At Least We’re Not the Only Ones
Virginia Congressman Eric Cantor may be a GOP rising star, but he sure is a hypocrite.
How else to describe someone who is a leading critic of President Obama’s Recovery Act and yet also joins his congressional colleagues to urge Virginia’s Department of Transportation to apply for stimulus money for high-speed rail? If that isn’t two-faced, what is?
So the Gopers have a memo to do this? Slam the Recovery projects but take advantage of every opportunity to help get more money for your state?
I’m waiting on you, Liberal Media, to ask these guys about this.
Tags: Republican Hypocrisy
Jon Stewart also had pictures of Bobby Jindal with a giant novelty check giving out stimulus funds.
At least Republicans are consistent. Consistently hypocritical that is.
It isn’t hypocritical to follow a law that you oppose, and to urge others to take advantage of a lw that you oppose (or even take advantage of the law yourself).
Unless, of course, you consider every liberal who criticized “the Bush tax cuts” a hypocrite for keeping the money they saved on taxes rather than rebating it back to the federal government (or paying the extra amount owed).
More from the hypocrisy department:
“I thought this was like a frequent-flier program,” Sen. Kent Conrad, chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, said of the special benefits. “I thought nothing of it.”
. Christopher J. Dodd, chairman of the Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee, said an account executive at Countrywide Financial Corp. told him that the VIP status was “nothing more than … courtesy stuff.”
A Countrywide official who handled the loans had said that both senators knew they got preferential treatment in the form of waived fees and points that likely saved them tens of thousands of dollars.
‘Frequent-flyer?’ He buys that many houses? What a stinkin’ liar. At least now they’re calling their loans ‘a courtesy’…earlier, under oath, they both testified that there was no cupcake deal at all.
Dodd and Conrad…two more lying, greedy parasites of the political class.
I wonder if they thought VIP just meant they got better customer service, and didn’t understand they were getting financial breaks. Maybe just stupid and not greedy.
Even if that’s true though they are too stupid to oversee banks.
Rev up that bus and head for Dodd and Conrad… Too bad, I actually sent Dodd some cash when he filibustered the telecom retroactive immunity.
You’re not going to see many liberals and progressives defend Conrad. Dodd got a little too greedy, too.
anon — would you give a Republican the benefit of the doubt in this situation?
And while out local repubs are trying the usual bit of deflection here, let’s not forget that states are not compelled to participate in any of the funds appropriated by ARRA. Rick Perry didn’t and now he is looking for a loan from the Feds to cover a budget gap. Jindal did not take unemployment funds and SC had to force its Gov to take funds avail. And let’s not forget that Cantor was encouraging his state to apply for fund for a specific purpose. They don’t have to do that for any reason other than they want the money.
So I still want to know how it is that you can campaign against, vote against and run around telling people a recovery package doesn’t work but telling your locals to grab everything they can get.
How many of you folks opposed to the Bush tax cuts paid at the old higher rate? Were you hypocrites for not doing so?
And Cassie — one can campaign against the bill, assert it will not do what it is advertised as doing and still try to make sure that your constituents get their fair share of THEIR TAX DOLLARS that will be spent under the bill.
You certainly can — and still be known as a hypocrite.
RwR’s defense seems to be “What’s wrong with hypocrisy?”
I guess you’d sorta have to have that worldview to be a modern Republican.
But is it actually hypocrisy?
I disagree with the decision of my state to seek stimulus funds to give teachers a pay raise — but I also won’t be giving the cash back when it shows up in my check. I simply consider the money going into my pocket to be as legitimate a use of those funds as any other under the bad bill — and just recompense for the tax money being extracted from me to pay for that bad bill.
Ditto Cantor urging his state to seek funds under the bill — he may not support the bill, but since it is law it is reasonable for his taxpayers to benefit from it.
And you still haven’t answered me — are you folks hypocrites for not using the old tax tables because you opposed the Bush tax cuts?
This is not much different than the folks who rapturously praised Sarah Palin’s crazyness on earmarks. Even though her state is first or second in the list of receiving the most. They are only interested in the version of history that makes them heros, not in the version that makes not living up to what they say hypocrites.
Still no answer — did you use the pre-cut tax tables because of your criticism of the Bush tax cuts? If you didn’t, you are a hypocrite under your own definition.
Speaking of hypocrisy, where is your answer to my question yesterday — asking you to cite your source directly from the bill for some idiocy you were citing yesterday?
The subject of this thread is repub pols taking credit for Recovery projects. You can try to change the subject all you want, but don’t stand up here demanding answers for questions when you are delighted to dodge questions directly on point to one of your comments that you can’t back up.
I have no idea what you are talking about, cassie.
