If South Carolinians think that the federal government is evil and should do as little as possible, which they do judging by the way they vote, then we should not stain their honor by giving them disaster relief money.
Graham has no support left to alienate, so he can say what he thinks now. Freedom’s just another word for nothin’ left to lose.
Completely false accusation. Graham did not oppose Sandy aid, he opposed the bloated Sandy aid bill that later got cut down to a less unreasonable size. Politicians like to use disaster aid as an excuse to lard up bills. Graham has always been against that kind of thing and presumably would not try to do that in a South Carolina disaster aid bill.
I think that remains to be seen.
That should be “Graham said he did not oppose…” because if the WaPo made any effort to track down what he was saying at the time, I don’t see it in the linked article.
I’d challenge any media outlet to find a single person who opposed Sandy aid. The Republicans did put out a $25 billion alternative. Someone has to look out for the taxpayers.
He also doesn’t remember the vote.
Here comes the pork.
The Republicans put out a $27 billion alternative, and most of the difference was a reduction in underwriting for the National Flood Insurance Program (which was projected to be exhausted from claim payouts in about a week from the date the bill was introduced). They also withdrew their “alternative” after a week before ever putting it (or the $33 billion amendment that was introduced alongside it) up for a vote.
You can spin history, but you can’t rewrite it.
…unless the expenditure is in the $trillions for a war of choice, that is.
Seems that you’re spinning. it is a pretty undisputed fact that a lot of that bill paid for things unrelated to Hurricane Sandy.
It’s not spin to say that Graham has no problem with spending trillions of taxpayer dollars on wars of choice, and seems to want more wars of choice.
He probably wouldn’t call them “wars of choice”, but considering that we’re still all standing here and going about our day without imminent fear of death by bombing or WMDs kinda refutes that, IMO.
I didn’t say it wasn’t. I said the GOP plan didn’t actually address that issue.
That’s a valid argument. Although there’s only one data point: Iraq. And it’s not like Obama doesn’t wage wars of choice. Libya wasn’t exactly a must, and we’re bombing Syria too. We’re doing it on the cheap, so yay for fiscal responsibility I guess.
Written in Forbes. (Quoted in Politicususa article)
His advocacy of more military engagement with others in the region, including Iran, counts as further data points.
I wish he’d stay out entirely, but at least he’s spending a lot less money and, more importantly, zero (or close to zero) American lives.
He’d be taking even more criticism for *not *doing what he’s been doing, of course. So you can discount that bickering down to about zero.
This is known as luck.
This is known as not being a fucking dipshit yahoo like Bush the second.
This thread came up and I just assumed I missed the announcement that he was suspending his campaign. 
So you believe that going to war is intelligent as long as you don’t put boots on the ground?
Going to war without “boots on the ground” (in the MENA region) is far, far more intelligent (or, more accurately, far, far less dumb) than going to war with “boots on the ground”. There’s a vast chasm of wisdom between them.