● The “Craven” Mitt Romney Exploits Your Pain: On Tuesday, Romney turned a campaign rally in Ohio into a hurricane relief rally. He asked people to bring food and supplies and to donate money to the Red Cross. Who could object to that? MSNBC.
MSNBC spun this story in the most despicable and deceitful way. First, they claimed that Romney “dressed up” a campaign rally as “a charity drive.” Then Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed, said:
“I think that this is just another moment where you see the clear striking difference between a president who has a heart for the American people and someone who simply wants to be president of the United States.”Huh?! This was seconded by MSNBC host Martin Bashir and other guests. Then they accused Romney of “politicizing” the storm and said “in this sort of disastrous moment [we] can really see in bold relief the differences between President Obama and former Governor Romney.” Really? All Obama has done is his job – he gave a speech asking for donations. . . the exact same thing Romney did. Yet, Romney is rotten and Obama is great? How does that work? Finally, they brought on GQ’s Ana Marie Cox, who said of Romney’s efforts: “I found that sort of fake, relief rally, whatever it is, to be pretty offensive, and also wrong-headed.” And then this hag called Romney “craven.”
Wow.
So what is this character assassination based on? They claimed that Romney was collecting goods and not asking people to donate money, which is what the Red Cross “really wants.” Ok, for starters, any sort of aid is helpful in these situations, that’s why aid organizations always ask for stuff, not just money. And who are these jerks to impugned anyone’s charity? I doubt they gave a penny. . . unlike Romney who has given millions. Moreover, Romney DID ask people to donate. The video of the event shows two huge screens with the Red Cross donation number on them. So their entire argument is not only vile character assassination, but it’s based on an intentional lie. Talk about politicizing a tragedy!
● The Evil Mitt Romney HATES FEMA and you!!: Almost the moment Sandy hit radar screens across the country, the MSM started running with this question: “Does Mitt Romney want to shut down FEMA?” Uh, no. He’s never advocated that. Yet, reporter after reporter began asking this question. They were always told “no,” but that didn’t stop them from suggesting the answer was really “yes.”
Where did this idea come from? Last year, a group of leftist bloggers claimed that Romney called FEMA “immoral” and said disaster aid “makes no sense at all.” This was picked up by reporters who surprise, surprise, read leftist blogs (“Journolist II” anyone?), and was even brought into a New York Times editorial smearing Romney two days ago. The problem is, it’s a lie.
What Romney actually said was this. He was asked by CNN’s John King in June 2011, during the primaries, what Romney would do about FEMA which was about to run out of money. King asked, “[aren’t we] learning a lesson here that the states should take on more of this role?” Romney responded: “Absolutely. 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.”
Notice that Romney does not say to shut down FEMA, nor was he asked about it.
He then went on to talk about the debt and the need to trim the federal budget. He said, “We cannot afford to do those things without jeopardizing the future for our kids. 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.” During this speech, King tried to speak over Romney and asked, “including disaster relief?”
These leftist bloggers are pretending that Romney’s entire speech became about disaster aid the moment King threw the question out there, even though Romney was already talking about something else and never acknowledges King’s addition. Romney never said disaster aid was “immoral” or “made no sense at all,” as they now claim he did. What he said was that disaster aid should be applied at the state level and he said continuing to raise our debt was “immoral.” But that doesn’t make Romney seem heartless.
By the way, no one in the MSM is mentioning that Obama proposed a $900 million cut of FEMA’s budget.
● The Hurricane “Stole” The Election!: Finally, the MSM is trying to plant the idea that Hurricane Sandy “stole the election.” They are setting this up by claiming that the hurricane has unfairly taken Obama away from the campaign and will disrupt the very liberals Obama needs to win by disrupting the Northeast.
Of course, Obama will still win these states, so the hurricane doesn’t really change anything substantive. Also, it’s only taking him away for a few hours, and even then he’s getting tons of free media coverage out of it. But never let the facts stop a new “conventional wisdom.”
So why would they do this? They want to delegitimize Romney’s victory, just as they tried to delegitimize Bush by claiming he stole Florida (when even their extensive media-sponsored recount effort found that Bush did win), and just like they did with claims about electronic voting machine fraud in 2004 and the Swift Boat “smear,” as if harsh ads were somehow something new. Why do this? Because they think the only way the left can return to power will be to make Romney seem like an illegitimate president presiding over a chaotic and hopelessly gridlocked Congress. To do that, they need to fight everything he does. And to do that, they need to keep their mindless followers feeling victimized so they keep turning out for protests, keep supporting hateful propagandists like MSNBC, and keep sending death threats to prominent Republicans. They need chaos and anger. Hence, “Romney cheated.”
Trust me, 2013 is going to be an ugly year on the left.
101 comments:
The left is just jealous because Romney did exactly the right thing. Stop his campaign and focus his people on relief efforts. Also it doesn't hurt to have those items being dropped off by a Romney Bus.
In comparison, all Obama did was first fly to Florida only to fly back to Washington to appear in a photo-op to show that he is being presidential.
Sounds like politics as usual to me. Politicians (and their supporters) don't gracefully accept defeat and congratulate the victors, they fight and claw for every inch, pulling off every dirty trick they think they can get away with, and then if they lose they whine they lost because they were the highminded ones.
