People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it. Welcome to From On High.

Saturday, August 09, 2008

How Humiliating

But it's not like Keith Blankenship didn't bring this on himself:
Wythe County judge fined in April crash
By Jamie C. Ruff, Richmond Times-Dispatch Staff writer

Powhatan -- Under a plea agreement, a Wythe County juvenile court judge pleaded guilty in Powhatan County court yesterday to property damage.

M. Keith Blankenship was ordered by Powhatan General District Court Judge Larry Palmer to pay a $200 fine and finish making restitution for the damage done April 27 when his vehicle swerved off Huguenot Springs Road. (link)

Tsk. Tsk.

They Seem Surprised

I've occasionally expressed the thought that Vice President Dick Cheney and his wife must get a big chuckle on a regular basis out of the mainstream press narrative that has been developed with painstaking effort in the last eight years to paint him as some kind of modern-day Attila the Hun/Darth Vader character, lurking behind the scenes, plotting to have all our rights taken away, and to have us spied upon by an ubiquitous and as-yet-unknown-to-the-general-public federal domestic spy agency. All the Gestapo-like arrests of anti-Bush dissidents in recent years - zero and counting - attest to the veracity of their claims.

That's why headlines like this must elicit yet another chuckle:

Cheney to Speak at Republican Convention

The audacity. Wasn't he supposed to be shamed into not even appearing?

Even More Interesting

The Richmond Times-Dispatch finds something curious to be found in a recent Wall Street Journal editorial:
The Wall Street Journal's editorial page has not jumped aboard the Virginia bandwagon. In a Thursday editorial analyzing potential vice-presidential picks for John McCain, The Journal identified 13 prospects. Eric Cantor was not among them.
The editorial to which the TD refers above can be found here - "The McCain Veepstakes."

What I found more interesting when I read it on Thursday was in the fact that of the 13 possible choices McCain might make for his running mate, one of the best was not mentioned at all:


Yeah, he's pooh poohed the idea. But don't they all?

We're All Racists. Still.

Might as well get used to the allegation. It's only going to get worse:
Racism and the Race
By Charles M. Blow, the New York Times

This is supposed to be the Democrats’ year of destiny. Bush is hobbling out of office, the economy is in the toilet, voters are sick of the war and the party’s wunderkind candidate is raking in money hand over fist.

So why is the presidential race a statistical dead heat? The pundits have offered a host of reasons, but one in particular deserves more exploration: racism.
Yeah. It can't have anything to do with the fact that Barack Obama is no more qualified to be president than we are. Or the fact that he's changing his positions faster than John Edwards did when he was in bed with that "Rielle" moonbat. Or the fact that he's dangerously wrong on how to best fight global terrorism.

It's because we hate (half-)black people.

For the love of God.

What's Up With This?

We all heard about the nut down in Florida who was arrested the other day for saying he wanted to kill Barack Obama (see "Man arrested over racist threat to kill Barack Obama"). Well, it turns out he had previously stated that he wanted to kill President Bush also. But CNN chose to delete that portion of the story. Why?

Bob Owens ponders that question:
I can only speculate as to why the media would remove the threat against Bush in these accounts. Is it because it is harder to portray Obama as the victim when he isn't the only one threatened, or just harder to sell the meme that the offender is probably a murderous racist when he threatens a white president as well?
In either case, shame on the mainstream media. Again.

Republicans 'Compromise' On Oil Drilling

Which is another way of saying: "Republicans bend over and get it in the shorts, the whole time chanting, 'Thank you, master; may I have another?'" - again.

Kimberley A. Strassel, Wall Street Journal:
It's taken time, but Sen. McCain and his party have finally found -- in energy -- an issue that's working for them. Riding voter discontent over high gas prices, the GOP has made antidrilling Democrats this summer's headlines.

Still, it was probably too much to assume every Republican would work out that their side was winning this issue. And so, last Friday, in stumbled Sens. Lindsey Graham, John Thune, Saxby Chambliss, Bob Corker and Johnny Isakson -- alongside five Senate Democrats. This "Gang of 10" announced a "sweeping" and "bipartisan" energy plan to break Washington's energy "stalemate." What they did was throw every vulnerable Democrat, and Mr. Obama, a life preserver.

That's because the plan is a Democratic giveaway. New production on offshore federal lands is left to state legislatures, and then in only four coastal states. The regulatory hurdles are huge. And the bill bars drilling within 50 miles of the coast -- putting off limits some of the most productive areas. Alaska's oil-rich Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is still a no-go.

The highlight is instead $84 billion in tax credits, subsidies and federal handouts for alternative fuels and renewables. The Gang of 10 intends to pay for all this in part by raising taxes on . . . oil companies! The Sierra Club couldn't have penned it better. (link)
I've come to accept the fact that anytime I read of a "compromise" involving Lindsey Graham - that worm - I know he's convinced others in his party to give the Democrats exactly what they want. In this case, it's the political cover that they so desperately seek right now.

