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

Sunday, October 05, 2008

I Agree With A Democrat

None other than Rick Boucher, no less.

I wrote the other day that I hadn't read any comments from our congressman on the bailout package that went through Congress - after not going through Congress - but it turns out he has given a statement. This comes from the Bristol Herald Courier:
This is a necessary step. It is a responsible step. It will restore confidence in our credit markets and assure they flow smoothly and do so in a way that will not result in the taxpayers losing money.
I - and the experts - wish we were as confident about this as Boucher - hardly the expert - is.

But we agree, none the less, that it a necessary step. I just hope ...

- - -

Also in the article, written by J. Todd Foster, is a quote from Boucher on those earmarks that he and all the other career Washington politicians love so much, but Americans outside of the Magic Kingdom absolutely despise:

Boucher defended the estimated $150 billion in additional tax incentives and earmarks the Senate added to the bailout/rescue bill two days earlier. He said the legislation simply extends the tax breaks that Congress approves every year.

“The merits of those benefits [earmarks] have long been debated and accepted,” said Boucher.

Other than your pals in Washington, who has accepted that kind of abject corruption, Rick?

Fair & Balanced?

Well, let's look at what's going on in the nation's political news this morning. As seen through the filter provided by the Washington Post. Let's look for balance while we peruse today's headlines. Shall we?

U.S. Fiscal Crisis Seems to Have Altered Political Map
McCain's Challenge Is Underscored by Pullout From Mich.

Skepticism of Palin Growing, Poll Finds

Politics at the Five-and-Dime
Where Pennies Matter, Change Is a Powerful Idea

Palin Sued for Private E-Mails About State Business

When Michelle Met Barack
How romance in the sedate corridors of a corporate law firm changed everything for the woman who might become the country's first African American first lady

Yup. Looks balanced to me. No macaca stories anyway.

Kaine Works To Get Democrats To The Polls

Obama now has a better chance of carrying the commonwealth of Virginia. A sizable chunk of the Democratic Party's most loyal base is now able to vote:
Kaine restores voting rights to felons
By Gary Emerling, The Washington Times

Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine has granted voting rights to nearly 1,500 felons this year, bumping up the voter rolls ahead of next month's presidential election and putting himself on pace to exceed the record-setting pattern of his predecessor. (link)

This Brightened My Day ...

... if only a tad:

O.J. Simpson guilty on all charges in robbery trial

I heard someone crack a joke on the radio yesterday morning (700, WLW, Cincinnati)) that Simpson's mistake this time 'round was ...

... he left witnesses.

Sick. I know.

This Is Progress

Limousine liberals - those who live in the northeast and write for the New York Times - have made much about racism playing a significant part in the upcoming presidential election. It's been said that Obama is going to lose up to 6% of the vote to McCain simply because of the color of his skin.

The only problem is, with the rare anecdotal exception, these geniuses can't find all those racists out in the world who will actually contribute to that 6%. So, they dream up a new kind of racism - "unconscious racism." I swear, I couldn't make crap like this up on my most conscious day:
Racism Without Racists
By Nicholas D. Kristof, The New York Times

One of the fallacies this election season is that if Barack Obama is paying an electoral price for his skin tone, it must be because of racists.

On the contrary, the evidence is that Senator Obama is facing what scholars have dubbed “racism without racists.”

The racism is difficult to measure, but a careful survey completed last month by Stanford University, with The Associated Press and Yahoo, suggested that Mr. Obama’s support would be about six percentage points higher if he were white. That’s significant but surmountable.

Most of the lost votes aren’t those of dyed-in-the-wool racists.

Rather, most of the votes that Mr. Obama actually loses belong to well-meaning whites who believe in racial equality and have no objection to electing a black person as president — yet who discriminate unconsciously. (link) [my emphasis]
You McCain supporters are all still racists. You just don't know it.


I want to meet those individuals who go into the voting booth "unconsciously," Nick. The ones who will be pulling the McCain lever without knowing why. Are you serious?

