My point, made poorly, was that the bill was not solely about FEMA as the linked article seemed to imply, because it was attached to other legislation there may have been other reasons why it was opposed than the purely evil right wing reasons we assumed.

Reminds me of The Simpsons.

SPEAKER
Then it is unanimous, we are going to approve the bill to evacuate the town of Springfield in the great state of–

CONGRESSMAN
Wait a second, I want to tack on a rider to that bill – $30 million of taxpayer money to support the perverted arts.

SPEAKER
All in favor of the amended Springfield-slash-pervert bill?

FLOOR
Boo!

SPEAKER
Bill defeated.

You say that like the Democrats just invented riders.

Personally, I think there should be a no-rider rule, like we have in Minnesota. But it is how it is done.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/09/13/1016334/-Today-in-Congress?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+dailykos%2Findex+%28Daily+Kos%29

It was a bill to extend sanctions against the government of Burma. Seriously! Burma!… oh and the Democrats decided to attach a rider that funded FEMA as part of the same bill.

Now I dont know why republicans are so hot about extending sanctions against Burma, but lets be fair, the bill was not entirely about FEMA – Republicans still have some explaining to do.