NANCY PELOSI, THE HOUSE Democratic leader, tells a great story about questioning a benighted President Bush on Katrina relief. At a White House meeting last week with congressional leaders, she told Bush he should immediately fire Michael Brown, the head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency. The president's response, Pelosi says, was to ask: Why? What went wrong? Her conclusion was that Bush was "oblivious, in denial, dangerous."

Others at the meeting tell a slightly different version of the testy encounter, a version that sounds more believable. Yes, Pelosi declared that Brown should go, and Bush asked why. But it's her answer, not Bush's question, that is telling. "Well," she said, then paused. "For everything. . . . It was so slow." Pelosi offered no list of specific things Brown did wrong or failed to do. Bush was appalled. He knew how Brown had performed, wasn't happy with it, and removed him from Katrina duties two days later. Pelosi had merely uncorked the now-familiar blanket accusation at Brown. Bush responded sarcastically. "Thank you for your advice," he said.

A lot was packed into that brief exchange. It displayed the deep polarization in American politics that has shaped nearly everyone's take on Katrina. It showed the eagerness of Democrats to exploit the hurricane and its aftermath for maximum political gain. And it reflected Bush's failure to seize the opportunity of Katrina for strong presidential leadership.

A good question is why the president, slammed mercilessly by the mainstream press, Democrats, and a few Republicans for the Katrina disaster, hasn't been blamed by the public for ineptitude in responding to the plight of New Orleans. The answer is more obvious than you might think. First and foremost, the elite media simply don't have the clout they used to. "The broadcast networks in particular don't have the ability to dominate the story anymore," says Republican consultant Jeffrey Bell. Millions of Americans "didn't take at face value that Bush had bungled. They didn't believe it." Nor should they have.

Also, the red state/blue state division in the country proved durable. Make that rock-solid. Democrats and independents didn't change their view of Bush's presidency. More significantly, neither did Republicans or conservatives. Those in the Republican coalition mostly agree with Bush on Iraq, terrorism, taxes, and social issues. Balanced against their reasons for supporting Bush, his handling of Katrina was nowhere near enough to turn them against him. In polls, the worst Bush suffered was a slight dip in his job-approval rating.

In trashing the president, Democrats have overplayed their hand as never before. Their criticism of Bush began soon after the levees broke in New Orleans and picked up steam once it became clear that thousands of people were stranded in New Orleans without food, medicine, or imminent prospects of being rescued. And the media, more hostile to Bush than ever, adopted the Democratic line that the slowness of rescue and recovery efforts was the fault of Bush and Brown.

Now, after politicizing Katrina and dividing the country, Democrats insist, disingenuously, that Bush de-politicize the issue and unify the country. He should go about this, Democrats argue, by choosing a "unity" nominee for the second Supreme Court vacancy. Unity in this case means a candidate Democrats like. And he should jettison his domestic agenda, especially tax cuts. If Bush falls for this, he deserves to have his job rating drop. (I suspect he won't.)