The Hill:
The Ebola crisis in the United States has become an anchor threatening to sink the Obama presidency.
Already under fire from critics who saw the federal response to the outbreak as disorganized and timid, things went from bad to worse on Wednesday, when it was revealed a second nurse had contracted the disease while treating a Liberian man at a Dallas-area hospital.
More alarmingly, the diagnosis was made just hours after the nurse, 29-year-old Amber Vinson, had flown from Cleveland to Dallas on a commercial airliner, despite reporting to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that she had a fever.
That Vinson was allowed to travel at all — along with continued questions about why federal procedures for Ebola treatment appear not to have been implemented in Dallas — have prompted serious questions about the administration’s handling of the disease less than three weeks before the midterm elections.Democrats are expected to lose significant ground in those contests, in no small part due to public dissatisfaction with Obama and resilient questions about the president’s competency.
And concessions from the White House and CDC that there were multiple “shortcomings” in the administration’s response are only likely to deepen those fears.
The president has little political capital to spare.
Obama’s approval ratings were already at a record low of 40 percent according to a Washington Post/ABC News poll released Wednesday — and taken before news broke about the new Ebola patient. That same survey found 39 percent of voters view the Democrats favorably — the worst showing for Obama’s party since 1984.
The precipice on which the president now rests is eerily similar to the one that confronted former President George W. Bush at the same point in his term.
The former president, doomed by a series of political and policy missteps, became quickly viewed as incompetent, limiting his ability to govern effectively.
Obama hasn’t had a major error like Katrina or the Iraq War. But the cumulative effect of careening through an unrelenting two years of crises, from the Department of Veterans Affairs to the Secret Service, has had a similar effect on perceptions of the president.
The “No drama Obama” White House has long prided itself on not overreacting to crises.
@Greg:
Well, I will lay out a list of things the administration is NOT doing, then you can present your list of what they have done to prevent the disease from coming over here.
Less than a week after Obama stated that it was extremely unlikely that the disease would ever make it over beyond our borders, we had the disease right here in Dallas. So, first, Obama did NOTHING to prevent the disease from entering our country. NOTHING. In this case alone (the cost of which is well beyond a million dollars and still rising) a simple travel ban would have been 100% effective and would not have cost one nickel. For, even if someone was dishonest enough to lie on their out-bound questionnaire, the Liberian stamp on their passport would have barred entry into the US. Currently, hundreds a day are still coming in. What is the probability that more than just a few carry the disease?
In that initial presentation it was also stated that hospitals across the country have been briefed and trained on how to deal with a case of Ebola. Apparently, that was not the case. The very first person the very first patient encountered blew it totally. Perhaps the emergency room attendant that first met Duncan was the only medical personnel that was unaware of the threat, but I really sincerely doubt that. More likely, Obama’s proposition that they were well ahead of any case appearing (as unlikely as we were led to believe that was) was a pipe dream, a liberal dose of “hope and change”, based mostly on the fervent hope (hope being not a very effective weapon) that no infected person would develop the urge to come to the United States; because that, in reality, was all that was protecting us.
Now, we can easily tell that the travel ban is opposed on political grounds because the objections to it from the administration is constantly changing. First, it was because it would damage commerce (you know, the healthy import/export economy thriving between the US and West Africa). So, they put money before public safety? No, I think not; that was merely their first swing at it. Then, it was the rationale that a travel ban would isolate West Africa and prevent aid for the fight against the disease from reaching the hot zones. Strike two, no one said anything about preventing aid and expertise from getting to those in need nor the necessity to defeat the disease over there before it gets over here. But, the left has not recruited an army of straw men for nothing and, for lack of an option other than simply saying “open borders at all costs”, they have to create scenarios that even an elementary school child could pick apart.
Are we to believe that Thomas Duncan is the only person that has both Ebola and a desire to come to the United States for free treatment? Duncan was not unaware of his infection; all his contacts have cleared quarantine, including his fiance’… his FIANCE’ was not infected. So, either they were strictly celibate (possible) or Duncan knew all along that he carried the disease when he lied on his questionnaire and came to the US, putting large groups of the population at serious risk. This, Greg, is how well Obama’s “doing what is necessary” worked.
Another one of those “necessary” things was the protocols to deal with the patients. Of course, those “protocols” were violated and Ms. Pham was infected. However, the protocols now seem to be in a constant state of evolution. In fact, it appears there were no protocols, or at least not enough people were made aware of them.
Now, we want people to remain calm in the face of the threat and not panic. However, the fallacy of the near-impossibility of contracting the disease undoubtedly led nurse Amber Vinson to believe that she could travel around, after being on the treatment team of Duncan, with a fever, popping Tylenol to keep her temperature below detection levels.
To add incredible insult to horrific injury, Obama reacts to bad press by “acting”; he appoints a political fixer to lead the effort so, regardless of what turns to shit next, it won’t look bad for Obama or Democrats. There’s your “doing what is necessary”, Greg.
