Bush

Following a $1-billion-grossing, Oscar-winning smash could have left writer and director Jared Bush and director Byron Howard feeling like rabbits in the headlights, but they seem to have outfoxed the challenge. “Zootopia 2” has already stampeded past $1 billion to surpass its predecessor, and the awards nominations have just begun slithering in. But how did the sequel survive such high expectations, stay as socially relevant as the original and navigate the peril of too many cooks in the kitchen?

“Animation’s a team sport,” says Howard, referring to the sheer number of people who worked on the film over five years. “It’s 700 in the crew, but in this building, it’s about 1,000 and another 300 in Vancouver. So it’s everyone’s collective ideas, saying, ‘Here’s where we can do better.’ So everyone has skin in the game and they all want these movies to be great. It’s an emotional investment.”

The creative team screened “Zootopia 2” for all of Disney Animation multiple times in various stages of development. A feedback system enabled every employee to respond.

Bush says Disney regularly seeks internal reactions after screenings, “but we asked way more direct questions for this one, like at an audience preview. Then we shared that feedback, unfiltered, with the entire building. That allowed people to see that their feedback mattered because you could actually see ideas that came in [manifest] from screening to screening.”

Bush and Howard acknowledge that having that many collaborators keeps the inspiration flowing but also allows fragments of the colossal group brain to sneak into the film unnoticed. Even they aren’t sure where all the in-jokes are planted.

A “story jam” — reminiscent of a TV writers room — was just one of many avenues for collaboration in the making of “Zootopia 2.”

(Disney)

Like its predecessor, the sequel is packed with movie references and animal puns — “A Moose Bouche”; “Gnu Jersey” — and the directors are quick to spread the credit (or blame). “ ‘A Moose Bouche’ — we’ve gotten emails about that one,” says Howard. “Cory Loftis, our production designer, came up with it.”

There’s a “Star Wars” cantina bit, a soupçon of James Bond in the score at a fancy gala and dashes of Steven Spielberg in the camerawork. It’s easy to spot “Ratatouille” when an animal chef is revealed to have a rat under its hat, but Bush asserts there’s a second reference in that moment — the animal declaring “I knew it!” isn’t just any raccoon, but “Raccacoonie” from “Everything Everywhere All at Once.” That character is itself a “Ratatouille” reference (and, Bush points out, “EEAAO’s” Oscar-winning supporting actor Ke Huy Quan voices “Zootopia 2’s” lead snake, Gary). So it’s a reference coupled with another reference to another film’s reference to the first reference. Whew.

Those Easter eggs, including an extended callback to Stanley Kubrick’s “The Shining” — the realization of which they credit to animator Louaye Moulayess, a “Shining” superfan — speak to a willingness to cater to audiences beyond kids. Presumably, most children attending “Zootopia 2” haven’t watched Kubrick’s film. That’s a shoutout to the grown-ups for bringing the kids and, hopefully, discussing the historical practice of redlining with them after the show.

Byron Howard, left, and Jared Bush.

(Christina House / Los Angeles Times)

The first “Zootopia” was not notable just for funny talking animals but also the fact that the funny animals were talking about bigotry and stereotyping. Perceptive viewers may have noticed a mammalian bias in the original — there were no reptiles to be found in its near-perfect society. It turns out they were discriminated against as a class and denied their rightful place as residents, as we learn in “Zootopia 2.” Bush said that concept fit right in with “continuing this discussion about how we as human beings have a hard time looking past each other’s differences.”

Howard says the diversity-as-strength theme plays out not just in grand terms but also in the dynamic between the two protagonists, Judy (a rabbit, voiced by Ginnifer Goodwin) and Nick (a fox, voiced by Jason Bateman): “Nick and Judy are such different, contrast[ing] characters that are really stronger [together] because of those differences, and that speaks to something we really value, which is differences between each other as a working pair,” he gestures to Bush and himself. “We continue to thrive in that way.”

Howard agrees with the comparison of him and Bush to conductors of a giant orchestra, listening for notes being played just right. He thinks of composer Michael Giacchino “onstage with those virtuosos at their respective instruments; we work with masters all around us, so we have a lot of trust in them.”

However, he admits with all those voices, “Writers have a tough time here because we scrutinize these movies and redo them over and over and over again. Jared is a great example of someone who thrives in this environment.”

Bush, explaining he came from the culture of TV sitcoms and all their constant revisions in writers rooms, says, “We have this amazing luxury of being able to rewrite and rethink and absorb these better ideas over years. It is an extreme luxury.

