President Obama TOO FAST to respond to Hurricane Sandy -- in contrast to Benghazi attack?
Some conservative pundits and Romney partisans have come up with an interesting attack line against the President: He's been TOO QUICK to respond to Sandy's devastation -- in stark contrast to the Administration's ham-fisted public response to the terrorist attacks in Benghazi, Libya.
Are they onto something? Or does this confirm the President will be attacked no matter what he does?
Perhaps all this is simply inevitable during the final days of bitterly fought, nearly deadlocked, Presidential election.
On the other hand, it was probably unwise for President Bush's former FEMA director, Michael Brown, to comment on the current President's response.
This story first broke on a Denver blog, because Brown has a radio gig in that city. (It find it disheartening that so many folks whose previous careers went up in smoke end up as radio or TV hosts!) Note the "comments" section...
That brought this response from a columnist at The New Orleans TIMES-PICAYUNE, where Katrina memories are still fresh.
Of course, "Brownie" wasn't the ONLY person responsible for the New Orleans disaster. Remember Louisiana's Governor Kathleen Blanco, and to a lesser extent, New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin? Again, be sure to read the caustic comments...
I personally think that ANY president (this close to the election) would have done exactly what Obama did concerning Hurricane Sandy but do find it interesting that we have pictures of him in the Situation Room for Sandy but not Benghazi.
According to Newt Gingrich, at least two news organizations have e-mails that further detail the denial of support for the SEALS and the ambassador...but the WH has contacted them and told them to not release the information.
Thu, Nov 1, 2012 9:09am
Obama shared the stage with Republican poster boy Chris Christie who praised Obama for his quick and compassionate response to New Jersey. Again,one of the top Republicans (and former rumored VP candidate) thanking Obama, and acknowledging Obama's great leadership during the crisis.
This will be the boost Obama needs going into the final days of a deadlocked election. Let's keep our fingers crossed.
Thu, Nov 1, 2012 9:14am
teatime...I agree there will probably be a boost in New Jersey and NYC, but both were solidly in his camp in the first place.
I wonder how voting in the Empire State will look as NYC voting numbers will definitely be lower due to the flooding & power outages...most of the portions of the state of New York (outside of the city) are not O's biggest fans.
Mike from Delaware
Thu, Nov 1, 2012 10:18am
It's one of the things I like about Gov. Christie. He is willing to work with DEMS. He doesn't seem to compromise his core beliefs, and he has no problem telling the public where he stands, but he is also willing to find ways to work together with the folks on the other side, in order to get things done, rather than making everything a "political issue". That to me, is leadership.
After Katrina, every Prez, no matter GOP or DEM will jump to it quickly, as they should. In such times, that's when people want their government to be there, no red tape, no political crap, just be there to help.
Thu, Nov 1, 2012 10:20am
Angry at Obama for moving too fast? Clearly folks will attack Mr. Obama for anything he does.
Some Republicans were attacking Governor Christie for inviting Obama to his state and giving him exposure. Christie did not do this for the Democratic nominee. He did it for himself and his beloved state. Clearly the Governor loves his state and cares about its citizens. He also wants to get re-elected. If those hit so hard by the storm perceive (rightly or not) that New York got more help from the Feds because that state's governor and the NYC mayor played nice with the administration, Christie will pay in the next election. Now, no one can say he didn't try. Obama gets no benefit from this. True, for one week out of 4 years he actually took time to do his job. But it will only matter in two states he would carry anyway.
Thu, Nov 1, 2012 11:23am
There is an underlying factor. Republican philosophy is ridiculous. Of course when the time is right, people can step up to a podium and spout. Of course when the time is right, people can make ads that spout. Truth is we would all like to believe in a Santa Clause that cuts government spending, reduces taxes, and shrinks big government, but we already have that in Obama. His government is smaller than that of Republicans, his taxes are lower than that of Republicans, and his spending is lower than that of Republicans. Governor Christie, came in as a Republican, but quickly learned to stay alive, he'd have to act like a Democrat and spend, which as his popularity now shows, he played very well.
Bottom line, Republican Policies are an imaginary pipe dream. Get rid of Government Ryan says: reality: who will help us when the Hurricane comes? Government...
Republican philosophy has never worked since there have been Republicans. It didn't work under Reagan; he employed Democratic tactics. It didn't work under Bush I; he raised taxes, It didn't work under Bush W.. He and Dick Cheney created the second great Depression.... Flat out: it doesn't work......
Wait then, how about the opposite? From Roosevelt to Clinton, we had the best economic expansion probably ever in the history or the world, considering it spread out from our borders covering the globe. Bill Clinton gave us the most prosperous period ever in our American History.... all because he raised taxes. Keynesian works, Chicago School doesn't.
Which is why the onslaught of lies, mis-truths, and blatant story telling by Republicans is necessary. Once you learn the truth, one can never vote for them again... :(
Thu, Nov 1, 2012 12:19pm
So...it's good when Obama "streamlines" government by cutting out bureaucracy and red tape to "get things done" in New Jersey and NYC, but it's bad when Romney has that as his actual policy concerning the role of government? Interestingly hypocritical.
Thu, Nov 1, 2012 7:41pm
Teatime: I'm keeping my fingers crossed, too. I'm hoping that for the first time since 2004 we'll get a REAL president in office.
Thu, Nov 1, 2012 7:43pm
Kavips: As usual, you're full of BS. Republicans are not for getting rid of government. They're for LIMITED government, which is what the constitution calls for.
Thu, Nov 1, 2012 7:46pm
On a more lighthearted note, all of you MUST view this link. The world is always black and white in the eyes of a child:
Add your comment: Attention: In an attempt to promote a level of civility and personal
responsibility in blog discussions, we now require you to be a member of
the WDEL Members Only Group in order to post a comment. Your Members
Only Group username and password are required to process your post.
You can join the WDEL Members Only Group for free by clicking here.
If you are already a member but have forgotten your username or password, please
Please register your post with your WDEL Members Only Group username and password below.