Vocal Minority

Schmuck Republicans: Chris Christie and Peter King [UPDATED 1/4]

Am I the only one who notices just how smoothly and effortlessly the Democrat Party plays the American people and establishment Republican leadership?

Basic timeline:

Last week of October: Hurricane Sandy visited destruction upon the East Coast, most severely New Jersey, New York, and Connecticut.

First week of November: With the presidential election just days away, Obama lands in New Jersey to get bear hugged by Gov'r Chris Christie in order to give off a semblance of "bi-partisanship," and to secure extra votes from stupid Americans who actually thinks Obama caaaares about them. (Indeed it worked: Exit polls showed many still-undecided voters ended up pulling the lever for the president because it look like he cared about Sandy victims). Stupid-ass Christie took the bait.

First week of December: It took the administration over a month to formally request hurricane relief funding from Congress. Requested amount: $60 billion. (But remember: Obama really cares.) By stark contrast, George W. Bush got $51 billion in Katrina relief funding requested, approved by Congress, and on his desk for signing in less than two weeks. (But remember: George W. Bush hates people, especially black people.) 

Mid-December: The Senate releases its first draft of the relief bill, which is laden with pork and goodies for items and locales not remotely related to Sandy! Such expenditures include:

• $500 million to the NOAA (one full tenth of its annual expenditures nationwide). Part of that includes $150 for fishery disasters, including those having taken place as far as Mississippi and Alaska;
• $50 million for the National Park Service’s Historic Preservation Fund (double its yearly funding);
• $5.4 billion to the Army Corps of Engineers and $12.1 billion to the Transportation; Department, mostly to rebuild public transit in the affected areas or to pay for projects that could prevent problems in other transit systems;
• Over $200 million for the VA Manhattan Medical Center;
• $100 million to Head Start programs;
• $41 million to fix up eight military bases along the storm’s path, including Guantanamo Bay, Cuba;
• $4 million for repairs at Kennedy Space Center in Florida;
• Over $3 million for the Plum Island Animal Disease Center, a federal research facility on Long Island, N.Y.
• $1.1 million to repair national cemeteries;
• $2 million to repair roofs on the Smithsonian in D.C.;
• Over $7 million to replace vehicles and/or repair buildings and equipment belonging to an array of federal agencies, including the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the Secret Service, the FBI, and the Drug Enforcement Administration;
• Nearly $11 billion for public transportation, which FreedomWorks President Matt Kibbe explains is mostly "allocated to future construction and improvements, not disaster relief";
• $17 billion for Community Development Block Grants (CDBG), which Kibbe says "has become notorious for its use as a backdoor earmark program" and which Heritage Foundation's Patrick Louis Knudsen describes as an embarrassingly transparent slush fund."
• $13 billion for “mitigation” projects to prepare for future storms.

That's not all, but when you add this all up, not even half of the $60 billion would be going to help private citizens whose lives were uprooted by Hurricane Sandy.

Last two weeks of December: Despite criticism of Congressional Republicans and some of the news media, the bill sat languishing on the Hill without one penny of pork being stripped.

It bears noting that not all, but the lion's share of this pork was put in there by Senate Democrats. Indeed, the bill was co-sponsored by Chucky Schmucky Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Bob "Dominican prostitutes? What Dominican prostitutes?" Menendez (D-N.J.). Democrats knew that when it came to the Republican-led House voting, there would be one of two outcomes:

(A) The bill would be passed and all their cronies, home states, and pet agencies would get their taxpayer-funded goodies, all the while conning the American people into thinking they really care about them.

(B) The House Republicans would refuse to sign the bill, making them look really callous and cold for holding up such an urgent bill out of ideological spite and petty politics.

First week of January: As we catch up to the present tense, one of the above predictions comes true. Yesterday outcome (B) happened: GOP House leader Boehner and enough Republicans refuse to sign the bill, and it goes down in the defeat.

