• Facebook
  • Twitter
AdLib On August - 27 - 2012

Tropical Storm Isaac, expected to become Hurricane Isaac, is bearing down on Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama. Because of the government entities, the National Hurricane Center (NHC) and the National Weather Service (NWS), those Americans who are in the path of this powerful oncoming storm have had days of warnings to prepare and evacuate if necessary. After Isaac hits and causes its destruction in communities and cities, the government agency, The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) will arrive quickly to provide aid and relief to those hardest hit.

And in the shadow of the GOP Convention, despite the hollow words and political expedient prayers, Republicans stand with Isaac.

The Continuing Resolution that House Republicans passed in 2011 to apply to the national budget would have slashed funding for the National Oceanic Atmospheric Association (NOAA), which is the parent agency for the NWS and the NHC, by $454 million dollars from its 2010 budget. The National Weather Service alone would have been cut by $126 million. It also would have slashed FEMA funding by $24 million for management services and $783 million for FEMA state and local programs.

So, de facto, the Republican Party supports natural disasters and increasing the devastation and hardship they bring. They want Americans less prepared and more on their own when devastation hits because maintaining the current level of assistance, let alone doing better at it, interferes with reducing the taxes of the wealthy.

It is really astounding that Republicans could be so blatant about telling 99% of America, “Let them eat hurricanes!” but in the end, that is indeed what they’re saying.

America was founded on the concept of community, justice and striving for the public welfare of its citizens. The greed-inspired nihilism that now characterizes the Republican Party couldn’t come into clearer focus when the public’s welfare is threatened. There is a kind of allegory here, with this serious threat approaching so many Americans, the Republicans offer shallow concern while chiefly focused on how they can party and advance their money and power hungry agenda without the public seeing them for the uncaring and selfish group that they are.

Isn’t that what we typically see every day in US politics, anyway? Republicans putting on a facade of concern for the public to cloak their actual, greedy agenda?

Imagine the America we would be living in with a President Romney and a Republican Congress who voice such disdain for a government that helps out the vulnerable and needy. Like an economic hurricane, the Paul Ryan budget would devastate millions of poor and elderly, blow away the social safety net for seniors and educational support for children and college students. Hurricane Ryan would tear up the financial landscape for 99% of Americans and flood the wealthy with unprecedented seas of money.

Republicans believe in destruction, remember the pride Mitt Romney took in touting “creative destruction” with regards to his time at Bain? Republicans have no more conscience about wreaking destruction on America than a hurricane does, nor cleaning up after it…as we’ve seen in the years since George Bush left office.

It is a huge irony that the GOP is having its convention damaged and overshadowed by a natural disaster, one that likely has been intensified by the very Climate Change they deny for economic reasons but stay tuned for their Hurricane Hypocrisy which will gather strength and lash the nation after Hurricane Isaac has inflicted its destruction. The Republicans can’t admit the value of government so it would seem likely that Republicans are already poised to attack Obama, FEMA and other government agencies for failing to help Americans as they should. Expect absolutely no mention from Republicans of how they seek to cut NOAA and FEMA, instead, be prepared to hear how incompetent Obama and government are and how they let down Americans in need…which Republicans would never do in a natural disaster.

Just ask George Bush and the city of New Orleans.

Republicans have no shame at exploiting the suffering of others in their long term quest to make them suffer more. Obama can’t afford to be seen as politicizing this oncoming disaster though because since he’s President, it would look heartless and self-serving.

And we all know, only Republicans get to look like that and get away with it.

I expect President Obama to look presidential throughout this natural disaster, helping all Americans and states, Republican and Democrat, as best as he can. But the subtext of all of this could be very helpful to Obama, people may think about the comfort they have in him as a compassionate leader in times of trouble, in contrast with the superficiality and elitism of Romney.

Add to that, the GOP convention is unquestionably diminished in its impact due to its shrinking from four days to three and having to compete for airtime against Hurricane Isaac. Meanwhile, the DNC Convention will occur with concern for those harmed by Isaac a factor but the MSM will likely be devoting more focused coverage on their convention than they will have on the Repubs. And Isaac gives Obama and the Dems the opportunity to express their concern for their fellow Americans and explain to America how government is there to help them.

