Romney on FEMA

New tweak.  Go away. 

Sandy

Ah New York City. In the 1970s, there was a blackout. Barely remember it. The next blackout that I had to deal with (over here in the Bronx) was in 2003. I didn't even notice it at first, since I was outside and it was in the middle of the day. It ended the next day. In between, of course, was 9/11. I took a train from mid-town late that afternoon. Since then, I had to take a bus in from a neighboring county because weather conditions shutdown the overhead train for part of a day. Minor inconvenience.

Sandy shutdown the transit system Sunday night. Buses were running early evening Tuesday (free of charge temporarily; I saw a few today) and train service began today (limited subway service will start again tomorrow). Schools were closed for three days. I went to public school for a portion of my years. I don't remember a single snow day. Three days?  The libraries were closed for three (many are due open tomorrow). Again, I don't remember the system as a whole EVER being closed, though certain library branches might have been closed, for even a day. 

And, I lost power for two days.  Given how bad things have gotten in NY and NJ, this is fairly trivial.  These things sometimes are announced and nothing comes of them.  It was windy Monday morning when I went to the bank (I had to go a bit further, the local one closed), but nothing much seemed to happen immediately for much of the day.  Things were getting bad elsewhere, showing some cause for the scary alarm Gov. Christie (Obama's new bromance buddy) and Mayor Bloomberg (and his sign language interpreter, except for his fake sounding Spanish summaries) set off as the Jets was stinking Sunday afternoon.  Still, here it seemed okay.

It really was.  There was no flooding in the basement, trees around here took it worse in other storms and chunks of the area didn't lose power.  Actually, and this sort of annoyed me, two blocks away had power.  I felt like it was some sort of sci-fi movies where you cross some barrier and oooh look it's the 19th Century.  Did have a gas stove.  There was a big bang in the middle of the MNF game and then the power went out.  Survived.  Used that walkman (remember them?), flashlight and even some candles.  Took those cold showers.  Was annoyed people near me had power.  Listened to the devastation in other areas.  Had perspective.

To pass the time, I listened to the local sports radio station, which has a large audience from various areas more affected than I (no close family were in those areas), so the storm was a major theme.  Personally, it got to be a bit much, but understand the need to talk and vent.  Major upset that at first they were going to have a Nets game in their new stadium in the NYC, which would be a problem to get to given the transit situation.  Latest thing was that the marathon is still on for Sunday.  I'm not as upset about that as others -- I think things will be okay enough by then.  It is a major diversion and the personnel can be handled for the day.  If the route is a problem, wouldn't they cancel it?  If subways can run, that can go on.

The key sports guy noted that Obama should have things locked up now, that Romney's main man Christie is palsy-wallsy with Obama now and it's a chance for Obama to look presidential and it would make Romney look like  a tool to criticize him.  I was flipping thru the radio and passed Rush and caught him dissing Obama.  You know -- it's like sports, it is like things are all normal or something.  It isn't really.  Talk of billions of dollars.  People in other parts of the metro area out of power for more, others lost their homes.  No, this isn't Florida or Louisiana.  Still, there is a sense of normalcy.  Even with this, after a few days, the city is starting to normalize.  Wall Street was trading today.  The art museum was open.  There was trick and treating.  Life goes on.

And, the Supreme Court was back with the dog sniff cases.

Romney Doesn't Like The Constitution: Sandy Edition

"Absolutely," he said. "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.

The Constitution suggests the right direction to protect the "general welfare" is often the national government. MR disagrees. I don't.

Please Don't Act Like Beavis (Heh heh!)

MHP like here noted ridicule of funny sounding "binders" should not miss the wider question: was Romney serious about what sounds like affirmative action? If the facts behind the incident and his views overall are iffy, THAT is the problem, not him sounding stupid.

(Consistent) Libertarians For Obama

I'm tired of faux libertarian campaigns like this that might be more intelligent than others but still selectively skips over stuff as comments (e.g., by Joe) underline. I'm no big fan of Ron Paul, but this argument the other way seems more convincing.