Furthermore, tragedies are invariably politicized. The modern difference is that in the past politicians waited until the bodies were cold (perhaps even buried). Modern politicians and their supporters feel they can't wait that long. Its distasteful, but its the brave new world we live in.
Anthony....I agree with your sentiments, yet I would change one word..."politicians" to Democrats." Then it works.
Exhibit A: McCain loss in 2008 as the most recent. Exhibit B: Katrina in 2005
well, generally politicians pretend to be gracious, but MSNBC really does go over the top on everything, don't they. Remember how liberals always used to joke about Fox News? One guy made a big deal about putting channel block on his t.v. about 10 years ago. They are probably the same folks who get a thrill listening to Rachel, Ed, and Chris.
Patriot,
Strikes me as a bipartisan thing. Not too long ago Mitt decided to hold a press conference criticizing the Obama administration on Benghazi the day of the attack.
Anthony.....My memory might be hazy, but wasn't the "statement" (not a press conference) addressed to the Cairo Embassy apology for the film before the riots there even started? And no, sorry to disagree, but I really have not witnessed this as a bi-partisan thing. Much, much more on the Dem side and their media sycophants/lunatics. Nothing Fox news (the only "right" leaning channel) does, or has done, compares to some of the insanity/inanity I see and hear from ABC/CBS/NBC/CNN/MSNBC/NYT/WAPO.
Patriot,
Here's the video. Romney's clearly speaking about the Benghazi attack (the video was posted 9/12 on Youtube but the press conference was held late at night on 9/11).
Like I said, politicians don't wait nowadays.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YoAL4c7uneE
As for the merits of Fox compared to the other networks, I think the difference is that Fox is honest about its politics, while the others (bar MSNBC) lie, but I confess I don't watch much tv news nowadays.
I can't stand sitting there and waiting for reporters to get to what I care about when said info is only a click away on the web.
The thing about Romney, he’d be helping out while no one was looking. He’s a fine man, and this irritates leftist to no end.
My Dad worked for the federal government years ago, retiring in 1992 (a devout Republican who won many awards for saving tax payer money in upper mgmt.) He said that FEMA is only an organizing unit of government that works in conjunction with governors doling out money. Though this is helpful, the hard work goes to the Governor’s and the people of the states effected. There is no army of FEMA people to go in and clean up, they write checks once an area is declared a disaster area, something he didn’t do for the city of Nashville. Also Barry in his sequester proposition strips $900 million from FEMA, but who’s counting.
The MSM is going to flip out, and they should. After all for now ABC/NBC/CBS/CNN/NYT/WaPo/ etc. are businesses. We need to make our duty to clean house in the MSM. They have utterly failed in their 1st Amendment responsibility of a free press, as established by the Founders, as watch dogs of the government.
Soon we’ll fix the mistake of ’08!
Joel, I do think Romney handled it really well and I think that MSNBC would be trying to smear him for helping to get people to donate to charity is an obscenity and should make any reasonable person cringe. But then, their viewers are not reasonable people.
Anthony, It is very distasteful. I think to a degree that you are right that this is politics as usual. But I also think this goes beyond that. I think we've crossed over from political fighting into the realm of disloyalty. I think we've hit a point where certain people (primarily on the left, but not always) genuinely want to see the country fail if they can't get credit for the success. And I do think that some of these people are doing untold damage to the country right now and they simply don't care. They have poisoned discourse and the relationships of average Americans and I think this will end poorly. This kind of rhetorical bomb throwing is only step away from people actually justifying terrorism, and it would not surprise me to see more of that starting at some point.
Patriot, There are certainly some on the right who do the same thing, BUT I agree with you that this is a specialty of the left. They lost their minds under Bush and really became heinous without the boundaries required of a civil society.
Personally, I don't see how this really helps either side. I mean, it's a hurricane. All the media attention I've seen has been focused on the devastation and relief efforts themselves, not on what either candidate has been saying or doing about it. I don't think Obama's response will hurt him, but I don't think it will actually help him either.
Jed, MSNBC is a true disgrace. They took the caricature of Fox and imitated it and then added an immense amount of anger. And that's been feeding on itself ever since, growing worse year by year as they live in their bubble, telling themselves they are justified in being hateful.
T-Rav, Think Katrina. The left turned the failure of a Democratic governor, a Democratic mayor, and a bunch of criminals who decided to stick around and loot into "Bush is evil and hates black people." They beat that drum for years to make us look bad and to get tons of money poured into the city. Even now they still attack conservatives over it.
That's why they are using this, because they want to make Romney into the next Bush.
Anthony, I can't stand any of the networks for that reason. All they do is read AP stories/headlines then spend their time spinning it. I can do that myself at a fraction of the time and with a greater confidence that I'm not missing key parts.
That said, MSNBC really is different. They are hateful. They flat out lie and distort, not just spin, and they seek to smear and destroy. They have crossed the line from bias to propaganda.
Andrew,
With Katrina, you also had Bush who would not defend his actions nor attack the idiots making sport of a catastrophe. When the late Tony Snow joined Bush's team, he would make fun of the reporters and reporterettes with their framing of anything. For a short time, we actually saw what was going on in the White House and why they were doing things a certain way. If Tony Snow had been the spokesman while Katrina was going on, we would learn that Mayor Nagin had refused to use the buses like the Atlantic City Mayor had done.
