Andrea Mitchell, noted “journalist” decided that it was appropriate to criticize Mitt Romney’s participation in a donation drive for victims of Hurricane Sandy.
I know this may come as a shock to Ms. Mitchell, but the Red Cross is not the only charity that goes into disaster areas to offer relief. Perhaps she has never heard of The Salvation Army, Samaritan’s Purse, and any other number of religiously affiliated relief charities. Maybe she simply hasn’t considered these other charities because they are religiously affiliated. Or perhaps it hadn’t occurred to her that there might be more than one charity acting in the wake of Sandy. Or maybe she hasn’t figured out that the Red Cross can’t dictate how OTHER people’s charity gets gathered and distributed. And not all charities have to “repackage” donations. When people need food and water, you GIVE them food and water. It doesn’t have to be complicated, especially when you have already coordinated with churches in the area, and know what the needs are.
These organizations DON’T turn away donations, and many of them smaller overhead expenses that the Red Cross has. They also don’t ask for donations after disasters and then NOT use the funds raised on relief for THAT disaster, like the Red Cross did after Katrina. Don’t get me wrong. I’m not against what the Red Cross does. I’m always glad when there is an alternative to government assistance, if only because there is no institutionalization of that “assistance”. But I reject the notion that they are the arbiters of what is or is not acceptable assistance.
But perhaps the most telling part about all of this is the assumption of authority, and condemnation of individuals who dare to not do what they were told to do. It is the idea that meaningful help can only be that which is regimented and organized according to the dictates of “experts”. It’s charity, for God’s sake. It is simple. It can be small. And is SHOULD start with the individual. But that doesn’t work for people who believe that we have to be controlled. Or people who believe that experts are the only ones who have opinions that matter. Or that authority must be ceded to a monolithic institution, because it is the only one qualified to have it. It doesn’t matter whether that is donating to relief efforts as the Red Cross being the only acceptable donation, or the belief that people shouldn’t be responsible for their own safety, and that as a result, only the police should be allowed to have firearms. This kind of thinking is contrary to the American Experience. Hell, if experts were to be obeyed, and were the only ones with opinions that mattered, we never would have fought against the British for our Freedom. The experts knew that the British Army was unbeatable. If the experts were the authority, we likely would have never come here, because everyone knew the world was flat. And going to the moon? Forget about it.
And yet the indoctrination must hold, which is why Marty Bashir, The World’s Most Annoying British Twit™ doubled down with this chyron “Romney Donated Goods Drive Against Red Cross Guidelines”…reinforcing the impression that individuals must not defy authority…even when that authority has been conferred by those who think they know better, or assumed by those authorities.
I guess I just don’t know who the authorities are, since I have readied a donation to the Salvation Army.
Yeah, I want to know if it was MSNBC bitterness or if Red Cross really doesn’t want me to donate to them any more.
Pity them, BIC. Like Rutherford, they are simple reflex – convinced of their own intellect and goodness as the rest of us recognize how little they know or understand, and what helpless, selfish creatures they truly are. Theirs is world of complete self-absorption seeking unearned authority and absolute power, lying to themselves of their supposed superiority. These are the woefully ignorant we face.
Frankly, I have shaken the dust from my feet of these fools. After 9/11, I admittedly changed – but not because two towers collapsed but my eyes were open to the viciousness, traitorous and thuggish nature of a large parts of our country dominated by Leftists.
Obama’s four years have been the proverbial straw, but my personal inevitable conclusion of them well established before we had heard of Barack Obama.
They (the Leftists) would feel neither obligation or compunction to help us. Matter of fact, that thought would not even cross their minds. We are but serfs and not to be trouble to our masters.
Being Good Samaritan is one thing – allowing ourselves to be played as fools quite another.
As I told Rutherford tonight at his blog, he is a party to ingrates and thieves, and we are a country of two peoples. I am more than happy to oblige his cause of seeking division, but I will not be ruled by inferiors. And I will no longer allow the claims of diversity is our strength ruse, the double standards of behavior and achievement, the insults to intellect and self go unchallenged.
I no longer donate to the American Red Cross. My charity goes to the Salvation Army for the most part. It has nothing to do with Mitchell’s spewage, either. Long before this, I had issues with the way they managed their overhead. I figured my money and time are better invested in the Salvation Army.
Damn, sometimes I feel like a friggin’ celebrity. Tex comes on here and talks about “Rutherford” when Rutherford hasn’t even made a contribution to the thread yet.
Moving on … BiW, do you take a Pepcid every day man? You are in constant strum und drang.
So now let’s address your incomplete reporting. Was the Romney charity drive intended for power outage victims in Ohio? Was his charity drive explicitly directed to charities other than the Red Cross, such as those you mention? If so, then clearly Andrea Mitchell and MSNBC owe Romney an apology.
After you do your homework, update the blog piece and get back on your high horse …. or take him back to the barn.
