Republican senators seek to block funds to combat Ebola

Ebola is an existential threat that will kill us all unless Obama does a number of things right now, and we are all outraged that the government is not doing more to protect us, and even as we speak Ebola could be sneaking across our southern border headed for Arkansas (because all foreign threats gravitate toward Arkansas), and by the middle of next week Fox News will have devolved into a Lord of the Flies-esque free-for-all in which the Fox & Friends have run amok and are now biting the other hosts because they've gotten Ebola and zombieism mixed up and are convinced they've come down with both. It's that serious.

But never mind all that, because some Republican noticed that responding to Ebola would cost money.

"Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, has withheld approval of the funds in the Senate, saying that it would add demands on a defense budget already stretched thin.

"A spokeswoman for Inhofe said Thursday that there is no change in his decision after approval from the other committees."

If we stopped Ebola, you see, it means we would have to not bomb somewhere else. You can see the dilemma. Sen. David Vitter is also not on board with the plan to help quell the Ebola outbreak. In his case it's because he thinks we shouldn't be bothering to help shut the epidemic down in West Africa, he thinks we should just seal our borders and let things play out as they may. Not really kidding on that one.

"Vitter said more should be done, suggesting the administration should bar foreign nationals from countries dealing with Ebola from entering the U.S.

"'Instead of using powers given to him, the President is requesting $1 billion for a plan that has not been presented to members of Congress, focuses on Africa, and largely ignores our own borders,' he wrote.

"Officials from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and National Institutes of Health have said isolating West Africa could make the situation worse."

Yes, where Inhofe piffles that the biggest perceived Fox Newsian threat to America other than ISIS would cost money to fight so why bother, Vitter more directly objects to that money going Africa, aka the place Ebola actually is. Which of those you find the most craven is entirely up to you -- as far as I'm concerned, they're both winners.

So on one hand we've got an existential threat that has conservative pundits in a frothing tizzy over how Obama isn't leading and how the government isn't responding and we're all going to die, and on the other hand those conservatives vow to block the government from spending money on responding to it if it means we'll have to shave down next month's grenade launcher budget or if the money will be going to, you know, those people.

That sounds about right. Same chapter, same verse, tune in next week and it'll be something else.