Former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani isn’t exactly famous for his tact, but he kicked his penchant for overstatement into overdrive this Sunday, twice falsely claiming that the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) response to Hurricane Sandy was worse than its botched response to Hurricane Katrina under President George W. Bush.

Speaking at a Romney campaign office in Florida, Giuliani said “[Obama] right now is doing a terrible job of disaster relief in my city, but no one is talking about it…People don’t have water, they don’t have food, electricity and his FEMA is no where to be found. This is a worse response than Katrina.” He also levelled the charge during a Fox News appearance, telling host Neil Cavuto that the notion FEMA was doing a good job was a “joke:”

I think maybe because there’s an election going on, people don’t want to say that, but I think FEMA has dropped the ball, certainly as big they did with Katrina, maybe bigger because they had more warning here and the situation isn’t as big as Katrina.

Watch it:

Giuliani’s view is at odds with the assessment of virtually every other observer of the agency’s performance during the two storms. While the Bush Administration’s famously incompetent response to Katrina delayed the provision of critical federal aid by days and poorly distributed it, FEMA had 1,500 well-organized workers on the ground the day after Sandy hit, which former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security and FEMA critic Paul Rosenzweig called “a massive and admirable [sic] effort.” The New York Times reported that after Bush’s FEMA became “a symbol of pitiful incompetence” post-Katrina, the agency’s recent efforts have “done much to shore up its image” among experts on disaster response and in Congress. Senator Joe Lieberman (I-CT), who chairs the Senate’s Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, said that “FEMA is a very different organization than it was during Katrina…[FEMA] was proactive, and it didn’t used to be. It doesn’t wait for the storm to hit; it pre-positions personnel, equipment, food supplies, water, etc.”

Several prominent members of Giuliani’s own party share Lieberman’s assessment. New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, one of the leaders faced with most difficult post-Sandy reconstruction, said “The federal government’s response has been great…The President has been outstanding in this and so have the folks at FEMA.” Ed Gillespie, a senior adviser to Mitt Romney’s Presidential campaign, said Governor Romney had no quarrel with President Obama’s handling of the situation. Gillespie added that “from what we’ve heard from the governors, they’re working well with FEMA” and that “there’s a good working relationship between the state and the federal government.”

“Hope and change,” the ’08 Obama promised. It sounds like a bitter joke to many now. What change have we seen, they ask. What hope should we have?

Bunches of it. Though it may seem that Obama’s promise of change was obliterated by a combination of his own timidity or forces beyond his control, that pessimism looks a lot like myopia on closer inspection. In the long run, each election, each political victory, lays the groundwork for real change to the structure of American politics. Presidents, in particular, can set policy in ways that will reshape the contours of what’s possible for decades to come. This is the untold story of Obama’s first term: Obama’s seemingly small-bore policy initiatives end up paving the road for more sweeping progressive change down the line. The story of his second term, if he wins one, will be sticking the landing.

One of the common defenses of Obama’s record is that he did as much as he could. Though what we got wasn’t ideal, the argument goes, Obama was up against unstoppable forces: a filibuster-equipped intransigent opposition, an overly centrist Democratic Congress, and a breadth of well-funded corporate interests and lobbies. These forces, it’s said, determine the structure of American politics. They decide what the President can and can’t do — and in this case, Obama did nearly as much as they allowed.

There’s a lot of truth in this argument. But it’s by no means the whole truth. The happy history of the Obama administration is a series of often minor-seeming initiatives that double as gambits to reshape these so-called structural forces of American politics in ways that open up new possibilities for sweeping progressive change. His most prominent legislative reforms — health care and financial regulation — are quite famously designed with this goal in mind. Obamacare, through provisions like the cost control experiments and the Independent Advisory Board (IPAB), lays the groundwork for future pushes to revamp our still-unworkable health care system. Dodd-Frank is an attempt, albeit an incomplete one, to combat the economic and political threat posed by a giant, predatory financial sector.

However, the frequent reduction of the whole Obama policy legacy to those two laws misses the forest for two very tall trees. His policy legacy is sweeping, spanning a slate of changes that have the potential to shift the structural balance of forces in very real ways.

Take Obama’s work on climate change, oft cited as a source of disappointment among liberals. His record is undoubtedly a checkered record: Obama’s embrace of “clean coal” is gross posturing and his legislative pursuit of cap-and-trade when seemed at least possible was tepid at best. But look closely at what he used Presidential authority to do, and the picture improves considerably. The most important move in the long run, according to Obama critic Bill McKibben, has been the automobile fuel efficiency standards. It’s not just the fact that the rule reduces carbon pollution by 2 billion metric tons between now and 2030, though that helps. It’s that the rule realigns Detroit’s incentives, transforming the auto industry from a force against climate progress to an advocate for more earth-friendly policies.