This needs to be done thoughtfully so as not to come off as exploitative but it is indeed a real and vital issue for Americans to consider, whether America should be a country that comes to the rescue when people are in trouble or if America should be an Ayn Rand utopia where it’s survival of the wealthiest and those who suffer are on their own.


Written by AdLib

My motto is, "It is better to have blogged and lost hours of your day, than never to have blogged at all."

38 Responses so far.

Click here to leave a comment
  1. Kalima says:

    The GOP must be so proud, it started just the way they mean to go on.


    RNC Attendee Allegedly Threw Nuts At Black CNN Camerawoman, Said ‘This Is How We Feed Animals’


  2. AdLib says:

    Yahoo ran an article about Christie’s speech being good but more about promoting himself for 2016 than supporting Romney. Commenters seemed fine about him, not swayed to Romney though and some found Ann Romney as overplaying the “we’re real peopl just like you” bit.

    And what does HP have as it’s headline? You guessed it:

    “ANN STEALS THE SHOW -- ‘Deafening’ Applause”

    All the news that’s fit to twist.

    • AdLib I think Christie’s speech was all Romney’s fault. Romney has made near everything in his life off limits so anyone who talks about him that does not have flowery platitudes is stuck.

      Romney surrogates can’t talk about his Bane record, his record as Gov of MA, his faith or even the details of his plans. I applaud Christie in a way for not just making his speech about criticizing Obama which is all Romney wants people to discuss.

      BTW ya gotta love a ‘We Built This’ speaker who makes street signs complaining that he is not getting enough taxpayer money under Obama. Of course the ironic part is that the GOP is the one who held up the transportation bill so long and limited the amount Obama wanted to spend on infrastructure. I don’t know where the guys business was but I bet he also did not get many contracts because he lives in a state with an ideological Republican who did not accept as many stimulus funds either.

    • Nirek says:

      Adlib, I didn’t watch any of their love fest. I did see the article on HP you speak of . It did twist the story as usual.

      As far as I’m concerned the Romney family is nothing like a normal family.They have no idea what life is like for those of us who have to work to support our families. (silver spoon syndrome)

      Mitt has his god complex and knows nothing about the real life trials and tribulations we encounter.

  3. Kalima says:

    I’ve been watching here, but not for long. For some reason, my nose has grown so long with each lie from them, that I’ve had to move up to our roof.


    • choicelady says:

      Kalima! I’ve heard of “guilt by association” before, but not “guilt by observation”. It’s not fair YOU have the elongated nose when they’re the liars! I hope the weather is good there -- not much chance of your getting back inside over the next couple of days!

      • Kalima says:

        😆 I meant to write a correction, it wasn’t my nose at all, but Nikki Haley’s, Ann Romney’s and some AA guy at the beginning. Their noses were sticking through my computer screen, and my nose is fine. Good job too, we are having 35C almost every day, I wouldn’t have lasted very long up there without ending up crispy fried.

        Pity they are not all hooked up to a lie detector that buzzes each time they let out another whooper. Quite frankly, they all made my skin crawl, and pardon me, but the audience all looked so bloody dumb, maybe that’s because they were/are.

  4. funksands says:


    Each of these fantasy role-players would like to run your government. Which is the most dangerous? Choose wisely.

    • SallyT says:

      Well, Funkie, these guys have choosen, wisely or not!

      Ron Paul Supporters Are Verbally Disrupting The Republican National Convention

      Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/republican-national-convention-floor-dissent-from-ron-paul-supporters-2012-8#ixzz24sZqhNkL

      • choicelady says:

        Well part of me likes all this. Apparently the Texas delegation is (was?) going to rebel at having their votes dictated to them by the Rules Committee. But since apparently the nomination came today (wasn’t that the HIGH point of a convention in the good ol’ days?) I’m not sure the rebels have anything left to do.

        But the idea of the GOP being in shreds and tatters as the Dems were with the Mississippi delegation issue in ’68? Well that just made me happy. That was probably our lowest point as a party. So maybe this is theirs? One can live in hope.

