GOP – Party of “No”… of “Cash and Trash”… of “Screw the Country”

The GOP is against everything that they used to be for if they think it has political ramifications for Obama and the Democrats.  Not only that, they are for things that they used to be against, like the stimulus, as you can see in this great coverage by Rachel Maddow of MSNBC.  She nails the GOP hypocrisy with coverage of Boehner, Castle, Wilson, Carter, Thompson, Jindal, McConnell, Bond, etc.  for trashing the stimulus with quotes like “a mountain of wasted money”, “only stimulated more welfare”, “stimuless bill”, etc…only to take credit for the stimulus when the funds were being distributed in their Districts.   As she says “Stimulus Bad… Stimulus Good” – rail against the stimulus then go out and take credit for the funds that communities that you represent got because of the stimulus.

Visit for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy


Related Articles

11 thoughts on “GOP – Party of “No”… of “Cash and Trash”… of “Screw the Country”

  1. Oh my gods, politicians are hypocritical and change their positions to play politics against their adversaries. We really live in amazing new times, as this has never happened before. Just stunning insight.

    As to the issue of being against spending but for spending in their own district – this is a core and fundamental disagreement. Much deeper than the gross oversimplification of a TV talking head. Reasonable people on this very board have debated the issue of whether members of Congress have a greater duty to serve their constituents and “bring home the bacon” or to take the same position on spending as they’d take if it were to benefit any other district. I’ve read commentary from Zach critical of Republican congressmen for not doing enough to get federal funds.

    Personally, my take has always been that it’s only appropriate to support federal funding for your district if you’d support the same thing for somebody else. It’s that greedy, “I gotta get some for my own whether we really need it or not” attitude that has caused a huge deficit and resulted in a unnecessarily high tax burden. But then – that very philosophy would probably guarantee I’d never get elected.

    I should also add, that the people who are most principled in their stand against what this post complains about (and most likely to influence a positive change) are continually reviled, insulted and belittled here in postings and comments on this board.

  2. Wow gee another insightful piece from Rachel Maddow. I suppose her point is that we should CONGRATULATE those who voted for the stimulus that sent pork projects into their districts? There are a lot of things that could be good for one’s own district, but bad for the nation and a waste of taxpayer dollars. Name me a politician who hasn’t railed against wasteful pork spending… unless it is coming into their own district. Wow, you mean there is hypocrisy in politics? Quite a scoop, Rachel! I wonder when she will get around to Obama’s hypocricy on reducing earmarks, five day sunshine before signing, or not hiring lobbyists in his administration?

    They may have voted against the stimulus bill, but now that it has become law and the money is going to be spent, who wouldn’t want a piece of the pie for their neck of the woods?

  3. Thanks for your comments Forgot and Locke.

    I’m glad that you like Rachel Maddow. I find her well worth congratulating.

    Take a look at this Washington Times article for more on the GOP “Cash and Trash” and the Washington Monthly coverage of Rachel’s commentary.

    The right seem to have a problem with progressives who stand up against hypocrisy. They are so used to a Democratic party that is willing to let them set the terms of debate that when the tables are turned they go all “principled and reasonable” in attacking the Democrat’s message.

    All that time listening and watching Rush, Beck, O’Reilly, Palin and the other Fox News opinion bloviators has made it hard to see reality.

    1. Progressives aren’t standing up against hypocricy, they are SELECTIVELY doing so. How brave of them. I think it is far worse to have supported a bad bill in the first place that has had little results to show except to plunge us further into debt.

      You also have an apparent faux inability to detect sarcasm. Judging by your frequent posts of Maddow clips, you seem to spend quite a bit of time listening and watching her bloviate, making it hard to see reality.

      1. The reality is both sides are selective. Rachel is good though. She has a way of making her point by using the other sides own words…something they can’t argue against.

        1. You are so right Anon. That selectivity is due to the nature of politics, as one side looks for a way to point out flaws of the other while trying to minimize or ignore their own. And it lets you like Rachel for doing something, while disliking Rush for doing the very same thing effectively (but usually in a more humorous way, as I have never heard Maddow say anything even mildly amusing).

          1. Oh forgot…there are many reasons why I don’t like Rush Limbaugh and none of my reasons have anything to do with him using other people’s words against them. I don’t make a habit of watching cable news so I don’t even watch Rachel Maddow regularly. Maybe once a week if that. To be honest I didn’t like her at first but she grew on me. Unlike Rush Limbaugh. I began listening to Rush Limbaugh liking him first (thanks to someone hyping him up to me)…but it took about two weeks and I had enough of him. He puts on a good show and I can see how people become brainwashed by him…but he does absolutely nothing for me.

            1. I didn’t say you had to like him. To each his/her own! 🙂

              I don’t watch the cable “news” shows either. I am more apt to have the radio on. I find Rush entertaining/interesting to listen to once in a while but certainly do not agree with him about everything. I think many liberal talkers like Maddow take themselves way too seriously. I also don’t like her because she seems to act superior, like boasting about not owning a TV, which seems hypocritical if you expect people to watch your TV show. There are a couple of interesting liberal radio talkers like Stephanie Miller and Ron Reagan Jr. I don’t feel like I need to agree with someone to listen or be entertained by them. If I did, as a conservative, there wouldn’t be much of Hollywood or the media to choose from!

  4. I suppose her point is that we should CONGRATULATE those who voted for the stimulus that sent pork projects into their districts?


    Being principled and criminally stupid is only marginally less offensive than being a criminally stupid liar.

Comments are closed.