[UPDATE]: And I thought that I was being harsh.
Back in the day, Senator Schumer bragged about removing the funding, in fact. He thought that it was “bipartisan.”
He said the compromise hammered out between Senate Democrats and moderate Republicans – which has enough support to get it past any threat of a filibuster – was far better than that passed by the House on Jan. 29.
“All those little porky things that the House put in, the money for the [National] Mall or the sexually transmitted diseases or the flu pandemic, they’re all out,” Schumer said.
(H/T: AoSHQ)
“Bipartisan” being defined as “three Republicans and the Democratic party,” of course. Now that there’s a question about said funding, suddenly they feel like they need to pin it all on the Republican party, and never mind that the stripped-out appropriations was part of a failed attempt to bribe the GOP. Note, “failed”: if they had wanted to do a real cut, they would have axed things that would have hurt across the board; instead, they went with what they themselves considered extraneous or meaningless, and it’s just Schumer’s bad luck that the swine flu decided to break out in Mexico. So, as Don Surber notes, we’re going to get the default option from the Democrats again: blame it on the GOP somehow.
Of course, the people that will scream loudly about this will say not a word about Schumer if they can possibly help it. That’s because they don’t actually care about swine flu. Well, that’s not quite true: after all, the more people that die, the more they’ll feel justified and righteous about screaming about the Republican party. Sure, it’s a tragedy, but the really important thing for them is to elect more Democrats.
Moe Lane
PS: When are we getting the rest of HHS, by the way?
*Of course, porky might be a compliment by Schumer’s standards:
Crossposted to RedState.
, and is (to the best to my knowledge) in the public domain.
[...] to Moe Lane. SHARETHIS.addEntry({ title:’Senator Chuck Schumer: pandemic funding ‘little porky [...]
[...] Original post by Moe Lane [...]
[...] 3: You’ll never guess who one of those dastardly, fund-cutting Republicans is. I’ll give you a hint. His name rhymes with Schmuck [...]
[...] Protein Wisdom, The Sundries Shack, Legal Insurrection, Q & O, AoSHQ, Hot Air, and my unworthy self for more details of what is proving to be all the evidence that you need that not only is the [...]
[...] Protein Wisdom, The Sundries Shack, Legal Insurrection, Q & O, AoSHQ, Hot Air, and my unworthy self for more details of what is proving to be all the evidence that you need that not only is the [...]
[...] preference would be 3. – as long as the run was for Senate, and she was challenging Charles “Porky” Schumer. That would be a primary fight to watch, and never mind piddling little details [...]
[...] Remember, this is the guy who declared that the American people don’t care about “little porky amendments:” he’s about as populist as T. Coddington Van Voorhees [...]
[...] Remember, this is the guy who declared that the American people don’t care about “little porky amendments:” he’s about as populist as T. Coddington Van Voorhees [...]
[...] Besides, there’s money in it. After all, this is the man who justified “little, porky amendments.” [...]
[...] Besides, there’s money in it. After all, this is the man who justified “little, porky amendments.” [...]