn't fully acknowledge him as President of the United States, the White House wasn't in a hole like this.
Much of his agenda is incongruous with the pictures we are seeing behind Oprah in the Astrodome. The political advice of the Wall Street Journal ed board notwithstanding, this is not a politically smart time to talk tax cuts for the wealthiest.
In today's political ultra-must-read, the Washington Post's Dan Balz writes these two paragraphs of modern poetry:
"To his critics, Bush is now reaping what he has sown. Their case against him goes as follows: Facing a divided nation, the president has eschewed unity in both his governing strategy and his political blueprint. These opponents argue that he has favored confrontation over conciliation with the Democrats while favoring a set of policies aimed at deepening support among his conservative base at the expense of ideas that might produce bipartisan consensus and broader approval among the voters. His allies and advisers, while acknowledging that polarization has worsened during the past five years, say the opposition party bears the brunt of responsibility. Democrats, by this reckoning, have rebuffed Bush's efforts at bipartisanship, put up a wall to ideas that once enjoyed some support on their side, and, even in the current crisis along the Gulf Coast, are seeking to score political points rather than joining hands with the president to speed the recovery and relief to the victims." LINK
"Wherever reality lies between these mutual recriminations, the path from post-9/11 unity to the rancor and finger-pointing in the aftermath of Katrina's fury charts a clear deterioration in political consensus in the United States and a growing willingness to interpret events through a partisan prism. It is a problem that now appears destined to follow Bush through the final years of his presidency - a clear failure of his 2000 campaign promise to be a 'uniter, not a divider.'"
To support his view, Balz points to a Washington Post-ABC News poll taken last Friday which shows that "just 17 percent of Democrats said they approved of the way Bush was handling the Katrina crisis while 74 percent of Republicans said they approved. About two in three Republicans rated the federal government's response as good or excellent, while two in three Democrats rated it not so good or poor."
Balz has RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman pointing "specifically" at Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton as a Democrat who is now attempting to take advantage of the politics of Katrina.
Elsewhere - and cleanly reflecting the Gang of 500's view - USA Today's Susan Page practically declares the President's agenda dead. OK, no, she doesn't. But that is the tone of her tour de force romp through each item that was on the plate before. LINK
And even on the Family Wire: "Despite day after day of appearances by President Bush aimed at undoing the political damage from a poor response to Hurricane Katrina, the White House has not been able to regain its footing, already shaken by the war in Iraq and a death toll exceeding 1,880," writes the AP's Jennifer Loven. LINK
So, for now, our collective mission is clear: treat this like a campaign, and at the start of each day, predict who will win the news cycle, and at the end of each day, evaluate who won.
Yes, we are somewhat troubled at turning all Note readers into McLaughlin Group panelists, but it must be done.
So, quickly, quickly, quickly, who won yesterday's Katrina political battle???!!
The answer: the Democrats won by several hairs.
But today - and tomorrow (as they say in the South) - is another day.