Romney Flip Flops on FEMA - now supports it

[Blart]

2011 - In the primaries, Romney says he wants to eliminate disaster relief.
Yesterday - confirmed his position, no more disaster relief.

Today - supports federal disaster relief and would keep FEMA intact


It's a good flip. Seattle Times brings up some good points,
--

Could states really coordinate and manage responses to natural disasters that traverse geographical boundaries? What if one state had more relief money than its neighbors, would that state accept "refugees" from across the border? Depending on the kindness of strangers did not work so well during Katrina when there were documented cases of fleeing residents blocked at gunpoint from seeking shelter in neighboring towns.

[pricejj]

Father of Slain Benghazi SEAL to Obama: “It’s Better to Die a Hero Than Live a Coward”

“To have known what he had available, to have known that Americans were under fire, and to have done nothing, is dereliction of duty that I have never seen in a Commander in Chief from a president of any party. Outrageous.”

[pricejj]

Ambassador Susan Rice: "Our current assessment is that what happened in Benghazi was in fact initially a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired hours before in Cairo, almost a copycat of the demonstrations against our facility in Cairo, which were prompted, of course, by the video."

[Irish Stout]

Originally Posted by pricejj

Father of Slain Benghazi SEAL to Obama: “It’s Better to Die a Hero Than Live a Coward”

“To have known what he had available, to have known that Americans were under fire, and to have done nothing, is dereliction of duty that I have never seen in a Commander in Chief from a president of any party. Outrageous.”

DEFLECT DEFLECT DEFLECT.

Mitt Romney still won't show his tax returns, must be because he is a war profiteer.

Come on man, either create a new thread or address the issue at hand.

[Rigs11]

Mittens flip flops on everything.including the auto bailouts.

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by pricejj

Father of Slain Benghazi SEAL to Obama: “It’s Better to Die a Hero Than Live a Coward”

“To have known what he had available, to have known that Americans were under fire, and to have done nothing, is dereliction of duty that I have never seen in a Commander in Chief from a president of any party. Outrageous.”

I guess he didn't see Reagan put a bunch of Marines in Lebanon, order them not to shoot their weapons, and then run away after 250 of them were killed. I guess he didn't hear about Bush getting warned that "Al Queda is determined to attack in the U.S." and then not doing anything whatsoever about it for eight months, and then after the attack, standing on the rubble of 911 with a megaphone, telling everybody that "The people who did this are going to pay," and then a year later saying, "Osama who?"

History is a b****. You should learn some.

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by Blart

2011 - In the primaries, Romney says he wants to eliminate disaster relief.
Yesterday - confirmed his position, no more disaster relief.

Today - supports federal disaster relief and would keep FEMA intact


It's a good flip. Seattle Times brings up some good points,
--

Could states really coordinate and manage responses to natural disasters that traverse geographical boundaries? What if one state had more relief money than its neighbors, would that state accept "refugees" from across the border? Depending on the kindness of strangers did not work so well during Katrina when there were documented cases of fleeing residents blocked at gunpoint from seeking shelter in neighboring towns.

Romney is the worst candidate of all time. He stands for nothing but his own self-interests. He will change anything, say anything, do anything to win the office.

[pricejj]

Originally Posted by Irish Stout

DEFLECT DEFLECT DEFLECT.

Mitt Romney still won't show his tax returns, must be because he is a war profiteer.

Come on man, either create a new thread or address the issue at hand.

Sorry, that crap is pissing me off...

Regarding Blart's false FEMA claims, from the Romney campaign, and the article:

“Governor Romney believes that states should be in charge of emergency management in responding to storms and other natural disasters in their jurisdictions. As the first responders, states are in the best position to aid affected individuals and communities, and to direct resources and assistance to where they are needed most. This includes help from the federal government and FEMA.”


I don't see a problem with that.

[pricejj]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

I guess he didn't see Reagan put a bunch of Marines in Lebanon, order them not to shoot their weapons, and then run away after 250 of them were killed. I guess he didn't hear about Bush getting warned that "Al Queda is determined to attack in the U.S." and then not doing anything whatsoever about it for eight months, and then after the attack, standing on the rubble of 911 with a megaphone, telling everybody that "The people who did this are going to pay," and then a year later saying, "Osama who?"

History is a b****. You should learn some.