And my question is on point — you are claiming that seeking/taking benefits from legislation you oppose is hypocrisy. I am therefore seeking to determine if you are a hypocrite under your own standard, or if you somehow redefine hypocrisy for yourself and your ideological confreres.
<iLanon — would you give a Republican the benefit of the doubt in this situation?
Actually that is a tough question. With a Republican, I would be hard pressed to choose between “stupid” and “greedy.” There is so much diversity that way.
Here’s what I’m talking about. And I asked this twice. So don’t think you’ll change the subject here.
I’m not changing the subject here — you are.
Not really, but I’ll note your entire dishonesty on questions here.
The topic here is hypocrisy for accepting benefits from legislation you oppose.
I’m asking about that topic.
You are trying to shift the discussion to health care reform.
Nope — the hypocrisy is in pretending that there is something principled about not spending money, about making the case that the states or other entities don’t need the money and then proceeding to take the money. If you aren’t looking to add to the deficit or you aren’t looking to support “pork” projects, then showing up to take credit for that smashes whatever principles you tell people you have. Besides, the people who should have given back their tax cuts are the deficit hawks — those tax cuts created a big part of our current structural deficit.
And add to your own hypocrisy of demanding answers to questions here while dodging the ones you don’t like.
Dishonest.
I’m not sure you get to dictate the topic on someone else’s blog, but beyond that, a politician is in a different position from you or me. The problem here is that conservative politicians are trying to get good press from both opposing the stimulus and accepting the money. Surely even you can understand the problem there. Whereas neither you nor I could be accused of staking out his positions for maximum PR value.
However, the money was appropriated and WILL BE SPENT. That debate is over, and the train has already left the station.
Since the money in question comes, in part, from the taxpayers of his state, what is hypocritical about taking it when it is available?
And sorry, your own argument was that the bush tax cuts went to folks who didn’t need them. based upon the argument in your comment above, you were therefore a hypocrite for taking the money.
Consistency is a bitch, cassie, So is karma.
It doesn’t get spent if you don’t take it.
And you are the one with consistency issues here — staying on topic, answering questions, and holding your guys to their stated principles. Which last I checked wasn’t spending every red cent we got our hands on. Or is it?
This cuts to the chase:
“The problem here is that conservative politicians are trying to get good press from both opposing the stimulus and accepting the money. Surely even you can understand the problem there.”
The answer is apparently “no” to that. As I said, have to have the worldview that hypocrisy is no big deal in order to be a modern Republican.
Actually, cassie, it does get spent. The only question is where it gets spent.
Once that money was appropriated, it would be spent on projects somewhere in the US. Where would be based upon where the applications approved came from. That is the problem with states “turning down” the stimulus money — it does not stop the funds from being spent, only redirects it to the states which apply.
And cassie, given that Obama has tripled the deficit in six months in office — and is shooting for a significant increase beyond that with the health care boondoggle — I’d tread lightly about the “spending every red cent we got our hands on” comments. After all, you’ve been supporting exactly that!
tripled the deficit in six months in office
He did no such thing — and I’ve cited very good data – repeatedly- to back that up.
The vast majority of the deficit to date consists of the unpaid for BushCo tax cuts, the unpaid for Iraq War, and the BushCo recession.
If you don;t think that spending the money helps AND you don’t think that spending the money is useful in your state (which would be the reason to vote against it, right? cheerleading for the spending you previously dissed still counts as hypocrisy. I know you guys need a juicy rationalization on this — for spending money you also want to be free to criticize — but you won’t get that here. If this money would have been good for your state or district you would have voted for it in the first place.
I think the spending is not necessary. I don’t think the states need the money. I therefore opposed the spending.
Now, I’ve done all I can to stop the spending. I failed. All the money will be spent. Am i hypocritical to make sure that my constituents get their fair share? Hardly — unless you believe I’m obligated to make sure that my constituents get none of their tax dollars back.
And that leads back to your personal hypocrisy — did you take the money from the “unnecessary, bad for the country” Bush tax cuts?
Oh, and as for your statistics, they come from the NY Times, not a reliable source. Why don’t you try quoting the National Enquirer next time for greater credibility.
oh please shut the fuck up! The Times may have an issue every now and then, but to just flippantly state it’s not a reliable source is just plain silly and calls into question your assessment abilities.
Now this is how dishonest you are, RWR. The NYT got their data from the CBO — data directly from the government. You certainly don’t have any better data to offer.
So keep up your hypocrisy. We already know that you aren’t arguing from any principle.
Von Cracker — Regards!
It isn’t the data I don’t trust — it is the analysis by the NY Times.
Stop digging, now, RWR.
And face it — over the last decade it has been the NY Times that has become the real faux news, when it isn’t printing top secret national security data on the front page for our enemies to read.
unhinged master of one-handed typing.
that is all
You got that right!
Are your keys sticking, Cracker?
ooooh…the pee wee herman.