In the past twenty-fours hours, Glenn Reynolds has linked two pieces on the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy, each of which would have gotten far more coverage had they happened seven years ago when, um, well, a different man sat in the White House.

Last night, he pointed to a piece detailing how a woman from Brookyn’s Coney Ilsand had “six miles by foot and by bus to bring food home to her five children“.  Only one elevator in her three-building complex words. Her wheelchair-bound daughter “hasn’t been outdoors since the Oct. 29 storm.”  It’s difficult to get food– and people are afraid to go out at night:

About 479,400 New York and New Jersey utility customers were still without electricity Friday, according to the U.S. Department of Energy. Some 167,000 of those customers are on New York’s hard-hit Long Island, according to the Long Island Power.

“It’s like Coney Island was forgotten about”, said one resident. “We are desperate here.”

In his second link, Glenn references the president’s priorities: New Yorkers Still In The Dark As Obama Hits The Links. “Imagine the howls if Bush played golf during the post-Katrina cleanup.”

Guess he doesn’t need to show he cares now that the election is behind him.

And people think this guy cares about them?  Wonder what indifference looks like to them.

Few advocates for gay marriage make a strong argument for expanding the defining of the institution. They talk about “rights” and “equality” without appreciating the meaning of marriage.

By saying, for example, that we only have a right to marriage when the state recognizes it, they imply that marriage is a creature of the state — and in the absence of that government-issued certificate has no existence whatsoever.  And yet marriage existed long before any government ever recognized it.  And exists today even in the absence of state recognition.

Some gay marriage advocates do get the meaning of the institution; that’s why I have referenced Jonathan Rauch repeatedly in my posts on the topic. But, now in her piece offering some tips on how Republicans can take back the majority, Megan McArdle recognizes that marriage is more than just a “right” (or a question of “equality”):

The GOP would also help itself with those people by embracing gay marriage. To be sure, this might cause them some problems with the evangelical base whose organizing support is crucial to Republican get-out-the-vote efforts. But the GOP could assuage that tension by promulgating a hard-core, Republican version of gay and straight marriage. That’s why they should pair it with making marriage mandatory, and eliminating no-fault divorce. The message should be that if everyone can get married, then there’s no really excuse not to be.

(Via Instapundit.) Now, I don’t like the idea of making marriage mandatory, but do like the notion of pairing gay marriage with eliminating no-fault divorce. It shows that she understands the institution to be more than just a contract between individuals.

Seven years ago, as Jane Galt, McArdle wrote A really, really, really long post about gay marriage that does not, in the end, support one side or the other. I read it back then; it’s well worth your time.

McArdle is one of the few people who has written intelligently about gay marriage.  Would it that there were more like her!

Poring over the details in Resurgent Republic’s 2012 post-election survey, I came across this telling tidbit:

Voters continue to support repealing and replacing the 2010 health care reform law.  By a 54 to 38 percent margin, with a nearly identical margin among Independents (55 to 38 percent), voters support repealing and replacing the President’s primary legislative achievement. Just a narrow majority of Democrats oppose repealing and replacing the law (51 percent, while 39 percent support repealing and replacing the law), while Republicans continue to support repealing and replacing it, now by a 70 to 24 percent margin.

Emphasis added (though headline was in bold in original).  The more we look underneath the topline of the Democrat’s narrow victory, the more we see just how hollow it was.  He won not so much because people share his ideas, his vision, but because they like the image his consultants had crafted.

This chart makes Tuesday’s loss even more bitter.

(Via David Steinberg.) No wonder Obama’s reelection just doesn’t feel right.

UPDATE:  Blogging at Ace, Baseball Crank offers:

Yes, the Oprahization of politics sucks but it’s a reality. Telling voters, “Hey idiots, you’re voting for the wrong reasons” is not going to carry the day.

As conservatives we deal with the world as it is, not as we wish it to be. The challenge is to change this reality, not bitch about it.

He’s right.  Next Republican candidate has to show that he cares.  Sad thing that Mitt Romney spent his entire adult life showing that he cared about other people.  And apparently that didn’t get across to voters.

Remind me again, what specific things has Obama done to show that he cares?  Has he ever helped save boaters from drowning when their boat went under?  Spent time with a dying teen and helped him draft a will?  Brought Christmas gifts and offer to pay for college for two paralyzed young men?

Like many fans of General David Petraeus, I was shocked yesterday by the news of his resignation.  He has demonstrated, in service of our country, the kind of leadership we need in all walks of life.

Over at Commentary, Max Boot sums up the general’s accomplishments, saying the general deserves our thanks, not our obloquy.

Boot’s colleague Jonathan S. Tobin wonders if Petraeus’s resignation will get the media interested in Benghazi, finding their fascination with the story most revealing, particularly given their apparent disinterest in questions about the administration’s reaction to the attack on the American consulate in that Libyan city:

But the avalanche of press coverage that Petraeus attracted in the hours after his announcement ought to bring into focus a far more important story that most of the same media has ignored: the Benghazi fiasco. It speaks volumes about the current state of contemporary American journalism that a sex scandal generated far more interest from broadcast networks and the press than the questions of whether the administration failed to aid Americans besieged in Libya or why the government stuck to a bogus story about a video instead of admitting that terrorists were responsible.

Read the whole thing.  A number of people are wondering if there is more to the story than a leader’s indiscretions.  Another Commentary blogger wonders “who had the dirt on Petraeus?”

UPDATE: Coincidence that the general announces his resignation just days before he was supposed to testify before the House Intelligence Committee?