Rational Nation USA
Liberty -vs- Tyranny
There is always something to be said for prioritizing the importance of issues. The devastating force of Sandy and the resulting national disaster it brought about is representative of such importance.
CBS NEWS - There's nothing like a natural disaster to test the depth of politicians' preference for small government.
And so it turns out that after superstorm Sandy battered the East Coast, Mitt Romney is far more supportive of the government agency in charge of coordinating disaster relief. Only last year, as Romney hewed to the right while battling for the GOP nomination, he seemed to downplay the federal government's role in disaster response.
"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," Romney said at a debate last June. "And if you can go even further, and send it back to the private sector, that's even better."
Asked by moderator John King of CNN whether that would include disaster relief, Romney said: "We cannot afford to do those things without jeopardizing the future for our kids. It is simply immoral, in my view, for us to continue to rack up larger and larger debts and pass them on to our kids."
Now, a week before Election Day, after of a massive disaster, Romney's campaign is reassuring voters that his administration wouldn't leave disaster victims in the lurch. The public's attention is locked on the devastation caused by Sandy at a time when Romney and President Barack Obama are locked in a close presidential campaign. With Obama heavily involved in getting federal funds to those in trouble, the Romney campaign moved quickly to reassure the public it supports a strong program of storm relief.
"I believe that FEMA plays a key role in working with states and localities to prepare for and respond to natural disasters," Romney said in a statement supplied by his campaign Wednesday. "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."
Wednesday's statement came after the candidate ducked a spate of opportunities Tuesday to personally clarify his position and the statement essentially endorsed the current disaster aid system. {Read More}
One of Mittens biggest problems is he often speaks before he has thought something through. It has become abundantly clear this is his weakest characteristic and the result is no one really knows what Mitt's core values are. He has demonstrated he will change positions in response to political consideration in a way that he deems will engender support that will ultimately become votes. Sounds like a man who might sell his soul if he thought it would ensure him the presidency.
So, in a nut shell, here is the simple reality as I see it; A) Vote for Obama if you want a larger more intrusive federal government that over time continues to limit individual liberty, B) Vote Romney if you want smaller government and less regulation. But, be prepared for any one of many Mitt's to emerge, and expect changing priorities often. C) Vote Gary Johnson if you REALLY want a more limited federal government with more personal liberty and a true focus on the private sector without the burden of unnecessary regulatory controls. With Johnson, as with Obama you can expect consistency. We know Obama's record as President, and hopefully you've checked Gary's record when he served as the two term Governor of New Mexico.
On a final not, the only candidate that will really do something about reigning the defense budget is Gary Johnson. Both Obama and Romney are pretty much comfortable with the status quo.
That's my take, I know who I'll be voting for (his picture and link are at top left of the page). Soon it will be over and the people will have spoken. I would say may the BEST candidate win, but I know that is a probable impossibility.
Via: Memeorandum
