So when I walked in from work yesterday the mother in law was watching a Tivo'd Fox and Friends from that morning, in which they implied this was Obama's fault for threatening to veto earmarks.
Provided that Fox can't spin this to be the Democrat's fault, which I'm sure they will, this could be a very good thing in the long run, given that it's going to wake Americans up as to what the fuck the Tea Party is all about in the first place. Where did they think the spending cuts were going to come from? Military spending and social security are 70% of our budget, and nobody plans to cut either. Maybe if we get enough grim wakeup calls like this Americans wil realize that getting the deficit under control isn't something we can do without raising taxes.
Congresswoman, and also, reading the article, that doesn't seem like what happened at all, at least according to the guy. Given his odd behavior at the time though, I'm sort of inclined to believe his later explanation.
I get the feeling at this point like Democrats are trying to distance themselves from the inference that incendiary rhetoric has turned Republicans into a bunch of sociopaths, and that's why we say things like 'I don't really believe that the fireman refused to respond because she was a Democrat'.
I think siding with the room full of firefighters and his supervisor who all say that's why he didn't respond is probably a safe bet, considering they were probably all republicans too, so it's not like they're just accusing him because they're bleeding hearts or something.
This idiot deserves to be fired. Even - no, especially - if he's telling the truth. 'I was too emotionally invested' should not come into play unless you're responding to a friend or family member. I'm sure they'd all be emotionally invested if an orphanage was burning down, that wouldn't give them an excuse to not respond to the fire. You don't get to be a public servant if you're going to refuse to serve every time you don't feel comfortable with who you are serving.