P.S. IF … and I say IF … the charity was directed at the Red Cross, how hard would it have been for Mitt to call them and say “how can I help?” Being charitable, having good intentions, and being SMART about it are not mutually exclusive.
P.P.S. It was wrong of MSNBC to paint Romney’s actions as a campaign stunt. That denies him the benefit of the doubt of being truly concerned about the tragedy. It would be more accurate and relevant to simply paint him as ham-fisted … an attribute we’ve seen before.
Before folks diss my German … I know it’s sturm und drang. It was a typo.
Celebrity? No.
Characterization of political hypocrite and what ails America to use as teaching tool and mental pictorial of failure? Absolutely.
I use you frequently as testament to what America should not be doing and where it should not be going. I use you as testimony to double standards of the Left and its failings. I use you philosophically as satire and parody because most are familiar with your shortcomings and agree.
I’d suggest most are not familiar with any such thing but thanks for making me famous. 😉
Sure. It’s the least I can do for letting me point to your glaring shortcomings as example on your own blog. 🙂
Need any other help, you just let me know. No diss is to low for my old friend.
Make that TOO low.
I bet these New Yorkers sure are glad that Andrea Bitchell dissuaded people from donating food because the Red Cross needs to pay to package it. I’m sure they can tell you how it feels like being in the best of hands when we leave it to the “professionals”.
http://www.nbcnewyork.com/video/#!/on-air/as-seen-on/Sandy-Starved-New-Yorkers-Dumpster-Dive/176839571
More storm victims who are glad that the Red Cross doesn’t want donations of clothing and food.
Andrea Bitchell needs to be beaten with her own arm.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/11/were-going-to-die-staten-island-residents-plead-for-help-3-days-after-sandy/
So once again you have your CANDIDATE to blame. HE targeted the items donations to the Red Cross, which prefers money and blood. HE should have chosen other charities like the Salvation Army if he wanted food and clothes delivered … and if they’re all that more efficient than the Red Cross.
Go back to my original comment and do your damn homework BiW. You wrote a piece based purely on emotion, you haven’t checked the facts, and now you’re just in whine mode.
Again, cos I know you need repetition now and then, the Romney team targeted the Red Cross. By the way, the Red Cross DID accept the goods into their NJ warehouse. I would imagine the $5000.00 worth of goods bought by the campaign and passed off as donations from the public (a lie) plus whatever donations his audience DID bring, would only be enough to help NJ. His one rally while laudable (if you ignore the BS that went on) wasn’t enough to help NJ AND lower Manhattan AND Staten Island.
Give it a rest. Do they have early voting in Washington? If so, please go vote for Romney and get it out of your friggin’ system. I can’t wait to see what you have to write about if he wins. How will you manage to maintain a blog without b*tching constantly?
Time will tell.
At least they have their priorities straight:
http://www.waff.com/story/19981857/some-nonunion-ala-crews-turned-away-from-sandy-recovery
Check the salary of the Red Cross Director as opposed to what the head of the Salvation Army makes and that may shed some light on why the Red Cross wants mainly cash donations. Same with United Way. I am a regular contributer to the Salvation Army and a few other organizations such as Guiding Eyes for the Blind – I prefer to know that my money is being spent for relief, not administrative costs.
So once again you have your CANDIDATE to blame. HE targeted the items donations to the Red Cross, which prefers money and blood. HE should have chosen other charities like the Salvation Army if he wanted food and clothes delivered … and if they’re all that more efficient than the Red Cross.
No good deed goes unpunished. Romney repurposes a campaign event into a charity event. Was it well-planned? Not at all – everything was changed at the last minute. Was it an attempt to create some good out of an awful situation? Absolutely.
Did it deserve this ridiculous level of scrutiny and derision from MSNBC and jerks like Rutherford? Obviously not. Consider what would have happened if the Red Cross had simply said “no” instead of “oh, it’s a little inconvenient for us.” Then Romney would have donated the goods to another charity and there would have been no story at all.
I can just imagine the story had they not insisted that everyone have a donated item in hand when they met Romney. The the story would have been, “Stingy GOP Voters Refuse Charity to Hurricane Victims.” One photograph would have been enough to run that story.
We live in awful times when someone people can act like it’s a crime to offer charity that’s not in exactly the form the charity wants. Especially when the charity accepted the goods anyway.
Romney to Red Cross: “Here are some donations of relief supplies.”
Red Cross: “We’ll take them, but we would have rather had cash.”
Media: “Huge Romney gaffe!!”
From the “jerk”: just to be clear — the targeting of the donation to the Red Cross in isolation would have been a petty story. But in the full picture of a campaign event that was only partially turned into a charity event, including deliberate calculated subterfuge to create phony photo-ops, it speaks volumes about the integrity and honesty of the campaign .. about the folks that Romney surrounds himself with, and about the type of behavior you’ll see in a Romney administration.
The truly decent thing to do would have been to cancel the rally altogether, reach out to his vast email list with a Red Cross donation link, and then maybe, just maybe, take another day to put together a proper relief fund rally. But as in the trip to England, and the first hours of the Cairo/Benghazi tragedy, Mitt likes to fire first and aim later. Not a good quality for future POTUS.