So, Greg, what is worse? An unreasonable fear that makes people overly cautious or an unwavering trust in a proven unreliable government and belief that no matter what they do or how they act, they will remain safe and infection-free? This administration’s “actions” to control the possibility of an outbreak was just that; fantasy and hope. To the surprise of absolutely no one, this proved inadequate.
Why do you think Obama should lock down air travel for a contagious disease that has infected a total of only 3 people in the United States? Would you have him lock down air travel any time there’s an outbreak of avian influenza somewhere in China? As was pointed out, the potential for a deadly bird flu pandemic is much higher. That’s been a constant threat the CDC has been monitoring and dealing for years.
Ebola has been around since 1976. The potential for a pandemic is much lower than with airborne infections. There’s a rational protocol for dealing with outbreaks, which is already being followed. I’m confident that it will be modified as circumstances require. If travel restrictions were to become required, I have no doubt that travel restrictions would be imposed. Unfortunately how to deal with a potential outbreak of hysteria is less clear. Politicians attempting to politically exploit that fear—such as Rep. Marsha Blackburn, who seems to have gone on an ebola/anti-Obama talking-head tour—certainly aren’t helping the situation.
Some republicans apparently can’t be trusted to think things through and act in a measured, rational manner. They can’t seem to resist their opportunistic impulses. This week they’re freaking out about ebola. A couple of weeks before it was ISIS, which suddenly seems to have dropped of their radar. If not that it’s Benghazi, or the IRS, or massive voter fraud conspiracy, or the mega-disaster that is Obamacare, or the continuously crashing U.S. economy, or whatever else has most recently caught their delusional fancy. It’s amazing that anyone in the White House tasked with trying to calmly respond to their assertions can still think straight.
@Greg:
Because the disease is coming from a specific region and it would be very easy and effective to do. As I stated with no possibility of refute, the ban would have kept Duncan out and he is the only case that has resulted in an outbreak. Completely avoidable.
The flu is treatable. The flu is not 70% fatal.
Some Democrats too, apparently. Democrats who, undercut by failures of liberal policies, wanting to show plenty of daylight between Obama failures and their own promises. So, they too support the travel ban.
Some West African countries have prevented outbreaks and some have defeated the disease. The credit, to varying degrees, travel bans which prevented exacerbation of the problem.
Funny, you describe what some have thought to be an Obama strategy; covering one scandal with another. Whatever the fact may be, Obama has quite a stable of scandals he either created himself or made worse by covering it up.
@Bill:
Still?
@Bill, #53:
Most things are completely avoidable, in retrospect. How do you think people would have reacted—particularly Obama’s political opponents— if he had imposed travel restrictions when there hadn’t been a single case in the United States? There was no legitimate reason for such measures. Nor is there now.
The mortality rate does not bear much relationship to the level of communicability. Spanish flu had a mortality rate of only around 2.5%. The reason it killed 100 million people in only 2 years was because it was very easily transmitted.
That’s a different situation. Proximity to focal points of the epidemic makes an enormous difference in the level of risk. If there are hundreds of infected people who could simply walk or drive across a border daily and are likely to do so, it makes perfect sense to lock down a border. That was the case there. I can certainly imagine a situation where international air travel should be greatly restricted. I can imagine situations where civil air travel should be shut down entirely.
Did President Bush lock down air travel from Asia in response to the 2002-2003 SARS epidemic? He didn’t, and shouldn’t have.
@Bill: A tourister once saw a farmer planting something all around his property and asked about what he was planting and the farmer replied “radishes” – “Radishes?” the tourister asked – “why radishes?” – “They’s to keep the wolverines away young feller!” said the farmer — ” — ” Wolverines? -I don’t see any wolverines! ” — exclaimed the tourister >> “Yeh – they work just fine”, said the farmer.
@Greg:
They would have reacted by not having Ebola.
I think Presbyterian Hospital, Nina Phan and Amber Vinson would beg to differ, as would the almost 200 people, now, that have been placed under quarantine. There is also the matter of the bill, which of course the left believes payment of which simply appears out of nowhere.
And when was this flu epidemic? Why not invoke the plague? Instead, let’s talk about the incurable Ebola virus and how, once someone gets it, the virus is in control and a person lives or dies based on how soon they got care, not any medical power (the rare blood serum not withstanding). The only sure-fire cure for Ebola is to not get it and the best method of achieving that is to not invite it into your home.
And there we have one unlikely ally: Mexico. Apparently they are not so keen on letting infected (or suspected infected) people into their country. For, as we know, if anyone infected is in Mexico, their is NOTHING to prevent them from simply walking here. Much like the enterovirus.
What, Greg, is the downside to blocking entry from infected regions? What is the downside to following logical common sense? For once?
Ask the cruise ship passengers how their vacation in Mexico and Beliz went.
And then ask them if they voted for Obama.