Except for the fact that the troops in Lebanon didn't request support months in advance, Reagan did not give orders not to shoot, and Regan didn't lie about it, and try to cover it up afterwards.

I love history, unfortunately, it doesn't back up your false correlation of events. The cool thing is, no matter how much Obama lies, he can't rewrite history (although he tries).

[Blart]

Originally Posted by pricejj

“Governor Romney believes that states should be in charge of emergency management in responding to storms and other natural disasters in their jurisdictions. As the first responders, states are in the best position to aid affected individuals and communities, and to direct resources and assistance to where they are needed most. This includes help from the federal government and FEMA.”


I don't see a problem with that.

Because that's what we have now. When locals get overwhelmed, they bring in state resources. When state resources get overwhelmed, they bring in federal resources.

In 12 hours, Romney has gone from an anti-federal aid stance to supporting the status quo.

[Irish Stout]

Not quite to the point - but it is nice to see that Obama is apparently handling the Sandy situation the right way- Chris Christie has come out and thanked Obama personally on Fox and Friends for his attention and time in talking to the governor and giving all the federal assistance he can to NJ.

Regardless of what you believe is the right way to spend federal funds... if they're there for a purpose, there is no shame in using them - like FEMA.

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by Irish Stout

Not quite to the point - but it is nice to see that Obama is apparently handling the Sandy situation the right way- Chris Christie has come out and thanked Obama personally on Fox and Friends for his attention and time in talking to the governor and giving all the federal assistance he can to NJ.

Regardless of what you believe is the right way to spend federal funds... if they're there for a purpose, there is no shame in using them - like FEMA.

I think it's a great idea. The local area is decimated by a disaster. People are put out of work. The federal government comes in and helps fund rebuilding in the area, putting people back to work, putting some liquidity back into the local economy...

wait a minute...

[Smiling Assassin27]

2011 - In the primaries, Romney says he wants to eliminate disaster relief. INCORREECT. Not once has Romney proposed eliminating disaster relief, so please read it again. Interestingly, it's Obama who's proposed cutting disaster reliefe by 900 million in his sequester--one hypothetical from Romney and one ACTUAL cut from Obama.
Yesterday - confirmed his position, no more disaster relief.

Today - supports federal disaster relief and would keep FEMA intact-Once again, they reiterated that involving states more is their objective but NOWHERE does it say disaster relief is to be cut anywhere, sorry. Again, why no word about Obama's ACTUAL proposal to cut emergency disaster relief rather than focusing on a hypothetical and distorting the candidate's words on the topic? Oh, sorry, we already know why.


It's a good flip. Seattle Times brings up some good points,
--

Could states really coordinate and manage responses to natural disasters that traverse geographical boundaries? What if one state had more relief money than its neighbors, would that state accept "refugees" from across the border? Depending on the kindness of strangers did not work so well during Katrina when there were documented cases of fleeing residents blocked at gunpoint from seeking shelter in neighboring towns.

HERE is the crux of the debate, not foolish interpretations of things a person never even said. If you know Romney, you know he's no conservative who'd cut the hell out of things. Never has been, never will be.

Even the Atlantic declares your silly interpretation of Romney's words to be overkill:

Romney's statement was, without question, red meat for small government conservatives. But it was also extremely general, as was his followup. And both left enough wiggle room that he could easily claim that certain disaster relief functions, such as truly immense recovery efforts that require help from the military, can't be handed to the states, and so need to stay in the federal budget.

That would be right in line with what conservatives have argued in the past. For instance, Matt Mayer, a former Bush administration official at the Department of Homeland Security, has written extensively for the Heritage Foundation on the need to cut FEMA's role in relatively routine disasters so that it can focus on handling true catastrophes.

Again, if you know Romney, this is closer to what his RECORD shows he'd do.

[ghwk]

Originally Posted by Irish Stout

DEFLECT DEFLECT DEFLECT.

Mitt Romney still won't show his tax returns, must be because he is a war profiteer.

Come on man, either create a new thread or address the issue at hand.

Obama really missed that as an opportunity in the debates. Shouls have hammered home that Mitt is hiding something

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by Smiling Assassin27

HERE is the crux of the debate, not foolish interpretations of things a person never even said. If you know Romney, you know he's no conservative who'd cut the hell out of things. Never has been, never will be.

Even the Atlantic declares your silly interpretation of Romney's words to be overkill:



Again, if you know Romney, this is closer to what his RECORD shows he'd do.