      • Sally, don’t ya just love it? I have seen many RP supporters claim that he will be chosen at the convention and romney will be passed over. Yeah right, like the rnc is going to throw millions of dollars worth of Romney ads away, and choose the guy least likely to win.

        Of course, Tea Baggers were never that smart to begin with.

    • AdLib says:

      Funk…there’s a difference between the two? I thought the GOP had already become a Civil War re-enactment group.

  5. SallyT says:

    The Repugs are already turning this if the hurricane should hit New Orleans. They are saying that this time it won’t be like last time. Last time there was a Democrat Mayor in New Orleans and a Democrat Governor in Louisiana. Now there are Republicans in those offices and no disaster will be miss handled like last time. Nothing about Bush and certainly nothing about President Obama acting fast for those in need. These guys are something else!

    • AdLib says:

      Sally, then Repubs are dumber than we thought. The Mayor of New Orleans is Mitch Landrieu, Mary’s brother and both are solid Democrats (though Blue Dogs). Don’t see Repubs giving him credit for a better handled hurricane than that failure Nagin.

      As for the Repubs having already written their “outrage” memes about how poorly Obama responded, of that I have no doubt.

      Check this BS out from Bobby Jindal:

      The White House said Obama informed Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal of the emergency declaration in a phone call. The declaration makes federal support available to save lives, protect public health and safety and preserve property in coastal areas.

      Jindal, a Republican, shot back late Monday in a letter to the Obama administration that the declaration fell short of the help he was requesting.

      “We appreciate your response to our request and your approval,” Jindal wrote. “However, the state’s original request for federal assistance …. included a request for reimbursement for all emergency protective measures. The federal declaration of emergency only provides for direct federal assistance.”


      This whiny little hypocrite who attacked the stimulus for funding FEMA and research into forecasting disasters to protect Americans, now howls that the government should give his state money?!

      What happened to Ayn Rand, Bobby? Only when it comes to other people should everyone be on their own but government should give you “hand outs”?

      What a stinking sack of crawfish that guy is.

  6. AdLib you are the eternal optomist. I doubt most Americans will make the connnections you outlined. In fact the better FEMA responds to the hurricane the better it will be for Repubicans because they will get more attention.

    Bush’s presidency never existed to all Republicans and most right leaning swing voters now.

    The GOP convention will go on without a hitch and they will again look like a sane political party to most Americans. Even Romney’s flip flop back to accepting Roe v. Wade as the law of the land did not make a ripple in the GOP base because from now all that matters is beating Obama.

    • AdLib says:

      KQ, one last item on whether there is legit cause for optimism. I know you’re not crazy about polls but just for your consideration:

      Reuters/Ipsos Poll: Romney faces headwinds in race against Obama

      Obama and Vice President Joe Biden were ahead of Romney and running mate Paul Ryan by 46 percent to 42 percent, according to the online poll. The Obama team led the Republicans by 16 percentage points among independents, a key voting bloc that could tip the election in battleground states.

      It was the first installment of a four-day rolling poll by Reuters/Ipsos which will measure and track attitudes during the Republican and Democratic conventions.

      Obama also gets higher likability numbers, with 54 percent to 26 percent finding him more likeable.

      Forty-seven percent say he is “a good person,” compared to 29 percent for Romney, and 48 percent said Obama would be “fun to meet in person,” while 21 percent said that about Romney.

      The two candidates were within a few points of each other on “will protect American jobs,” 36 percent for Obama against 33 percent for Romney. There were identical numbers on the question of who “can be effective in Washington.”


      • Someone’s got to be Yin to your Yang. 😉

        I just look at the fundamentals and they are still against Obama. His standing right now could not me more tenuous. One misstep like a ‘below expectations’ debate performance or taken out of context statement could really hurt his reelection chances with unemployment over 8% and such bad right track/wrong track numbers. All other issues aside with an economy like this and Romney leading the economic numbers in almost all of the polls bodes very poorly for Obama no matter how much people like him.

        The best fundamentals going for Obama is the fact that this is a state by state election and because he bailed out the automakers the midwest is stronger in places like Ohio than the rest of the country. Romney can’t win without Ohio.