“There’s nothing else like this in Hollywood that I’ve seen — that level of deep collaboration and iteration. There’s no place I’m ever going to be that I will love as much as this.”

DETROIT — In the frantic final firefight of the 1992 presidential campaign, this battered industrial city may have been ground zero.

In the last days before today’s vote, President Bush and Bill Clinton crossed paths over and over again through a narrow band of critical Rust Belt and Great Lakes states–from New Jersey and Pennsylvania to Ohio and Wisconsin. But no state occupied more of their attention than Michigan.

Into this battlefield, the two major contenders have fired television and radio ads, mailings, surrogate speakers and repeated visits of their own–to the point where even veteran local observers have been overwhelmed. Their efforts–reinforced by Ross Perot’s national television barrage–have put the campaign on everyone’s lips.

“There’s a lot of strong feelings on it this year,” said LeAnn Kirrmann, a Republican activist from Grand Ledge, as she waited for Bush to arrive at a rally near here Sunday.

That appears to be the case across the nation, as voters render their verdict on this stormy, vituperative and often path-breaking campaign. Polls show the percentage of voters paying close attention to the campaign has soared this fall, and most experts expect a large turnout–a dramatic conclusion to a campaign that has regularly produced moments of high drama.

“It’s a mortal lock that turnout is going up,” said GOP pollster Bill McInturff.

After tightening significantly last week, national polls show Clinton again holding a comfortable lead over Bush, with Perot lagging behind. Few observers are entirely certain that a campaign that has been consistently unpredictable doesn’t hold one or two more surprises. But a Bush comeback at this stage would rank as the most dramatic reversal of fortune in the final hours of a presidential race.

In their final maneuvering, both Bush and Clinton targeted this state for contrasting reasons that underscore the length of the odds facing the President.

The widespread economic uneasiness in Michigan–symbolized by the continuing turmoil of General Motors Corp., which led to a management shake-up Monday–has always made the state an uphill climb for Bush despite its Republican leanings in recent presidential campaigns.

It remains a daunting challenge for the President now: The latest statewide tracking poll for a Detroit TV station, released Monday night, showed Clinton leading with 46%, Bush with 30% and Ross Perot at 16%.

Facing such numbers, Bush might have written off Michigan in a different year to spend his last campaign hours elsewhere. But the President has been forced to pound relentlessly at the state because there appears to be no way he can win the necessary 270 electoral votes without Michigan’s 18.

That reality defines Clinton’s stake in the state. Although Clinton–with his strong base on both coasts–can probably win today without carrying Michigan, he has invested so heavily here precisely because he knows Bush cannot.

“That’s Clinton’s great advantage,” said Democratic strategist Tad Devine. “He can focus on trying to take just one link out of Bush’s chain.”

Clinton’s intense focus on Michigan represents the reversal of a traditional Republican tactic. Because the GOP base in the South and West left Democrats so little room to maneuver in past presidential campaigns, Republicans have typically been able to dictate the battlefield in the election’s final hours.

In past years, the Republicans devoted enormous resources to a single conservative-leaning state–usually Ohio–confident that if they won there, the Democrats could not reach an Electoral College majority.

This year, though, it is Clinton who has the lead and the flexibility to choose where to fight. He has selected Michigan as his version of Ohio.

“That is a pretty fair analogy,” said David Wilhelm, Clinton’s campaign manager. “Michigan is a linchpin to our Electoral College strategy; it is a state that if we win, it destroys almost any chance that Bush will be reelected.”

With the state playing such a central role in the strategies of both candidates, their efforts here have been enormous. “Some of us,” said Don Tucker, the Democratic chairman in populous Oakland County, “have started to think Clinton and Bush are running for President of Michigan.”

When Clinton arrived in Detroit on Monday for a lunchtime airport rally, it marked his third visit to the area in five days and his sixth trip to the state in two weeks.

On Sunday, Bush roused the faithful with a scathing attack on Clinton at a rally in Auburn Hills, just north of here–his third run at the state in eight days.

Last Thursday, voters from around the state were able to ask Bush questions in a televised town meeting from Grand Rapids. The next night Clinton flew to the Detroit suburbs to hold his own televised town meeting.

When Clinton forces made their final buy of television time last week, they estimated they were placing enough commercials on the air so that each Michigan resident would see them 14 times through Election Day.