We would have also learned that the then Democrat Governor of Louisiana refused to call the feds for help until it was too late. The mainstream media wouldn't inform the public of the failure of that Governor. Blanco was her name and she didn't like Bush so she refused his help.
I hope Romney uses a better spokes person. Ann Coulter comes to mind.
The way the media is handling candidate Romney is truly different than anything I've seen before. (I admit, I'm young.) In prior elections, it has been par for the course for candidates to make public statements on current events and news people only seemed to bat an eye if they failed to do so. The media treated it as sort of a dry run for their potential administration and if there were attacks, it was solely on that basis.
This is the first time I've seen major media outlets crying "foul" just because a candidate (Romney) is talking behind a microphone addressing current issues. I suspect it's because Romney's dry run looks a heck of a lot better than Obama's actual run. They are unable to say "this guy ain't ready" so instead they say "this guy jumped the gun." Should we remind folks about candidate Obama's 2008 European/Middle East campaign tour?
Patriot and Anthony, I do think Romney should not have said what he said about Benghazi. I don't think it's appropriate for opposition politicians to attack US policy so close to an event (i.e. while it's still ongoing) and before they even know what is going on.
That said, this is something the right rarely does and which the left has specialized in for about two decades now. Pelosi in particular did her best to undermine Bush's foreign policy throughout the Middle East, such as when she guaranteed there would be no attack against Syria while US troops were still securing Baghdad. So I can't accuse Romney of doing anything "new," though I do wish that none of them would do it.
That said, I see a qualitative difference here. Romney attacked Obama's policy, this is an attack on Romney as a person and is an attempt to delegitimize his entire election and his entire administration. Said differently, the end result of Romney's criticism would have been a change in US policy either by Obama changing his stance or the public choosing to replace Obama if they disagreed. He made no attempt to disrupt US policy. What the left does is akin to sabotage. They seek to make it impossible to implement any policy except those they want. They seek chaos and hate. They seek to generate fear in the opposition by threatening their families and/or encouraging other to threaten their families. They seek to get other nations to resist us. They provide aid and comfort to the enemy by stirring up discord. Their goal is to make it impossible to implement policy and to grind opposition administrations to a halt.
I see that as a huge difference.
tryanmax, my whole experience with politicking has been this, in three stages.
1) Personal Attack
2) Take bytes out of what you said
3) Demand you do fulfill their description
4) Lie, lie, and more lying
It would be a lot better, and a lot more clear as to what's right and what's wrong if people would just admit what's going on. I think they were propaganda a long time ago, now they're pretty much obsessed with this Romney guy, which frankly hardly makes much sense to anyone except for the extreme end of the political spectrum, or someone who lives so far under a rock they never actually bothered to read a word a given candidate said.
Stan, My understanding is that FEMA is a mess. I've dealt with them from a contract basis and they are seriously mismanaged and wasteful. They have also had a lot of things dumped on them, which should be the responsibility of other agencies.
But none of that matters when the point you want to make is "Romney hates people who are hit by natural disasters and he wants you to die." And that is the point to all of this. They want people to think that Romney would leave them sitting in the rubble without any help as he cuts taxes for rich white people. That has been the meme on Republicans since Katrina.
Agreed about the media. They have failed as a media.
Is it wrong that the primary image I will take away from Sandy is Bev chasing a man dressed like a Taco through a flooded New York? :D
Joel, That's true. Bush's administration made everything so much worse by refusing to defend his policies. That made it easy to make him the patsy for everything.
And Katrina was first and foremost a leadership/communication failure. Bush should not have waited to see how things went. He should have had people out there demanding that the mayor and governor do the right thing. He should have monitored the situation and gone out repeatedly and said, "get with it OR to call for Federal aid" and explained that his hands were tied until they called for him. Instead, he sat on his butt and took the abuse.
Here is what I see has come about over the last decade or so, but coalescing with Romney through Obama and the Democrat leftists.
The left draws up a caricature of Romney a/o any opponent/"enemy" of theirs. The press pushes that meme relentlessly, through questions asked and shouted at the target. "Why do you hate women? Why do you want to kill old people?" etc., etc., etc..... Therefore, the "everyone knows he's like that," common wisdom has been defined by the left/Dems and it is up to the Repubs/right to attempt to deny their candidate/politician is what the left/Dems say they are. A losing proposition. Mr. Romney...Mr. Romney....Do you still beat your wife?
So when you have a universally recognized "good guy" and decent man (a Mormon for Smith's sake!) finally break through the leftist/Dem filter of the media (debate 1 especially, but all 3 debates) and the American people finally get to see the real person behind the mask of hate and bigotry the left has painted on him, then we get the results we are seeing today...Romney pulling away.
I thank the Internets for this primarily, with Fox news and Drudge the main players in getting out the opposing viewpoint and Americans finally getting a different perspective than what we've had since the 50's...and before.
tryanmax, I think you are seeing two things. First, you have a leftist media that hates and fears Romney because he is competent and he is leading in the polls. They want to do anything they can to stop him. And you are right, by comparison, he makes "the President of the United States" look like an amateur.
Secondly, you have four years of anger built up where the MSM has wanted desperately to do their usual smears... has been tossed highly smearable softballs... and yet has had to refrain because they don't want to hurt Obama. That pent up anger is now being unleashed on Romney because they have someone they can attack again.
