Impressive

I know the central mission of the Republican Party is to have a membership made up entirely of old rural white people. But you have to be impressed by the blatant to destroy the party throughout the entire Northeast. Refusing to consider disaster relief funding that directly affects the districts and states of some of your most powerful and well-known politicians like Chris Christie and Peter King, well, that takes the cake. Given that the right kind of Republican can win both locally and statewide in these states, it doesn’t seem real bright. But then that kind of Republican is no Republican at all to Grover Norquist and Eric Cantor and Louie Gohmert and Smokey Joe Barton.

36 comments on this post.
  1. Sherm:

    They did the same shit after Joplin. They’ll eventually pony up a portion of the needed funds.

  2. c u n d gulag:

    GOP POV:
    “Payback for November, beeyotches!!!”

    Like Mitt and Paulie had any chance in NY, NJ, CT, or even Romey’s “home” state of MA.

    Usually, some Moozlim or A-rab would have to be involved, for Peter King to froth at the mouth like this.

  3. bob mcmanus:

    http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2013/01/02/so_which_republicans_voted_for_the_fiscal_cliff_deal.html

    Dave Weigel at Slate explains it all for you

  4. Ari Fleischer:

    I’d consider giving to a charity to help these folks, but I’m not sure there’d be anything in it for me.

  5. Ken Houghton:

    Wrong (though informative) link, bob mcmanus. I think this is the one directly related to Hurricane King.

  6. Davis X. Machina:

    I know the central mission of the Republican Party is to have a membership made up entirely of old rural white people.

    Originalism. This is more or less what the 1789 Philly posse had in mind…. if you throw in ‘property-owning’ and ‘men’. But the GOP — they’ve got time to work on that.

  7. njorl:

    When they finally make this nation their lawn, they can tell us all to get off it.

  8. Murc:

    Given that the right kind of Republican can win both locally and statewide in these states, it doesn’t seem real bright.

    Kinda yes, kinda no.

    As long as they can maintain a working majority (and the malapportionment of the Senate makes this WAY WAY easier than for the Demcorats) they would prefer that their party be as ideologically pure as possible. This is understandable; a Republican who can only be counted on to vote for Majority Leader and then is going to fight you on a lot of other high-profile things is going to be a lot of trouble. Your base is going to be mad at him, they’re going to take it out on you, they provide bipartisan cover to your political enemies, and…

    Well, I mean, look at the Democratic Party. The Blue Dogs are a millstone, and ‘Democrats in disarray’ is a constant theme in the media.

    There’s an argument to be made, of course, that this strategy is counterproductive; it gives you no cushion in a bad year and it may have cost the Republicans the Senate in 2010. But the idea of ‘smaller, purer caucus as long as we can still govern’ isn’t presumptively insane, I don’t think. “We don’t want the kind of ‘Republicans’ who are the only kind that could get elected in the northeast; they can either take our message or leave it” is a perfectly cromulent strategy as long as you can still assemble a majority without them.

  9. bradP:

    Its also rather impressive that, in a $60B emergency relief bill, only about $20B would be spent in the next 21 months and managed to channel the ghost of Ted Stevens.

  10. John:

    But people like Peter King aren’t actually liberal on much of anything. They’re basically party-line votes for the GOP leadership, with maybe exceptions on a couple of issues.

    Trying to screw them over isn’t like Democrats screwing over Ben Nelson. It’s like gratuitously screwing over Bill Nelson.

  11. Murc:

    King wants the government to spend money on something other than plutocrats or war, albeit in a completely self-serving way. I say without snark that this is a break from the Republican party line and makes him suspiciously apostate.

    Remember, these guys are reluctant to give aid to disaster relief in the south, otherwise known as ‘the region without which the Republican Party evaporates.’ If they’re leery about blood-red states, that doesn’t make New England exactly unique.

  12. Lee:

    If they want to be governed like 1789 than they should have to live like its 1789 in all ways.

  13. JL:

    Figures. Every other major politician from NY and NJ, including several people that I rarely agree with about anything (e.g. Peter King), are trashing the House Republicans over this. But not Michael Bloomberg, oh no. He’s “disappointed”, but he won’t criticize the leadership.

  14. zombie rotten mcdonald:

    well, at least it would take care of the trolls.

  15. Gus:

    But they can say to the people in the South, “you elected us specifically to deny you federal money.” Harder to sell in the NE.

  16. spencer:

    I wish I could say that surprised me, but it really doesn’t.

  17. socraticsilence:

    That’s not fair, an Irish terrorist might be being successfully prosecuted.

  18. Boots Day:

    No, no, no. The central mission of the Republican Party is to have a country made up entirely of old rural white people.

  19. Anonymous:

    I know the central mission of the Republican Party is to have a membership made up entirely of old rural white people men.

    The Republicans amongst us wimminfolk just do what they’re told.

  20. Sly:

    Someone hand John Boehner a sleeping bag and a Big Gulp, and he’ll soon be history’s greatest monster.

  21. FLRealist:

    That was me.

  22. bob mcmanus:

    Nah, my guess, and I doubt anyone will admit to it, is that the Southron House members were punishing the Northeastern House members for voting with the Democrats on the tax bill.

    Read my link for the geographical splits in the Republican House Caucus.

  23. matthew frederick:

    They don’t give a shit about old white rural people, either.

  24. Matt:

    I’d be a lot more interested in hearing Rep. King whine about this if he and his buddies hadn’t spent the last four years desperately attempting to prove the GOP mantra “GUBMINT DOESN’T WORK” by their own complete incompetence.

  25. Dr. Waffle:

    Money-grubbing motherfucker.

  26. efgoldman:

    Of course ABC only played the part of the clip in which Christie blamed “Congress.” He also called out the TeaHadis, and Orange Julius by name. They left that out.

  27. Pestilence:

    we should definitely go all 1789, too … a la bas, a la bas ….

  28. Pestilence:

    sure they do … the Waltons, for instance

  29. joe from Lowell:

    “There is only one group responsible for the continuing suffering of these innocent victims: the House majority, including its Speaker, John Boehner.”

    Ka-boom.

  30. NBarnes:

    Chris Christie’s presser on this was amazing. He skipped right past Pox On Both Your Houses and directly called out the House majority. At length. And obviously actively angry. And then referred to himself in solidarity with Gov. Cuomo repeatedly.

    Between this and standing around smiling with The Black Not-President two weeks before the election, I really am wondering if he thinks he has any chance at all at the GOP nomination in 2016. The fury of southern Republicans at him is going to be incandescent, and he appears to happily return the sentiment.

  31. dtw:

    The crazy 9/10s of the Republican Party appears to be based mainly in suburbia/exurbia these days.

  32. c u n d gulag:

    Not by Peter King!

  33. RedSquareBear:

    My operational assumption is that Christie never does anything (even anything good) without working through the calculus on it.

    I assume he’s playing a long-game, predicting that the teas will self destruct and allow the rise of a (marginally and relatively speaking) more moderate GOP.

    I don’t see it either, but that’s my bet on his bet.

  34. Essayist-Lawyer:

    The Republican Party apparently really wants to destroy the remnents of hits northeastern wing.

  35. fd2:

    He may also have just flat out given up on being able to make it through the Republican presidential primaries in 2016, and be using this to shore himself up for his next gubernatorial election (which I suspect may be against Corey Booker and thus quite difficult for him). This is, quite obviously, going to garner him a lot of goodwill at home.

  36. socraticsilence:

    Well, no he’d be the guy angrily denouncing the guilty verdict. A question I’ve always wanted answered: did Peter King have to wait and see who claimed responsibility for the 7/7 attacks before denouncing them?

Leave a comment