P.S. The better planned rally that I speak of above, could then have been specifically targeted to the Salvation Army … or even better …and I say this without a hint of sarcasm … some Mormon affiliated relief organization which would have shown off the compassionate side of his religion, a religion that many don’t understand.
the targeting of the donation to the Red Cross in isolation would have been a petty story
No “would have” about it. It was completely petty. Start to finish. And you’re wallowing in the pettiness.
As to the rest of your myopic blither, I think I remember now that 3 or 4 years ago I decided you weren’t worth the time to engage. These ridiculous and uninformed comments (for example, Romney did cancel campaign events and did ask supporters to donate to the Red Cross via email, Twitter, and his web page) brought back those memories. Though in the old days I don’t remember you being such a mynah bird for the DNC.
Oh well, memory is unreliable and oft suffused with a rosy hue.
Well Geoff, I’m surprised you remember me at all. Quite frankly, if we’ve had any dealings in the past they were so insignificant that I’d completely forgotten about them … and you. How’s that for “blither”, asshole?
Rutherford, I don’t know if it escaped your attention while you were busy digging deeper into the events, but the video screens at the event had been retasked with messages encouraging cash donations to the Red Cross, as well as the donations that people brought to the event. I know that I didn’t hear Andrea say anything about that, because it would have undercut the message she was trying to portray, but I think it does underscore an awareness that he is not being credited with.
Secondly, I recommend that before you start throwing around terms like staged photo ops, that you might consider that this was keeping in character with the kinds of things he’s done all of his adult life. I know that learning that would mean stepping outside of your comfort zone when looking for places that actually have stories like that about Romney, which is why I’ll be surprised if you bother, but it is also why I think that (a) you wouldn’t actually know if he sent emails to his contacts encouraging them to donate to the Red Cross; and (b) that it would be necessary for him to actually encourage them to donate to charity to help with storm relief. I found his actions in keeping with what I’ve learned about him, and I don’t doubt the sincerity in what he did.
On the other hand, I’d be surprised if the President could tell you the name of the person he hugged in New Jersey, or what their status currently is, but I bet he can remember the names of the last ten people who wrote the largest checks at his campaign fundraiser in Vegas that he jetted off to after spending 90 minutes on the ground in New Jersey, mumbling useless plattitudes to people there.
As for selecting a faith-bases charity, or more specifically, a Mormon one to donate to, I would imagine that he was advised against it. And frankly, if he wanted the event to be successful in terms of donations from all people in the area, there could be an argument to be made for it, as many agnostics and athiests are so prickly when it comes to the participation of a faith-based group that they take it as an affront and a means to exclude or diminish their participation. I actually find it a silly notion, but I would have to grudingly admit that if you were serious about it, it is a consideration that should be entertained.
Besides, there are still people who have decided that it anti-Mormon bigotry is acceptable, even if they would retire to their fainting couches if someone dared utter that he would be disqualified for consideration for any other reason. Honestly, I found myself surprised by a manifestion of it that I encountered in a conversation earlier this week.
First, yes I am very aware the jumbo-tron showed the Red Cross pledge phone number and web site. That doesn’t need to be mentioned. It WAS a charity event after all. What bears mentioning is why a campaign video was shown. The official word from his campaign is that a staffer accidentally played it. I can accept that excuse and it’s why in my more charitable of moods, I call the event simply ham-fisted.
Secondly, I recommend that before you start throwing around terms like staged photo ops, that you might consider that this was keeping in character with the kinds of things he’s done all of his adult life.
Oh yes … I do believe that staged empathy has been a hallmark of Romney’s public persona his entire adult life. 😉 I got the idea about the Red Cross link being sent via email to supporters from the Obama campaign … that is what they did. You’re right … I don’t receive Romney campaign emails. He might have done that also. Kudos if he did.
Now my next comment does involve a small leap of faith. Obama didn’t need to remember the name of the woman he hugged in NJ because during that scene, he instructed his Director of FEMA to get her name and make sure her needs were being met. That was recorded on video. Can I be sure it actually happened and Craig Fugate actually followed up with the woman? No. Like I said, it is a leap of faith. But I can’t help but contrast the following recorded exchanges (I’ve paraphrased the first one but its pretty close):
Obama: “Craig”
Fugate: “Yes sir?”
Obama: “Please get with this woman and make sure she is taken care of.”
Fugate: “Yes sir.”
Bush: “Heckuva job, Brownie”
It might be worth noting Fugate has a background in disaster recovery. Brown was commissioner of the Arabian Horse Association.
Finally, while I consider Mormonism a complete farce with an evil history of racial discrimination, the patriot in me cannot condone that being a disqualifying factor for Romney. This is America and the man gets to practice whatever religion he pleases or none at all.
Of course. He cared soooo much that he told someone else to take care of getting her name and making sure she was taken care of.