        But when I see idiots like a guy at The New Republic who is suppose to lean left say we are worse off after the recovery than back in 2008 I have to scream. FFS that’s ignoring that the consequences of the worst recession in history that had nothing to do with Obama.

        We need to have our eyes open to all things good and bad or we won’t be prepared for the outcome whatever it may be. In 2008 liberals thought they could stop fighting when Obama won but that’s when the next big fight starts win or lose.

        • SallyT says:

          KQ, I welcome you keeping us concerned. We need not to take anything for granted in this election. Must be on our toes because there are so many out there stepping on them every chance they get. And, I am usually barefooted! Part Blackfoot, you know, and I’m not referring to the dirt on my feet alone. 😉

        • AdLib says:

          Kev my friend, you are my yang indeed…or my yin? 😉

          I have to confess, I don’t understand the categorical statements about Obama that are so negative and in some cases, run contrary to available info.

          There is no basis that I can see to describe the fundamentals as all being against Obama. Certainly, the national economic numbers are unfavorable for him but the economic numbers in a number of crucial swing states favor him. There are also the fundamentals of the women’s and Latino vote that greatly favor him. There are the fundamentals of public opinion that in a preponderance of polls show that there is no substantive advantage for Romney on who would handle the economy better. And the same overwhelming amount of polls showing that Obama is more liked and trusted by Americans.

          The facts are that as of this moment in time, Obama is ahead of Romney in the projected electoral vote count, in every projection out there. He leads in key swing states that would give him a victory. He is not losing and never has been against Romney in the electoral count. This is not to say the way things are today should be taken for granted as what will happen in November but the problem I have with pessimism is that it de-energizes and unmotivates people which can lead to self-fulfilling prophecies.

          We are in a fight for sure but we can’t allow our worries to make us “give in to the dark side” and focus on the negative while discounting the positive. We need to keep in mind that Obama is not the underdog in this campaign. Mitt Romney is.

          The fighters that win championships don’t allow fear or anger to distract them, they take the threat of their opponent seriously but keep it in perspective. They fight strategically, smartly and confidently knowing they could lose but never allowing that to discourage themselves from the valid belief that they can triumph.

          IMO, it’s best to be pragmatic and honest about the conflicts one is facing and not live in a fairy tale land of, “Don’t worry, everything will turn out alright.” Blissful ignorance can be counter-productive. For the same reason, I also think that pessimism is counter-productive, seeing things as darker than they really are is sometimes a way of preparing for disappointment but it often leads to apathy.

          Whether supporters see Obama’s re-election as bleak or promising, it’s most important to be as active as possible in working towards the outcome we’re hoping for and IMO, less productive to accept or promote a reason to be discouraged or throw in the towel.

          • Certainly Obama is running into headwinds when you consider the majority of the environmental factors going against him. Right track/wrong track and unemployment figures usual decide elections and they is no way to candy coat that they are against Obama. I see consistently Obama behind on the question about who is better to handle the economy. Obama would have to break precedent to win based on the current economic environment.

            If Obama can keep this a character and demographic election he certainly has the advantages in droves over Romney.

            Then of course there’s the 800lb Billionaire in the room.

            Certainly president Obama has all the confidence and other traits of a winner you are describing but he’s got dozens of political analysts around him who do all the worrying for him. His supporters don’t have that luxury because if he does lose we will be the ones hurt the most not him. Obama even said that last election if you remember.

            • AdLib says:

              I think it remains quite clear that the electoral numbers have been and remain pretty strong in supporting Obama’s re-election.

              The national polls about the race being neck and neck are really irrelevant.

              As you wrote a while back, what does it matter if Repub turnout in red states is much higher and causes the national numbers to be closer, Romney doesn’t get any extra electoral votes from Texas if more Repubs turn out.

              There are legit concerns about how the Repubs will try to cheat through voter suppression and other dirty tricks but based primarily on the long term polling patterns, Obama is indeed favored to win re-election.

              You’ve expressed that Nate Silver is one source you respect, he has Obama with a 68.7% chance of re-election, actually up 1.3% from last week.


