Mitt Romney's plan: smaller hurricanes that don't cross state lines!

Shame on us citizens if we elect this pathological liar to anything other than early retirement.

So where are the photographs of the Federal Government workers parachuting in to solve all of the problems in New Jersey ?

No, don't see them - I do see local town, city and state agencies and private agencies (the red cross) dealing with the problems.

In its endorsement of President Obama for a second term, the Providence Journal describes Mitt Romney as "the greatest shape-shifter in contemporary U.S. politics, and thus difficult to trust."

Read more: http://blogs.providencejournal.com/ri-talks/this-new-england/2012/10/why-obama-should-be-re-elected.html

Romney defers all his policy back to "state rights". By doing so it allows him to equivocate his positions, making him appear flexible rather than what he actually is... deceptive.

Oh goodie!!  We finally have the "gotcha" moment that will destroy Mitt Romney's chances.  That is what Joan seems to be saying.  Dear Lord, I cannot wait for this to be over.  But something tells me the Globe snark machine will go into overdrive once President Romney takes office.

“As president, I will ensure FEMA has the funding it needs to fulfill its mission, while directing maximum resources to the first responders who work tirelessly to help those in need, because states and localities are in the best position to get aid to the individuals and communities affected by natural disasters.” Ah Mitt, that's the way it already works. Except of course when republicans have the White House i.e. George W. Bush v Katrina.

Oh, goodie rather than address the column we'll make an excuse for Mitt's blowing in the wind.  Are not any of you on the radical right or the "I hate Obama" group capable of simply saying.  "Yup, he changed his position again.  I have no idea what this man stands for, but I'll vote for him anyhow."  

You make it very clear what you think Obama stands for yet you seem to have no problem with not having a clue as to where Mitt stands on any issue.  When I voted for RR I liked some of his positions and disliked others, but Mitt has no positions. 

Hmmmm. A man putting principles over politics, at least for a time. Thinking about people rather than the party and their own personal agenda and wealth when it really matters. Sounds like the makings of a Democrat.

Mitt Romney wants the states to be primarily responsible for disaster reflief because he thinks that they would be better and more efficient at it, such that more money and aid would be available for victims instead of being borrowed from China and wasted.  Obama more or less proved this point this week when he had to publicly warn his federal agency not to engage in bureaucracy and red tape (this time).  Romney's recent comments on the role of FEMA and the states is entirely consistent with this viewpoint.

You can disagree with the principle behind Romney's position, and people do, but to contort  that disagreement into a screed against Romney's very morality is more the work of a nagging harridan than a serious journalist.  It's like listening to an angry ex-wife go on about every real or imagined shortcoming of her former husband.   (Meanwhile, it bears noting, by honest observers, at least, that the most effective public officials managing the storm have been governors such as Christie and Patrick.)  

Overall, both presidential candidates have shown their best sides this week, and it is disappointing to see someone come along with their old broken-record wheezing about how this is just more proof (like everything is) of how bad a person Mitt Romney is.  

Joan you've got the gist of what Romney said right.  It's the spirit of it that you've got wrong.  States should be the prime decision makers and control and manage the relief efforts.  They can request funds from the federal government in extreme cases such as Sandy but shouldn't have to wait for a federal bureaucracy such as FEMA do direct all efforts and funding.  If you want a local example of why FEMA is not the answer, just ask the citizins of the People's Republic of Vermont who are still waiting for checks and for work to be funded so it can proceed following Irene.

With this last flip flop by Governor Romney I hereby dub him, "Hurricane Mitt."  A disaster!  And the rationalizing by his supporters doesn't pass the smell test as Romney's running mate's proposed budget had provisions that gutted the monies that the states would get from FEMA.  And this is just one of dozen's of just plain "odd" political reversals.  

System, once again you confuse matters. I assume the "100" issues the President backtracked on were campaign " promises". All Presidents make promises and for various reasons they cannot keep, such as pushback from the other side.  Romney is the consumate flip-flopper, who changes his positions based on convenience, not through heart felt beliefs.

Really?  Is that all some of you have is merely hatred for this particular President.  A hatred so deep that when his opponent is called out you're only option is to find fault with the President.  Some of you seem unable to articulate a simple thought that the candidate you support lacks conviction on certain issues.  It is as if you find a single flaw in your own candidate then your whole reason for support disappears.  Sadly some posters seem to suffer with an obsession as opposed to a political thought or ideology.  I would remind you that the inability to find fault with your own is in an of itself cultish behavior.  I can find faults in both candidates and perfection in neither. 

To some I would say keep posting this drivel and people won't think you have a mental problem they will know it.  Neither Mitt Romney nor President Obama is the devil incarnate, neither is a socialist or a facist, both have a vision for America.  My problem with Mitt is I lived in Mass. when he was governor.  He wasn't a good governor and I doubt he'd be a good President.

because states and localities are in the best position to get aid to the individuals and communities affected by natural disasters.”

How is that different?

Where is bcarman when we need him?