Bush, both sides figure, is on the air even more heavily–especially with a foreboding spot about Clinton’s record as governor that might be titled “Apocalypse Arkansas.” From both sides, acerbic radio advertisements blare incessantly.

As for Perot, local observers say his ad assault has been less visible than in some other states. But his promises to shake up Washington have won him a strong following.

At one point early last week, Republican polls showed Perot surging over 20% in this state. With most of Perot’s gains coming from Clinton, that tightened the Michigan race considerably.

But, as has happened throughout the country, Perot’s support has slipped here since he accused the White House last week of engineering dirty tricks that forced his withdrawal from the race in July. Initially, the voters deserting Perot disproportionately moved to Bush, but now Clinton is winning his share of those voters and consolidating his lead.

“The President is unlikely to close the gap in Michigan on Election Day,” said GOP pollster Steve Lombardo.

Even with Clinton’s lead in the polls, Democrats here remain edgy. Almost without exception, they are haunted by the memory of 1990, when then-Gov. James J. Blanchard led Republican John Engler by 10 percentage points in the final polls–and then was swept from office by a strong Republican effort to get out their vote, coupled with a poor turnout in Detroit.

Democrats are insistent that won’t happen again. Registration is up in Detroit, and Mayor Coleman A. Young has put his shoulder into the Clinton effort. One local official estimated this weekend that 65% of registered Detroit voters could come to the polls today, compared to just 54% four years ago.

Unions are pushing hard too: The UAW has been distributing to members copies of a Flint newspaper article reporting that Ross Perot owns a Mercedes-Benz and other foreign cars. In Michigan, that’s not much different than burning a flag.

Republican efforts to turn out the vote are just as intense. In Oakland County alone, GOP volunteers made more than 150,000 calls last weekend, said Jim Alexander, the county GOP chairman.

Local observers say religious conservatives and anti-abortion activists are mounting powerful drives; thousands of copies of the Christian Coalition’s voter guide on the presidential candidates were distributed at Bush’s rally in Auburn Hills on Sunday.

Beyond its impact on the Electoral College, voting in Michigan should help answer some of the key questions on which the results will pivot around the nation. Among them:

* Can Clinton reclaim the so-called Reagan Democrats–the blue-collar ethnics who deserted the party during the 1970s and 1980s over taxes, the economy and the perception that Democrats favored minorities?

Stressing such issues as welfare reform and his support for the death penalty, Clinton has aggressively courted voters in Macomb County, a Detroit suburb renowned as the breeding ground of Reagan Democrats.

Republicans have fired back with targeted mailers hitting Clinton on trust and taxes. And Perot could be a formidable competitor in Macomb County and similar neighborhoods for the votes of working-class residents disgusted with Bush and the gridlock in Washington.

* Can Bush hold suburban Republicans and independents who favor abortion rights? Four years ago, he carried the generally affluent Detroit suburb of Oakland County by 109,000 votes. But the hard-right line on social issues at the Republican Convention did not play well there, and Democrats are optimistic that Clinton’s centrist message will allow him to make significant inroads, not only in Oakland County but in similar places in New Jersey, Illinois and Pennsylvania.

* Can Clinton get the high turnout he needs from blacks after a campaign so heavily focused on wooing white swing voters in the suburbs? The answer will affect the result not only here but in other industrial states, such as Ohio and Pennsylvania, as well as Southern battlegrounds like Georgia and Louisiana.

* Will young voters show up today? One reason Clinton’s margin diminished in some national surveys last week is those polls included very few young people among their likely voters–and Clinton, the first baby boomer to top a national ticket, has been running very well with the young.

In 1988, just 36% of eligible voters age 18 to 24 actually turned out. Mike Dolan, field director for Rock the Vote, a nonpartisan national effort to register and turn out young voters, predicts as many as half of them may vote this year.

Such a spike in turnout would be a huge boost for Clinton; in this state, for example, he has courted students at rallies at both the University of Michigan and Michigan State University.

One cloud on the Democratic horizon is the possibility of rain today in Michigan and much of the Midwest. Conventional wisdom holds that rain could dampen turnout in Detroit and other urban centers and pinch Clinton’s vote.

But many on both sides believe that interest in this campaign is so high that even rain won’t cool it off. “With all of the attention to the race this year,” Alexander said, “I don’t know if even rain is going to matter.”

New plaques have been installed in US President Donald Trump’s ‘Presidential Walk of Fame’ at the White House that attack many of his predecessors and make questionable claims about his own achievements.