(That would make it the second time in one week Boehner and the House Republicans got played by the Democrat Party, the "fiscal cliff" "deal" being the first time.)

Here is where N.J. Gov'r Christie and N.Y. Congressman Pete King come in. Not only did Boehner and the House Republicans get branded Scrooge of the Century by the usual suspects (Democrats in Washington and the lib media), but both Christie and King took to the mic to lambaste their fellow Republicans for playing petty politics and putting their own interests above the people.

At his press conference yesterday, Christie said, 

"Unfortunately people are putting politics ahead of their responsibilities... You do the right thing. Enough with all the politics ... We respond as Americans, at least we did until last night... it was disgusting to watch. ... In our hour of desperate need, we've been left waiting for help six times longer than the victims of Katrina with no end in sight ... Sixty-six days and counting, shame on you. Shame on Congress."

On the House floor, Rep. King even more hostile. He threatened not to support the reelection of Boehner as House Speaker and said Americans shouldn't even donate money to House Republicans. He used the words "betrayal" and "cruel knife in the back."

These might as well have been Democrats talking!

Sorry, guys, but you are both sorely mistaken. It's the Democrats, who over two weeks ago presented a $60 bill filled over 50% with pork, who are playing petty politics and not putting the American people first.

Instead of bashing Boehner, Christie and King should be castigating the Democrats. This pork had no business being in there in the first place. If they didn't stick it in there, the bill wouldn't have been voted down!

Unfortunately, Christie and King played right into the hands of the Democrat-media complex: They're now being used as pawns to further paint the Republican Party as cruel and heartless. And, may I add, Mr. Christie: You, sir, have an election coming up this November. You wouldn't happen to be playing Mister Bi-Partisan, Mister Populist right now for that reason, hmmmm? If so (And I, for one, do believe that to be so), then it is you who are putting your own personal political interests over the people.

As for you, Mr. King: In the arena national security/defense you are a patriot and deserve respect. In this instance, though, you are playing the boneheaded self-interested politician you accuse Boehner of doing.

So where are we now? Well, as of late last night, it was already being reported that Boehner was starting to cave and will approve an initial installment of the requested funding.

What of the rest of the $60 bil? Will it contain the pork, or will Democrats be asked to remove it?

What difference does it make? The damage has been done and the Democrats got what they wanted:

A Republican Party whose strength and influence in D.C. have been severely damaged and whose popularity with the American people is sure to plunge even further from the gutter-level depths it has already been.

And a Democrat Party who, knowing full well our nation is already $16 trillion in the hole, has no problem adding tens of billions of pork into a bill intended to help hurricane victims, and who will come out of this, no matter what happens, squeaky clean.

No thanks to Chris Christie and Peter King.

UPDATE (1/4): I can't believe who actually has the same opinion as I on this issue ... Nanny Bloomberg! Well, sorta. He thinks both sides are to blame. How egalitarian.

http://hotair.com/archives/2013/01/04/bloomberg-blame-pork-not-boehner-for-sandy-relief-delay/

Schmuck Republican: KS House Speaker Mike O'Neal

From the Examiner:

Kansas House Speaker Mike O’Neal is under fire after asking Republican House members to pray for President Barack Obama’s death. O’Neal made the request via an email he forwarded to GOP colleagues in the House. In an email sent in December, O’Neal asked his fellow Republicans to pray Psalm 109, which contains the following lines:

    Let his days be few; and let another take his office.
    Let his children be fatherless, and his wife a widow.

 The email has become the subject of a mini-media frenzy. Numerous major news outlets began reporting the details surrounding the disturbing prayer request on Friday.

Now, I can't wait for Obama and his henchmen to get as far away from the White House as possible. But I don't want him dead, for goodness sake! This is just uncalled for and reprehensible. 