Joan wrote: "...we’re all in it together as a country, as opposed to the feeling that every state is on its own." That says it all and it is a concise refutation of the Romney-Ryan-Brown-Boehner-McConnell approach to government. Can you imagine if NJ were under the Romney-style of government, that "pioneer spirit" that says everyone should be able to take care of themselves? Impersonal and profit-driven. States rights are supreme? Gov. Chris Christie, a keynote speaker, endorser and supporter of Romney, certainly does not feel this way. The damage to lives and property is overwhelming. Our fellow Americans need help. NY and NJ are worse than war zones. We can only gasp at the TV pictures as Americans try to cope with unanticipated disaster. Here's one suggestion: write a check out to the American Red Cross. We're all in this together. If we can send money overseas to assist disaster recovery, we surely can do it here, where we live.

President Obama re-tooled FEMA to make it a much more effective resource in crises such as this hurricane.  FEMA and States work hand in hand to deliver assistance.  For instance, emergency supplies are pre-positioned and aid can be requested by States in anticipation of predictable disasaters.  As the hurricane moves toward the shore, emergency measures, State and Federal, are already being implemented jointly.  And, the funding for these things is already allocated in anticipation of the specific emergency because we know, in general, emergencies will arrive.  This last item should be one that Republicans, especially, should applaud.  INSTEAD...they tried to cut it by 40% under the Ryan budget.

The Obama reformed FEMA works as a coordinated partnership among Federal, State and Local officials with a professional at its head, not a political hack.

At some point the flat earth Republicans will embrace the idea that it is better to prepare for the future that we are reasonably sure is coming as a result of climate change, and begin to anticipate and plan instead of carp and resist.  They opposed social security, medicare and medicaid.  They resisted the opportunity to start fundamentally improving our infrastructure almost four years ago and getting people back to work.  Now this...

"He should be running for governor again. But one term was enough for him." _______  Actually, he didn't really have a choice.  If you recall, Romney's approval rating was below 40% in 2006, so he chose not to run for reelection, so as to avoid the embarrassment of a humiliating defeat."

Just as Republicans like to forget that our economic collapse occurred under Bush, they also ignore the fact that Bush appointed an  unqualified crony to head up FEMA.  The problem during Katrina was not with FEMA but with the Republican consistent strategy of  appointing cronies to head federal organizations they don't believe in or don't want to succeed, weaken the organization, and then blame the organization for its inefficency.   

Wonderful column that describes the mercurial, capricous candidate. Loved the comment on how Mitt has "big dreams for himself even though his view of government is small." Perfect.

Last night, Stephen Colbert heartily endorsed Romney's position on FEMA:  "Right!  We should make disaster relief the sole responsibility of the states.  Who better to respond to what's going on inside its own borders than the state whose infrastructure has just been swept out to sea?"

Still nothing about the Benghazi Betrayal, a far bigger issue than which federal program should be abolished. It's for the best that Obama will lose the election. Should he win he's going to spend all his time stonewalling the Benghazi and Fast&Furious hearings. Oh, that's right. This the Globe. You readers know nothing about either scandal because the Globe doesn't publish the truth if it hurts the Democrats.

Joan,

You do know that FEMA is going to get cut w/ Obama's sequestrian. plan

Check out mediamatters.org for those who are looking for news coverage debunking the obsessed Fox News Obama bashing. There are over thirty Fox News hosts and contributers who are campaigning for Republicans. Fox News reminds me of the English language version of Pravda during the Cold War. The lies were often chilling to read, and I remember thinking how difficult it must be to live in Russia. Visiting the Fox website is like visiting an anti-American foreign country. Visiting the Media Matters website is like listining to the Voice of America.

great artcile: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/10/30/obamas_discrediting_victory_115971.html

Joan, We get it!! You and everyone at the Globe is not going to vote for Mitt or Scott Brown!!! You won't right about any of the hypocrisies or failures of Obam or the el;itist professor! Anyone with an IQ above room temperature knows it isn't what you write about, it is WHAT YOU DON'T WRITE ABOUT! Anything that puts the lioberlas in a bad light, it is typical Globe, nothing to see here folks, move along! The Globe's history of honesty and integrity and willing to print anything that puts someone they don't agree with in a bad light is well documented and chronicled!!!!

Oh well Mayor Bloomberg endorses Obama, the Economist endorses Obama.  I know more RINO's in the world.  You'd think when people like those at the Economist say Romney's numbers only work if you don't believe him others would pay attention.  But zealotry knows no bounds nor does it deal with reality.

The contrast between Fox News' coverage of President Obama's first campaign speech after Hurricane Sandy and its coverage of Mitt Romney's rally in Virginia is a study in the network's notion of "fair and balanced." Fox aired Romney's entire speech, which lasted almost 25 minutes, but cut away from Obama's remarks after just SIX minutes.

By contrast, MSNBC aired both speeches in their ENTIRETY -- Obama's speech lasted about 23 minutes.