So where's the compromise in this bipartisan bit of chicanery? There isn't any. As usual, a handful of mealymouthed and cowardly Republicans in the Senate (was John Warner too ill to include himself?; this is right up his alley) give the Democrats half of that which the latter demanded - and call it compromise.

Bend over. In the shorts.

Well, We Inch Closer To The Truth

As expected, John Edwards has finally admitted to having had an affair. As expected, he's still trying to dance his way out of this mess he created for himself:
Edwards Admits Sexual Affair; Lied as Presidential Candidate
By Rhonda Schwartz, Brian Ross, and Chris Francesani, ABC News.com

John Edwards admitted to ABC News in an interview with Bob Woodruff Friday that he repeatedly lied about an extramarital affair with a 42-year old campaign employee, but strenuously denied being involved in paying the woman hush money or fathering her newborn child. The former Democratic U.S. senator from North Carolina said he would be willing to take a paternity test and divulge the results publicly.

"Two years ago I made a very serious mistake, a mistake that I [blah blah blah ...] (link)
This puts Edwards in the pantheon of unfaithful politicians, right up there with Newt Gingrich. The only difference is in the fact that Gingrich wore "family values" on his sleeve right up to the point where he was caught valuing illicit poodie over family, while Edwards wore his wife's cancer on his sleeve to gain the sympathy vote, the whole time doing the wild thing with this very strange bimbo.

Both are scumbags for it.

So, did Edwards father her child at the very time that his wife was battling for her life?

I'm not sure it matters now. He's on his way to the trash heap of history. Good riddance.


I guess the enabling wife deserves this:
Say It Ain't So, Elizabeth -- You Knew But Supported His Run For President?
By Lee Stranahan, The Huffington Post

The John Edwards interview -- which he states will be his very last comment on the subject -- hasn't aired yet but we do have a statement from Elizabeth Edwards. Ironically (to me, anyway) she posted it on the popular liberal blog The Daily Kos. The one upshot from her statement is that she knew about Edward's affair prior to his run for office.

I'm not assuming bad motives. I believe that the Edwards [sic] are both sincere in their stated positions about poverty, health care and other issues. I can even believe that the reason they wanted Edwards to become president was to promote that agenda. To the extent that's true, I totally agree with their ends but their means were so shortsighted, reckless, and potentially damaging to their own agenda that they can't be ignored.

Just taking the Edwards current statements at their words, I am left with a very uncomfortable truth -- both John and Elizabeth Edwards cynically used their marriage as a means to help John Edwards win an election.

[W]hen the rumors first surfaced, they made the worst decision of all; they decided to lie about it and to keep lying about it for months. They lied in a way that made the people who were telling the truth look like the real liars. They lied in a way that turned their supporters into attack dogs. They only started to tell the truth when John Edwards was caught at the Beverly Hills Hilton and even now both John and Elizabeth Edward are calling the people who caught him the liars. That's the definition of shameless. (link)
Stranahan, so you know, was an Edwards supporter. This will be hard on the blindly faithful like him. I almost feel sorry ...

An Unanswered Question

1. John Edwards says the sexual affair with Rielle Hunter ended in 2006.

2. He says the baby isn't his.

3. He admits to being in that Beverly Hills hotel with the woman just last month.

Why was he there?

Quote of the Day

From 2004 Democratic Party vice presidential nominee John Edwards:

"I think this president has shown a remarkable disrespect for his office, for the moral dimensions of leadership, for his friends, for his wife, for his precious daughter."

"This president" being Bill Clinton, of course.

This lowlife often spoke of "Two Americas." Little did we know he was referring to the two dimensions of the John Edwards world of illusion.

But Worst Of All

Where were the mainstream media when the Edwards affair was making news on the front pages of the tabloid press?

Media's self censorship is a bigger scandal than Edwards
By Tom Bemis, MarketWatch

London (MarketWatch) -- The scandal over former Sen. John Edwards' alleged fathering of a love child is rapidly being surpassed by a greater travesty -- not one single major media organization in the U.S is covering the story.

Edwards, who's sought the presidency twice, actually was nominated for vice president once, and made millions as a trial lawyer by holding health maintenance organizations accountable for their alleged transgressions, is manifestly newsworthy and clearly a public figure.

Heck, he's almost a celebrity.

Yet no major network or national daily paper is doing anything with the story.

In February, the New York Times spilled barrels of ink, and clear-cut a forest to tell the world that -- hint, hint, wink, wink, nudge, nudge, know what I mean? -- Sen. John McCain allegedly had had an affair. This was great stuff, until someone bothered to vet the story.

But somehow, it's just not relevant that [Edwards] won't answer questions about why he was hiding from a couple of trashy tabloid reporters in a bathroom at the Beverly Hills Hilton at 2:30 a.m.? (link)
Obviously not. John Edwards isn't a conservative Republican. Why bother looking into the man's (illicit) love life?

Shame on them. Again.