Dems: Politicizing Benghazi Is Reprehensible, Politicizing Sandy A-OK

Jonathan Chait at NYMag (with appreciative linking from Andrew Sullivan) is all in for politicizing Sandy:

Disasters are inherently political, because government is political, and preventing and responding to disasters is a primary role of the state. But there is an innate tension in overtly politicizing a disaster. At the moment of greatest urgency, emotions run so hot that it’s hard to fairly assess the costs and benefits of disaster response. On the other hand, moments of normality are too cool, and it is far too easy to minimize the costs of preparing for an eventuality that is far from the horizon.

What you are going to see over the next week is an overt effort by Democrats to politicize the issue of disaster response. They’re right to do it. Conservatives are already complaining about this, but the attempt to wall disaster response off from politics in the aftermath of a disaster is an attempt to insulate Republicans from the consequences of their policies.

Funding for FEMA is something the parties wrangle over, with Republicans pushing to limit the agency’s budget, and Democrats pushing back. FEMA has to fight for its share of a constricted pot of money for domestic non-entitlement spending, a pot of money that the Republicans propose to radically constrict. How radically? Romney’s budget promises require shrinking domestic non-entitlement spending as a share of the economy by about two-thirds.

The New York Times is in for it as well.  That would be the same Times that has failed to cover the situation in Benghazi.

But even mention the administration’s bungling of the murder of 4 American’s in Libya, which just gets worse with every new story, and that’s out-of-bounds…

If Democrats really do try to politicize this America will see right through it, especially the only voters who still matter, undecideds.

Obama Unhappy Global Warming Was Missed at Debates
Quote Of The Day - The Buck Doesn't Really Stop Here Edition