Ed has already covered Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s 2011 comments that he’d love to not only do away with FEMA, but also privatize disaster relief, but I find it extremely telling that Mitt Romney (version 2012)
really, really really doesn’t want to answer questions about whether he still supports eliminating FEMA.
“Governor, are you going to see some storm damage?” one reporter asked.
Several others again asked Romney whether he would eliminate FEMA.
“Governor, you’ve been asked 14 times. Why are you refusing to answer the question?” one asked.
Despite Mitt Romney’s refusal to show a little backbone and answer for previous comments he’s made, his campaign aides indicated Romney would not abolish FEMA if he became president. Of course, I don’t think any rational person would believe anything that comes out of the mouths of Mitt Romney or anyone associated with his campaign, because telling the truth isn’t a strength of Mitt “say anything to get elected” Romney.
What I find more puzzling is why he just doesn’t do the normal Mitt and change his mind.
Jim,
He did do the “Mitt way” initially. He (his campaign) first backtracked by describing what he supports without naming it. In this case describing what the government already does. It was after the media began pushing that by the end of the day yesterday he simply refused to respond – which is also typically Mitt. The latter strategy is the “new normal” for Conservatives who believe themselves entitled to the privilege of not answering to anyone. What’s worse is that entitlement attitude has infected their rank and file as well. Add entitlement and narcissism to the pre-existent authoritarianism and shaman-thought embedded in Conservative culture and it is a toxic combination that bodes ill for any rational discourse in the near future.
Even so, the media should keep asking the question. Just as they should have kept asking about tax returns. And the media should revive the query about Mitt’s position on climate change and Hurricane Sandy. Any responsible media outlets would ask him direct, pertinent questions like: Do you believe climate change systemically caused Hurricane Sandy? Can you explain how an uncoordinated private sector can respond better than federal infrastructure? Do you think Homeland Security should be decentralized and its functions taken up by the individual states? A great many questions could have been asked in place of the one he refused to answer.
The best thing for Mitt is to keep silent. Though a week out from the elections I think it hardly matters anymore. He’s poised to win even without election rigging – which, by the way, I do expect to occur. When he speaks he will only speak through his narrow frame I would think. I would guess that if any truly challenging questions are asked of him (which I doubt) he will simply not respond to them.
“Mr. Romney made no reference to his comments about eliminating FEMA, which have been declared a disaster area.”
Read more http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/borowitzreport/2012/10/romney-says-he-favors-abortion-in-cases-where-it-makes-people-vote-for-him.html#ixzz2Au7AbVUi
Why won’t Obama come clean about Benghazi?
He allowed 4 Americans to die in Libya.
tom harlen you shall hence be known simply as Socio (short for sociopath)
Socio,
Obama needn’t come clean on your claim because your claim is shamefully false. You might consider following your own advice by coming clean, beginning with your hateful sociopathy. Until then here’s coming clean: Start with the Radical Right side of the isle beginning first with the inciting video produced by Right Wing Extremists and next with the Neoconservative foreign policy that has undermined trust for the USA in the region, and don’t forget Mitt Romney inserting himself into a crisis where he did not belong.
If you still have questions try finding answers outside of the Right Wing Propaganda Machine. The narrative you attempt to instantiate is quite simply lying of the ugliest order. Nothing is hidden nor was it ever hidden by the Obama Administration concerning Benghazi. You owe him your praise for handling the situation as a world leader.
Romney’s handling was quite the opposite. He demonstrated he does not possess any qualities of a world leader. Instead Romney proved to America and to the world that he is a viperous tenderfoot. In crisis he responded as an opportunistic neophyte ignorant of the situation at hand and ignorant of the situation at large, a buffoon whose indecency shocked the world. He politicized a crisis as it was unfolding, at the very moment Americans were dying he politicized their deaths. Inventing a false narrative won’t change that. Romney is malevolence incarnate and he is an immoral man.
Since then, he has again politicized American deaths as the crisis that took their lives was unfolding – during Hurricane Sandy. He’s made a mockery of their deaths with his indecorous appearances in Florida and in Ohio, and he’s made a complete and utter fool of himself by exposing, yet again, his unconscionable level of ignorance in responding to another national disaster. Romney is a small man, a coward underserving to hold any elected office but he’s proven, too, that he’s shallow, meek-willed, ruthlessly exploitative, and entirely unfit for the presidency.