As recently as 2011, Detroit was a fierce opponent of fuel efficiency standards. By this year, American automakers had pulled a complete 180. The reason is quite simple: high-mpg cars were “in all sectors…the key market driver” of the industry’s suddenly swelling profits. Obama’s policy brought what historically been a powerful, implacable opponent of fuel efficiency standards on board with climate-friendly approaches to both politics and their own products. One structural barrier to a saner climate policy removed, or at least mitigated.

Two other major climate policies functioned similarly. The EPA decision to label CO2 a pollutant resulted in serious executive action limiting power plant pollution, while stimulus funding for green energy helped the nascent industry flourish. These regulations created a market where renewable power could double in size, which, down the line, could help create a industry-funded pro-climate lobby to counter King Coal and other polluters.

These actions, with the exception of the stimulus (more on that in a bit), were done through the executive branch. This means two things. One is that significant policy improvements and challenges to the structural status quo can happen without the President having to wade through the obstructionist, filibuster-infested muck that is today’s Congress. The second is that Obama’s change is reversible: a President Romney would have the power to gut EPA carbon regulations and obstruct future fuel improvement standards. Control over the executive, on these climate issues, remains a key battlefield for remaking the stuff of American politics.

This pattern, smart short-run policy paired with long-term political vision, repeats throughout the Obama record. Department of Justice challenges to discriminatory voter ID laws not only protects equal access to the ballot box in 2012, but ensures that the critical constituency for long-term progressive change — minority voters — can vote for whomever they choose in perpetuity, as is their right. Obama’s decision to intervene in Libya not only stopped an impending massacre, but also enshrined a powerful framework for advancing human rights into international law and practice.

There will be more opportunities to push this kind of structural change in a second term, some we can’t possibly anticipate today. The stimulus is the ultimate example how a surprise crisis created – as Michael Grunwald’s book details, the stimulus created the framework for sweeping progressive change well into the future. As Grunwald puts it:

It included America’s biggest foray into industrial policy since FDR, the biggest expansion of anti-poverty initiatives since LBJ, the biggest middle-class tax cut since Ronald Reagan, and the biggest infusion of research money ever. It sent $8 billion into a new high-speed passenger rail network, the biggest new transportation initiative since the interstate highways, and another $7 billion to expand the country’s existing high-speed Internet network to underserved communities, a modern twist on the New Deal’s rural electrification…[The stimulus'] main legacy, like the New Deal’s, will be change.

We have no idea what crises a second-term President Obama will face, but there’s certain to be at least one. And while it likely won’t be at the scale of as the Great Recession, it too will contain opportunities for long-term progress.

Predicting the future is always risky. We have no way of knowing which, if any, of the Obama administration’s efforts to change the structure of American politics will pay off down the line. Some will likely fail, but others will almost certainly succeed. The Obama presidency, then, hasn’t been and won’t be a lesser evil. It’s a critical building block in constructing a political reality in which progressive politics can flourish.

And if that’s not a reason for hope, then what is?

With fewer than 72 hours before polls begin to close, another report has emerged of a company owner strongly urging his employees to vote for Mitt Romney over Barack Obama, claiming that their jobs are potentially on the line if Obama wins re-election.

Cliff Otto, president of the Florida-based Saddle Creek Corporation, circulated an email to staff this week explaining that, while “we do not support candidates based on their political affiliation,” Romney’s positions are in “the best interest of our company, and therefore our jobs and our future”:

In the past, Saddle Creek has not felt it imperative that we communicate with our associates regarding the political issues that affect our business. This year the positions taken by the two presidential candidates with regard to these issues are starkly different. As such [we] feel it would be wrong for us not to share with you the company’s position on just a few of the critical issues and, at the same time, how each of the two candidates compare to our position. … We do not support candidates based on their political affiliation. We do support candidates that share our positions with regard to the key issues facing our company and our country. Thank you for considering what Saddle Creek believes is in the best interest of our company, and therefore our jobs and our future.

An accompanying flyer, obtained by MSNBC’s Up With Chris Hayes, highlights by position — not candidate — which would be more beneficial for Otto’s employees’ jobs:

Otto is not alone in his effort to sway his employees’ votes by insinuating that they might lose their jobs should Obama win.Similar tactics have been used by other CEOs across the country who warn of “consequences” should Romney lose on November 6th. One CEO likened the threats to telling employees to “Eat your spinach.”