Also, as someone older, I can tell you that the media wasn't any nicer to Reagan, though the attack form of journalism hadn't started yet (it started with Crossfire), so their attacks were more insidious but not at "in your face." They were constantly suggesting that he was too old, was senile, wanted a nuclear war, hated poor people and minorities, wanted to colonize South America, and was despised the world over. They also went after Nancy Reagan as "a dragon lady" and claimed she used horoscopes and tarot cards to guide Reagan's policies. They smeared his kids and used his kids to smear him. This idea that they loved him at the time is a myth they created when they saw the vast number of people at his funeral.
So none of this is new, it's just more blatant now.
obiwan, You need to realize that most journalists are on the left fringe. They are far-left progressives. They are people who see the Democratic Party as cowardly in its policies and dominated by conservatives. They are ardent feminists, militant black racists, progressive socialists, gay militants, etc. And they learned a long time ago that their views will never sell with the American public, so they decided they are free to lie, distort, hide and smear to try to win whatever victories they can.
I don't think they are obsessed with Romney per se. I think this is simply how they treat anyone who doesn't conform to their progressive worldview, and Romney just happens to be the newest Republican in line. In fact, if anything, they've been nicer to him because he's not black or female, so he doesn't endanger their identity group ideology. If you want to see obsessed, look at how they treat Sarah Palin, who was a real threat to their lock on young women.
DUQ, LOL! That's my image of the storm now too!
Andrew,
Oh, yeah. Chris Christie is touring the devastation with Obama. I don't see a real problem with this. Obama is finally doing his job, which is seeking out the Governors and asking them what they need for the catastrophe. Christie is taking advantage for New Jersey. Last I checked, that was Christie's job.
I swear some of our people on the right are far more interested in calling traitor than actually helping the people who need help.
Andrew, the difference is that Bush was in a position to (theoretically) do something about it, Romney isn't. So I don't think this will get traction, especially since even MSNBC is at least talking about the fact that Romney's turned his rallies into quasi-relief efforts. They may spin it, but I think more people will notice that he's doing something for those affected.
Joel, I don't entirely trust Christie, but it should be obvious to everyone that touring the state with Obama is far less politically damaging (if at all) than refusing to do so and risk being seen as putting politics before a disaster. That's not to say he isn't thinking about advancing himself in the process--he very well may be--but the fact is, there's no other viable option for someone in that situation.
Patriot, "for Smith's sake" -- LOL! I have to agree on that, most of the Mormons I've met really are nice people who do live by the rules that they preach. And I cannot see Romney as a liar or a cheat or any of the things they are trying to pin on him.
I agree with your bigger point too. The MSM tries to create a meme and the way they do it is that they will start shouting a question at someone (like with the FEMA thing) "do you want to kill children?" The candidate will deny it. THEN the MSM will run with the idea on the basis that there must be something there because someone asked the question. This is an amazingly twisted bit of "logic" and it allows them to define anyone in any way they want.
The problem for them in this case, however, is that Romney won't sit still and take the abuse. He shoots back. Moreover, he's got a squeaky clean personality which prevents the typical stuff from working. He's also smart in how he responds and he doesn't play into the smears or fly off the handle and give them more ammo. That makes him impossible to smear and it's left them grasping for straws like this, where they whine about his attempt to help disaster victims.
Sadly, too many other Republicans are nowhere near as capable and smart as Romney and they end up turning the meme into reality because they act stupidly about it. Some even embrace it.
This is another way that Romney reminds me of Reagan. They derisively called Reagan the Teflon President because the media smears never clung to him. Romney is the same way because he responds the same way Reagan did, and that gives the MSM nothing. Compare that to Bush or Palin who made themselves punching bags time and again and to whom everything stuck.
Joel, I agree completely. Christie is doing his job. He is also reminding people that we should respect the office, even if not the man. We are all Americans after all. And it drives me nuts when our side plays the same game the left does and tries to stamp out anyone who isn't in full-on attack mode anytime they see a Democrat. That is not how you win election because that is not how you win people over to your cause.
T-Rav, I don't think this will get traction because there is nothing behind it. BUT don't understate the power of laying seeds for the future. I guarantee you that the first time there is a hint of a disaster, the MSM will reach back to this and say, "let's hope Romney knows what he's doing now as compared to his shameful attempt to exploit Hurricane Sandy" and "I'll bet he's glad now that he didn't shut down FEMA like he said he wanted!" And unless his behavior is undeniably perfect, it will become a meme that Romney doesn't care about disasters and only exploits them to win elections.
And the problem will be that all the drones on the left will buy into this and it will become a fact for them. And when enough of them say it, it become conventional wisdom. That's how "the big lie" works.
T-Rav, I don't trust Christie either, but what you say "should be obvious" isn't obvious to fringers. They see any act of courtesy as a betrayal. Even shaking hands with Obama is greeted with suspicion by those people.
First of all, Andrew, I was not "chasing" that giant Taco-man! He was taunting me. What was I supposed to do? LOL!
I think that Martin Bashir crowd were waiting for Romney to do or say something stupid. When he didn't, they had to find some other way to criticize him. That is why their idiotic "How dare he do something altruistic" critique sounded more like Mad-Libs, you know, those fill-in-the-blank games (how very appropriately named as it turns out!)
