Obama Calls Moore Oklahoma Monroe Oklahoma

Obama met with Governor Chris Christie in New Jersey yesterday. He came close to duplicating his speech there with his speech from the day before in tornado-devastated Moore, Oklahoma. While speaking in New Jersey he referred to Moore as “Monroe.”

Obama visits Moore, Oklahoma in aftermath of tornado. Next day he refers to Moore as "Monroe."

Obama visits Moore, Oklahoma in aftermath of tornado. Next day he refers to Moore as “Monroe.”

“So, Jersey, you’ve still got a long road ahead, but when you look out on this beach — this beautiful beach here, even in the rain, it looks good. You look out over the horizon, you can count on the fact that you won’t be alone. Your fellow citizens will be there for you — just like we’ll be there for folks in Breezy Point and Staten Island — (applause) — and obviously, we’re going to be there for the folks in Monroe [sic], Oklahoma, after the devastation of last week. (Applause.)

“Part of the reason I wanted to come back here was not just to send a message to New Jersey, but send a message to folks in Oklahoma: When we make a commitment that we’ve got your back, we mean it — (applause) — and we’re not going to finish until the work is done. Because that’s who we are. We help each other as Americans through the bad times, and we sure make the most of the good times.”

Message to Oklahoma U.S. Congressman Tom Cole (R-HINO): You told the world the people of Moore were “awfully impressed” with Barack Obama, but Obama wasn’t so impressed with Moore. And by the way, we get it that most of those who greeted him in Moore were members of Unions and we also understand that when he says he has “your back,” he does mean it when talking to Union members…maybe….as only half of New Jersey’s damaged schools have yet to see a FEMA representative. Thanks to Norma Brown at Ooobie on Everything for the tip (read her latests, The Abyss of Deceit here)

  • Ronald J. Ward

    Aside from the Monroe gaffe and aside from the obvious resentment of Cole’s comments and aside from the belief that FEMA and any government help should be scrapped, I think you may be underestimating the political significance of Obama’s “got your back” statement.

    It’s hard to downplay the profound damage to Moore as many lost everything. Many, who I’m sure live paycheck to paycheck, can’t return to work because the place they worked is no longer there. There’s no longer a street under their feet to get there if it was. When hard working people are left with nothing through no fault of their own, they really don’t want to hear the POTUS say that he wants to end FEMA, that the government has no role in helping them, or that they need to suck it up and fend for themselves, particularly when the magnitude of damage overwhelms their city and state. And I’m sure they’re uninterested in political bickering. Anything other than a “we got your backs” would have been politically dumb.

    But the statement goes a bit further as it actually exposes who doesn’t have their backs.
    Considering many are Union workers, I’m sure you’d agree that the GOP doesn’t have union workers backs.
    I’m sure that there are many teachers, policemen, and firefighters who can’t help but look at the GOP Senate American Jobs Act filibuster (which would have created 2 million jobs) and deduce that they don’t have their backs.
    Since a fourth of American workers make under $23K a year, the recent GOP House refusal of raising minimum wages isn’t exactly watching the worker’s backs.
    Many of these folks are likely anxious to hit their jobs even harder, to work extra in order to get back on their feet. How has the GOP worked to help people like them? They voted to weaken overtime pay laws.
    Obviously, many are face with no jobs, possibly for the 1st time. The GOP solution has been to weaken unemployment insurance and shorten pay.
    These same people with children may be facing no option than to apply for food stamps. The GOP has recently pushed to cut SNAP in order to hand more free cash over to wealthy farmers.
    A lot of people are likely to take their kids’ college savings in order to rebuild their lives. The GOP’s aim is to eliminate Pell Grants in order to give more tax breaks to their top donors.
    And of course there’s the desperately needed infrastructure work that’s needed. Once again, the GOP has done everything in their power to starve the workers.
    And if you want more, just look at the Ryan Budget that’s a smorgasbord of hits to safety net programs in order to give more tax breaks to the most wealthy.

    When realities like Moore hit people in their pockets, the “we got you back” from Obama is quite telling.

    • Very telling. Just ask the men and women of Staten Island, Queens or Long Island in New York. Obama said that he had their back, that red tape would be cut, that money would flow. Do you know how many spent last winter in freezing conditions? A majority of those he made that promise to. Money is no where to be found and Obama is off to the next disaster.

      Raising the Minimum Wage is not the solution. The Minimum Wage is a starting wage. You would know that if you ever have studied economics.