              So, I don’t see how having a 68.7% chance of winning could be seen as anything other than Obama having an advantage at this point in time.

            • AdLib those contradictions exist because the GOP is so right wing that it could not offer a generic Republican this year. If they could Obama would be in much more trouble. I liken this election to being an unstoppable force (Obama’s excellent personal and character qualities) against an immovable object (economic environment and right track wrong track numbers). Romney just hasn’t leveraged the environmental factors yet. Romney’s team has run an idiotic campaign and he should be hammering Obama on the economy much more.

              Sure my final prediction that this is going to be a nail biter is just opinion but it does not change the fact if Obama wins we should rightly look back and understand with all the obstacles Obama faced during his reelection campaign it would have been a Herculean accomplishment.

              For the life of me I don’t see what I think you are implying either. I assume you are implying that Obama has a major advantage now and the odds of him losing are relatively low. Please correct me if I’m wrong. The polls are still very very close, within the margin of error in most cases including state polling. So it’s not like Romney has a huge hill to climb either, especially with all the voter suppression efforts in key states like OH and FL.

            • choicelady says:

              Hi -- had to jump in here with the second smartest man in the room, Nate Silver. His blog is well worth noting. What interests me is the far right hand column on the main story with the state by state assessment of who will win what. Nate is rarely wrong.

              Take a look, KQ -- Nate has nailed pretty much every race since 2006. His is NOT the facile “man in the street” polling. True geekdom rules at 538.

              It gave me heart. Hope it will do the same for you.


            • AdLib says:

              KQ, my point is that from my POV, what you’re laying out is not a fact, it is a theory which I don’t feel incorporates all of the factors that are in play.

              That is, the opinion that it would be unprecedented for Obama to win with unemployment this high is exclusive of all the other factors that impact this election.

              By narrowing the election down to a narrow set of metrics, the same type of approach could cut against Romney just as absolutely.

              For example, all of the below metrics are true independently but completely conflict when taken together:

              A. It is unprecedented for a sitting president to be re-elected with 8.2% unemployment.

              B. It is unprecedented for a challenger to win the Presidency with less than 32% of the Latino vote (Romney’s in the 20’s).

              C. It is unprecedented for a sitting President to be re-elected when a majority of Americans feel the country is headed in the wrong direction.

              D. It is unprecedented for a challenger to win the Presidency while losing the women’s vote by 10% or more.

              If we were to choose only one of the precedents above to characterize the entire race, it would be myopic. In doing so, we could categorically declare either Romney or Obama as the one with the greatest challenge, fighting for the most unprecedented victory.

              This is my problem with pundits. They are blind men standing around an elephant, grabbing the tail and categorically declaring that they are holding a rope while the pundits at the front grab onto the trunk and categorically declare that they are holding onto a snake.

              When any system doesn’t work because it can’t accommodate complexities, that system is flawed and unreliable. So trying to characterize this election using only one precedent while neglecting all others is necessarily inaccurate.

              Things are far more complex than pundits want to present, narrowing an entire election down to unemployment numbers works for them to do their thing and further their careers but presenting a complex situation in a simple wrapper to the public is not wisdom, it’s expediency.

              In truth, elections can be very complex and as we’ve seen, Repubs respond more to racism, hatred and fear than the state of the economy. Progressives respond strongly to the threat to women’s and immigrants’ rights, destruction of the social safety net and plutocracy.

              Would an indie who doesn’t want Medicare and SS destroyed and doesn’t want girls and women to be forced to carry the babies of rapists and child molesters, vote for all that to happen because the unemployment number is at 8.2% instead of 7.8%? It sure doesn’t seem likely to me.

              What will indies respond to? We don’t know for sure but as I mentioned, they aren’t single issue voters or they wouldn’t be undecided. So the economy alone won’t be the only factor.

              As shallow as it may sound, the basic feeling of liking one candidate over the other as human beings also has a powerful but intangible effect on who gets their vote.

              I know you and I are on the same page on most of this. I do think though that parsing out the factors that challenge Obama without balancing them by the factors that challenge Romney leads to a kind of pessimism that doesn’t paint the full picture of the complexities of this election.

              And you know me, I’m always up for a good debate!

