Russert and Nagin on MTP
By NotSoBlueStater Posted in User Blogs — Comments (9) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
I came away from that interview today actually liking Ray Nagin. In a world of canned answers, I think he did a pretty good job "keeping it real", if you will.
Before I continue, let me just say: I love Tim Russert. I know he had a bit of a rough week last week, and yes, he's a liberal at his core, but he's a journalist first. He gets the great guests, and he asks the tough questions. In the end, we can't cry foul for the sins of the loony left and then go after Russert -- who to my mind does his best to play it straight.
Today I thought he put New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin's feet to the fire -- asking the right kinds of questions and then pushing for answers. People here have said that Russert went soft on him, but he made Nagin answer for those underwater buses! I wasn't surprised. Realize, too, that for many it was the first time they'd seen that picture. It was an important moment.I also thought Russert pulled a couple of things out of Ray Nagin today that were quite telling in terms of the ongoing Katrina blame game:
(Audiotape, WWL Radio interview, Thursday, September 1, 2005):
MAYOR NAGIN: I basically told him we had an incredible crisis here and that his flying over in Air Force One does not do it justice. Don't tell me 40,000 people are coming here. They're not here. It's too doggone late. Now, get off your (censored) and let's do something and let's fix the biggest goddamn crisis in the history of this country.
(End videotape)
MR. RUSSERT: That was 10 days ago. Has the president responded?
MAYOR NAGIN: You know, the president and I had a one-on-one about that, and he expressed to me that he wasn't totally sure what I was talking about, but he understood my frustration. I said look, "Mr. President, I don't mean to disrespect you, nor the governor. But if you were in my shoes, what would you do?" And he kind of understood that.
Sounds like he was sorry he lost his cool with Bush, and was appreciative that the president didn't hold that against him. He could easily have gone stright to the talking points and remained focussed on those first few days, as his compatriots have, but he didn't. It was refreshing.
MR. RUSSERT: How would you grade the president's performance thus far, A through F?
MAYOR NAGIN: How would I rate it?
MR. RUSSERT: Yes.
MAYOR NAGIN: Oh, I don't want to get into that, Tim. I mean, I will tell you this: I think the president, for some reason, probably did not understand the full magnitude of this catastrophe on the front end. I think he was probably getting advice from some of his key advisers or some low-level folk that had been on the ground that this was serious, but not as serious as it ended up being. My interactions with the president is, anytime I talked with him and gave him what the real deal was and gave him the truth, he acted and he made things happen.
Does he or does he not let Bush off the hook there? He says that "anytime I talked with him and gave him what the real deal was and gave him the truth, he acted and made things happen." That sounds like praise to me.
Then:
MR. RUSSERT: How about the governor?
MAYOR NAGIN: Well, you know, I don't know about that one. We fought and held that city together with only 200 state National Guard. That was it. We did not get a lot of other support for three or four days of pure hell on Earth. There were resources that were sitting in other parishes. I just don't know. I mean, and then when a group did come down to review what was happening in New Orleans, it was a big media event. It was followed with cameras and with AP reporters, a little helicopter flyover, and then they had a press conference and it was gone. So I don't have much else to say about that.
As the cliche goes: Ouch! That left a mark.
It continues:
MR. RUSSERT: It sounds like you don't think the governor has done a very good job.
MAYOR NAGIN: I think there was an incredible breakdown of coordination, of resources, and decisions were made to move resources and to not move resources that just don't make sense to me. And then there was this incredible dance between the governor and the president about who had final authority, whether this was going to be federalized, who was going to be in charge at the end of the day, and I just don't appreciate that kind of stuff when people were dying in my city.
So I came away with two two key reactions to this interview:
1. Yes, Nagin had trouble with some of the tough questions. But he also stood tough and took them.
I gotta admit that I kinda like the guy. Hindsight is always 20-20 in these situations. I think he did an okay job given what he was up against. How do you convince people who have no money to spend time and money they don't have to get out of town -- after 40+ years of false alarms?
2. Nagin splits the blame pie between FEMA and Blanco (which is probably about right the more we learn), and seems to praise Bush: Not once, but twice.
I think he's a straight shooter. I hope he survives this. If I were him, I'd expect a nastygram from Howard Dean in his Inbox tomorrow, though. He repeatedly went off script.
...and maybe I was too hard on Nagin here:
http://vadum.redstate.org/story/2005/9/9/01224/20064
Time will tell as all the facts come out.
... for wagging his finger so much. But at the height of the chaos, there were a lot of people -- left and right -- wondering where the heck the help was.
Like everything else here, we need to view him through the proper lens. Time will give us perspective. His stock will rise or fall. I think he was trying hard to do the right thing.
but a significant amount left their posts
most of the new recruits stayed on
although he has been attacked for offering free trips...those trips brought back those police who cut and run
more and more stories are coming out about the courage of those who stayed
as i have said before, before we condemn anyone...there must be a full investigation
...has been reports of incredible acts of kindness and heroism. Hopefully, we'll still get to hear them.