And for Romney's part, he very cleverly found a way to keep campaigning and wisely use his time altruistically. He could not speak before Obama. This is Obama's crisis to screw up. And fortunately for Obama, at least NY and NJ have good leadership and THE most competent emergency response teams in the country. Govs, most mayors, Fire, Police, Utility, Medical right on down the line.
Bev, LOL! Sorry, but like DUQ says, that will be my takeaway from this storm. A man in a taco costume. :)
I think you are right about Bashir, I think he was hoping Romney would say something they could pounce on and when he didn't, they just let their natural hatred take over.
On Romney, you are right, it was very clever. He's a smart man.
Andrew, I knew the media was very hard on Reagan. My earliest recollections of the news are of that nature, in fact. I was speaking more specifically about the way the media attacks Romney simply for addressing current events, as though having an opinion on the things that will affect the job he is seeking is off limits. That's what seems new to me.
tryanmax, Good point, I got a little sidetracked. Yes, I think it's new for the MSM to attack Romney for addressing current events. In the past, the only time that issue ever came up was when someone attacked US foreign policy, but the MSM stopped caring about that during the Bush years.... now they've rediscovered their outrage.
On Reagan, that is a point I wanted to make because MSM now tries to whitewash the way they behaved at the time. They were very, very nasty to Reagan. It was just less "in your face" (except for Sam Donaldson). Today they are all "in your face" about Republicans.
P.S. tryanmax, It really has ticked me off a lot lately whenever some a-hole journalist tries to pretend that they were nice to Reagan and that things didn't get nasty until "the conservative media" (as if there were such a thing) went after Clinton. The were vile to Reagan, they were on the wrong side of history, and I'm not going to let them pretend they weren't.
Andrew, and it's doubtful that it started with Reagan, even. From what I know about Whitewater, those journalists were specifically on the hunt to smear Nixon and it just turned out that he was an eminently smear-able politician.
tryanmax, That's probably true (you mean Watergate), but at least the media never made any bones about them being fair or nice to Nixon. They hated him and they went after him and they admit that... though they try to justify it. With Reagan, they now pretend that they loved him and they were all the best of friends with him. That's what bothers me about that.
Oops. I've got a dozen fires going today, and yet I pop in.
From what I know about Katrina, and I picked this up reading a decidedly anti-Bush, pro-Blanco book (THE GREAT DELUGE by Douglas Brinkley) that the biggest mistake Bush made was that he assumed the city of New Orleans and the state of Louisiana, like Florida, Alabama, and Mississippi, would have prepared for a major hurricane.
"The were vile to Reagan, they were on the wrong side of history, and I'm not going to let them pretend they weren't."
On that topic, want a good piece of comedy? Watch this 10-minute clip of CBS's Walter Cronkite, Dan Rather, and others responding to Reagan's win in the 1980 election.
LINK
They look rather depressed. :)
Hoping for a repeat next week!
Libya disagreed with OBama on 9 15
So along with Mitt Romney are we supposed to condemn Libyan officials for disagreeing with Obama that is was a terrorist attack and had nothing to do with a you tube video. Just wondering?
Fact of the matter is Obama told an obvious indefensible lie about a You Tube video that harmed our country's credibility. Everyone working in the US government who heard that video should have blown the whistle as Obama was telling these lies.
McCain actually went further than Romney within two days of the announcements stating that people don't have Rocket Propelled Grenade launchers at spontaneous demonstrations.
I think the problem was not to many people outing Obama. I think it is that there was a dearth of people outing Obama.
As for MSNBC
Who believes their BS anyways
Kit,
Actually Brinkley may be right! That is where Bush screwed up. As former Gov. of Texas he should have KNOWN how ill prepared they would be. Their generations of open and transparent political corruption in Louisiana is legendary! However no one has questioned why neither has continued to further their political careers in the aftermath of Katrina and, once a rising star in the Dem-osphere, Kathleen Blanco has disappeared completely from public view and scrutiny...
Inid, That's not the point.
First, was Obama wrong? Absolutely. His response was horrible and stupid and deserves all the trouble he's gotten over it.
That said...
The reason you don't comment on foreign policy events in real time is that you never know what is really going on. You have no idea what operations have been put in place, what kinds of negotiations are ongoing or if what is being said officially is a diversion for something else. To run around attacking the policy while the events are ongoing risks American lives.
If the President acts stupidly, then you hold him accountable after the smoke has cleared. But you don't run out and try to attack a policy that you really know nothing about.
That is why it has traditionally been true that everyone is supposed to shut up about foreign policy stuff until after it's over. And that's why it's wrong no matter which side does it.
Wow, Kit - Did you see Dan Rather's assessment of Reagan's campaign? It is almost eerie, how we may hear those exact words with THIS election.
tryanmax, Thanks for popping... rather than pooping in. :(
Kit, Bush's biggest failure on Katrina was "lack of leadership." He should have monitored the locals better and given the appearance of being in charge the whole time. By remaining passive, he let events control him and he let others pass the buck. Lack of leadership and lack of communication were two huge problems throughout his administration.
"Actually Brinkley may be right! That is where Bush screwed up. As former Gov. of Texas he should have KNOWN how ill prepared they would be."
