I dunno- there was plenty in both cases.
But at this point in time the difference is the degree of blatant lying about historical fact. Give Sandy seven years and we'll have a storm that was predicted for six months, Chris Christie was off travelling in Bhutan, the NYC subways never stopped running and carried half a million commuters to a watery grave; Obama was in Hawai`i, the entire population of Queens looted the entire state of Connecticut, and no one will remember Lydia Callis.
Let me be more specific.....
During Katrina the media was looking for any reason to be critical of the president.
During Sandy the media ignored the way the president made promises that he never intended to deliver. Sandy victims have been all but forgotten. Sandy Hook took precedence.
Sandy Hook was a bit later (Dec. 14).
But the media didn't have to look far for Bush's leadership failure; off partying with John McCain in Arizona while the city drowned, his HS Director not even aware the levees had breached until the day after, his FEMA Director admitting later "we had no plan"; contrast with O'bama who, having the advantage of hindsight from Bush's failures, was immediately on the case. Not lost on the (Republican) governor who acknowledged it. Sliiiightly different scenario there.
That's not because one is a Republican and one is a Democrat. It's just the way things happened.
What a load of crap...........
![shit-emoticon.gif](/proxy.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sherv.net%2Fcm%2Femo%2Ffunny%2F1%2Fshit-emoticon.gif&hash=58d41246644a625db85fcd5217939a0f)