Yes you do make a very good point, and I along with most are so focused on what went wrong that we are not paying much attention to what went right and the heroics of those brave men and women who were on the front lines in New Orleans.
Here's the problem however, it would seem that anyone that lauds someone in this whole sorry mess, they get either accused of being a Bush/Blanco/Nagan apologist.
I suppose it's the old saw about death and destruction sells TV and news print, heroism and bravery does not, too sentimental.
the everyman
the doctor, nurse, engineer, and lots of hard working civil servents, who found themselves overwhelmed
these stories are coming out
its the stories of individuals, not governments
the american spirit stays strong
when politicians do not follow talking points setup by their political operatives.
As a liberal, I have been ready to hold all government levels accountable, local, state and federal.
But the federal apologists have been trying to deflect criticism by blaming the local and state governments (who deserve such criticism) without also being open to self examination.
I clearly do not like President Bush, in general, but the only clear cut criticism I have of him at the moment regarding Katrina was his appointment of a political hack to head FEMA, an agency that exists not only to protect and help recover from natural disasters, but terrorists attacks, the very thing Bush is supposed to be most focused on.
It took over a week for a subordinate of Bush's to "fire" Michael Brown, rather then Bush showing leadership when he said "This is unacceptable" and firing Brown himself. If President Bush had done that September 2, he would not be facing any serious negative political repercussions now.
Accountability - that is Bush's Achilles' heel. A strong leader does not fear criticism and is prepared to admit mistakes. This White House develops talking points to deflect criticism.
Let this White House endorse an independent commission to review the Katrina disaster, first, before some grieving survivor of Katrina shames him into doing it, and let him accept whatever criticism that commission has of the federal government and his approval rating will soar above 50%. Even I will respect that.
Or continue to have a "circle the wagons" mentality and fear of criticism and watch his approval ratings stay low.
I am sure such a commission will have blistering criticism of local and state governmental actions as well and I say let the chips fall where they may.
Let sniveling pork protecting politicians from BOTH parties get blasted as they deserve to.
Steve Wild
... but the fact remains that he, and he alone, is the mayor of New Orleans; not Governor Blanco or President Bush or FEMA Director Brown, him. He, and he alone, was entrusted to administer a city of a half million people. He had the responsibility and he had the authority and there is ample evidence that he did not do his job.
The argument has been made that they didn't have the resources to pull off an evacuation. Put aside for the moment that they had a thousand of buses and Amtrak offered to take 600 or so evacuees on their 'last train out' and were rebuffed. But if he didn't have the resources as mayor his job is to get them, not whine about it when his city is underwater.
His job is the safety and security of the people of New Orleans. If he didn't have bus drivers when the storm hit it's his job to find them before the storm. If his levee board was spending money on things other than levees it's his job to stop them and get the money focused where it is supposed to be. If the city was going to use the Superdome as a shelter of last resort it was his job to see to it that there adequate supplies of water and basic necessities.
If he knew the levees couldn't protect above a Category 3 storm and he knew a Category 4-5 was bearing down it was his job to get people out. If that meant calling an evacuation 3 days before the storm so be it. And if the storm veered away and the evacuation proved unnecessary that's the price of leadership; it's sometimes painful to make the hard calls. And sometimes you will be wrong and have to pay the price. But scathing editorials in the Times-Picayune are a lot better than what they got.
Most cops stood their ground, but it was his police department that betrayed them by hiring others who went on to become looters and deserters when the going got tough. What kind of screening and training program did his police department have that allowed these people to get and keep jobs as police officers. Why did the good cops tolerate the bad apples?
The mayor is probably a terrific guy and a peachy dancer. But he, and he alone, was elected to lead the city of New Orleans. But he isn't a figurehead, he's the mayor. He's responsible. If he didn't have the resources it was his job to get them. If he had the wrong people working for him it was his job to replace them and get the right ones.
Nothing that the Governor, the President, the military, FEMA or anyone else can do to make up for the basic failure to do his job. There were something like 100,000 people remaining in the city, and aside from the ones who won't leave, they should not have been there. And it was his responsibility, and his alone, to get them out.
The lesson in here for all of us is that we need to hold our local leaders responsible. The state and the feds won't have to come rescue you if you don't need rescuing.
I do sort of feel sorry for him, he had a police force that cut and run (1/3), a Governor that would not make a decision, and FEMA in disarray at worse, was too differential at best.
But on Nagin is the failure to evacuate the city with the resources he had, which appear to be limited and having headed for the hills very limited. He also faced a corrupt City goverment work force who for the most part wanted nothing to do with helping others, mostly just wanting to save their own skins, not hard to understand.
When it is all said and done, Nagin will look bad, but I think others will look far worse.