In the dark and without a clue.
Submitted by Dan Besse on Fri, 08/01/2008 - 5:31pm
Virginia Foxx is proving today that she is--literally as well as figuratively--in the dark about energy policy.
At least she's consistent. When it comes to understanding the issues, or the needs of ordinary Americans (as opposed to her wealthy donors), she's almost always in the dark.
After all, this is the same person who I heard insist as late as 2005, in a speech to returning National Guard troops and their families, that the Iraq war was necessary because "they attacked us".
In the dark and without a clue.
- Dan Besse's blog
- Login or register to post comments
In the dark and without a clue.
Good grief, please help us get this level of denial of reality out of Congress.
Dan Besse
Here's the question
Is she just misguided or is she flat-out dumb? And in either case, what does that say about the Republican majority in her district that supports her?
What a sad state of affairs.
_____________________________________
Jesus Swept, this December
Blindered.
She's not literally unintelligent. I've dealt directly with her enough to know that she's well-spoken and has a quasi-academic background. She's certainly no George W. Bush in this regard.
She'll also show up at the invitation of Winston-Salem City government (once a year), or receive us in her Washington office, treat us cordially, and tell us we're not getting any help from her and we ought to see that we're just wrong.
I think that she's ideologically blindered, factually uniformed on key issues, and cheerfully willing to pitch the far-right's party line. That's bad enough, since it equates to willful ignorance on critical topics.
Dan Besse
Well that's good to hear
I'm glad its not genetic ... though willful ignorance is an even harder pill to swallow.
_____________________________________
Jesus Swept, this December
Im not surprised
Virginia Foxx, wants to give more money to people like Exxon, a company that has made 35 Billion in profits in the last 3 quarters, but she is opposed to giving a hand up to people who lost everything they owned during Katrina.
What a horrible way to run a country. I hope she loses in November.
"Keep the Faith"
In the end, Dan, doesn't it come down to the fact that Ms. Foxx
is simply lying and is well aware of the facts and the reality of the situations she comments on?
To explain her actions and words in any other way at this time, to me, is to say that she is simply stupid as opposed to ignorant. There is no doubt that she has been exposed to both sides of any story that is important to her constituants, so she cannot be ignorant of the facts on the ground. You have witnessed personally that the lady is not stupid.
Let's just call a spade a spade. Ms. Foxx is a liar and she knows it as well as we do. The sad part is that she doesn't care if we know it as long as her lies continue to move forward her career and her twisted agenda.
North Carolina. Turning the South Blue!
Functionally equivalent.
For the sake of my own accuracy, I'm unwilling to label someone a liar unless I have evidence that their statements are knowing deceptions rather than ignorance. In the case of Rep. Foxx, I have no hard evidence that her errors are based on anything other than a hard-core determination to trust certain sources (e.g., Dick Cheney) and disbelieve others (e.g., the New York Times).
(Not that the Times is always right--ha!--but it at least has a notably better percentage score on truth-telling than Cheney.)
Granted, that level of bad judgment is so amazing to many of us that we want to call it stupidity or deception. And I don't doubt that political and financial self-interest is heavily involved in the determination of what sources to trust. For the purpose of our own clarity of thought, though, I want to acknowledge the difference.
It also retains a harder punch for the "lying" label when we only use it in association with instances in which we have and can immediately display the smoking gun trail of the liar's decision to state a falsehood after they were in clear possession of the truth.
So is it a "lie" when a politician in 2005 says of the Iraqis, "they attacked us", when every mainstream news outlet reports otherwise, but figures like Cheney still claim to the contrary? On Cheney's part, absolutely. In his position, he can't possibly fail to be in possession of all the relevant facts. On Foxx's part? I'm less certain--but I can offer no alternative explanation (e.g., too lazy to read the reports, or incredibly poor judgment about what sources to trust) which isn't equally damning to her fitness to hold a seat in Congress.
Having said all that, I grant that the impact on the public's well-being is functionally equivalent--which is why I don't hesitate to hold these foolish decisions and statements up to public ridicule whatever their origin.
Dan Besse
Well stated, Dan. I appreciate your insight.
I have no smoking gun to point as Ms. Foxx myself. I only posess the ability to see a situation from my own perspective, and even at that, just because I've come to the conclusion that Ms. Foxx must by lying to us due to the facts at hand, I could be wrong.
Let me try this on for size and see how it fits.
A classroom full of students is being lectured to by their Teacher. The teacher tells all to turn to page 214 of their textbook, and then turns to that page herself. She lays the book, binder up on her desk, pages down on her desk as she does every day so that there can be no way the pages she has placed against the desk can be changed and her spot in the book will be marked.
She begins to write on the blackboard. A student comes in the door of the classroom late and she acknowledges the student and then goes back to writing on the blackboard. As the student walks past the teachers desk, she grins and quietly turns the book binder down, pages up and flips the pages to page 112.
She then sits down at her desk. The teacher turns around and sees that her book is not how she left it.
Can she simply say to the pupil that came in late, I know you turned my book over and changed the page, since you were the only one near my desk? Or must she take into consideration that while her back was turned, she may have missed the movement of another student that cunningly slipped up to her desk and turned the book and pages?
It is obvious to her that the book could not have turned itself over, and therefore she really only has those two options to work with.
That is where we are with Ms. Foxx. In my opinion, she is very well a liar, as she is privy to the real information, not just the possibiities of obtaining the real information.
Yet, I could be wrong, right?
;-)
North Carolina. Turning the South Blue!
Well maybe
but I see Foxx more as the student in a modern American history class. The teacher has just recounted the events of the first lunar landing in 1969. Foxx raises her hand and says that her Uncle Dick said it was all a fake and a TV set in Arizona.
Does she really believe Uncle Dick? Who cares--if she gives that answer on a test, she flunks.
But OK, I give up on defending her--that certainly wasn't my intent here! ;-)
Dan Besse
Your intent was clear, and I was just interjecting.
My apologies for taking this off into another direction than where it began. Sometimes I just need to ask the obvious (well, what is obvious to me) and then see what others that I trust to give me their true insight feel on the subject.
I truly appreciate your candor and your answers to my questions certainly gave me food for thought.
Thank you, Dan.
North Carolina. Turning the South Blue!
Me too.
It's great having your perspective. You raise the level of discourse.
_____________________________________
Jesus Swept, this December