Paul Krugman on "Sandy vs Katrina" (NYT)

[JohnnyRingo]

Krugman outlines the differences between how Obama handled the biggest hurricane in recorded history and how Romney would have failed to do so. In the piece he contrasts how both Bushes manned FEMA and how Clinton and Obama staffed it.

My favorite example that he cites as the root problem for GOP emergency response is the famous Reagan quote they offer as the scariest words ever spoken : "I'm from the government, and I'm here to help":

Sandy vs Katrina

As Sandy barreled toward New Jersey, there were hopeful mutters on the right to the effect that it might become President Obama’s Katrina, with voters blaming him for the damage, and that this might matter on Tuesday. Sorry, guys: polls show overwhelming approval for Mr. Obama’s handling of the storm, and a significant rise in his overall favorability ratings.

And he deserves the bump. For the response to Sandy, like the success of the auto bailout, is a demonstration that Mr. Obama’s philosophy of government — which holds that the government can and should provide crucial aid in times of crisis — works. And conversely, the contrast between Sandy and Katrina demonstrates that leaders who hold government in contempt cannot provide that aid when it is needed.

<snip>

Look, Republicans love to quote Ronald Reagan’s old joke that the most dangerous words you can hear are “I’m from the government and I’m here to help.” Of course they’ll do their best, whenever they’re in power, to destroy an agency whose job is to say exactly that. And yes, it’s hypocritical that the right-wing news media are now attacking Mr. Obama for, they say, not helping enough people.

Back to the politics. Some Republicans have already started using Sandy as an excuse for a possible Romney defeat. It’s a weak argument: state-level polls have been signaling a clear and perhaps widening Obama advantage for weeks. But as I said, to the extent that the storm helps Mr. Obama, it’s well deserved.

The fact is that if Mr. Romney had been president these past four years the federal response to disasters of all kinds would have been far weaker than it was. There would have been no auto bailout, because Mr. Romney opposed the federal financing that was crucial to the rescue. And FEMA would have remained mired in Bush-era incompetence.

So this storm probably won’t swing the election — but if it does, it will do so for very good reasons.

Entire (short) opinion piece here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/05/opinion/krugman-sandy-versus-katrina.html?ref=opinion

[leftyohiolib]

1. blaming sandy for the loss means (in their logic) GOD wanted them to loose