Presidents in disaster zones

Please note this is not a Trump issue but rather speaks to every president that has to deal with a disaster.

Why do they insist on coming to the scene. I realize they want to look presidential but dealing with a president and their entourage can strain a disaster zone to its limit.

Airspace restrictions (shhesh you should see the shenanigans we have to go through to lift whenever the president is in the area be it land or air)
Security resources needed
etc etc etc

How exactly does this dog and pony show help the victims? Pull the directors of relief aganecies and EMS to brief the president when they should be on the front lines etc.
All of those resources wasted could be diverted to aid relief. Heck the advance team that showed up can roll up their sleeves and do some SAR etc.

Can we just say collectively that in this modern age of video conferencing that he can stay in Washington, help where needed by directing the relevant agencies to assist, and we the public and media wont give them flack for not showing up personally?

Thoughts?

If he did not go...

You would hear he doesn't care about Houston.

Besides, he went to Corpus, their event was over.

It's a lose, lose

a reply to: FredT


Because if they don't the media and public excoriate them. We are a sad pathetic species

Morale. A show of unity. Most Presidents try to do it.

originally posted by: FredT
Please note this is not a Trump issue but rather speaks to every president that has to deal with a disaster.

Why do they insist on coming to the scene. I realize they want to look presidential but dealing with a president and their entourage can strain a disaster zone to its limit.

Airspace restrictions (shhesh you should see the shenanigans we have to go through to lift whenever the president is in the area be it land or air)
Security resources needed
etc etc etc

How exactly does this dog and pony show help the victims? Pull the directors of relief aganecies and EMS to brief the president when they should be on the front lines etc.
All of those resources wasted could be diverted to aid relief. Heck the advance team that showed up can roll up their sleeves and do some SAR etc.

Can we just say collectively that in this modern age of video conferencing that he can stay in Washington, help where needed by directing the relevant agencies to assist, and we the public and media wont give them flack for not showing up personally?

Thoughts?

And yet if he didn't, many would scream that he didn't care.

The directors are called directors for a reason, they delegate unless they are that short handed.

They waited because they know all of what you speak. However, for many of these people, it might be somewhat uplifting to know that the President of the United States, regardless of how one might feel about him, would show up and try to give hope.

a reply to: FredT

I completely agree with you.

But as Bush demonstrated, phoning it in (or flying by as was the case for him) will buy you all kinds of media hate.

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

They waited because they know all of what you speak. However, for many of these people, it might be somewhat uplifting to know that the President of the United States, regardless of how one might feel about him, would show up and try to give hope.

I can see that but as someone who is expected to respond to a disaster in my area I would not want my ability to do my job interfered with etc. That would be demoralizing to me.....

a reply to: FredT

I could care a less if he goes to survey the damage in person, it's not going to have any effect on anything. Perhaps the people of Texas appreciated his visit? Probably most of them couldn't care a less either. What's important is how the relief/recovery/rebuild efforts are managed.

If things aren't handled well and he hadn't showed up, the optics would be horrible.

As much as the Trump supporters in this thread would have you believe that everyone else would have unfairly excoriated Trump had he not visited...

Louisiana Dem. Governor thanks Trump for flood visit

As Trump explicitly stated: "I will be visiting the impact zone tomorrow to ensure that you're receiving full support and cooperation from the federal government."

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
As Trump explicitly stated: "I will be visiting the impact zone tomorrow to ensure that you're receiving full support and cooperation from the federal government."

I get that but this is not some FEMA director flying over in chopter. When POTUS comes to town there is a huge supply chain and logistics circus that pulls from every LE group in the area when they could and should be doing other things in that time.

I agree the optics would be terrible. We would need a national understanding to cut POTUS some slack

It's physiological. It shows the big man cares. He seeing for himself. And probably the biggie, he's standing with us. Those things have a lot of value. If out of real concern and not political grandstanding it's much needed.

Btw: You have a PM

originally posted by: intrepid
It's physiological. It shows the big man cares. He seeing for himself. And probably the biggie, he's standing with us. Those things have a lot of value. If out of real concern and not political grandstanding it's much needed.

Pretty much this above and beyond any other reason a president goes to a disaster area.

a reply to: FredT

I do agree that there is no need for it other than moral and a show of unity, and it more than likely does take away from the actual physical aspect of the situation.

It also brings more press and coverage to situation which can lead to more donations to help.

I see your point. Trump is the President. It is up to him to make sure the help is there.

Oh and remember last year, the flood in Louisiana, that only Trump went to and while the locals were ecstatic that someone came to see what they were going through the press focused on the bad, so I guess the question is who should we listen to in this situation.

Personally I will side with the regular folks that want to know they are not being ignored or forgotten.

The airports were closed. Should have been light traffic.

Guess he didn't make Houston.

Bush calls Katrina photo 'huge mistake'

It is one of the most recognizable photographs of George W. Bush’s presidency – and it was a big mistake, the ex-president says.

...

"Huge mistake," the former president said of the photograph, adding that it made him look “detached and uncaring.”

...

“I immediately knew it was a problem."

The former president said ultimately the decision was made not to land in Lousiana out of fear it would have diverted precious resources to the already-strained recovery effort. But in hindsight, Bush said, it would have been more valuable to clearly show he understood how dire the conditions were.

“I should have touched down in Baton Rouge, met with the governor and walked out and said, ‘I hear you. We understand. And we're going to help the state and help the local governments with as much resources as needed.’ And then got back on a flight up to Washington. I did not do that. And paid a price for it.”

a reply to: FredT

If I remember correctly, Obama was criticized for not going to LA during their last floods.

While you are correct and it would be a waste of time and resources for a president to visit those places while they are under such stresses, apparently we are more concerned about the political posturing than we are about doing what is best for the people of the area.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: FredT

If I remember correctly, Obama was criticized for not going to LA during their last floods.

While you are correct and it would be a waste of time and resources for a president to visit those places while they are under such stresses, apparently we are more concerned about the political posturing than we are about doing what is best for the people of the area.

Swing and a miss...

Look the fema workers, state workers can mouth all the platitudes they want it does not really hit home till someone in the know like say a president,(could also be the governor, or state senators) shakes your hand hugs you and says it will be ok help is on the way we will be there for you.

This reassures the people which helps them keep calm longer,(which is important in a high stress area, especially soon after a natural disaster) and if the people are calm the work can proceed quicker, That is why the President does these things.

Apparently, people were more concerned about Melania's shoes.

originally posted by: Irishhaf

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: FredT

If I remember correctly, Obama was criticized for not going to LA during their last floods.

While you are correct and it would be a waste of time and resources for a president to visit those places while they are under such stresses, apparently we are more concerned about the political posturing than we are about doing what is best for the people of the area.

Swing and a miss...

Look the fema workers, state workers can mouth all the platitudes they want it does not really hit home till someone in the know like say a president,(could also be the governor, or state senators) shakes your hand hugs you and says it will be ok help is on the way we will be there for you.

This reassures the people which helps them keep calm longer,(which is important in a high stress area, especially soon after a natural disaster) and if the people are calm the work can proceed quicker, That is why the President does these things.

I can understand that, but to someone such as myself, it seems to be counter-productive and illogical.

Why would you want to cause more stress on resources, such as police, fire, etc, just to provide a hand shake and an "it will be ok"? That only serves to placate to emotions and does not help get the help there quicker.

Unless those politicians are willing to get their hands dirty and help with the efforts, it only serves the purpose of political posturing.