He seems to leave most of his "stands" on the issues open to interpretation. Some might call it taking no stand at all. If you know Romney, you know that he believes campaigns are like an Etch-A-Sketch; You don't really have to stand for anything, you just say stuff to get elected.

[BroncoInferno]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

He seems to leave most of his "stands" on the issues open to interpretation. Some might call it taking no stand at all. If you know Romney, you know that he believes campaigns are like an Etch-A-Sketch; You don't really have to stand for anything, you just say stuff to get elected.

Exactly. What SmilingAss apparently doesn't get is that what Romney did in Mass is only relevant if you believe his actions are an accurate reflection of his beliefs. The portrait of Romney that has emerged during the campaign is one of a political chameleon who will say whatever the audience before him wishes to hear. It was politically expedient for Mitt to play centrist in Mass, so that's what he did. Who the hell knows if that reflects his actual political beliefs, or if he even has any. He spent the primary season acting like a frothing far-right ideologue ready to bomb Iran his first day in office, and then selected a VP candidate presumably to shore up that image. Then during the debates he pivots back to the center, denying his previous primary comments and trying to convince everyone he's a peace-lover in the mold of Dennis Kucinch on foreign policy. All the while, most of his advisors are former Bush people. If you can say with any certainty what this man actually believes you are doing so only as an article of faith.

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by BroncoInferno

Exactly. What SmilingAss apparently doesn't get is that what Romney did in Mass is only relevant if you believe his actions are an accurate reflection of his beliefs. The portrait of Romney that has emerged during the campaign is one of a political chameleon who will say whatever the audience before him wishes to hear. It was politically expedient for Mitt to play centrist in Mass, so that's what he did. Who the hell knows if that reflects his actual political beliefs, or if he even has any. He spent the primary season acting like a frothing far-right ideologue ready to bomb Iran his first day in office, and then selected a VP candidate presumably to shore up that image. Then during the debates he pivots back to the center, denying his previous primary comments and trying to convince everyone he's a peace-lover in the mold of Dennis Kucinch on foreign policy. All the while, most of his advisors are former Bush people. If you can say with any certainty what this man actually believes you are doing so only as an article of faith.

I think he believes in the advancement of Mitt Romney. Period.

[Kid A]

The hardline conservative argument against "big government" has a strong appeal to most people in good times. Until their town is under 3 feet of water. Then, suddenly, maybe we should leave a little something in the federal budget.

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/10...ize-sandy.html

Funding for FEMA is something the parties wrangle over, with Republicans pushing to limit the agency’s budget, and Democrats pushing back. FEMA has to fight for its share of a constricted pot of money for domestic non-entitlement spending, a pot of money that the Republicans propose to radically constrict. How radically? Romney’s budget promises require shrinking domestic non-entitlement spending as a share of the economy by about two-thirds.

The Republican proposal to eviscerate this wide array of public functions is one of the underdiscussed questions of the election. Republicans have defended it using a very clever trick. They don’t explain how they would allocate the massive cuts to all these programs. When President Obama explains what would happen if those cuts were allocated in an across-the-board fashion, Republicans scream bloody murder. And when any single one of those programs enters the political debate, they can deny plans to make any specific cuts: They won’t cut education, they won’t cut support for veterans, and so on.

The GOP is the party arguing for splurging on a long vacation at the beach rather than repairing the roof. Naturally, they want to have this argument only when it’s sunny and never when it’s raining. There’s no reason to accommodate them.

[Rohirrim]

http://www.politicalruminations.com/...illiantly.html

[Vegas_Bronco]

Originally Posted by BroncoInferno

Exactly. What SmilingAss apparently doesn't get is that what Romney did in Mass is only relevant if you believe his actions are an accurate reflection of his beliefs. The portrait of Romney that has emerged during the campaign is one of a political chameleon who will say whatever the audience before him wishes to hear. It was politically expedient for Mitt to play centrist in Mass, so that's what he did. Who the hell knows if that reflects his actual political beliefs, or if he even has any. He spent the primary season acting like a frothing far-right ideologue ready to bomb Iran his first day in office, and then selected a VP candidate presumably to shore up that image. Then during the debates he pivots back to the center, denying his previous primary comments and trying to convince everyone he's a peace-lover in the mold of Dennis Kucinch on foreign policy. All the while, most of his advisors are former Bush people. If you can say with any certainty what this man actually believes you are doing so only as an article of faith.

