Jeb Bush making a dig and Michael Brown (head of FEMA during Katrina) saying FEMA were brought in too early are not good for the Republicans - it appears churlish and reminds everyone of seven years ago.

By the way, was it true that while Romney was doing a 'drive' for canned goods for the Red Cross while in Ohio, the Red Cross were saying that they didn't want food, just money? Surely he/his staff should have checked what was wanted before taking it to the campaign? Apparently donations of food clothing etc slow things down as they'd have to be checked and sorted and moved, while money means the right things can be bought at the right time. By yesterday Romney was asking for money instead, so the message did get through.

Minor things, but they are not likely to help Romney. He has a very careful path to tread between being an opposition candidate and not appearing to be using tragedy as part of his campaign. So far he is doing OK on that, but perhaps some of his supporters are starting to slip.

You know what Rachel Maddow and DF agree on? Presumably nothing, right? Well, they do agree on one thing--putting power lines underground Rachel Maddow called for a national infrastructure program to get power lines underground Anyone disagree?

Who would pay for that? It's a massive undertaking.

There are pros and cons with it. Over here we tend to have the main grid power above ground, but local grids underground. We do have fewer hurricanes and earthquakes though, and tend to have denser suburbs.

What I didn't realise was the extent to which Manhatten uses steam.

dag hammarsjkold wrote:My hope is that THE ONE keeps his trap shut on stumping over the next several days in order to be percieved as simply getting on with being the President during a national dilemma. That alone could win him some of the fencers.

Yeah, those pictures of him in the situation room are priceless.

Of course, he still doesn't have the courage to tell the truth about Benghazi (which he can control), but feel free to give him credit for a hurricane (which he had no control over).

Romney's best bet is to lay low in the weeds and cease and desist with his lies in Ohio about the auto industry bailout and the so called outsourcing of jobs to Italy.

Actually, he said they were moving to China. Of course, he didn't make that up out of whole cloth. http://content.usatoday.com/communities ... JKOoMWHKuM

Yes, that is 6 months ago. Nevertheless, the idea that GM is going to produce more vehicles in China is true.

freeman2 wrote:You know what Rachel Maddow and DF agree on? Presumably nothing, right? Well, they do agree on one thing--putting power lines underground Rachel Maddow called for a national infrastructure program to get power lines underground Anyone disagree?

That is the one thing that SHOULD have been included in the Stimulus.

Of course, Comrade Rachel wants it NOW.

Btw, anyone seen the latest MSNBC promos? They do everything except say "Vote Obama." Fox has nothing like this at all.

danivon wrote:Who would pay for that? It's a massive undertaking.

There are pros and cons with it. Over here we tend to have the main grid power above ground, but local grids underground. We do have fewer hurricanes and earthquakes though, and tend to have denser suburbs.

This is something that should happen over time. As I said, if it were done in conjunction with local construction and maintenance, the costs could be minimized (though still substantial).

The only "con" (other than cost) is with earthquakes--because they would be disrupted. However, the northeast has fewer of large magnitude.

Who pays for it? Who pays for the nonsense of putting the same lines back up in the same place? The Federal government (i.e. all taxpayers).

Actually, underground cables are also an issue in floods.

Do taxpayers pay for repairs? Why not the owners (the electricity companies)? Perhaps in a declared emergency the government would underwrite recovery work, but that's not always the case when the lines go down, is it.

danivon wrote:Actually, underground cables are also an issue in floods.

Do taxpayers pay for repairs? Why not the owners (the electricity companies)? Perhaps in a declared emergency the government would underwrite recovery work, but that's not always the case when the lines go down, is it.

No, I'm sure you're right about the money, but I am looking (primarily) at this type of disaster--and overall efficiency.