How would other presidents handle Hurricane Katrina?

Plausible other presidents in 2005 include, but are certainly not limited to:

Al Gore

John McCain

Joe Lieberman

John Kerry

John Edwards

Richard Cheney

How would a different administration, either Republican or Democrat, handle the hurricane?
 

TinyTartar

Banned
I don't see how they would have handled it much differently. Its not as if they had time machines that could have gone back to the founding of New Orleans and told them that it was a really fucking bad idea to build a city below sea level.

I suppose you might have seen more Navy and Coast Guard rescue operations being undertaken earlier with a different President as OTL the response was slow. More federal relief in the aftermath for a Democrat, I suppose, as they'd be more willing to spend federal money. Probably less nationwide church donations to help those affected; Bush called in a favor with some of the bigger Evangelical figures (Osteen, Hagee, etc.) that another President might not be able to. Not saying there would be no church donations, but it might not reach the amount that it did.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
The only thing thing that everyone on the list except Cheney would have done was land the friggin' plane and choppered into the area for a quick meet & greet. While doing that it diverts the helo from rescue operations, the SAR leadership and the local officials from working the problem and diverts massive amounts of security personnel from the mission at hand.

I really, really dislike GW as a President, but the Wrath of Posiden did what it did and there wasn't anything the POTUS, any POTUS could do to change it. Best thing to do was be sure the people on the ground had all the support they needed, be sure to be briefed daily or more often, and stay the Hell out of the way.
 
How would a different administration, either Republican or Democrat, handle the hurricane?
Having a director of FEMA who didn't use to be a horse breeder, and doesn't have to answer to a new, getting-it's-shit-together higher bureaucracy, will be a big help in itself. There's also the matter of whether the US is in Iraq (or Afghanistan) TTL, and if the National Guard is available at full strength from the get go.

So if we're going with a different President elected 2000 (Al Gore, John McCain, Joe Lieberman) we also need to determine in 9/11 still happens, if the US still creates a Dept of Homeland Security, and if there's a major war tapping into the Guard reserves. If any of those things don't happen, they'll be in a position to respond a lot better than Bush did OTL.

By contrast, an Democratic administration elected in 2004 (Kerry or Edwards) is going to inherit a difficult situation from the get go. Not only do they still have FEMA under the fresh Department of Homeland Security, but they've got to find people to fill these, as yet, not fully defined roles in a matter of months, or keep Bush's people. And of course, they'll likely still be involved in Iraq as early as August 2005.

Cheney... well, it helps to remember things could always have been worse.
 

jahenders

Banned
Brown clearly wasn't a great leader at FEMA, but it's very unclear whether other FEMA picks would have done much better.

In looking at failed leadership, let's not forget the failings of the NO PD, NO Mayor Nagin, and governor Blanco all of whom underestimated the problem and responded poorly.

I don't think that the US being in Iraq/AFG had much of an impact except in that leadership attention was initially focused elsewhere. There was still PLENTY of national guard presence in the US that could have been called out, neither Iraq or AFG impacted their overall ability to respond.

Having a director of FEMA who didn't use to be a horse breeder, and doesn't have to answer to a new, getting-it's-shit-together higher bureaucracy, will be a big help in itself. There's also the matter of whether the US is in Iraq (or Afghanistan) TTL, and if the National Guard is available at full strength from the get go.
 
Brown clearly wasn't a great leader at FEMA, but it's very unclear whether other FEMA picks would have done much better. (1)

In looking at failed leadership, let's not forget the failings of the NO PD, NO Mayor Nagin, and governor Blanco all of whom underestimated the problem and responded poorly. (2)

I don't think that the US being in Iraq/AFG had much of an impact except in that leadership attention was initially focused elsewhere. There was still PLENTY of national guard presence in the US that could have been called out, neither Iraq or AFG impacted their overall ability to respond. (3)

1) The Arabian horse breeder was FIRED for incompetence, was even worse running FEMA, and W told him he was doing a great job.

2) Agreed, but only the Federal Government had the resources to really make the difference. The only real hero of this story was the local Coast Guard commander.

3) NOT true. While there was a good amount of personnel left in the states, they were mostly the wrong type, and logistical material had largely been stripped in the US to support A-Stan and Iraq. The reasons for Iraq turned out to be completely bogus (except for Saddam trying to kill W's daddy). W's refusal to go to the predominantly African-American city of New Orleans (that shot of him looking out the window of Air Force One was devastating) while he proceeded to Ground Zero in NYC to inspect the destruction of the World Trade Center as a Republican could hardly have made a more stark comparison in the hyper-partisan atmosphere of the Karl Rove-Dick Cheney-Donald Rumsfeld Gang.

John McCain does the best job. Between his suffering as a PoW and his combat military background he would have had the greatest sympathy for the victims AND understood the need for immediate action. Gore strikes me as someone who would have spent too much time mulling over his options.
 

jahenders

Banned
1) Brown was clearly shown to be incompetent, but he probably did a decent job beforehand. W said that BEFORE it became clear Brown was screwing up. Identifying failure is REAL EASY with 20/20 hindsight. BTW, the police chief was also FIRED -- his decisions contributed to the crime (rape, murder, etc) and to the abandoning of some prisoners in their flooding jail cells.

2) True, but the state and city did poorly with what they had and took their time asking for the right aid. If W had just stomped in and said, "Shut up, we're in charge here" it would look like he was tromping on state rights/roles/responsibilities and doubting the effectiveness of black leaders.

3) They didn't need armored or mechanized infantry divisions in NO, they needed troops to help keep order. Nationwide, there were certainly a lot of NG MPs deployed, but there were still thousands US-wide, ditto for logistics troops. It would just have been a matter of quickly casting a wider net. In any case, if it was a problem, it'd be a problem for any president (unless you're actually postulating a POD where there's no 9/11, no Iraqi invasion, etc).

1) The Arabian horse breeder was FIRED for incompetence, was even worse running FEMA, and W told him he was doing a great job.

2) Agreed, but only the Federal Government had the resources to really make the difference. The only real hero of this story was the local Coast Guard commander.

3) NOT true. While there was a good amount of personnel left in the states, they were mostly the wrong type, and logistical material had largely been stripped in the US to support A-Stan and Iraq. The reasons for Iraq turned out to be completely bogus (except for Saddam trying to kill W's daddy). W's refusal to go to the predominantly African-American city of New Orleans (that shot of him looking out the window of Air Force One was devastating) while he proceeded to Ground Zero in NYC to inspect the destruction of the World Trade Center as a Republican could hardly have made a more stark comparison in the hyper-partisan atmosphere of the Karl Rove-Dick Cheney-Donald Rumsfeld Gang.

John McCain does the best job. Between his suffering as a PoW and his combat military background he would have had the greatest sympathy for the victims AND understood the need for immediate action. Gore strikes me as someone who would have spent too much time mulling over his options.
 
I don't see how they would have handled it much differently. Its not as if they had time machines that could have gone back to the founding of New Orleans and told them that it was a really fucking bad idea to build a city below sea level.



New Orleans has had a string of such disaster since its founding, yet every time it's the same cluster...drill. And the powers that be swear 'never again'. And then they rebuild just the same way (with whatever money the pols haven't stolen) and await the next disaster. Below the political BSers the field people did well. Louisiana Fish and Game and emergency services were working hard the whole time. The National Guard and Coast Guard did a fine job coming in right behind the flooding and rescuing and feeding people in huge numbers. They were stunned by the way their work was reported. News people would ride around with them all day collecting folks then post that nothing was being done.
 
Last edited:
Top