Republican nominee George Bush won an overwhelming victory over Democrat Michael S. Dukakis in Tuesday’s presidential election despite a late surge of support for the Massachusetts governor among previously undecided voters and wayward Democrats.

Late returns showed Bush winning a solid majority of the popular vote nationwide and chalking up substantially more than the 270 electoral votes needed for victory. The Vice President swept the South, won all the Border states but West Virginia, took the Rocky Mountain West and gathered in the lion’s share of the electoral votes in the Midwest and Mid-Atlantic states.

“The people have spoken,” Bush told a cheering victory celebration in Houston, then immediately sounded a chord of unity. “A campaign is a disagreement and disagreements divide. But an election is a decision and decisions clear the way for harmony and peace,” Bush said, “and I mean to be the President of all the people.”

For his part, Dukakis–in a concession statement delivered earlier to loyal supporters in Boston’s World Trade Center–set the generous-spirited post-election tone, saying of Bush: “He will be our President and we will work with him.”

All told, according to late returns reported by the Associated Press, Bush had won 37 states to 10 for Dukakis, including the District of Columbia. Among the four undecided states late Tuesday night, Bush maintained narrow leads in California, Alaska and Illinois while Dukakis remained ahead in Washington state.

Thanks Reagan

Bush, recognizing the enormous political advantages of campaigning as the designated heir of one of the most popular chief executives of modern times, thanked President Reagan “for going the extra mile on the hustings” for the GOP ticket.

Bush also made a point of praising his controversial running mate, Sen. Dan Quayle of Indiana, for showing what Bush called “great strength under fire” during the campaign.

Despite the divisiveness of the bitter campaign, Bush said he was sure the country would unite in the aftermath of the election. “I know that we’ll come together as we always have, 200 years of harmony in the oldest, greatest democracy in man’s time on earth,” Bush said.

Will Do ‘Level Best’

In particular, the President-elect pledged to “do my level best to reach out and work constructively with the United States Congress.”

That may well be among the most serious challenges facing the President-elect. Despite Bush’s sweeping victory, Democrats apparently added to their already substantial domination of both the Senate and the House–assuring continuation of a pattern of divided government that has generally paralleled the GOP domination of the White House during the last 30 years.

In the Senate, where Democrats already outnumbered Republicans by 54 to 46, they gained seats in Connecticut, Virginia and Nebraska while losing seats in Mississippi and Montana, according to actual votes and television network projections. They seemed likely to increase their number in the Senate to 55.

Democrats ousted Republican Sens. Lowell P. Weicker Jr. in Connecticut and David K. Karnes in Nebraska, and former Gov. Charles S. Robb of Virginia took the seat being vacated by retiring Republican Paul S. Trible Jr.

Republicans defeated Democratic Sen. John Melcher of Montana, and in Mississippi, Rep. Trent Lott

won the seat now occupied by retiring Democratic Sen. John C. Stennis.

Sen. Lloyd Bentsen of Texas, the Democratic vice presidential nominee, retained his Senate seat thanks to a Texas law that allowed him to seek reelection there even as he ran on the national ticket.

With all but a few incumbents in both parties coasting to easy victories, the Democrats appeared certain to retain their comfortable majority in the House. NBC News projected that the Democrats will outnumber Republicans by 259 to 176 in the House next year, compared to the present lineup of 255 to 177 with three vacancies.

The most stunning congressional upset was the defeat of Rep. Fernand J. St Germain (D-R.I.), chairman of the House Banking Committee, at the hands of a Republican political novice, Ronald K. Machtley.

If the presidential balloting produced an overwhelming electoral victory for Bush, Dukakis nonetheless ran stronger than any Democratic presidential candidate in this decade. He appeared to have carried New York, Rhode Island, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, Oregon and Washington, as well as the District of Columbia and his native Massachusetts.

He also mounted powerful challenges in such heavily populated states as Pennsylvania, Illinois and California.

Concession Statement

Still, with both CBS and ABC projecting Bush as the winner as early as 6:17 p.m. PST, Dukakis made his concession statement in Boston at 8:20 p.m. PST–just 20 minutes after the California polls closed.

About 30 minutes later Bush, who had run a slashingly negative campaign against the man he labeled “a liberal out of the mainstream,” told a cheering crowd in Houston that in defeat Dukakis had been “most gracious . . . and genuinely friendly in the great tradition of American politics.”

