The problem of course is that the republicans are implying that the poor, American sheeple are so feeble minded that they got swept up in Obamamania again because of how he reacted to the hurricane, and not because they agree with anything he stands for, so they voted for him.
Honestly, it’s a fucking insult to the American public for republicans to keep shouting shit like this.
My impression is that Chronos gets that; what he’s doing is rhetorically questioning the disgruntled Republicans who seem to be trying to imply that whatever advantage Obama got from his Sandy reaction was somehow “unfair”.
And my response on behalf of (my interpretation of) those Republicans to (my interpretation of) Chronos would be: “Yeah, but Romney would have done the same if he’d been President when Sandy hit. But Romney’s potential presidentialness in the face of disaster didn’t matter to anybody because he didn’t have the real-time executive power to actually do anything in the crisis. Disaster situations provide an unfair advantage to incumbents because the incumbent’s response is the only one anybody cares about.”
Of course, we know that not only was Romney incapable of acting presidential, he actually did something pretty shitty when he set up the fake Red Cross food donation thing.
When your excuse for losing elections continues to be “the voters were too blind or stupid to vote for us”… Then you’re going to continue to lose elections into the foreseeable future.
As I pointed out in another thread, the irony is that if Gore had been elected in 2000, he would have pushed for climate control legislation and Sandy probably wouldn’t have occurred.
The Republican Party is still paying for George W. Bush.
I think that’s a giant leap to an unlikely conclusion.
Yep, the best and most accurate way to put it is that nature is still moving stuff around, global warming is not causing things like Sandy and it was likely that the hurricane would take place still; however, global warming makes things like Sandy worse.
The human added CO2 in the atmosphere is making the hurricanes when they come stronger, 10 years and more of legislation were however lost thanks to the Republicans and now the solutions and the adaptations that need to be made will be more expensive.
It had a non-zero positive effect for Obama (he handled it well, and basically it was a lot of free publicity for Obama to go around and look and act…and be…presidential), but the reason why Romney lost was because of Romney. He was the wrong guy at the wrong time, possibly the worst possible candidate the Republicans could have run (who had any chance of getting through the primaries). I’m just surprised it was as relatively close as it was, to be honest.
I have a similar reaction, but maybe not surprise. More like fear. Terror. That sort of thing.
Thank you! I feel like I’ve been smoking crazy pills this last year with how ardently everyone has been supporting Romney, even my really not all that political of friends. Romney was an awful, awful candidate. I’m too young to remember Dukakis or McGovern and their ilk, but surely he has to be comparable on how terrible of a political candidate he was (not necessarily a terrible person). He was just really that bad. I honestly wonder if I’ll ever see a candidate as bad as Romney again in my life. And yes, it was relatively close, but only because there is so much hatred for Obama, and the economy is relatively weak.
So, thank you. I’m glad I’m not the only one who thinks Romney was one of the worst presidential candidates.
Fiscal conservatism logically should lead to social conservatism. As one can tell from this infographic courtesy of the Guardian (run by known Marxist Seamus Milne), part of the radical gay agenda is legislation related to the employment of homosexuals. The cornerstone of fiscal conservatism is the subjective theory of value: that the free market determines relative value of labour. Now, the free market has determined that homosexuals are worth less to employers and socialists have leaped at this opportunity to interfere with the market by telling employers they’re not allowed to make this judgment.
Edit: By the way, Sandy’s victory is quite likely Obama’s fault.
Are you serious?
Poe’s Law is a hard law to parse. Colbert or Con-spiracy Kookiness?
Yes, he is serious, and don’t call me Shirley. 
I was going to be very critical of Little Nemo but he did say “probably”. Not that it was certain.
It is true that there is not much evidence that Global Warming guided this thing or caused it, there is however plenty of evidence to make the point that if global warming caused by humans was not there in the background the hurricane would had been smaller and less harsher.
What possible programs could Al Gore have implemented in the United States that would have resulted in such an enormous decline in anthropogenic global warming over the last decade? It’s laughable.
Once again, if you concentrate on small time frames of course it is, and that is indeed what the denier and republican press **press **on.
It is good to mention that it was probable that we could had reduced the intensity just a tad, to keep the hurricane as natural as possible we needed to had done something about this since the 1950’s which is the time scientists began to worry about this.
The point is that currently there is just about 10% more water vapor in the atmosphere now than if the warming brought by human emitted CO2 was not there. That amount of energy and matter has to go somewhere and it is bound to get worse the more we wait to control our emissions.
It’s just a shame Knut wasn’t on the ballot in 2000.
Yeah, Kimstu, that’s pretty much what I was saying. And to respond to your hypothetical response, one might point out that Bush did not gain an advantage from Katrina, so there’s not automatically an advantage to incumbents when disaster strikes.