Obama just changed on glb...what does he believe in that he can't change. You fail to recognize that everything you just stated applied directly to him as an individual and moreso as a president. As president, you put aside your personal approach and open the perspective as a president of a nation. Obama has tried, I give him credit, but he has failed more than succeeded and America says no more. The actions of the past are not history...they are now...and Obummer has failed to recognize this his entire presidency playing the blame game for 4 years instead of sacking up and getting to work.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Romney Refuses to Answer Questions About FEMA 14 Times




Mitt Romney was in Ohio today hosting a “storm relief” event … aka he’s campaigning in a crucial swing state. Romney is simply unwilling to respond to questions by reporters asking him about his position on eliminating FEMA and allowing each state to fend for themselves or possibly even privatizing disaster relief. Also – yesterday … a transcript turned up of Romney saying America can’t afford disaster relief. He was asked FOURTEEN TIMES and he would not answer or respond to his prior statements on record about FEMA; he just wanted a photo-op.

This is incredibly embarrassing that a serious contender for President will not respond to their own record. No matter who wins – I can’t imagine how even 10% of Americans would vote for this guy; he’s just that much of an embarrassment. It’s just disqualifying. You can see some of those interactions on the video above.

During that campaign rally “storm relief” event – he gave a speech which you can see in part HERE wherein the campaign purchased and he asked event participants to send canned goods to the Red Cross for storm victims. One major problem though … someone didn’t tell Governor Romney the Red Cross doesn’t accept canned goods and says the best assistance is CASH (source).
Courtesy of the Huffington Post HERE:

From the Romney pool report:

TV pool asked Romney at least five times whether he would eliminate FEMA as president/what he would do with FEMA. He ignored the qs but they are audible on cam. The music stopped at points and the qs would have been audible to him.

A follow-up report noted the specific questions Romney ignored, as he was collecting hurricane supplies following his event:

“Gov are you going to eliminate FEMA?” a print pooler shouted, receiving no response.Wires reporters asked more questions about FEMA that were ignored.

Romney kept coming over near pool to pick up more water. He ignored these questions:

“Gov are you going to see some storm damage?”

“Gov has [New Jersey Gov.] Chris Christie invited you to come survey storm damage?”

“Gov you’ve been asked 14 times, why are you refusing to answer the question?”

I’m not sure that I can knock Romney for campaigning necessarily as he sees the end of his political career on the horizon as Ohio is set to vote for Obama. But being in public – he wants to give a speech and get his 5 minute photo-op showing him doing some work to help storm victims … that’s all par for the course. But Mitt Romney has yet to face up to his comments that he would eliminate Federal disaster relief by turning that responsibility over to each state and even potentially privatizing it if he could. Or just saying – it’s your problem.

On June 13, 2011 – Romney said America can’t afford disaster relief on the Larry King show HERE; directly from the transcript:

KING: You’ve been a chief executive of a state. I was just in Joplin, Missouri. I’ve been in Mississippi and Louisiana and Tennessee and other communities dealing with whether it’s the tornadoes, the flooding, and worse. FEMA is about to run out of money, and there are some people who say do it on a case-by-case basis and some people who say, you know, maybe we’re learning a lesson here that the states should take on more of this role. How do you deal with something like that?

ROMNEY: 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. 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 ourselves the opposite question. What should we keep? We should take all of what we’re doing at the federal level and say, what are the things we’re doing that we don’t have to do? And those things we’ve got to stop doing, because we’re borrowing $1.6 trillion more this year than we’re taking in. We cannot…

KING: Including disaster relief, though?

ROMNEY: We cannot — 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. (emphasis added)

And we’ve shared this

HERE; an excerpt:

Last year, after a major tornado and flood struck the United States, Romney was asked in a debate on June 13, 2011 about whether the agency should be shuttered so that states can individually take over responsibility for disaster response. He was asked specifically about turning FEMA over to the states – here was his response:

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. 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?

The debate moderator John King asked Romney…
Including disaster relief, though?

In which Romney responded:

We cannot — 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.

[Rohirrim]

I would like to know Romney's vision of how this private sector disaster relief would work. .

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

I would like to know Romney's vision of how this private sector disaster relief would work. .

What?

You mean you don't know about the "thousand points of light?"

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]