The First Anti-Mike Castle/Pro-Executive Branch Accountability Ad of the Season
OMINOUS ANNOUNCER WITH DEEP, RASPY VOICE: Republican politician Michael Castle voted against a bill to provide our troops with vital funding. (HR1591 Link)
Shockingly, Republican politician Michael Castle sided with George Bush and voted to send troops back into battle without being fully-trained, fully-equipped and battle-ready.
The funding that Republican politician, Michael Castle voted against was badly needed for delivering of vital resources for our troops, like armor, food and other critical supplies that help them fight the war on terror and protect our children. But Michael Castle decided to PLAY POLITICS and shut off funding for our troops. That’s right. Republican Michael Castle SAYS he supports the troops, but then voted to SHUT OFF THE FUNDING for training and supplying them.
When called on to stand up for our troops, Republican politician, Michael Castle stood with George Bush. Don’t our troops deserve better than this? Tell the politicians like Michael Castle that you are sick and tired of them playing politics with our country’s security.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
This has the virtue of being 100% true.
This needs some links or at least the # of the bill in question, just sayin’.
Done. Thanks!
Oh wait, I thought you were going to be upset about the $20 billion in totally unrelated ag. subsidies and other pork spending the Dem leadership had to tack on to buy votes from their own party. From Castle’s letter to Pelosi and Obey:
“$25 million to spinach farmers in California; $75 million for peanut storage in Georgia; $15 million to protect Louisiana rice fields from saltwater; $120 million for shrimp and menhaden fishermen; $250 million for milk subsidies; $500 million for wildfire suppression; and $1.3 billion to build levees in New Orleans.”
G, you have picked a fine time to be upset about $20 billion. If that’s the price of getting out of Iraq, so be it.
Oh my. Spinach pork. By contrast, Castle’s pork smells delicious compared to that bad pork the Demcorats are trying to push.
Honestly, that’s Castle’s defense? Pork? What a hoot.
G Rex,
If Castle wants to use the pork defense, all the better. It plays into the main theme of the ad series which is:
Republican politician, Michael Castle is PLAYING POLITICS.
Other themes in the series will be:
Republican politician Michael Castle is loyal to GEORGE BUSH.
and..
Republican politician Micheal Castle is a used up old fart.
Nope, the point is that your party believes so fervently in “getting out of Iraq” (which the bill does not do) that they have to bribe each other with taxpayer funds to vote for it. It’s a pork-frenzied partisan goat rope if they won’t pass a clean bill to fund the military missions.
…“getting out of Iraq” (which the bill does not do)
I guess the stupid Washington post got the whole thing wrong. Right?
Democratic legislation to set timelines for the removal of troops from Iraq headed for a showdown on the House floor next week after the Appropriations Committee approved a $124 billion war funding bill yesterday that would end the U.S. role in the conflict by next year.
You are right that Democrats are more fractured and less cohesive than Republicans, and need to negotiate with each other to win. That is because first of all there are simply more Democrats.
Secondly, Democrats represent more different kinds of people with different interests, unlike Republicans who basically represent the wealthy, with social conservatives temporarily epoxied onto the coalition.
Funny, Republicans wailing about clean bills, with House Republicans and DeMint trying to drop amendments into any clean bill they can find.
Here’s more: Harry Reid gets $20 mill for insect eradication programs in Nevada. Well okay, insects can be used to deliver some bioweapons, so he might have a case…
$100 mill goes to fund the 2008 presidential conventions – bipartisan piggery there…
King of pork Robert Byrd says it’s “common sense and good economics.” That should be a humongous red flag to anyone with a brain.
G, this is a trillion-dollar war we are talking about ending. Go find one of those cost-of-war counters and watch it spin for a while. Then come back here and tell me about “unrelated pork” to build levees, kill crop pests, etc.
Anon, any timetable for withdrawal in a military appropriations bill is advisory and not binding, since the President alone is the commander in chief of the armed forces. The only way the Dems can Constitutionally declare surrender is by cutting the funds. End of story.
…can Constitutionally declare surrender…
I say we declare VICTORY! and leave.
Feel better?
Well how about that – G Rex is right! The Constitution only gives Congress the power to DECLARE war. It never specifically says Congress can UN-DECLARE war. You’d think that would be implied, but if you are a strict constructionist, you would be wrong.
Thank you, G, for your legal scholarship.