            • AdLib I’m laying out facts. Just on the unemployment numbers alone the reelection of Obama would be unprecedented in the modern era by definition. Of course all elections have some unique aspects that still does not change that fact. I don’t create the reality. I know exactly the reasons that Obama is ahead right now but it does not change the other factors against him. Not to mention the bazzillion dollars the GOP is spending.

              Heck I’m not even criticizing the president’s campaign or telling him how to run it. He and his team are doing all they can. Now that would be a pessimist attitude. I’m pointing out what hurdles are in his way.

              With everything else you are preaching to the choir. If there’s one thing I would do if I was Obama starting at the DNC and beyond is tout my record more. One of Obama’s virtues is he’s a humble man despite what the right thinks. He’s not his best cheerleader in that way so he needs to rely on high powered surrogates like Joe Biden and Bill Clinton to sell his record.

              I still gotta tell the truth about what I think and with the convention resets we are looking at a toss up before the debate performances. I think Obama will rise to the occasion. All along I thought for certain Romney would win the GOP nomination because he had all the fundamentals going for him. The general election is more mixed because there are factors favoring each side. I just don’t have that warm and fuzzy that this is even close to a lock for Obama yet. If you need some optimism I think Obama’s chances are a hellofallot better than they were this time last year.

            • AdLib says:

              KQ, there is a difference between inspiring others to be active and being pessimistic and IMO, this is being pessimistic.

              Back in late 2011 pundits declared that Obama would lose if the unemployment rate wasn’t below 7%. It hasn’t come near that level and yet Obama remains ahead in all polls on electoral votes.

              Conventional wisdom is rarely correct in politics. I remember a study about pundits which showed they are wrong a great deal of the time.

              Their problem is that they present a set of metrics and state categorically that these will decide the election. Then they’re proven wrong.

              There is no precedent for this election so I disagree that Obama’s re-election would break precedent.

              The combo of an extremist RW party that seeks to take away women’s freedoms and rights, destroy the social safety net and hand the treasury over to the wealthiest in the aftermath of the greatest economic crash in our history…I can’t see that as having any precedent historically. Add to that a candidate who is an abject and blatant liar and fraud, an elitist who has no connection to 99% of Americans vs. a sitting President who has kept Americans safe and killed our number one enemy, brought in universal health care, gay rights, pay equity for women, etc.

              I think it’s a mistake to buy into the narrow meme of the pundits that this election is solely about the unemployment rate and the economy.

              Indie voters in particular are not one-issue voters. To many Americans, the destruction of Medicare and Social Security are at least as important, to many women, the right to control their own bodies is very important, to Latinos, legalized bigotry and assaults on their families are important issues.

              This election is about far more than economic numbers, despite what the pundits say. They have been wrong and they are wrong again.

              Because, if they were right, with unemployment at 8.2% and the economy sputtering along for most Americans, Romney would be ahead in a big way right now.

              One fact is that most Americans blame Bush and not Obama for the economy. This is part of the reason the pessimistic proposition falls apart.

              The facts are also that Romney trails Obama right now in most swing states that will decide this election. In three months, the economy is unlikely to change drastically from where it is today.

              So, I would propose that it is not going to be decided by the national economic numbers (swing state numbers are favoring Obama, which throws a monkey wrench in this pessimistic proposition), I think it is going to be about everything else that will make a strong impact on voters.

    • AdLib says:

      BTW, considering that this is the day the GOP convention was gaveled into session, at the time of this comment, our news widget which carries top stories from Yahoo doesn’t even have one story, not even a background story, about the GOP Convention.

      It does have as the Number 2 story: “2nd Yosemite visitor dies of rodent-borne illness” which does make me think of Republicans and even “Man killed while trying to create Bigfoot sighting” but it appears that stories about the GOP convention fall well below this level of interest.

    • AdLib says:

      Hey KQ, the reason I wrote this article is to help get the word out about what Republicans really stand for. That is, letting natural disasters wreak destruction on Americans in order to cut taxes on the wealthy. So though I am an optimist, I’m not counting on Swing Voters to be well enough informed about this…yet.

