Which led immediately to Grimm's office sending out Syria-based fundraising emails:
Today, I decided to withdraw my support from President Obama’s proposal for a military strike against Syria. I have heard from many of you in Staten Island and Brooklyn, and it is clear to me that their is strong opposition to the strike. As your voice in Washington, I will continue to listen and take a stand for you.Chalk this up as another data point in my premise that whether the supposed leaders of our nation use military violence in Syria has damn little to do with whether military violence in Syria will accomplish any particular thing. Grimm was previously supportive of a Syrian strike because "this is about our credibility," a something that I do not think any particular Syrian gives a particular damn about; he is now opposed to it because give-me-25-dollars. I do not believe there is any one day old stance that is worth 25 dollars. I do not believe there is any one week old stance that is worth 25 dollars, for that matter.
Will you stand with me in opposing President Obama’s plan with a donation of $25 or more right now?
I do not think Congressmen should be using a vote for war (or not-war, to use the current vernacular) as a campaign fundraising tool. I do not think parties should be using images of war as campaign tools. I do not think any crook who collects money based on his principled one-day-long opinion on whether or not to engage in an action that will kill people has the standing to even vote on such a thing, and should probably just wait in a cloakroom while the rest of America talks this through.