Schmuck Republican: McCain Volunteer Makes Up Own Attack Story

She initially told police she was mugged by a big black guy and then beaten up because he noticed a McCain sticker on her car. He even carved a 'B' into her cheek with a "dull knife." Now college Republican Ashley Todd, of Texas, has admitted she concocted the whole story. She messed herself up. In more ways than one, apparently. Why would she do this? If she's really in need of phychiatric help, then G~d be with her. But if she did this out of some sick desire for sympathy of media attention, then get her outa here. The McCain campaign doesn't need pranksters like this.

 

Schmuck Republican of the Week: Newt Gingrich

I got to meet Newt Gingrich a few months ago at our local Borders book store. He was with co-author William Forstchen to talk about their new book about World War II. He shook my hand and signed my copy of his book Winning the Future: A 21st Century Contract with America.. It was a very moving and memorable experience for me. Now, Mr. Speaker is in a TV commercial. Sitting alongside current Speaker Nancy Pelosi--one of the most incompetent and left-wing people to occupy the position--he warns the viewer that "our country must take action to address climate change." Oh, Gawd. There's only one thing more pathetic than whiny self-important Democrats preaching the latest left-wing fad: Republicans who jump on the bandwagon with them. I mean, it's one thing for a Democrat to call for taxing and legislating the American people to oblivion. That's what Democrats do: Tax and legislate the people to death and beyond! (Incidentally, George W. Bush is just as much a schmuck on this global warming craze, but he's already had his schmuck column!) In today's American Thinker, Marc Sheppard writes:

Newt's Global Warming Surprise By Marc Sheppard [...] During an April 2007 debate on the subject with the insufferable John Kerry [video], Newt opened by effectively ceding the point of anthropogenic global warming to his not-so-jolly green opponent. Even before Kerry could utter a single word of eco-babble, Newt admitted his thoroughly off beam conviction "that the evidence is sufficient that we should move towards the most effective possible steps to reduce carbon loading in the atmosphere." Actually, outside of the Massachusetts Senator's emphasis on regulation as a solution, there was surprisingly little discord between the two "debaters." Declared Newt: "I want to suggest that we need a new science- and technology-based, entrepreneurial, market-oriented and locally led environmentalism." A concept Gingrich would essentially reiterate a year later when he speaks in the Gore-mercial of "spark[ing] the technology we need," not raising taxes or other big-government solutions. To be sure, if the actions of man were ever to be proven contributory, technology would be the preferred GOP response, not taxes. But that's an extremely big and currently unforeseeable if. Which leads to the primary quandary created by the highly regarded conservative's very presence in such an ad -- it broadcasts an acceptance that the actions of man have an impact on climate -- a theory never properly tested, much less proven. Moreover, Newt's suggestion that climate change is addressable in any manner other than adaptive preparation for its natural inevitability undermines the rational demand for empirical-evidence-before-action while supporting the alarmists' "debate is over" lie. How could the savvy political historian fail to foresee the tactical advantages his attendance would hand the loony Left? [...] A growing number (currently hundreds) of scientists -- many giants in their fields -- have signed a declaration during and since last month's New York Climate Conference, affirming their positions contrary to the so called "consensus." They emphatically reject CO2 as a pollutant, and assert that global climate has always and will always change -- independent of the actions of man. And that therefore, any schemes to mitigate anthropogenic carbon are a "dangerous misallocation of intellectual capital and resources that should be dedicated to solving humanity's real and serious problems." Additionally, such plans "will pointlessly curtail the prosperity of the West and progress of developing nations without affecting climate." And they conclude "that all taxes, regulations, and other interventions intended to reduce emissions of CO2 [should] be abandoned forthwith." [...] Unfortunately, adding the name Gingrich to a roster of recently greened "Republicans" already including McCain, Schwarzenegger, Warner, Huckabee, Bloomberg and even - apparently Bush, can only serve to recharge the Big Green Scare Machine's eco-friendly fuel cells. [...] Doesn't The Ex-Speaker Also Deserve a Chance to Explain? He does, and he did. But contrast the president's to Mr.Gingrich's explanation, as published on his website After stating that he doesn't think there's conclusive proof of global warming, much less any anthropogenic contribution - a sharp departure from his converse words barely a year old -- Newt moves the discussion to conservation and energy policy: [emphasis added]