Actually, I came to that conclusion IN SPITE of what Brinkley was saying.
He was trying to pin just about everything on Bush and FEMA (and Nagin) while leaving Blanco fairly blameless but as I read it I realized he was being wayyy to hard on Bush and wayyy to soft on Blanco. (He was dead-on with Nagin, however).
As I sifted through what he was saying in the book I realized: "Bush's only big mistake was assuming that New Orleans would be as prepared as the other cities and states in Hurricane-ville, USA that were not below sea level."
I also think he was protecting the Dem senators and Representative when he seemed blame the ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS for their funds being shifted to Pork Barrel projects instead of the Senators and Representatives who are ACTUALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MONEY.
It was pretty much shift as much blame to Bush, Nagin, and FEMA to protect Blanco, who I believe was about to face a re-election when the book was published. A re-election that she would soon drop out of.
From what I saw of Bush's description of Katrina in "Decision Points", President Bush seemed WAY more honest.
On the up-side he did a good job showing what happened on the ground and telling individual stories of survival in flooded Louisiana.
Oh, and in the book. He neglected to mention that he was a friend and supporter of Gov. Kathleen Blanco. Just something I thought I'd mention.
Bev, Think of it this way, when you are the person who will ultimately be blamed, you need to make sure that you are on top of everything. You can't wait for the disaster to reach your level before you try to act. Politicians who do that will always take a beating.
Bev, I've seen quite a few parallels to how the MSM is describing Romney and how they described Reagan in 1980 and I think it's hilarious, because I am getting the feeling we are looking at similar results. I guess history does love to repeat itself.
"Kit, Bush's biggest failure on Katrina was "lack of leadership." He should have monitored the locals better and given the appearance of being in charge the whole time. By remaining passive, he let events control him and he let others pass the buck. Lack of leadership and lack of communication were two huge problems throughout his administration."
Yes, because he assumed that New Orleans, like EVERY. SINGLE. OTHER. STATE. had prepared for this or had at least ordered evacuations.
He did try to federalize the National Guard but Blanco wouldn't let him (Brinkley praises her for this, whether it is actually praise-worthy is up for debate).
He should've called her up and, paraphrasing Lincoln, said, "If you are not going to use them, I would like to borrow them for a while."
Kit, Politics is about perception, and if you compare how Romney dominates the media to keep his own image intact to how Bush sat around like a target and let the MSM define him, you will see a real study in how politics needs to be played. Romney has learned the lessons of Reagan, Bush played by Carter's rules.
So, I do agree, he should've told Blanco and Nagin to get out of the way if they were not going to do their jobs (they weren't).
Personally, he should've declared Martial LAw in Louisiana. The left would've gone ape-shit over it but it was necessary given how degraded Law and Order had become in the city.
"Bev, I've seen quite a few parallels to how the MSM is describing Romney and how they described Reagan in 1980 and I think it's hilarious, because I am getting the feeling we are looking at similar results. I guess history does love to repeat itself."
Note: My birthday is November 8th. :)
"how Bush sat around like a target and let the MSM define him, "
On that, we agree.
I believe media objectivity has never existed.
Everyone has opinions. Guys who say 'I've covered politics for a decade and I've never developed an opinion about politics or politicians' are people I distrust more than guys who say 'I've got a worldview and I am actively promoting it'.
Andrew - I understand what you are saying, except there were no such problems with Mississippi, Alabama or Florida or any other state effected by Katrina. And frankly, the only problem with New Orleans/LA was a PR problem, not a rescue and recovery problem. As we have seen in our latest Hurricane fiasco, it's the state and local officials and emergency response teams who are the first line of defense, not the Feds. As a matter of fact, I haven't even HEARD that FEMA has done anything so far to "save" us. It has all been on the local and state level.
Anthony,
Everyone has a bias. But you can be honest and say "Yeah, I've got a bias but I'm gonna try to repress that bias and report the facts as honestly as I can -even if they hurt my side."
Kit, You can never assume. Bush needed to send in his FEMA people to assess the preparedness and then spin whatever he found. That's politics.
Given time, I think the truth will show that Bush and FEMA were completely and unfairly attacked for Katrina. New Orleans had no excuse for not being prepared. Heck, 6 months prior to the hurricane there was a documentary regarding what might happen if a major hurricane hit the city. Their predictions were eerily accurate.
An interesting person to talk to about this would be Michael Brown, who is now a local talk show host in Denver. Andrew, you should invite him to your blog.
Anthony,
I think you are right. MSM objectivity has never really existed. On the other hand, we no longer have actual reporting of the news anymore either. The lines between fact and opinion has been so blurred that it is hard to know which is which. And it is even troubling that the professionals do not take the time verify what they are reporting to be fact or opinion either. Maybe they never did, but the big bang like expansion of information available today has only made it worse.
Bev is right, Hurricanes are usually handled at the local level. Katrina, because it put a chunk of New Orleans under-water and Louisiana was grotesquely un-prepared did become a federal issue.
And by "grotesquely unprepared" I mean that in the most absolute manner. People talk about how unprepared we were for 9/11. NYC was better prepared for 9/11 than New Orleans was for Katrina. And NYC at least had an excuse whereas New Orleans was not only right-smack in the part of the country that is so commonly hit by hurricanes that everyone who grew up south of Tennessee has at least 3 "hurricane memories" but it was also below sea level.