Indeed, it may be a concerted intimidation effort by right-leaning CEOs that is orchestrated from the top. Just a month ago, leaked audio captured Romney urging conservative business owners to tell their employees who to vote for.

Last night, voters in Miami-Dade County were forced to wait in line up to six hours to vote. In some precincts voters who arrived at 7PM were not able to cast their ballots until 1AM.

In response, Republican-affiliated election officials in Miami-Dade have effectively extended early voting from 1PM to 5PM today by allowing “in-person” absentee voting. But this accommodation will only be available in a single location in the most Republican area of the county.

Nearly every city within 5 to 10 miles of this location — including Hialeah, Miami Springs, Sweetwater and Miami Lakes — has a substantial Republican voter registration advantage.

The most populous city among those is Hialeah where Republicans, powered by a large Cuban community, have an overwhelming registration advantage of nearly 20,000 voters. There will not be an opportunity for in-person absentee voting in downtown Miami or South Dade, where there are heavy concentrations of Democratic voters.

The decision to make the accommodation available was presumably made by Miami-Dade Election Supervisor Penelope Townsley. She is registered with no party affiliation but was appointed to her position by Republican Mayor Carlos Gimenez.

Mayor Gimenez did not request Gov. Rick Scott extend early voting throughout Miami-Dade county. Further, according to Jim DeFede, an investigative reporter for CBS News in Miami, the decision to have in-person absentee balloting was made last night but not announced publicly until 9:30AM this morning.

Requests for comment from the Miami-Dade Election Department were not immediately returned.

In the final weeks of the campaign, Mitt Romney released an ad falsely claiming that Chrysler moved manufacturing jobs to China. Except Chrysler is only opening additional Jeep production in China, while it has expanded production in Ohio — a fact that has been widely pointed out to the Romney campaign.

While the Romney campaign and surrogates defend the misleading ad, Republican House Majority Leader Eric Cantor was not so eager to comment on Sunday. Appearing on Meet the Press, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor did not respond directly, and instead claimed to knew nothing about it when host David Gregory aired the radio ad:

GREGORY: You don’t think that’s a deceptive ad?

CANTOR: David, I’ve not seen the ad. I just heard it now. I’ve not seen the ad. Apparently they are not running it in Virginia.

Watch it:

It is unlikely Cantor missed the ad. The ad has received extensive coverage from newspapers and networks, which led Chrysler to publicly refute it.

Despite criticism, Romney has only expanded the false Jeep campaign.

In a stunning smear, a GOP group chaired by a prominent Republican strategist and funded by the state Republican leadership, has sent a mailing to Florida voters accusing an elementary school teacher running for state legislature of enabling child molestation because she is in a teacher’s union.

The mailings — by a group called the Committee to Protect Florida — attack Karen Castor Dentel, an elementary school teacher in Maitland, Florida, and the Democratic challenger for the 30th District State House of Representatives seat. Because she is a member of the Florida Education Association, which opposed a 2011 bill that eliminated tenure for public-school teachers, the mailer says she would “rather protect bad teachers and the union” than “young and impressionable students.” One one side of the mailing is a picture of convicted serial child molester Jerry Sandusky — who as an assistant football coach at Penn State would not have been protected by any Florida public school teacher’s union; the other side shows a picture of her and the other says:

Karen Castor Dentel’s priorities are clear:

* Use tenure policies to protect bad, burnt-out, longtime teachers at the expense of younger, better teachers.
* Use the courts to keep all teachers in the classroom – even those who prey on young people.
* The right to use our tax dollars and valuable student learning time to promote her political campaign.

Karen Castor Dentel: Good for the union, bad for kids.

The Orlando Sentinel reports that even the Republican incumbent, State Rep. Scott Plakon, denounced the ad as sounding “indefensible,” and called it “exhibit A” of why campaign finance reform is needed to stop anonymous groups from making such attacks. The Supreme Court’s 5-4 Citizens United ruling allows outside attacks like this with very little disclosure or restriction.

But the mailings were largely funded by his own party’s leadership: incoming Florida House Speaker Will Weatherford (R) and Rep. Richard Corcoran (R), who is in line to become Florida’s Speaker in 2016. Financial disclosures for the group also indicate that the Florida Chamber of Commerce Alliance Inc., the Florida Medical Association, and AFSCME have made significant contributions to the group.