Bush, 64, is the first sitting vice president to win the Oval Office since Martin Van Buren in 1836. And his election to succeed President Reagan means that, for the first time since the Democratic era of Franklin D. Roosevelt and Harry S. Truman 40 years ago, the same party will control the White House for more than two consecutive terms.

Overall, the presidential balloting appeared to reflect the fact that voters feel fairly satisfied with the way things are going in the country–as confirmed by Los Angeles Times/ Cable News Network exit polls. Most voters interviewed in that survey said they wanted to stay the course charted by the Reagan Administration in domestic and foreign policy.

Reaganesque Note

The vice president, who had patiently plotted his run for the presidency ever since losing the GOP presidential nomination to Reagan in 1980, repeatedly promised voters he would continue those policies and sounded a Reaganesque note in victory Tuesday night, saying: “Now we will move again, for an America that is strong, and resolute in the world, strong and big-hearted at home.”

Reagan himself, who retained an extraordinary approval rating in the 55%-60% range as his second term drew to a close, pulled out all stops in campaigning for the election of his vice president.

Exit polls indicated that even though Quayle continued to have unusually high unfavorable ratings among voters, he was not a significant factor in Tuesday’s vote. The selection of Quayle, which had stunned and even dismayed some of Bush’s aides, was criticized repeatedly by Dukakis in speeches and in television commercials during the campaign. And Bush strategists were so concerned that Quayle would be a drag on the ticket that they limited his campaign schedule to smaller cities and towns outside the national limelight.

Late Dukakis Surge

Exit polls indicated a surge of Dukakis support over the weekend, especially among Democrats who had voted for Reagan in 1980 and 1984 and among voters who made up their minds only in the last few days. Dukakis, attempting to squeeze the last drop of help from that trend, used satellite links to beam last-minute television appeals into states where the polls were still open Tuesday night.

But in the end the shift fell considerably short for Dukakis as Bush drew heavy support among men, non-union voters and white voters–especially Southern whites and “born-again” Christian whites, according to the surveys of voters as they left polling places. Early poll figures even showed Bush winning about one-eighth of the black vote, which is more support than Reagan won among blacks.

The Times survey of voters indicated that Dukakis–for all his problems during the campaign–did as well or better than Walter F. Mondale did four years ago when it came to holding the core of the nation’s Democrats, but in today’s political arithmetic that alone is not enough to carry the White House. Among the independents who hold the balance of power, Bush outscored his Democratic rival.

Aggressive Campaign

Bush surged into the lead in his heated campaign with Dukakis by bouncing back from a 17-point deficit in the polls in mid-July with an aggressive, hard-hitting campaign in which he portrayed himself as the new leader of the Reagan revolution and Dukakis as a free-spending liberal who opposed such traditional values as the Pledge of Allegiance and favored such soft-on-crime measures as prison furloughs for convicted murderers.

The effectiveness of the Republican tactics was enhanced by the fact that Dukakis let valuable time slip away after his own nomination in July, was slow to meet the Bush attacks and failed until the final weeks of the campaign to develop a compelling message of his own.

It was apparently too late by the time Dukakis began to respond aggressively to Bush’s attacks and to drive home a populist message that the governor was “on your side.” The vice president, Dukakis declared in the closing days of the campaign, was partial to upper-income voters and his support for a reduction in the capital gains tax from 20% to 15% showed concern not for the average citizen but for the wealthy.

Negative Perceptions

Bush strategists, by contrast, began at the Republican convention last August to press a well-coordinated effort to drive up voters’ negative perceptions of Dukakis, who polls showed was fairly well liked but not very well known by the voters. That the Bush strategy succeeded to an extraordinary degree is indicated by exit polls Tuesday that showed Dukakis with an extraordinarily high unfavorable rating of 46% compared to 47% favorable.

The same polls showed Bush with a relatively high unfavorable rating of 39% himself, compared to a favorable rating of 55%.

Voting experts indicated that fewer than 100 million voters, or a little more than half the voting-age public, were turning out to vote Tuesday. They blamed the low turnout on the negative nature of the campaign, which included harsh attacks by Bush and counterattacks by Dukakis, as well as on a lack of enthusiasm for either candidate.

Moreover, the country is enjoying peace and relative prosperity and there were no overriding issues of the kind that can stimulate a high voter turnout.

Both Exhausted

Both candidates were exhausted as they campaigned right up to the end. Bush, returning to his official residence at a Houston hotel, said he was nervous but felt good about the election and Dukakis declared he felt “terrific” but was glad to be back in Boston.