All Our Daughters

A model approach? Meanwhile, more faux libertarian spin.  "Libertarianism" is not the same thing as cutting federal spending and shifting certain things to local authorities.  Again, watching something other than the debate but apparently Biden is doing pretty good. 

The ABO Factor?

[Update: Take this guy.  Even though he's right on the issue, more or less (who knows the exact details about the demands), he comes off as a jerk. Not for the first time.  Along with PC, he drags down the blog (still miss Charli Carpenter), even though again he brings some expertise.  Because he comes off as so much of a jerk even one of his co-bloggers had to call him for it at times.  Scorn takes you just so far, really.]

My philosophy is that you have to strongly show what is wrong with the other side, while putting forth a reason to vote for your ticket. I honestly am more worried about Bush than supportive of Kerry, though Kerry has enough going for him that I can equally honestly say that I don't have to hold my nose either to switch the little lever for him in November.

It important to remember that people like to believe in something. I myself do not like to have to strongly dislike people. It is not good for you. Something good has to motivate me as well, or life is too depressing after awhile.

Someone linked to a 2004 (tempus fugit) blog I wrote, and since at times I see Romney as a sort of "Kerry," this seems relevant.  The election will be closer than it really should be, but it is striking how unlikeable Romney is.  Kerry was not very likeable and the election was decided by Ohio.

Still, the thing there was not that people simply disliked the guy.  It was more that he was so stiff and such.  I don't recall people simply disliking him as a person.  Likewise, Edwards might have been seen by some as an empty suit.  Ryan, however, is seen as an ideologue with whom some Republicans running for office rather not associate themselves.  Some voters do "like" Ryan.  I can't see them as a big segment of the general election.  We are talking about some rump of one party.  And, even there, from what I can see, a big part of his message is distaste.

This is the party of St. Reagan or even cheery Dubya?  It is quite hard to win an election, surely a mid-term one of this sort without a candidate with some likeability.  You cannot just rest on disliking people.  Even now, I find the vote oh so easy since the other side is to my mind ridiculous.  Still, that isn't the only reason I'm voting Obama. He actually brings something to the table and has some things I like, including an intelligence and yes pleasant enough disposition that even those who might not support his policies might appreciate.  His administration helped pushed things in the right direction in more than one area (gay rights, health care stand out) in significant ways.  Meanwhile, Romney comes off as an asshole.  Even beyond policies, I dislike the man.  I'm not alone.

As I note above, and the sentiment remains, I don't like disliking people.  It doesn't feel good and it is unpleasant though up to a point there is some rightful outrage there.  If I had to actually vote for such a person, especially when the other guy (if I was honest) was all that bad in various ways (Ted Olson, e.g., is pushing for the side opposing his marriage equality mission;  a party big on "tough guy" is now compelled to be voting against the guy who "killed OBL"), it would be pretty tough.  How many Republican voters quite honestly can say they will not have to hold their noses to vote for Romney?  It's pretty sad really.

But, I'm not overly optimistic here. Romney is likely to get somewhere in the mid-40s in total popular vote.  I would be rather surprised if he won though and (miscalling things in 2000 notwithstanding) I'm pretty confident there. Still with gerrymandering and other things, the Dems still will not have enough support in Congress as reasonable people should provide though polls suggest some gains in the House and keeping the Senate (though even holding about firm will continue the broken branch filibuster rules of governing)  is favored at this time.  A key election this time around is Massachusetts, but it's quite possible that Kerry will be the next Secretary of State and the loser (either one) will fill his spot!

ABB didn't win in '04 and ABO is a longshot this time around. 

Romney Is Such An Asshole

FINALLY release a year of tax returns and a "summary" of more. Rules that apply to other candidates don't apply to him. Apparently, it's "too hard." Drawing it out is stupid too. Whatcha hiding?

Public Servants

I share the comments about Joe Biden here. Goofiness wasn't the real problem with Bush either.  Clinton's words on Libya also were powerful. OTOH, we have Romney. The attacks in Libya at least appear to be more complicated, but either way, the U.S. is not responsible for the acts of some obscure filmmaker.

