Published: Tuesday, Oct. 30 2012 3:00 p.m. MDT
During a CNN debate at the height of the GOP primary, Mitt Romney was asked, in
the context of the Joplin disaster and FEMA's cash crunch, whether the
agency should be shuttered so that states can individually take over
responsibility for disaster response."Absolutely," he said.
"Every time you have an occasion to take something from the federal
government and send it back to the states, that's the right direction. And
if you can go even further, and send it back to the private sector, that's
even better. Instead of thinking, in the federal budget, what we should cut, we
should ask the opposite question, what should we keep?""Including disaster relief, though?" debate moderator John King asked
Romney."We cannot -- we cannot afford to do those things without
jeopardizing the future for our kids," Romney replied. "It is simply
immoral, in my view, for us to continue to rack up larger and larger debts and
pass them on to our kids, knowing full well that we'll all be dead and gone
before it's paid off. It makes no sense at all."
As the head cheerleader for "team Obama" the NYtimes is obligated to
obfuscate, mislead, or out and out lie if need be in order to advance
Obama's election efforts.The REALLY frustrating thing, I'm
sure, for the NYT (and others)on the Obama cheerleading crew is that all of
their intellectual gymnastics are HURTING the Obama re-election efforts rather
than helping him.They're getting more and more desperate as the
Why does Romney want to get rid of FEMA?
Thanks to Truthseeker for getting the quote. The Romney campaign can deny
anything it wants to; he's on record suggesting he'd cut FEMA. As far as politicizing the event, I'd suggest that Romney collecting
canned goods the Red Cross doesn't even want for a photo op would qualify.
Congrats, though, to New Jersey Republican Governor Chris Christie, who has made
it clear that his priorities have nothing to do with politics.
Disaster relief is best managed at the State level – not at the Federal
A piece that criticizes those who are using the current events as a basis for
their position.... then goes all political to support its own position. Did
this piece have to get approval from the irony desk before published?Obviously many posting here haven't lived in an area that has experienced
a major disaster. Not all disasters do rise to the level of requiring FEMA aid.
But when they do.... no state can take the impact of an event like this. It is
about balance. And I think all logical people understand that. It just where
that balance point lives is what is in debate... not if there should be a
The New York Times isn't going to change anyone's mind about who they
think would be a better president of the country. Obama already has the liberal
NYC vote so who cares what the editor's of the Times say? I certainly
The Deseret News isn't going to change anyone's mind about who they
think would be a better president of the country. Romney already has the
conservative Utah vote so who cares what the editor's of the DN say? I
One candidate is politicizing the storm. Claiming to suspend campaigning wile
continuing to do so. Pretending to collect food beneath screens running his
campaign video. The other candidate is earning praise for his leadership from
his competition's surrogate.
Romney said it. I have seen it. He and his campaign try to deny it at the
expense of whatever smell amount of credibility they have remaining.And speaking of obscene politicizing of tragedies, Mitt Romney set the bar for
that when he politicized the murder of the Lybian Ambassador before the guns had
even stopped smoking!Irony is one thing, but hypocrisy such as this
is truly obscene!
Many movement conservatives don't like the idea of a storm providing an
opportunity for positive accounts of a president doing his job. It goes against
the image they've spent hundreds of millions of dollars and tens of
thousands of hours trying create that the president is not one of "us"
and should not get re-elected.They want us to believe that
government is OK only when a Republican is in charge. Otherwise, government is
bad. They realize that when people are in trouble, they turn to government
because it oftentimes is the only place with the resources and organization to
deal with major disasters.
Re: "One candidate is politicizing the storm."You mean the
one using the Democrat campaign slogan about leaning forward in every press
release? You mean the one vainly attempting to show himself finally
acting kinda presidential-ish, while dodging questions about his abject failure
to really BE presidential, flying to Las Vegas to party and fundraise instead of
handling the attack on the Benghazi consulate?You mean the one who
unleashed his attack dogs at the NYT, to suggest that "big storms require
big government?"You mean the one who was asked to stay out of
NY, and who has plenty of storm damage to gawk at in his own backyard, but who
insisted on a press event/photo tour of NJ anyway?Yeah -- one
candidate's campaign is clearly committed to politicizing the storm. But
it's not Mr. Romney.
