analyse les r\u00e9actions du public am\u00e9ricain<\/a> apr\u00e8s Katrina. Il s’agit d’une analyse tr\u00e8s compl\u00e8te, tenant compte notamment des nombreux sondages publi\u00e9s apr\u00e8s l’ouragan.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n\tIl conteste l’appr\u00e9ciation des d\u00e9mocrates selon laquelle Bush est vuln\u00e9rable sur la question de son comportement face \u00e0 Katrina et met en \u00e9vidence qu’il l’est plut\u00f4t sur l’Irak et sur la situation ext\u00e9rieure. Le probl\u00e8me pour les d\u00e9mocrates est qu’ils n’ont rien de nouveau \u00e0 apporter sur la question irakienne et au niveau int\u00e9rieur. Par contre, Canellos confirme l’effet psychologique important et durable de Katrina.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
\t\u00ab It seems likely that Katrina will continue to alter priorities in ways that could be beneficial to Democrats. The Pew poll, for instance, found that for the first time since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, a majority believes that the president should concentrate on domestic issues, not foreign policy.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n\t\u00bb But the public doesn’t need Democrats to tell them what went wrong with Bush’s response to the disaster in New Orleans. The public needs Democrats to offer fresh alternatives on the economy and security. The public, at least according to polls, is ready and eager to think about new ideas. The Democrats may not be.<\/em> \u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
\tMis en ligne le 14 septembre 2005 \u00e0 08H20<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Dans sa rubrique hebdomadaire sur les \u00e9v\u00e9nements de Washington, Peter S. Canellos, chef du bureau du Boston Globe \u00e0 Washington, analyse les r\u00e9actions du public am\u00e9ricain apr\u00e8s Katrina. Il s’agit d’une analyse tr\u00e8s compl\u00e8te, tenant compte notamment des nombreux sondages publi\u00e9s apr\u00e8s l’ouragan. Il conteste l’appr\u00e9ciation des d\u00e9mocrates selon laquelle Bush est vuln\u00e9rable sur la… <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"neve_meta_sidebar":"","neve_meta_container":"","neve_meta_enable_content_width":"","neve_meta_content_width":0,"neve_meta_title_alignment":"","neve_meta_author_avatar":"","neve_post_elements_order":"","neve_meta_disable_header":"","neve_meta_disable_footer":"","neve_meta_disable_title":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-66821","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bloc-notes"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/66821","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=66821"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/66821\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=66821"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=66821"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=66821"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}