Wingnut on Wingnut Crime: King v Rubio

This week’s example of wingnut on wingnut crime takes place in New York, where Marco Rubio went on a charm offensive among powerful Wall Street types to raise money for his campaign war chest. Rep. Peter King, the chief Republican blowhard of New York, went absolutely apeshit over it because Rubio voted against the relief bill for Hurricane Sandy victims.

King could barely contain himself after learning that Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) has been fundraising in New York after voting against federal funding for Hurricane Sandy victims.

In a series of interviews, and in an email to supporters, King blasted Rubio’s conduct as the height of chutzpah. “Being from New York we’re not supposed to be suckers,” King said in an email.

“It’s bad enough that potential Republican presidential candidates voted against Hurricane Sandy aid, that’s inexcusable enough. But to have the balls to come in and say, ‘We screwed you now make us President?’ ”…

King said New York donors should turn off the fundraising spigot for the likes of Rubio.

“They cast their vote against us, so I think we should vote no on them,” King told the Daily News. “Don’t give them a nickel!”

“None of them ever came to New York to stand with us or our governor. This is not a bridge or a tunnel. This is life and death,” said King, noting that Rubio’s home state is no stranger to bad weather and “has always gotten storm relief money.”

I think it’s clear there’s only one way to settle this: a steel cage match at Madison Square Garden. Hell, the WWE has a Tea Party wrestler now so the storyline is perfect.

20 comments on this post.
  1. frog:

    I have to wonder what will happen the next time a major hurricane hits Florida or the Gulf states, or a massive tornado touches down in a place where their representatives voted against Sandy relief. Will the northeastern reps return the favor and instead of rubber-stamping funds, they’ll say, “Oh yeah? Screw you right back!”

    The main problem with this scenario, as viscerally satisfying as it is, is that there are perfectly innocent people who get harmed; i.e. the folks who actually live in storm-hit areas.

    Supposedly our government might have to shut down at the end of the month. I’m starting to wonder if we’ll be able to tell the difference.

  2. d.c.wilson:

    ” noting that Rubio’s home state is no stranger to bad weather and “has always gotten storm relief money.””

    You expected better from Rubio? In his SOTU response speech was all about he and his mother benefitted from student loans and Medicaid and why those programs need to be cut so you can’t have them.

  3. Reginald Selkirk:

    frog #1: The main problem with this scenario, as viscerally satisfying as it is, is that there are perfectly innocent people who get harmed; i.e. the folks who actually live in storm-hit areas.

    They need to learn to vote better.

  4. otrame:

    And Reginald Selkirk wins an internet!

  5. Raging Bee:

    Why bother with the cage? King is clearly right, and Rubio is clearly wrong. I hopw Rubio gets humiliated over this. And after that, I hope people start talking about that other Republican Disaster-relief fiasco, Hurricane Katrina.

  6. jameshanley:

    “Being from New York we’re not supposed to be suckers,”

    Huh. I always figured you’d have to be a sucker to willingly live in New York.

  7. John Pieret:

    I don’t think it would be bad to have symbolic votes by northeastern congresscritters against aid to areas represented by those who voted against Sandy relief, as long as it is clear that, should such votes actually stop the aid, bringing it up again immediately would result in passage. What will be more interesting is how the teabaggers vote even when the aid is needed in a red state.

  8. Marcus Ranum:

    . “Being from New York we’re not supposed to be suckers,”

    And being Repulican, you are – /darthvadervoice: the cognitive dissonance is strong in this one!

  9. birgerjohansson:

    (OT) This just in: “Christian fundamentalist Bryan Fischer calls liberal atheists the ‘American Taliban’ http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/03/05/christian-fundamentalist-bryan-fischer-calls-liberal-atheists-the-american-taliban/
    Cognitive dissonance, indeed.

  10. slc1:

    Sadly, Peter King is one of the saner Rethuglicans in the House. Of course, given the insanity of the Rethuglican caucus, that ain’t saying much.

  11. slc1:

    Re James Hanley @ #@ #6

    Some might say the same about Michigan.

  12. Ichthyic:

    Wait… back up a second..

    Correct me if I am misremembering, but wasn’t it Rubio that was shown fawning over Obama when he came to New York to promise relief and visit the areas damaged?

    So… Rubio voted AGAINST the result of Obama’s visit? voted AGAINST relief funds???

    what in the buggering fuck!

  13. Ichthyic:

    Cognitive dissonance, indeed.

    no, no, that’s classic projection, a symptom of cognitive dissonance in some cases. However, it can also be a deliberate attempt to swiftboat issues in others.

    I’m leaning more towards the latter with this disingenuous clown.

  14. slc1:

    Re Ichthyic @ #12

    No, that was New Jersey Governor Chris Christi.

  15. eamick:

    I don’t think it would be bad to have symbolic votes by northeastern congresscritters against aid to areas represented by those who voted against Sandy relief, as long as it is clear that, should such votes actually stop the aid, bringing it up again immediately would result in passage.

    There’s a parliamentary procedure called a motion to reconsider that allows that possibility; oddly enough, the motion has to be offered by someone on the winning side of the vote. It’s routinely tabled, and the last time I can think of one actually being voted on was after the passage of the Medicare prescription drug benefit.

  16. Ichthyic:

    No, that was New Jersey Governor Chris Christi.

    ah, thanks, I figured something had to be really wrong there somewhere.

  17. democommie:

    Tell me it’s not late to copyright the game concept I have in mind, “Marco–Rube, YO!” modelled on “Marco! Polo!”.

  18. Francisco Bacopa:

    Every now and then I am forced to say something favorable about Rick Perry, my governor. After the hurricane Rita debacle he worked with leaders in the Houston area to add movable highway barriers to make evacuations go more smoothly, and he used federal funds to do that. After Ike he did all he could to land federal funds. He’s even been quite supportive of recent plans to build a new set of dikes on the bay side of Galveston to prevent the backwash storm surge that did so much damage during Ike. So Perry has asked for and gotten aid much over and above anything Christie has asked for, yet has received no criticism. Why is that? Perry is quite the leader in the war on Texas women. Christie isn’t, so he gets screwed over.

    Still, Perry sometimes gets back to his populist roots. He was one one of the first governors to support state funding of HPV vaccines. He took a major beating for this and backed down. At least this shows that sometimes his common decency shows through. Soon he came around to the more acceptable view that sluts must die of cancer.

  19. Zugswang:

    Wow, Peter King’s bullshit is just shooting out of his hypocrisy gland.

    Does he even remember 2005? Did he conveniently forget about the fact that he was one of only eleven to vote against Katrina relief?

  20. frog:

    Reginald Selkirk @ 3: None of them has won with 100% of the vote. I don’t favor dooming smart people for being unlucky enough to be surrounded by idiots.

    Zugswang @19: Huh, did not know that. Plenty of conservative hypocrisy to go around!

Leave a comment

You must be