As published in the

Pasadena Star-News - January 5, 2006

San Gabriel Valley Tribune - January 5, 2006

Whittier Daily News - January 5, 2006

George Bush diverted from real problems

by

Gerald Plessner

January 5, 2006 - What was the most important political event of 2005?

Most people would say Hurricane Katrina. But not me.

Hurricane Katrina is a terrible memory for all of us, one that may shape our politics for years to come. But its political impact was magnified by the nomination of Harriet Miers to a seat on the Supreme Court.

By that act of an isolated and ill-advised president, George W. Bush started the decline of the American neo-conservative movement. That could make it the pivotal event in American politics for years to come.

Conservatives' belief that they could depend on the president to stand up for their ideas and principles was tested beyond the limit. Because they could not understand how he could nominate someone unproven on the issues important to them, many of the president's supporters lost faith in him.

Conservative admiration for George Bush the good man protecting America in the war on terrorism was shattered for many people. He seemed to not care about defending issues that conservatives cared about.

The nomination of Harriet Miers, a person of such limited experience and unknown qualities, pulled the props from under the broad conservative support for the president. For many admirers, unavoidable doubt had to be confronted.

It is difficult to face it when your political leaders disappoint you. (Just ask those who believed in Bill Clinton!) But that is just what the president's admirers had to do.

For many Americans, the Federal government's response to Hurricane Katrina raised again the questions about the president's motivation and his competence. All of that had lingered after the Miers nomination.

The White House and the Republican leadership tried to shift the blame for Washington's hurricane response onto local and state political leaders, but it didn't work. People understood that managing waterways and flood control are the federal government's responsibility, so the spin strategy seemed to be counterproductive. They also understood that a disaster of that magnitude required a strong Federal response.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency wasn't up to the job. It didn't function because the Bush Administration had moved experienced disaster professionals to the new Department of Homeland Security. In the process they stripped FEMA of experienced people, leaving it in the charge of Republican political hacks.

That neglect may have been intentional on the part of the "starve the beast" zealots in the Administration. They believe that programs that help people are a waste of money that could be used for tax cuts for the wealthy.

The neglect, the widespread cronyism and the favored contracting exposed in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina showed itself for what it really was, special interest politics by the party in power. That may have further undermined the public's trust in the president and it may have also caused people to lose faith in the conservative approach to governing.

Add to that the evidence of potentially widespread corruption coming out of the legal troubles of former House Speaker Tom DeLay, DeLay's "good friend" Robert Abramoff and perhaps Senate Majority Leader William Frist, and we may see a substantial change in voting patterns in the 2006 election.

We've already seen what happens when a president is weakened by such events. In the case of George W. Bush, there is his defeat over the extension of the Patriot Act, the assault on his use of illegal surveillance, the defeat of his vice president's wrong-headed campaign to legalize certain forms of torture and the secretary of state's embarrassing statements that the United States does not torture suspects in the face of evidence that our troops and secret agents have done so.

Each week brings new evidence of the president's weakened position on the international front as well. There are threats from the Iranian president to destroy Israel and the action of Russia to curtail gas shipments to Ukraine which could force Ukraine back into its subservient position with Russia. There is the impact of Russia's action on the European Union.

These are issues in which the United States should be interested because our friends are at peril. Instead, the president is limited by his preoccupation with his domestic survival and the problems which his administration has brought upon itself.

About the author: Gerald Plessner is a Southern California businessman who writes regularly on issues of politics and culture. He would be pleased to hear from you and may be contacted at gerald@geraldplessner.com.