These people crack me up.

This Should Be Okay

As long as Ted Kennedy and John Kerry and all the other Massachusetts "environmentalists" can't see it from their shoreline estates, this should go through:

New Jersey Grants Rights to Build a Wind Farm About 20 Miles Offshore

Personally, I think it's a swell idea. The more the better. If we're going to be "energy independent," we'll need to pursue every avenue of alternative to fossil fuels.

It's About Time

Just as with Obama's close twenty-year relationship with that bigot of a Trinity United pastor in Chicago, this story goes directly to the man's judgment. His ability to know right from wrong. To speak out against injustice - and bigotry - rather than just go along to get ahead:
Palin, on Offensive, Attacks Obama’s Ties to ’60s Radical
By Michael Cooper, The New York Times

Sedona, Ariz. — Stepping up the Republican ticket’s attacks on Senator Barack Obama, Gov. Sarah Palin on Saturday seized on a report about Mr. Obama’s relationship with a former 1960s radical to accuse him of “palling around with terrorists.” (link)
Unfortunately, what you won't get from this Times article - just as with yesterday's - is a detailed explanation as to what the relationship between Obama and the terrorist consisted of, or how close the relationship actually was. For that, you'll need to go here.

Anyway, it's about time the McCain campaign highlighted this character flaw in Obama. After all, he - Obama - has expressed a willingness to sit down and negotiate with other terrorists around the world once he becomes president. What will he promise them? What is he willing to give away? Just how much is he willing to "go along"?

The implications are very concerning.

Why Can't He Go Quietly?

This man is going to be the death of me. My heart can't take any more of our senior senator, once rumored to be a Republican:
John Warner might vote for Democrat
By Mike Allen, Politico

Retiring Sen. John W. Warner (R-Va.) beat his Democratic opponent, Mark R. Warner, by 6 percentage points in the Old Dominion’s “Warner vs. Warner” race of 1996.

Now, he might cross party lines and vote for him.

Mark Warner, who went on to become a popular governor, is running to succeed John Warner in the Senate. Mark Warner’s opponent is another former governor, James S. Gilmore III, a Republican who has received little support from the state’s power structure and lags by 26 points in a new poll.

“I’m watching that race, following the positions of the two candidates,” John Warner told reporters on a conference call Saturday. “There have been occasions when I have supported Democratic candidates. … But I’m not there yet.” (link)
Yes, he has supported Democrats in the past. In critical races involving true American heroes, no less (ask Oliver North about that), he's been an enthusiastic supporter of Democrats, in fact. Yet, year after year, the GOP here in Virginia propped this old man up in front of the TV cameras long enough for him to win reelection, and then suffer (scratching their collective heads the while) as he turned on them and their fellow Republicans, be it votes in the Senate or his fratricidal tendencies toward those who fairly expected his support.

Where's that retirement home?

Like I Said

It turns out that there were a whole lot of discerning people who read that New York Times fluff piece yesterday on the Obama/William Ayres relationship and came to the same conclusion I did. It gave a new name to "investigative journalism." Stanley Kurtz simply calls it "irresponsible journalism":
NYT's Ayers-Obama Whitewash
The Corner

As others have noted, today’s New York Times carries a story on the relationship between Barack Obama and unrepentant Weather Underground terrorist, Bill Ayers. The piece serves as a platform for the Obama campaign and Obama’s friends and allies. Obama’s spokesman and supporters’ names are named and their versions of events are presented in detail, with quotes. Yet the article makes no serious attempt to present the views of Obama critics who have worked to uncover the true nature of the relationship. That makes this piece irresponsible journalism, and an obvious effort by the former paper of record to protect Obama from the coming McCain onslaught.

The New York Times in the tank for Obama? You bet. And sinking deeper every day. (link)
Read the Times piece. Then read Kurtz's commentary in full. Can anyone legitimately argue that the New York Times attempted to do anything other than provide cover for its favored candidate? And it wasn't even done effectively.