      There is no law saying that you have to send your children to college. In fact you don’t. I didn’t and my children did fine. They learned to work and study. They knew that if they took nonsense courses (Women’s studies, etc…) they could not get gainful employment. They are doing very well, debt free and working. So if you are saving for their college, use the money for a better purpose: YOURSELVES!

      I understand that the First Stimulus bill was to go to infrastructure. That worked out well. Money was given to the states but most of them spent it on Welfare programs instead of Infrastructure. That is always the story. Welfare is more important than bridges, roads and tunnels. Get use to it. The Democrats have to keep their base happy.

      • Ronald J. Ward

        OK, college for poor folks is a waste of time. Got it.

        “The Democrats have to keep their base happy”. That’s an interesting statement and while I realize you intend it to mean something towards “keep the 47% takers happy” or such, it’s actually a rather profound statement.

        In recent years, Republicans have become quite open in snubbing the wishes of their constituents. They’ve voted more often in favor of the wealthy while many credible polls showed overwhelming disapproval percentages of the voters. Well, voters are rather forgetful creatures and can easily be had by cheap snake oil (i.e. “birther”, “commie”, Muslim”, how well Mike Savage can utilize his voice inflection skills on “Barack HUSSEIN!!!!!! Obama”, etc.) but once you hit them in their pockets, you really get their attention. That’s why Ryan’s budget wouldn’t fly. That’s why they didn’t trust Romney. That’s why “Obamacare” will become much more popular as it becomes more available (verses the GOP solution of “go home and die”). And that’s why I’m sure the Folks in Moore are a lot more comfortable with a POTUS that stumbles his words (Monroe) having their backs than a smooth talking Republican with a knife to their backs.

        • Poor folks don’t have the extra money to save for college or retirement. And those on Welfare don’t even think of college for their children, they want them to learn enough to fill out a Welfare form. Just look at the rates of illiteracy in these communities. As for the working poor. They worry about their children. Those children study hard, work hard, attend local colleges and universities, stay at home while they are in school and then when they are financially able, they strike out on their own. There goes your whole argument.

          If you really look at the last 5 years, you will see that Democrats have not listened to their constituents. First in 2010 over Obamacare. The Republicans regained the House, and now in 2014 Republicans will regain the Senate. Democrats are running from Obama as fast as they can. Those who don’t are doomed.

          I am sure given a few months the good folks in Moore, Oklahoma will be cursing Obama and FEMA when they have received no aid, no funds and the snows are coming. After all, every one of the 77 Districts in Oklahoma went for Romney and are very RED.

  • Ronald J. Ward

    “There goes your whole argument”? Well, no, not really. Actually, you somewhat reinvented the argument to suit your own agenda. We were talking about Moore OK, a major city with a population of around 55K that just lost entire subdivisions. Somehow you spun this to higher education being beyond the scope of “poor folks”. So, we’re not talking about what you seem to be classifying as deadbeats looking for a hand out. Surely you can step your game up beyond such intellectual dishonesty and laziness.

    Your argument that Dems defied constituents by passing The Affordable Care Act is also flawed. If you recall, President Obama and Democrats ran their entire 2008 campaign under a promise to overhaul and implement a universal healthcare system. McCain and Republicans ran against it. And as a result, voters return a Democratic President, House, and Senate. Even the majority of those objecting did so because Dems caved and allowed Republicans to weaken it down. Even this week, CNN has come under fire with their poll that claimed 54% of Americans opposed the ACA. What they failed to mention was that 16% of that 54% disapproved of it because it didn’t go far enough.

    You somewhat contradict yourself. Considering “77 Districts in Oklahoma went for Romney and are very RED”, why in the world would they be “cursing Obama and FEMA when they have received no aid, no funds and the snows are coming” when that’s precisely the government they voted for and wanted?

    • Ronald Ward, there you go again. Move on please.

      • Ronald J. Ward

        “There you go again”? Findalis rebutted with a fabricated argument that simply couldn’t stand up to scrutiny. There I go again?

        And sure, I’ll “move on” if you’d like but be honest. You have a low tolerance of anyone pointing out reality in your tin foil arguments.

        • Ronald J. Ward, I have a low tolerance for low-information trolls. Your arguments are dishonest and I will not devote time to debunking your dishonesty. Yes, please move on.

          • Ronald J. Ward

            So, people who don’t agree with your contributors(findalis)are “low informed” and offers constructive rebuttals are trolls?

            • Ronald, in your case, I know what you’re going to say before you post it and I see nothing constructive about your rebuttals. Let’s agree that we will not agree.