Thread: Republican Hypocrites Vote Against Hurricane Sandy Relief

Originally Posted by jpn

Here's a list of the Republican hypocrites who voted against Hurricane Sandy aid:



Mo Brooks, R-Alabama: In 2011 he held town meetings to help tornado victims in his state to help his constituents "to better understand their federal assistance rights [...] direct grants that you do not have to repay if you qualify, unemployment compensation, rents as you try to find a new place to live."

Paul Broun, R-Georgia: In 2009 he applauded FEMA and touted his office's work in helping constituents get that federal support. The 2009 disaster? Flooding.

Sam Graves, R-Missouri: In 2011 he begged for an emergency declaration from the White House for, you guess it, flooding.



Hypocrites all.

Jon Stewart nails it like only he can: Jon Stewart Slams House Republicans For Opposing Hurricane Sandy Relief | Video Cafe

How much pork was in the bill for which they did not vote?

Originally Posted by CharlesD

How much pork was in the bill for which they did not vote?

a boat load but being honest about things isnt as dramatic

Originally Posted by CharlesD

How much pork was in the bill for which they did not vote?

Wow, only 2nd post in and you've already deflated JPN's balloon.


Notice it took them a few days to get in here with their defame the republicans dogma: Probably hoping we'd forget why that bill went down to defeat.

Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi know full well that the republicans will defeat any such bill if they can. It is part of their schoolyard strategy to, then, bully the republicans for doing so.

This is expected these days, all jpn is pointing out is Republicans are ok with pork spending when it goes their way but become selective supporters when it comes to Relief bills that contain someone else's asked for pork spending. Granted I am generally against all pork spending as well as the idea of buying votes on the back of debt. But jpn has a point on when Republicans jump up and down on spending and when they are silent supporters. More to the point Republicans are ok with deficit spending so long as it is behind their direction or behind their president, but when Obama is behind the wheel we are "bankrupting the country." Now depending upon your position on FEMA and the government's role in dealing with natural disasters, there is even more divide within the Republican Party itself. Generally marked by the area hit becoming supporters of spending, and those they can gather support from in the face of those that say on that particular day "no more spending."

Originally Posted by Sluggo

This is expected these days, all jpn is pointing out is Republicans are ok with pork spending when it goes their way but become selective supporters when it comes to Relief bills that contain someone else's asked for pork spending. Granted I am generally against all pork spending as well as the idea of buying votes on the back of debt. But jpn has a point on when Republicans jump up and down on spending and when they are silent supporters. More to the point Republicans are ok with deficit spending so long as it is behind their direction or behind their president, but when Obama is behind the wheel we are "bankrupting the country." Now depending upon your position on FEMA and the government's role in dealing with natural disasters, there is even more divide within the Republican Party itself. Generally marked by the area hit becoming supporters of spending, and those they can gather support from in the face of those that say on that particular day "no more spending."

We're those bills that the Republicans supported loaded with unrelated pork?

Originally Posted by Sluggo

This is expected these days, all jpn is pointing out is Republicans are ok with pork spending when it goes their way but become selective supporters when it comes to Relief bills that contain someone else's asked for pork spending. Granted I am generally against all pork spending as well as the idea of buying votes on the back of debt. But jpn has a point on when Republicans jump up and down on spending and when they are silent supporters. More to the point Republicans are ok with deficit spending so long as it is behind their direction or behind their president, but when Obama is behind the wheel we are "bankrupting the country." Now depending upon your position on FEMA and the government's role in dealing with natural disasters, there is even more divide within the Republican Party itself. Generally marked by the area hit becoming supporters of spending, and those they can gather support from in the face of those that say on that particular day "no more spending."

but he only cited a handful of republicans who favored relief of some sort in their own states, but has STILL not said anything about them supporting relief legislation that has pork in it favoring their own states. So far, you're the only one to bring that up.

From the thread title and his opening post, he is broad-brushing all republicans because, so far as evidence he's provided, three of them supported relief legislation for their own states but did not support Superstorm Sandy relief legislation...

I, too, am against all pork spending and it is out of that general repugnance that I applaud the republicans in this instance for rejecting such a high visibility, highly emotional relief bill to stand on principle. NOW, whether or not they will stand on that same principle with future legislation, remains to be seen. If another bill comes up with a lot of pork in it and they do NOT defeat it, THEN I will be the one calling them hypocrites. In this instance, however, I do not see that they are.

Originally Posted by OldmanDan

We're those bills that the Republicans supported loaded with unrelated pork?

How far back do I get to go?

Originally Posted by Sluggo

How far back do I get to go?

Those specific expenditures that JPN was referring to.

Originally Posted by Good1

but he only cited a handful of republicans who favored relief of some sort in their own states, but has STILL not said anything about them supporting relief legislation that has pork in it favoring their own states. So far, you're the only one to bring that up.

From the thread title and his opening post, he is broad-brushing all republicans because, so far as evidence he's provided, three of them supported relief legislation for their own states but did not support Superstorm Sandy relief legislation...

I, too, am against all pork spending and it is out of that general repugnance that I applaud the republicans in this instance for rejecting such a high visibility, highly emotional relief bill to stand on principle. NOW, whether or not they will stand on that same principle with future legislation, remains to be seen. If another bill comes up with a lot of pork in it and they do NOT defeat it, THEN I will be the one calling them hypocrites. In this instance, however, I do not see that they are.

Perhaps in this instance they might be showing some degree of fiscal constraint, I'll give you that one. Perhaps marking a time in which we've had enough, change course. But my concern is we've had plenty of pork spending across the board and I find it a bit hypocritical that all of a sudden pork spending is a bad thing now. The timing is a bit suspect, so is the bill in which it is coming up. Especially as it did have some Republican support (those representing affected areas with others sympathetic to the situation I would guess.) It is almost like we have selective application of when pork spending is ok and when it is not when I am asking when should it ever be ok.

Originally Posted by OldmanDan

Those specific expenditures that JPN was referring to.

Until you prove today's Republicans have changed course on spending, I should be able to go back decades to show Republicans are generally ok with pork spending so long as it goes their way and behind their president.