It was prime target for flooding in an area (the Mississippi Delta) that is notorious for flooding.
And the only preparations they made were some pumps (that were flooded by the storm surge) and some cheap-ass, crappy levees that dozens of experts warned might not protect the city in the event of a Cat-3 Hurricane (Katrina was a Cat-4/5).
Oh, and unlike every other city and municipality in the region, the city's residents have a tendency to NOT evacuate during hurricanes. Katrina did change that attitude, however.
Evacuations, like those carried out by smaller parishes outside New Orleans and elsewhere in the Gulf Region were carried out by the local and state officials. Not the Feds.
Anthony, I agree that there never has been an unbiased media. That's a very hard thing to achieve, given human nature. BUT I don't think that in the modern era, that we've ever seen the open lying and distortions as we do now. There are supposedly respectable journalists who simply lie and make things up to back up their ideology. That is new.
Also, I would have far fewer problems with the MSM in general if they didn't continue to claim they were unbiased. If they were subject to the same laws as other companies, they would all go to jail for fraud and false advertising. IBM could never get away with what the MSM does routinely.
Bev, Technically, you are correct. And logically, the fact that everywhere outside of Democratic-run New Orleans was cleaned up fast is really strong evidence of where the problem lay.
BUT politics is about perception and Bush let New Orleans become the face of Katrina and let the blame be pinned on himself. It has now been a decade and yet, Katrina is still associated on the left (and from what I hear from people overseas) with Bush letting black people die. Even in the middle, it's seen as evidence of Bush's incompetence. That is an absolute failure on Bush's part, and it's one he could have avoided by giving a stronger appearance of leadership and by pinning blame a lot sooner on the people responsible.
"Kit, You can never assume. Bush needed to send in his FEMA people to assess the preparedness and then spin whatever he found. That's politics."
Yes, assuming that a city that was below sea level and exists in Hurricane territory and is in a state that is notorious for flooding would at least have prepared themselves for a major flood is a big assumption.
It was a mistake, I'll grant you that. He forgot that Louisiana is Louisiana. That their evacuation plan for a major hurricane is to wait until AFTER I-10 is knocked out. (I-10 is the major interstate leading to New Orleans)
Koshcat, I'm not sure who Michael Brown is?
I don't agree about Katrina. You are assuming that history will be written by people who take a careful, in-depth look at what really happened and make an impartial judgment. It's not. History is written to be easily digestible and they are always looking for one person to blame. Hence, one shooting stated World War I, Chamberlain was the only one to appease Hitler, Bush stole Florida, Carter lost because of Iran, etc. History likes to keep things simple... and it's typically written by leftist professors who have no interest in correcting lies they like.
Bev, That's the other problem. They used to label new and opinion separately in the paper, these days they don't even bother.
"it's one he could have avoided by giving a stronger appearance of leadership and by pinning blame a lot sooner on the people responsible."
On that, we agree. People blame Bush for something that is really the fault of the City of New Orleans and the officials at Baton Rouge who, as I have written before, made no preparations for flooding despite having a city below sea level and a state resting on a river notorious for flooding.
Seriously! How do you screw that up?!
NOTE: Andrew, I think I'm ranting more about my anger and astonishment at Baton Rouge's idiocy and apathy than towards you.
Thankfully, Bobby Jindal and co. have been fixing Louisiana.
Kit, That's true, but irrelevant. The impression of what happened has become the reality to people and that won't change.
And one thing that makes me really happy about Romney is that he understand this and he won't let the impression be created in the first place because once something becomes conventional wisdom, no amount of logic or fact can change it.
Kit, No problem. It is something people should be angry about, plus how long it took them to rebuild. With the amount of money they got, they could have built a whole new city in half the time. Yet, conservatives still take the blame for something that was entirely the fault of liberals. That ticks me off.
Andrew - "...That is an absolute failure on Bush's part, and it's one he could have avoided by giving a stronger appearance of leadership and by pinning blame a lot sooner on the people responsible."
Okay, but isn't that just the flip side of "It's Bush's fault" that comes from the Obama Administration? To me, it is petty and unpresidential for the President to point fingers. And exactly HOW was Bush supposed to defend the allegations that he hates black people?? How do ANY of us defend ourselves against allegations of racism? We really can't and responding just seems petty and quite frankly, useless.
But on a positive note: If Louisiana/New Orleans/Katrina had not gone so badly, we would not have the blueprint for what NOT to do and what TO do that we do have now. We saw it with Irene and every other hurricane since. As a result, Governors and mayors have been empowered to order mandatory evacuations of most probable affected areas without thought of economic impact, equipment is moved and protected, and emergency personnel are trained and ready. It is made very clear that if you choose to NOT evacuate you are on your own.
Bev, It's not the flip side, it's actually the exact same side of the same coin. But that's how politics works and it's too late to change the impression that got created. When you are the guy everyone looks to to make sure that nothing goes wrong, and it does, you take the blame. And in this case, the fact that Bush never fought back allowed the left to build this meme and to keep adding to it and adding to it until it became about race.
What he should have done is:
1. Sent his people to make sure that everything was running fine.
2. If it wasn't, use the bully pulpit to assign blame even before the storm hit. He needed to get in there right away and point fingers so that people would know where to look if things did go wrong.
