From memory (and I could be very wrong here) Bush's response to Katrina was to not address it for a few days - exactly the wrong thing to do. http://blogcritics.org/politics/article/was-bush-slow-to-res... says it was four days before action started to happen, and I recall at the time there was a lot of anger directed against the inactivity of the feds.
Compare to Bligh in QLD, who was doing two-hourly media stops packed with information, keeping people abreast of what was going on. The second day of the recovery they realised that they had so much volunteerism that they had to tap it - and there's aerial footage of volunteer centers with queues literally over a kilometer long. Compare to Katrina when the feds had no idea what was going on and where they also copped flak - rightly or wrongly - for not letting volunteers help in a timely manner
Even on the information front alone, if people know what's going on, they feel in control of the situation as the 'what ifs' are minimised. QLD flood victims felt acknowledged, Katrina victims felt abandoned.
Katrina was indeed much worse than the QLD floods, but that doesn't absolve a politician of having to provide good leadership.
Compare to Bligh in QLD, who was doing two-hourly media stops packed with information, keeping people abreast of what was going on. The second day of the recovery they realised that they had so much volunteerism that they had to tap it - and there's aerial footage of volunteer centers with queues literally over a kilometer long. Compare to Katrina when the feds had no idea what was going on and where they also copped flak - rightly or wrongly - for not letting volunteers help in a timely manner
Even on the information front alone, if people know what's going on, they feel in control of the situation as the 'what ifs' are minimised. QLD flood victims felt acknowledged, Katrina victims felt abandoned.
Katrina was indeed much worse than the QLD floods, but that doesn't absolve a politician of having to provide good leadership.