ABC exit polls showed Bush scored heavily among the following groups: Veterans, people with children, people earning more than $40,000 a year, those with college degrees or some college education, Protestants, residents of farm areas and small towns, and voters who were self-employed or earned salaries instead of working for hourly wages.

Among Dukakis voters, almost 60% said they were voting against Bush rather than for the Democratic nominee. Although the vice president highlighted environmental issues and repeatedly accused Dukakis of failing to clean up the pollution of Boston Harbor, voters who gave high priority to environmental issues apparently favored the governor.

Strong GOP Support

While Bush was falling short of Reagan’s 1980 and 1984 landslides, polls indicated he was drawing about 92% of the vote among those who consider themselves Republicans. He was carrying independents by a margin of 54% to 44% for Dukakis, whereas Reagan won 61% of the independent vote in 1984.

Bush, like Reagan, cut into the Democratic ranks, but the vice president was getting only 17% of that vote, compared to the 24% Reagan got in 1984.

Bush voters said they were looking for strong leadership, experience, a strong national defense and a strong economy. They also favored Bush’s stance opposing legalized abortions and his stand on curbing illegal drugs.

The vice president was relaxed and in good spirits as he and his wife, Barbara, along with 22 members of their family and dozens of friends and advisers, awaited the election’s final outcome at the Houstonian Hotel.

At Bush’s side was former Treasury Secretary James A. Baker III, his longtime confidant and director of his almost flawlessly managed election campaign. Baker is widely expected to be named secretary of state in the Bush Administration, although Bush repeatedly refused to discuss potential Cabinet appointments during the campaign.

Quayle Decision

Baker has made it clear he had no part in the selection of Quayle as Bush’s running mate, the one major decision that Republican strategists considered a negative for the Bush campaign. Baker has said Bush informed him of the selection after he had already told others.

The 41-year-old, boyish-looking Quayle went home to Huntington, Ind., to vote and shake hands with supporters along the town’s main street before settling down to wait for the final outcome in Washington.

“I’m looking forward to being the next vice president of the United States,” he told reporters.

Looks Exhausted

Dukakis, accompanied by his wife, Kitty, and three children, cast his ballot at a housing project in his hometown of Brookline, Mass. He look exhausted and made no statement to about 200 shouting supporters before returning home.

For 50 hours without a break, he had sped by plane across the country, stumping in 11 cities in nine key battleground states in his last-ditch effort to turn things around.

Bentsen, who polls showed was the most popular figure on either ticket, spent Election Day in Austin. Although he was unable to help carry his state for Dukakis, Bentsen is expected to remain a powerful voice in Washington, however. He will retain his chairmanship of the Senate Finance Committee and Democratic sources say his performance on the campaign trail is likely to enhance his influence in party affairs.

Rallied Faithful

Dukakis’ finest hour in the campaign came at the Democratic convention in July, when he rallied the party faithful with a stirring speech that promised a more honest and caring government and attacked Bush for his role in the Iran-Contra affair and other scandals and tied him to Reagan Administration slashes in social programs.

But the Massachusetts governor never came close to stirring such excitement again, even though in the closing days of his campaign he drew large, enthusiastic crowds as he crisscrossed the country in a desperate final effort.

Shortly after the Democratic convention, polls showed Dukakis briefly with a 17-point lead over Bush. But that lead quickly disappeared as the governor appeared to coast in the opening weeks of his campaign, spending at least two days a week at the Statehouse in Boston while Bush was campaigning vigorously and painting his opponent as a liberal far removed from the American mainstream.

Democratic strategists criticized Dukakis for failing to respond early to Bush’s attacks and for assembling a campaign team that included relatively few people experienced in running a presidential campaign.

WASHINGTON — As next week’s anniversary of Hurricane Katrina triggers recollections of rooftop refugees and massive devastation along the Gulf Coast, the White House has begun a public relations blitz to counteract Democrats’ plans to use the government’s tardy response and the region’s slow recovery in the coming congressional elections.

President Bush will visit the area Monday and Tuesday, including an overnight stay in New Orleans. He probably will visit the city’s Lower 9th Ward, the heavily black area that remains mired in debris, and is expected to meet with storm victims.

