This cannot be the message or the campaign optics the Romney team had hoped for
during the last week before the election. At first, the Romney team stuck by
the candidate's FEMA comment, making roughly the same "states'
rights" arguments Romney had made back in 2011. But by Monday evening that
had changed. Evidently Romney now seeks to reassure voters that he does not
plan to gut FEMA after all. A
flip? A flop? The media want to know. Tuesday afternoon the Washington
Post was running
a story with the following headline: "Romney ignores questions about
eliminating FEMA."
Romney responded by holding a series of so-called "storm-relief events" on Tuesday-- trying to make a political message without
seeming to campaign. The message sought to highlight the benefits of private
charity during natural disasters like this one and Romney sought to portray
himself as both compassionate and capable of sacrifice. At one such event in
Ohio, asking people to donate items, Romney told an odd story about cleaning up
"rubbish and all sorts of paper goods" after a football game, about
how everyone was responsible for their own "lane" on the field, about
how small acts of charity eventually can add up.
But if video of that football story makes it onto the news tonight it will not
be a good thing for Mitt Romney. What happened in New Jersey and New York is
not a football game. The "relief" needed here is not trash pick-up.
And agencies like FEMA, and its state counterparts, are vital precisely because
they don't help just one person at a time. There is no time for that when the
flood waters rise. Massive disasters require massive relief efforts. And as
Dave Weigel first pointed out anyway, FEMA itself notes that it
prefers cash donations because the processing of "unsolicited donated
goods" takes up too many resources.
When it comes to disaster relief, it's conceivable that Mitt Romney has to
spend a little time and energy convincing remaining undecided voters that he's
not the second coming of George W. Bush and that a Romney Administration won't
foul up next term's natural disasters the way the previous Republican administration fouled up the
response to Hurricane Katrina in 2005. If you are a victim of Sandy
today, you might reasonably be asking yourself: Which one of these guys do I
want in charge the next time the winds howl, the rain falls and the streets
flood? It's hard to see how the comparison would flatter the contender over the
president.
For his part, Obama stopped campaigning -- through Wednesday at least --
and has a huge home-field advantage over the next few days. He gets to appear
to be "presidential" by being president. There were the telephone
calls pledging support to affected governors, including the aforementioned
Christie. There was the unannounced visit to the Red Cross office Tuesday with
a pledge to cut through bureaucratic tape to help Sandy's victims. And there is
now the scheduled visit to New Jersey on Wednesday to see some of the damage. This
is a familiar ritual to Americans, and Obama has learned -- like Bill Clinton -- to
do it very well.