On the mail front ...

Thank you for your contribution to Mitt Romney.

Other than a "non-profit" stamp (which I didn't notice at first) that looks something like the mockin-jay from The Hunger Games, the amusing thing about my junk mail today was an envelope with the above message.  This amused me, thinking it was some mistake, but it turned out to be a gimmick from the People For The American Way about how Citizens United furthers backhanded means of donations to candidates.

Corporate money "unknowingly" will find its way, in part from profits from goods and services we purchase, somehow. Corporations under the old policy weren't prohibited from donating at all. And, whatever the excesses of the ruling, I am firmly against amending the First Amendment to address a short term jurisdictional trend.  So, no signing petitions to my senators and representative, the latter who I basically never hear from,* supporting that sort of thing.  Sorry.

Still, I enjoyed the laugh and the two pieces of scrap paper (one side of the paper, at least).  And, enjoy your work overall. Meanwhile, it's nice that I received a discount for using my own bag (though oversized breads did require theirs), the .02 seems a bit little as an incentive. 

---

* I hear a bit more from the senators, including emails from Sen. Gillibrand, and at times get material from state and local officials.

Still, it is notable that my state rep actually is getting a challenger putting in some real effort, down to a local office and promotional tee-shirts and the like ... got so bad, the rep actually sent a volunteer to my home to encourage me to vote.  I am inclined to vote for the challenger, who is still unlikely to win against the establishment incumbent gal, just for that reason.

[I actually got a local paper today and seems she actually is in real trouble, which might be why he put forth the effort.]

Do You Feel Lucky?

Isaac

Such a biblical name. Sort of deja vu, especially for MHP. More on Katrina, showing -- contra Ryan -- government does have a role to secure our freedom (for Ryan et. al., other than abortion rights, SSM, etc.), including the freedom to live. See also, Zeitoun.

Well Spoken Liar

Two things were unquestionably true about Paul Ryan’s speech last night: One, it was unquestionably a well-written and well-presented speech and Two, it was filled with a lot of out and out lies or things that were so hypocritically or comically misleading as almost to amount to the same.

As Rachel Maddow has noted, Romney likes that sort of thing.

Unserious? Sure. But, So Tasty (to some)

I find talk about "villagers" and such at some point (rather quickly) annoyingly pretentious (look! I'm using snarky slang!) but like in various places, it's helpful to know how to fit in D.C. Merits count too, but politics is often knowing how to communicate to your audience.

CC Gets All Higher Ground (Up to a Point)

In an introduction to the American people on politics’ biggest stage, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) argued that only Republicans are willing to take the political heat necessary to fix the deficit.

If they actually had the guts to do that, maybe, but they do not. BTW, teacher unions are there FOR the teachers, bully boy.

Ryan/Rand ... Not Who I Want To Lead this Land!

I am somewhat familiar with various philosophers and theorists, including the usual "names" that are bandied about like Mill, Rawls and yes Rand.  Rightly or wrongly, I never was much interested in reading too deeply into these people, quite honestly, finding primary sources rather boring.  I took an intellectual history course once and read some material here, but it is simply not something I'm interested in. 

I have not to my knowledge actually read Rand though have seen a few clips of her giving an interview and might have seen part of a movie based on her life. I also saw part of the recent first part of the "John Galt" film trilogy (?) until I had to shut it off since it was so boring. I might have first heard about her because a character in Dirty Dancing (recall, taking place in the 1950s) was enthused with one of her novels. This was not seen as a good thing, the idea probably that he really wasn't that deeply aware of her philosophy.  Reading her apparent trudge prose was something

Of course, though he at times rather not admit it (making him a good fit on the ticket, I guess), Paul Ryan is a fan.  He once said she was a major, if not the major, influence in his political career.  We have "Rand" Paul, who cannot answer a simple question on the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and now we have a Rand acolyte as vice presidential candidate, the person picked to show the party and/or base Romney is good people. This suggests a long time trend -- pick someone safe (though still pretty conservative in various ways) in a political way for the top of the ticket and then find a more movement friendly figure.  Seems to be the case in each case after Reagan, where the approach was switched. 

