On the Record

Put your name
where your mouth is.

1. admin
   Key Master

   Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley voted against the 2009 stimulus package. Calling it “porkulus,” Grassley was a frequent outspoken opponent of the 2009 stimulus package but also said he would vote for the stimulus if it contained a provision for mortgage relief which he later voted against in a separate bill (S.896).

   “Porkulus,” not withstanding, Grassley has quietly backed applications at the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture to fund pork projects for Iowa using the stimulus money. So, he did a no for a yes and a yes for a no; wonderful to see this consistency.

   Even the conservative “Washington Times” has noticed that some Republicans are now chasing the stimulus money: “Stimulus foes see value in seeking cash: Pet projects irresistible to GOP lawmakers.”

   Republican representatives King and Latham like to take credit for bringing infrastructure projects home to Iowa after they surreptitiously vote against the legislation that funds those projects. Voters can add Grassley to the list.

   As the 2010 mid-term elections loom closer it’s probably time for Grassley to perform a rope-a-dope or two. Beware voters.

   Ellen Ballas
   Iowa City

   Posted 2 years ago #

2. Teresa Kout
   Member

   I agree that voters should take a close look at Grassley's voting record, along with his "less than stellar" comments in the past few years. He is a respected senator on Capitol Hill and many judge Iowa as they see him. Perhaps our state's image is not as valued when he makes flippant comments that are reported by the national media.

   The bottom line remains - investigate his voting record and see if he is truly representing Iowa, then vote accordingly.

   Posted 2 years ago #

3. Stephen Locher
   Member

   I feel there is still a point to comparing the voting record with public statements made by the Senator about the bills themselves and the issues they address. The gross inconsistencies reported should be easily confirmed. The credibility of political discourse is corrupted by so much saying of one thing and voting another.

   How do we make sense of "truly representing Iowa?"

   Shouldn't representing a constituency include leading voters to support wise choices, as much as working to satisfy their all-too-often parochial and short-sighted self-interests?

   Posted 2 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.