"who cares what the editor's of the Times say? I certainly
don't."toosmart - maybe because the best way to get to an
informed opinion is to listen and try to understand multiple positions, then
form your own opinion, rather than just listening to those that agree with you.
You don't have to agree with the other people, but at least you
I'm sure you've heard of the pot calling the kettle black. In
today's paper there is this editorial criticizing the New York Times for
supposedly politicizing Hurricane Sandy. And then today's lead "news
story" is all about poor Mitt Romney having to suspend his campaign so as
not to look too critical of the president as he does his job looking out for all
the citizens of the nation (not just 47%). Maybe the folks at the Times were
just in a bad mood since their city is now crippled and will be for the near
future and they reject those who say that government has no place in our lives.
This hurricane came at inopportune time for a candidate who has been talking for
17 months about how the private sector can solve all of our problems. But the
DN can only express dismay (although certainly in an editorial) about how that
candiadte had to put the brakes on his momentum.Integrity.
It's a work too often invoked by those who understand it least.
OK. So my comment didn't make sense. It should have said, "And then
in today's DN lead story..." and "(although certainly not in an
editorial)..." Sorry for the typos - it's Monday.
This storm is a perfect opportunity for President Obama to come to the aid of
the Sandy ravaged East Coast, while Mitt is shown loading relief trucks, and
doing his best to dodge questions about his comments stating he would love to
defund FEMA. I think the storm highlights the philosophical
differences between the two candidates regarding the role of government.Take your pick!
Which behavior is most presidential?Organizing relief efforts while
communicating to the American people how they might best aid those effected by
Sandy,or,A press event in Ohio featuring a candidate
working the crowd and ducking reporters' questions about FEMA while moving
boxes of canned food (which the Red Cross says is counter-productive and
specifically ask you _not_ to send) onto trucks for an hour, while your campaign
bio video plays overhead?Look, this campaign _is_ about the proper
role of government. One of those roles, in fact one of government's
critical roles, is disaster relief.Romney is on record as calling
funding for FEMA "immoral," and the Romney/Ryan budget calls for severe
cuts in federal disaster relief.You guys are spreading this attitude
- it's time you own it and deal with the realities of what you're
advocating.And regardless of your political persuasion... Go online,
right now, and make a donation to the Red Cross Disaster Relief fund.
There is no better illustration of the difference between parties than the role
of FEMA. Clinton's FEMA director, James Lee Witt, was
extremely competent and effective.Bush replaced Witt with
incompetent Scott Brown, thereby proving the Republican mantra "govt
VST says - Disaster relief is best managed at the State level – not at the
Federal level.Possibly true -- unless the magnitude of the storm
completely overwhelms the state. Stop and think for a moment. How would Utah
do if we were hit by a disaster as large and devastating as Sandy?How well will Utah do when the Big One hits and Salt Lake, Provo, Orem, Ogden,
Layton, Draper, Sugarhouse, Millcreek, Bountiful, and all points in between have
been flattened?VST's thinking points up the foolishness of
thinking any state can go it alone when disaster strikes.
Re: "Romney is on record as calling funding for FEMA "immoral" . . .
."Actually, he called wracking up higher debt immoral, but, for
discussion purposes, let's go with your characterization.Since
every state, every county, every city and village in the Nation has
disaster-relief infrastructure in place, ANY federal infrastructure investment
is needlessly and expensively redundant.States are closer, better
placed, better motivated, and perfectly capable, particularly with in-place or
planned regional and interstate support agreements, to handle disasters as they
occur. Federal involvement seldom extends beyond political photo-ops and
money.So, the ideal FEMA would be one guy with a 50-card rolodex, a
big checkbook, and a camera to record the visits of "concerned"
Washington politicos.Anything beyond that is fraud, waste, and
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments