A week ago, as Hurricane Sandy headed up the East Coast, Mitt Romney looked to be consolidating his recent gains in the polls. A week later, with many still suffering from the impact of the storm, Romney’s momentum has ebbed and Democratic optimism is off the charts. Assuming that the Democrats are right and Romney loses, was this all the fault of the storm in which President Obama got to play commander-in-chief and take the credit for what has been depicted in the press as an effective federal response to the crisis?
The answer here is: not really. The storm didn’t hurt the president and certainly didn’t help Romney, as it took the focus off politics for a crucial few days (much as the hurricane that threatened parts of the country during the Republican National Convention at the end of August undermined the GOP’s hopes for pulling off a successful infomercial). But the reason it played so well for the president is directly related to the inherent advantages that have always made Romney’s effort an uphill climb: incumbency and a mainstream media in the tank for Obama and determined to portray him as successful even when the facts don’t justify the cheerleading. Though many conservatives have spent this year assuming the president was toast, this latest setback for Republicans is yet another reminder of how out of touch they were with political reality. The election is by no means the foregone conclusion that many liberals are claiming this morning; unless the Democrat turnout matches that of 2008, the pollsters and pundits predicting an Obama victory will look very foolish on Wednesday morning. But the impact of the hurricane on the race demonstrates that beating Obama required a little luck as well as a good candidate and a competent campaign.
Sandy’s impact was more than just a diversion from political business as usual. It was a chance for many in the mainstream media to trot out comparisons between the federal response to Sandy to that of the Bush administration to Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans. While there’s no question that the government was better prepared and was able to do what it could more quickly this time, the assumption that Bush deserved to be blamed for what happened in New Orleans while Obama deserves credit for the situation in New Jersey and New York is a partisan distortion. The bulk of the problems in New Orleans were the result of the abject failure of state and city first responders and officials. Yet the pictures of the devastation and the sufferers are still linked to the general perception of Bush’s incompetence. By contrast, the narrative in which Obama got to be the hero of Sandy doesn’t seem to be affected by the fact that many Americans are still without power or shelter a week after the storm.
Of course, blaming Obama for what’s happening in New Jersey and New York wouldn’t be any more fair than blaming Bush for the collapse of the levees in New Orleans or the fact that most of the police and firemen in that city fled rather than doing their duty. There are some things that really are beyond the scope of any president to control, and the weather is one of them. That’s true even for a president who promised that he could turn back the oceans, as Obama famously did when he accepted the Democratic presidential nomination in 2008. But anyone who thinks the liberal media wouldn’t be blaming a GOP president for the plight of Sandy’s victims doesn’t understand much about American politics.
The point here is not just that the media gave Obama a boost last week, but to highlight the fact that throughout this campaign that is what they have done at virtually every point. Just as most of the mainstream media failed to follow up on the scandalous failure that led to the deaths of four Americans in Benghazi, Libya, and then turned a blind eye to the administration’s politically motivated deceptions about it, there was never much chance that they wouldn’t use Sandy to help Obama.
Beating Obama has always meant overcoming the handicap of media bias as well as the inclination of many Americans not to unseat the first African-American president. If Romney falls short tomorrow, it will not be just the fault of a hurricane, but will also be due to the lack of a level playing field for the candidates on virtually any issue.
The chaos after Sandy is just as bad as after Katrina. Is Sandy going to help Obama, whereas Katrina hurt Bush? Look, the storms are irrelevant. The issue is strictly the corrupt media and docile dolts that allow the media to make fools of themselves, and a mess of our country.
" Though many conservatives have spent this year assuming the president was toast, this latest setback for Republicans is yet another reminder of how out of touch they were with political reality."—You must be talking about your colleague Peter Wehner.
Jonathan, in all due respect, you spent six paragraphs babbling about how we cannot blame Sandy. nBut what gave the media a dramatic pretext? SANDY No Sandy, no media attention on the president trying to become the hero! No Sandy, no focus upon Christie praising the president. Rasmussen and Gallup had Romney at and over 50%. No Sandy, no change in that figure! By last week, in the absence of Sandy, there was nothing even remotely dramatic that the media would spin for Obama. They would try, of course. But there was nothing but what they had been doing for months. And of course, one could argue that Benghazi might have penetrated their filter.
I agree, Mr. Tobin. Now, is there anything we can do about it, whether Romney wins or loses? It isn't just the media – we live in a society dominated by the Liberal Echo Chamber. Regardless of what happens tomorrow, the results may give us an opportunity to begin cracking that nut. A Romney victory would rock liberals who are expecting an easy win, but an Obama victory would saddle them with a loser of a president with his own Damocles swords hanging over his head – Benghazi being the most obvious, but economic collapse is not unlikely. nIn both scenarios I see opportunities for conservatives to make inroads. If Romney loses I suppose we'll have to carve him up first, though, which may mean we never get back to the serious business at hand. Sigh.
Until the GOP stops handing the abortion schism on a silver platter, you will never get a candidate who can survive the game show primaries and still win in the general. nIf not for Todd Akin's thoughts on rape, … nI am failry certain that the flood of bad news post-Sandy over the weekend made most people forget Obama was ever in NJ in his AF1 bomber jacket last Wednesday, just like any benefit from Mayor Marathon's endorsement on Thursday vanished on Friday.
Tobin, you and your Commentary colleagues need to get out of the Beltway Media Echo Chamber. Sandy didn't help Obama a whit. I don't know which conservatives you talk to but most of us in the real America are very optimistic that Romney will win tomorrow and that it's entirely possible he'll sweep into office enough Senate candidates to recapture that body. n His dad was a genius, but Bill Kristol has absolutely no feel for politics and should be ignored, as should any number of conservative pundits, most of whom seem obsessed with polls.
Hey Bloomie, go get some champagne and caviar. Just stay the hell out of the way.
That's funny @Commentary. Since 2008, we've been talking about how not just biased but corrupt the media is and you "establishment/beltway types" told us to "be quiet and just play" and stop blaming the media (look up Mona Charen's "Blast the media and we'll kiss your feet in NRO"). Now that you're coming around to similar conclusion. Too bad it took so long.