While both presidential candidates have gotten back to campaigning this week and much of the Eastern Seaboard region begins the long road to recovery, an interesting story has come to the forefront of the media. After Chris Christie praised Obama for his swift response in New Jersey with regards to FEMA, Mitt Romney has seemingly jumped onto a similar boat as well. Just yesterday, Romney stated that "I believe that FEMA plays a key role in working with states and localities to prepare for and respond to natural disasters. As president, I will ensure FEMA has the funding it needs to fulfill its mission," on the surface, sympathizing and guaranteeing FEMA support for those who have just experienced utter destruction from Hurricane Sandy.
However, this recent statement comes into direct conflict with what Romney said during the New Hampshire GOP primary debate in June of 2011. In the video, not only does Romney claim that disaster relief should be left up to the states, but also debt from federal funding would be "immoral" and sending disaster relief to the private sector would be "even better". Just a few days ago, Romney refused to talk about FEMA at an event in Ohio even though he was asked repeatedly about FEMA. Now, by stepping out in support of keeping FEMA, it seems as though Romney is attempting to switch and maintain a position in line with the current state of emergency in the Northeast.
Should Romney's earlier comments on FEMA be considered less important in light of this week's events? Or is this possibly a disingenuous move to maintain support?
10 comments:
As times change and situations differ, one has the right to adapt one's opinions. However, at this point, Romney has become infamous for his constantly altering positions. In addition to this reputation, the fact that he refused to respond to questions regarding FEMA (Huff Post article) until now creates suspicion as to whether his sudden claims of support are genuine. One must also keep in mind that in a situation such as this--in which citizens lives are in danger and Election Day is drawing near--it would be disastrous for Romney to oppose funding to FEMA.
I think the move is obviosulty disingenuous, but the shift in opinion should not be reprimanded too much in the context that it is a politician's job to compromise with the public opinion. On the other hand I question if the political mindset to sacrifice one's personal beliefs is healthy to a democratic system. For instance, if Rommney thinks that the task of disaster fudning should be left to the state, he should stay true to his belief. After all, a healthy democratic society always needs a dissenting voice (such as Rankin during WWI and WWII) to monitor and keep the public opinion in check for the best benefits of the society.
This continued flip-flopping is completely in line with what Romney has come to be known for in the presidential race. As before, he continues to alter his stances based on what seems most beneficial to his campaign at the time, rather than taking a solid stance. As Paniz said, one does have the right to adapt one's positions as situations change, but Romney seems to have taken this past the point of reason. If he is elected, I will be fascinated to learn what his actual positions on governance are.
Romney doesn't have much of a choice when it comes to supporting FEMA. If he says that he doesn't appreciate FEMA right during a disaster than he could easily lose the election. Also, maybe the advent of hurricane Sandy has actually changed his opinion. In 2011, FEMA's last notable involvement had been in hurricane Katrina and was largely considered less than satisfactory. Romney does flip-flop considerably, but I think the context under which Romney is operating is really what matters here.
As the incumbent president, Obama's response to the disaster on the east coast was very important for this election. Politically, changing his stance was a good idea because Obama would get free media attention of his response leaving Romney at a disadvantage. All though this is flip-flopping, I'd like to answer your final two questions. I believe there was a political motive in his changed stance, but when new evidence or situations arise, one can have a change on their outlook.
Anthony and Ali, I see your points about people being able to change their minds about issues as situations come up (and you are certainly right about that), but I have to disagree on the matter of whether or not Romney has. From where I'm standing, there is no definition to many of Romney's opinions (if only there was a Binder Full of Policies) and it seems like if he had genuinely changed his opinion, he would have clarified that to avoid this kind of confusion.
I agree with Paniz that Romney does have the right to change opinions, but like Eavan said, his stance on certain policies do get quite confusing with the many flip-flops. Like with his stance on abortion, Romney has switched his opinion and I believe it is a disingenuous switch. Even a few days ago, Romney would refuse to comment about FEMA, but then when Obama's quick actions with FEMA have been praised, it seems Romney made the switch final and came out. It seems unrealistic for one to be so adamant against a certain policy and then suddenly switch because of certain events. If it was a genuine switch, I believe Romney would have never made that comment during the 2011 debate.
Obviously, it's possible that the current state of affairs has changed Romney's opinions on FEMA, but, last time I checked, Romney was alive during Hurricane Katrina, so my question is why he would change his mind now and not then. Now, I can't say that Romney is the only candidate that contradicts himself. However, I can say that in an ideal world candidates should pick a side and stick to it.
I agree with both Grace and Paniz. On one hand Romney does have the right to change his opinion, and under these circumstances it makes sense that he has. But, like Grace said, the fact that he is so adamantly in support of one side one second and then so adamantly in support of the other side the next seems more like a ploy to gain public support than a true change of opinion. Also the fact that Romney has done this so many times, makes him seem unfaithful to his own opinions and values. I think that his constant flip-flops hurt him in terms of public support more than they help him, so maybe Romney should think about picking some policies and sticking with them.
I have to agree with the general trend that this thread seems to be moving in--Romney's opinion shift is acceptable in this context. There was a natural disaster which may very well cause harm and distress to many, and this is no time to withdraw one's sympathy. Pretend you have a friend who does some activity you don't much care about. When something goes badly for that friend within that activity, you shouldn't shrug and walk away because it doesn't matter to you. No, you should offer your condolences because you care about your friend. Romney cares about this country too.
I agree that Romney has "flip-flopped" in many occasions throughout this election season, and that's not O.K. Personally, I feel it is disingenuous as well as somewhat disrespectful to the American people, and it really does not leave a good impression on Romney. However, that being said, I do not feel as though this is hurricane incident is the best example of Romney's shiftiness. As the general consensus seems to be: it's reasonable.
Post a Comment