This again shows the fine tuning needed in labels -- this is not a "conservative" path as such  William F. Buckley, e.g., was no big fan of Rand, not surprising from the author of God and Man at Yale.  As LD on MSNBC noted, the gal was a Russian atheist.  His positions are far from libertarian as well.  We will continue to get the big spin job that will try to cover this up, much talk about "freedom" and less government, except for the usual suspects.  Democrats are not for "less government," full stop.  They are for appropriate government.  As a social libertarian, this is the best move for me at the current time, even if Obama might annoy on certain issues.  Gary Johnson, the libertarian choice, praising Ron Paul, who in several ways is far from libertarian underlines the point.

Chris Hayes found some video of Ryan defending stimulus when Bush was promoting it.  This is far from surprising -- Ryan repeatedly (says it was so hard for him at times, poor thing) was the loyal solider, the Republican way, during the Bush years, including repeatedly supporting questionable government spending. His tax breaks philosophy is not about fiscal solvency, but empowering certain people.  Rand went in some troubling directions, but the basic absolute individualism she speaks of might sound good to some shallow thinking sorts (the sorts that might think all taxation is slavery or the like) is a problem writ large. 

[MHP suggested Ryan isn't serious about Rand ... he is more of a sort of trope and is not actually taken seriously by the candidate. This might be a bit too generous.]

Hayes noted yesterday how she managed to justify getting government benefits, so apparently hypocrisy (or rationalization) is there too.  He had a woman who benefits from government programs on today as he had on regarding other issues, such as the DREAM Act.  We often see talking heads, including lobbyists and insiders, but repeatedly they are of the favored view sort.  But, policies affect the average person, you and me.  The policies Ryan et. al. support hurts the general welfare.  In various ways, imperfect as it might be, the other side has helped it.  This is the bottom line.  The line in the sand is ever more clear with Ryan though.

As I say, I find it depressing that the two choices is an imperfect centrist Democrat (whatever fantasy labels others want to put on him or those who felt betrayed because they naively expected so much more) and this ticket.  MHP has a bit on Biden yesterday, noting he's our guy, even with his gaffes.  Yes.  He is clearly a credible choice to have in the wings if something horrible happens.  The fact he puts his foot in his mouth at times doesn't change this and the whole "Bushisms" bit over at Slate always seems childish to me anyways.  Bush wasn't bad because he (like his father before him, in a different fashion) spoke funny.  Policy choices.

I have a new label -- "Ryan."  I don't have a "Romney" label, though perhaps I should, since he brings his own baggage.  But, this election has a better symbol of what the "anti-canon" should be. Ryan.

Good Angel Talks

Yes, yes. This allows us to talk about key issues like the proper role of government and promote important values in the process, the Ayn Rand representative if anything making it easier to promote the right side. Glass half full. Still not easy.

Almost As Excruciating As The Mets

Know it is important, but I'm so BORED with hearing about Romney and Ryan.  They are lousy choices and it's f-ing clear.  But, since it is not to enough people, we have hear a few more months of it, often with the rule being that we have to assume RR are reasonable sorts.

Deficit Hawk when okay for the party

[W]orst financial and economic collapse of our lifetime, with millions out of work, millions of businesses shuttered, and hundreds of failed banks -- arguably a bigger emergency that 911 -- and the Republicans can get away with an unprecedented level of political obstructionism and brinkmanship, without penalty from the media or the voters?

A comment to a discussion how Ryan is a loyal Republican but bad for the country. Again, pick is truth in advertising.

It’s A Good Thing

Having Ryan on the ticket will make it difficult for the losers of the election to claim that the winners doesn’t have some claim to pursue their fiscal vision.

I agree that there is a certain honesty here though Romney might not specifically be aiming for that sort of thing.