September 17, 2005

What do you mean you aren't angry at Bush?

Doh! After President Bush's speech Thursday night, ABC's Dean Reynolds hit the Houston Astrodome's parking lot to get reaction from [black] evacuees. Despite Reynolds' best goading, none of those interviewed blamed Bush -- but instead blamed local officials.

"Did you harbor any anger toward the President because of the slow federal response?"

Connie London rejected the premise: "No, none whatsoever, because I feel like our city and our state government should have been there before the federal government was called in." She pointed out: "They had RTA buses, Greyhound buses, school buses, that was just sitting there going under water when they could have been evacuating people."

"Was there anything that you found hard to believe that he said, that you thought, well, that's nice rhetoric, but, you know, the proof is in the pudding?"

Brenda Marshall answered, "No, I didn't," prompting Reynolds to marvel to anchor Ted Koppel: "Very little skepticism here."

Reynolds pressed another woman: "Did you feel that the President was sincere tonight?"

She affirmed: "Yes, he was." Reynolds soon wondered who they held culpable for the levee breaks. Unlike the national media, London did not blame supposed Bush-mandated budget cuts: "They've been allocated federal funds to fix the levee system, and it never got done. I fault the mayor of our city personally. I really do."

Guess that's what happens when you go beyond the insulated edit rooms of the MSM broadcast booths and get a little spontaneous, eh? Welcome to the real world, Dean.

UPDATE: Katherine Kersten of the left Minneapolis Star Tribune has similar evacuee stories.

Posted by Felix at September 17, 2005 08:50 AM | TrackBack

Comments  (We reserve the right to edit and/or delete any comments. If your comment is blocked or won't post, e-mail us and we'll post it for you.)

Yeah. 54% of Americans think Bush did a poor job handling Katrina, and his approval rating hovers at 36%. Real unreasonable questions. Just because the media is -- 5 years into an Administration -- asking questions, it infuriates conservatives.

Think it was fun for most Americans to watch the media go to town on President Clinton for 3 years on Lewinsky, as the American public time and time again supported him and strongly opposed impeachment? Guess that was OK with you, though.

Posted by: dan at September 18, 2005 01:19 PM

I won't speak for Felix, but you should know I'm on record as stating that the Clinton bashing (by cons and/or press alike) was a colossal waste of time. Bush's poor poll #s are based more on Iraq and foreign policy as, despite the 54% figure, most put more blame on local officials for Katrina (and the public is split equal on "blaming Bush" for the overall mess).

The press asking questions, dan? Nothing wrong w/that other than their fringe belief -- and it is fringe -- that the "slow" response was based on racism.

Posted by: Hube at September 18, 2005 02:11 PM

I would not condone or defend a trend of harping on the racism charge. I didn't see anything in this post to that effect. None of Reynolds' questions include any "goading" on that issue, unless Felix is alleging that because Reynolds talked to black people, that he was insinuating the racial question using invisible liberal voo-doo techniques. I certainly don't think you can argue that the racism charge has been anywhere close to the focal point of most MSM questioning, particularly that which is cited in this post.

Posted by: dan at September 18, 2005 08:19 PM

It has been a "focal pt.," dan. It certainly has been inordinately covered. Even you have to admit that. And I certainly believe that it was ABC's intent -- hope -- that they'd get someone invoking racism in the interviews.

But again, that's me.

Posted by: Hube at September 18, 2005 08:52 PM

Post a comment

Remember personal info?