Q: You also joined every Republican in voting against the $819 billion economic recovery package that just passed the House, arguing that most of the spending programs would not immediately create jobs. Were any of the spending programs worthwhile?
A: Not that I can recall. There is a possibility that some of the infrastructure spending on roads and bridges could create jobs, but a lot of the money will not be spent for years.
Nothing is good about Obama's priorities ... that she can recall. That's no mystery. The Number One goal for U.S. House Republicans, and particularly the extreme conservatives, is hoping for Obama's failure. Praying to Almighty God that Obama's ship sinks. And if you're cheering for all hands to be lost in the deep blue sea, of course you don't confuse your druthers by finding even one passenger on that boat worthy of a life jacket.
Foxx's total, 100% opposition to Obama, and to government itself, is NOT the mystery today. Our open questions go back a bit in history. We're still puzzled by:
1. A year ago, Congresswoman Foxx led House Republicans in defending Roger Clemens from accusations that he had benefitted from performance enhancing steroids, etc. Why? Why would she hang herself out on such a slim possibility? (This question gains salience in the last 24 hours from the admission of A-Rod, another steroid denier, confessing his sin.)
2. Why were Republican conservatives so opposed to delaying the transition from analog to digital TV signals? A few days ago, there was Madam Foxx leading the floor debate against extending the transition from this month to June, which was done to accommodate mainly poor and rural TV watchers who have either not gotten the message that their TV reception may be disrupted or don't understand what's about to happen. Why would Republicans oppose that? We're NOT asking why Virginia Foxx would relish leading the floor debate against it, because this woman loves something even more than butter ... getting her mug on TV.
Post a Comment