The trip will force Bush to revisit sensitive racial issues that arose with the flooding of New Orleans; at that time, civil rights leaders charged that the White House was slow to respond because so many victims were black. GOP strategists acknowledged that the administration’s failure to act quickly was a significant setback in their efforts to court traditionally Democratic African American voters.

The White House announced Bush’s visit Tuesday as a phalanx of administration officials stood before reporters to argue that billions of dollars had flowed to the region and millions more was on the way. The plans for the trip were disclosed one day after Atty. Gen. Alberto R. Gonzales announced that he was sending additional lawyers and resources to the city to fight fraud and abuse.

At Tuesday’s briefing, White House aides passed out folders and fact sheets that painted a picture of aggressive recovery efforts. A packet from the Army Corps of Engineers, responsible for the levees that were breached after the storm, carried the slogan: “One Team: Relevant, Ready, Responsible, Reliable.”

Donald E. Powell, the White House official in charge of recovery plans, declared that Bush was “fulfilling his commitment to rebuild the Gulf Coast better and stronger.”

The administration’s coordinated response is the latest example of White House officials maneuvering to cast a positive light on a campaign issue expected to hurt Republicans. Just this week, Bush acknowledged public anxiety over Katrina, along with concern about the war in Iraq and rising gasoline prices. But he defended his record and accused the Democrats of weakness, particularly on national security issues.

The White House effort comes as the Democrats, who plan to challenge Republicans on national security in this year’s midterm election campaign, are portraying the government’s response to Katrina as evidence that Bush failed to fix inadequacies exposed by the Sept. 11 attacks.

A report being released today by top Democrats, titled “Broken Promises: The Republican Response to Katrina,” features a picture of Bush during his Sept. 15, 2005, speech in New Orleans’ Jackson Square, in which he promised to oversee “one of the largest reconstruction efforts the world has ever seen.”

The report argues that every aspect of recovery — including housing, business loans, healthcare, education and preparedness — “suffers from a failed Republican response marked by unfulfilled promises, cronyism, waste, fraud, and abuse.”

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada is scheduled to spend Thursday in New Orleans with fellow Democratic Sen. Mary L. Landrieu of Louisiana to kick off what they call the “Hope and Recovery Tour.” House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco plans to arrive this weekend with about 20 other Democrats for additional events.

White House officials declined Tuesday to offer many details of Bush’s trip. Spokeswoman Dana Perino said Bush would travel Monday to two Mississippi towns devastated by the storm, Gulfport and Biloxi, before arriving in New Orleans. He is expected to attend an ecumenical worship service at New Orleans’ St. Louis Cathedral, the backdrop to his Jackson Square address.

Leaders of the recovery effort said Tuesday that although progress had been slow in some areas, Bush would be able to point to successes in some New Orleans neighborhoods, including the famed French Quarter and the Garden District. However, neither area was damaged as severely as the Lower 9th Ward. The question for White House schedulers is how much to accentuate the positives while acknowledging the negatives.

“If you go to most of the city you see enormous progress,” said Walter Isaacson, president of the Aspen Institute and vice chairman of the Louisiana Recovery Authority. “They are probably going to go to the Lower 9th Ward, which is very honest of them, because that’s the place you see the least progress.”

Isaacson, a New Orleans native, said he considered many of the Democrats’ critiques to be unfair. He credited the White House with safeguarding millions of dollars in grants for housing and levee reconstruction, some of which was only approved this summer amid a contentious budget debate.

“They protected that housing money and the levee money in the appropriation process when every congressman was looking at it greedily,” he said.

On Monday, Bush offered a preview of his anniversary message, contending at a news conference that despite frustrations about the slow arrival of housing funds and delays in debris removal, “the money has been appropriated, the formula is in place, and now it’s time to move forward.”

He suggested that $110 billion in federal funds had been “committed” to help the region rebuild, but confusion persisted Tuesday over what portion of that money had actually been spent.

During the White House briefing, Powell said that about $44 billion, about 40% of the total, had been distributed to hurricane victims, but suggested that state and local governments were mostly to blame for the gap.

The director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, R. David Paulison, was contrite about mistakes made during the disaster aftermath. Paulison, who won Senate confirmation in May, a week before the 2006 hurricane season began, was named acting director in September after Michael D. Brown was forced to resign as FEMA director amid criticism of the federal response.

“Our communications system was broken — it was broken between the local community and the state, it was broken between the state and the federal government, and it was broken within the federal government,” Paulison said. “That was the first thing we had to fix.”

*

Times staff writer Janet Hook contributed to this report.