3. When things went wrong, he needed to go on television and act outraged that the locals didn't listen to him and he should have demanded that Blanco call for federal aid so he could help.
4. Then he should have looked hyper-busy, made a million promises (whether he kept them or not) and he should have promised that "those responsible will pay."
That's how you avoid something like this landing on your doorstep.
Instead, he let the locals handle it (even though people look to the Feds for leadership now), he never pointed a finger, he came across as passive for days, and then he never even tried to save the situation with some grand announcement like a new Marshall Plan. He just stood there and let all the mud hit him.
This is basic stuff that CEOs, governors and most presidents know. It's crisis management 101.
P.S. Bev, On the idea of responding to allegations of racism, you ALWAYS need to respond. Silence = consent. But even more importantly, in a case like this, you need to realize that the left will be looking for a race angle, you go out of your way to prevent anything form happening which could be seen through the prism of race.
"Kit, No problem. It is something people should be angry about, plus how long it took them to rebuild. With the amount of money they got, they could have built a whole new city in half the time. Yet, conservatives still take the blame for something that was entirely the fault of liberals. That ticks me off."
Well, Nagin and Blanco are out of office so that is very good news. Very!
I actually love New Orleans and have visited there several times. I want it to have (at the very least) adequate preparations for a disaster.
Yeah, that media. The idea some have had of bringing back admittedly partisan publications and networks sounds better and better every day.
Andrew - "Yet, conservatives still take the blame for something that was entirely the fault of liberals..."
Most liberals are deaf to the fact that Dems have been held the Congressional leadership positions in 70 of the last 90 years. All things bad - Republican did it. All things good - Dems did it. It will never change.
Bev, I know, and that's annoying, but I also doubt it will ever change because liberals live in denial.
T-Rav, Ironically, we're getting there whether the MSM wants to admit it or not... they've been too blatant in their bias.
Andrew,
What do you think of Bloomberg's edict of a minimum of 3 passengers per car in the wake of NYC's massive gridlock.
LINK
Andrew
I agree with your assessment of Foreign Policy in all but this case.
Why because there is no one that would have believed the story that came out of the White House.
Honestly there have been wacky guests on George Nori's late night Dream land radio show that have made more convincing arguments for visitations from Aliens to the early Egyptians and Aztecs than Obama's You Tube video excuse.
I think when a sitting President tells a lie so ridiculous you have to speak out against it. Honestly Obama's handling of Benghazi is best described as Elmer Fudd does Tricky Dick Nixon.
Dear Lord, what has Bloomberg doing now? Well, I can say that the traffic is horrendous as there is no public transportation system right now. Normally, I would not defend Bloomberg, but there is something about having a control freak when there needs to be a control freak. Now, if I could only find that giant walking taco??
Michael Brown of the famous "You're doin' a heck of a job, Brownie" fame. Head of FEMA at the time. Seems like a great guy.
Help! Some crazy woman is chasing me around NYC!
Kit, I have no idea about the three passenger thing. It sounds like they have a reason for it rather than this just being some cooky thing.
I did not, however, that it only applies to people coming from New Jersey and not from the rich suburbs of Connecticut.
Hey, Giant Taco Guy - I swear, I won't harm you...just come a little closer...I just want to talk! Really! No, I swear, that is NOT guacamole behind my back!
Dang, he got away...
There is a reason it is directed only at NJ. The mass transit system in NJ is worse off than NY, so they are trying to minimize the number of cars coming in. The Lincoln Tunnel and GW Bridge are the only one's open that come directly into Manhattan. The Holland Tunnel in lower Manhattan remains closed. The train system from CT is running normally as of sometime today, I think.
Indi, I don't think it matters. For all we know at the time, he was trying to distract the people who did it by making it sound like we thought this was spontaneous, and at the same time, US troops were staging for an attack.
That turned out not the be true, but it's still the reason we should wait to see what happens before jumping on foreign policy decisions.
Bev, It sounds more like a sop to the rich to me. You know that "Republicans" are like that, So those poor working class heroes like Bon Jovi and Bruce Springsteen need to car pool, whereas the rich banking class of Connecticut can drive alone their cars and eat their Grey Poupon. Power to the people man! ;)
I hear you need bait to catch Tacos. Have you laid out some hot sauce?
Koshcat, Oh, that Michael Brown. I didn't know he lived in Denver.
Here, taco, taco, taco! I've got some nice salsa just for you! Yummm, you'll love it, I swear! Here, giant taco! There's enough for your giant taco friends too!
Talking bottles of hot sauce? Okay, I don't remember cracking up all the way recently. Has someone else done it?
T-Rav, You have not cracked up... we opened a doorway to a new dimension. :)
I definitely believe that is a talking bottle of hot sauce! LOL!
Andrew, Which dimension?
T-Rav, I like hot sauce, but that wasn't me.
His show has moved around some. He is on with a liberal named Sirota from 3-7pm on 630 KHOW. He was the head of FEMA and then he was the under secretary of Homeland Security. I haven't read it yet, but he wrote the book "Deadly Indifference", which is about "the role of politics in a risk-aversion society facing natural or manmade disasters. I have listened to him and he seems very warm and friendly and conservative.
A bit of levity: LINK
Unfortunately, it rings a tad bit too true.
Post a Comment