      On the other hand, I don’t understand how FEMA doing a good job makes Obama look bad and benefits Repubs. “Government Works!” is a Dem theme, “Government Doesn’t Work!” is a Repub theme. FEMA coming in strongly to make a difference would seem to show Obama is using government to help and undermine the Repubs spite for the concept of government being useful.

      As for your assumption about the inevitable and complete success of the Repub convention, have to disagree with you on that.

      It has already been undercut by Hurricane Isaac and will continue to be since this storm will be raging over the entire duration of the GOP convention.

      There will be coverage of the GOP but it will share the stage with the far more compelling and important story of the hurricane. If there was no storm, all eyes would be on the convention, so that loss of primary focus is a negative for them.

      Also, after losing one day already, they have had to shoehorn all their Monday speakers into the other three days and some of their top attractions, including Bobby Jindal, won’t even be there.

      Will Swing Voters be riveted by the one hour of GOP Convention broadcast by the networks (swing voters aren’t big cable news watchers…or they wouldn’t be swing voters) or the reports and video of Isaac and the storm’s destruction? My bet is, the latter.

      I see it a bit differently, their convention will be a hatefest against Obama and that simply doesn’t have a great track record in attracting indies, just the opposite. Meanwhile, Obama and the Dem convention gets to be the Home Team and bat last, they’ll have a greater amount of focus with Isaac over and will be presenting a positive message and vision as an antidote to the Repub Convention. They’ve got more Star Power between Obama and Bill Clinton (where’s George Bush? I thought Repubs make good Presidents?), they have a strong theme and lineup of women to connect with that crucial vote while the Repubs pass platform planks about treating them like cattle…I would rather be in the Dems and Obama’s position than Romney’s and the Repubs.

      Will Indies prefer the hatred and empty Romney platitudes instead of the positive energy and genuine compassion and charisma of Obama? I don’t see it but time will tell.

      • I didn’t say it would make Obama look bad I just meant it will reduce the coverage on Isaac and increase coverage of the RNCC.

        I don’t think the GOP is going as negative as you think especially in PRIME TIME and that’s all most people will be watching.

        I do agree that the Dems have a big advantage going second and so soon after the GOP.

  7. choicelady says:

    Great points, AdLib.

    Now I believe in personal responsibility. I’m sick of paying for people’s ill conceived ways of life that create predictable devastation for them. I’m tired of the whiners who beg for help then go right back to doing what cost us taxpayers in the first place. I’m fed up with paying, over and over, to bail people out for their lousy choices.

    No more bailouts for people who will NOT learn their lessons! Rich white people rebuilding in hurricane areas are ON THEIR OWN!!!

    We all should remember that Bush laughed not just at “Heckofa job, Brownie” but at how quickly FEMA and federal insurance was going to sweep into the rich waterfront areas and get those mansions back on the ground! And they did. And even today, almost seven years to the date, the Ninth Ward is unreconstructed save by efforts of volunteers and non-profits.

    They want to privatize everything so the rest of us can’t always know what’s coming and certainly cannot benefit from help once it’s here. But we CAN help the rich. We always help the rich. And even so, they whine it’s not enough.

    So be assured that whatever the GOP hyper individualsts take away from us, they will NOT take it away from the folks who build in flood plains, on the beach, over sink holes, or in hurricane-prone areas. If your house is big enough, your shoes and belt white enough, your bank account flashy enough, your Mercedes new enough -- you WILL be helped with government bail outs no matter how idiotic your lifestyle and how lousy your judgment. Some people never learn -- because they never have to.

    • AdLib says:

      Hey CL, when you look at the GOP instead of listen to them, it’s clear that they wholly support government bailouts. Whether it’s banks, oil companies, hedge fund managers, corporate agriculture, etc., they’re all for draining government revenue to enrich the wealthy, it’s helping out the other 99% that they are outraged by.

      Progressives want to use government to help Americans, Republicans want to use government as a vehicle for transferring wealth from the 99% to the top 1%.

      So with regards to the specifics you describe, there is no way that Repubs would ever oppose government services and aid for the wealthy.

Leave your Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Back to top
PlanetPOV Tweets
Ongoing Stories