"There is an important debate going on right now over the right energy policy, the right environmental policy, and making sure we do the right things for our future and the future of our children and grandchildren. Conservatives are missing from this debate, and I think that's a mistake. When it comes to preserving our environment for future generations, we can't have a slogan of ‘Just yell no!' I have a different view. I think it's important to be on the stage, to engage in the debate, and to communicate our position clearly. There is a big difference between left-wing environmentalism that wants higher taxes, bigger government., more bureaucracy, more regulation, more red tape, and more litigation and a Green Conservatism that wants to use science, technology, innovation, entrepreneurs, and prizes to find a way to creatively invent the kind of environmental future we all want to live in. Unless we start making the case for the latter, we're going to get the former. That's why I took part in the ad."

Sorry, but that simply can't hold warming-ocean water. The Newt sitting beside Nancy didn't say that our country must take action to address a cleaner environment for our children and grandchildren. Nor did he say anything about energy policy -- surely no one would deny the benefits of energy independence. No -- he stared right into the camera and clearly stated that action must be taken to address climate change. And just which "debate" does Newt think conservatives are missing from? The one the Left declares only a "tiny, tiny minority" of "deniers" and "flat-Earthers" refute is over? The same Left that labels all dissenting scientists, regardless of credentials and numbers, as hacks and oil company shills? And whose de facto leader has refused Mano-a-Mano debates time and time again? The undeniable truth is that by continuing to seek knowledge rather than declaring the science "settled," Conservatives are far more involved in the debate than any of their liberal counterparts. Again, Newt's innovation-over-bureaucracy argument merits none from me. But such actions -- indeed, any actions -- in the glaring absence of proof that global temperatures can be impacted in either direction by mankind's meddling cannot be the conservative position. On the other hand, steadfastly questioning the "science" while inexhaustibly fighting the politically correct scientifically-antithetical hype must be. Bush may just be stalling bad legislation in order to prevent worse policy by fiat, hoping that both climate trends and public opinion continue to cool in the interim. McCain, while clearly wrong, is running as an independent Republican and likely believes he's properly playing the part. Other complicit Republicans are just plain wrong. But somehow with Newt, wrong cuts a whole lot deeper and bleeds a whole lot more. The former Speaker owes us all an amended explanation worthy of his intellect, and ours, soon -- soon.

Well said. I still respect Speaker Gingrich for his service in the House during the 90's and for everything he has done to support the War on Terror. But this latest development is, to be truthful, an extremely hard pill for a supporter like me to swallow.

Schmuck Republican of the Week: Rudy Giuliani

A year ago he was at the top of the polls for the Republican ticket. Now, after being trounced at the primaries, he's ready to throw in the towel and endorse John McCain. Go ahead, Rudy, you go support a tax-supporting, illegal immigrant-coddling, free speech-suppressing candidate. Now there's a real Republican.

It's just as well. Just last weekend I was telling some family members that I was losing faith in Rudy and leaning toward Romney. Now, with Fred Thompson gone and with Rudy's campaign hanging by a thread, that endorsement grows ever stronger. His platform is the closest to Reagan-style Republicanism we've got right now. I also like the way Romney handles himself at debates. He's very eloquent and doesn't take crap from anyone, neither his opponents nor the ever-detestable liberal partisans posing as media figures.

Schmuck Republican of the Week: President Bush

I know what you're thinking: "Bush is a schmuck just for the week?" But anyway ...

Bush Welcomes Gore to Oval Office

Why?
Why??
Why???

To borrow a line from Rodney Dangerfield in the movie Easy Money, these two ought to put their heads together an make an ass out of themselves.