Rachel Maddow is the hilarious left-wing version of Bill O’Reilly. Both entertaining in their own ways.
Eh. It’s easy to be a critic. I’m sure you take campaign events and turn them into charity events with less than 48 hours every day and twice on Sunday, but not everyone has your skill in such endeavors. Some of us recognize that it’s not so easy to turn a juggernaut on a dime. And the actually reportage on this subject which you linked to does not support your conclusions.
I’m in general agreement with your assessment that it’s not right to call this a “fake” relief event. Characterizing it as such without clarifying that it was a political event hastily turned into a lackluster charity event is misleading, and I don’t approve of such tactics, regardless of which side they come from.
That said, if you’re going to suspend your campaign because of a natural disaster, you should actually suspend your campaign. Or don’t suspend your campaign at all; either option would have been great. I don’t know if it matters whether this was an honest failure at “turning the juggernaut” or an intentional decision to carry on with a campaign while attempting to save political face.
The reporting I saw was pretty clear that both candidates toned everything down significantly and that, in particular, Romney made no mention of Obama during the “suspension” period. Was there something Romney did that qualified in your mind as not suspending the campaign?
Uh, how 'bout campaigning? I’d say that qualifies as fake pretending to suspend your campaign.
I’d have cancelled the campaign event altogether, and probably gotten the hell out of Ohio for a day or so. Kettering, Ohio didn’t need relief, and I don’t think that “relief events” that are really just “toned-down” previously scheduled campaign events are in the spirit of suspending one’s campaign.
I checked the Buzzfeed, Fox News, and WaPo links. Aside from the Fox News editorial quoting Noel Sheppard’s comment that Romney “gives millions of dollars a year to charity”, I could find no mention of Romney himself donating money for storm relief nor encouraging his wealthy donors to do the same.
If you read the linked article, perhaps you could point these examples out. And no, I don’t think either the $5000 his campaign used to buy stage props donations, nor the video encouraging people to “Text Red Cross to 90999 to make a $10 donation”, would count.
Sure: he could have just had the campaign donate the $5,000, but chose instead to make it a media event to show just what a caring person he is. It’s not only political, it’s cynical and cheap. It’s delusional for you to believe it’s anything else.
Think about at it this way: if Romney felt he was ahead in Ohio and could accomplish more or look better if he didn’t campaign at all, he’d have done that. Based on the polls, that wasn’t an option, so he tried to keep campaigning while also doing something charitable-ish.
Romney probably loses more than $5k annually in the couch cushions in his third house.