NYTimes Cynically Deploys Isaac Threat to Paint GOP As Opposed to 'Care of Its Most Vulnerable'
Even the weather is tilting against the GOP, Jim Rutenberg (pictured) and Michael Shear reported from the Republican National Convention in Tampa for Monday's New York Times. They cynically employed the threat of Tropical Storm Isaac, shaping it into a desperate pro-Obama weapon to use against Republican principles of limited government: "Storm Rewrites G.O.P.'s Script For Convention."
It is the second consecutive time Republicans have had their conventions disrupted by the August storms. Faced with a similar prospect of a Gulf Coast hurricane four years ago during his convention in Minneapolis, Senator John McCain canceled the first night of ceremonies.
“Images of revelry by Republicans at a time of suffering by other Americans -- no party wants those optics,” said Steve Schmidt, who helped lead Mr. McCain’s 2008 presidential campaign. “You have terrible awareness of all that stuff.”
The suffering from Hurricane Katrina was still fresh then, with the storm representing to Democrats a failure of compassion and competence by the Bush administration.
But Tropical Storm Isaac threatens to fit just as neatly into that kind of narrative, with Mr. Obama seeking to paint Mr. Romney and Mr. Ryan as opposed to a government that takes care of its most vulnerable and intent on cutting just the sort of federal services that can be critical in emergencies.
On Sunday afternoon, the White House sent out a statement detailing Mr. Obama’s call to the Republican governor here, Rick Scott.
“The president also told the governor to let him know if there are any unmet needs or additional resources the administration could provide, including in support of efforts to ensure the safety of those visiting the state for the Republican National Convention,” it read.
Is the threat of natural disaster really the best and most admirable argument the Times and Democrats can make for keeping government big and groaning with excessive and unsustainable entitlement spending?