Sunday, March 15, 2009
Could there be some moral distinction?
Goode files statement of candidacyWhat the renowned Sabato doesn't yet realize is the fact that a second Goode-Perriello contest will be just as affected by Barack Obama's presence. Perriello is tied to the president at the hip when it comes to the oncoming spending avalanche and massive tax increases, and if the economy doesn't turn around as the two Democrat experts (well, they're both lawyers, which makes them economic experts) have promised, Perriello will turn out to be a one-hit wonder.
By Bill Wyatt, Martinsville Daily
A rematch could already be in the works between Virgil Goode and Tom Perriello in 2010. Wednesday Goode filed a statement of candidacy form with the Federal Election Commission. He's not saying he's going to run, but he's saying the filing will allow him to raise and spend money while he's deciding.
Larry Sabato, director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia, said Goode’s move is not unexpected and points out that Perriello was helped by Obama's voter turnout which "may not happen again." [link]
If the rematch is anything like the last contest, it should be a hoot.
"Your mommie is a commie."
"Well, your wife's face looks like a cow's butt."
Ah, political discourse, 5th congressional district, 2008. I miss it so.
If so, can it be easily stopped in its tracks? In the case of HIV/AIDS only if we tell the morons who are perpetuating it to stop putting their penises in risky places and stop plunging infected needles in sundry veins in an effort to both feel good and bring a quick end to their pathetic lives.
But, heaven forbid, we're not going to do that.
So the "epidemic" flourishes.
For the love of God ...
HIV/AIDS Rate in D.C. Hits 3%"WE" have to "DEAL" with them.
By Jose Antonio Vargas and Darryl Fears, Washington Post Staff Writers
At least 3 percent of District residents have HIV or AIDS, a total that far surpasses the 1 percent threshold that constitutes a "generalized and severe" epidemic, according to a report scheduled to be released by health officials tomorrow.
That translates into 2,984 residents per every 100,000 over the age of 12 -- or 15,120 -- according to the 2008 epidemiology report by the District's HIV/AIDS office.
"Our rates are higher than West Africa," said Shannon L. Hader, director of the District's HIV/AIDS Administration, who once led the Federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's work in Zimbabwe. "They're on par with Uganda and some parts of Kenya."
"We have every mode of transmission" -- men having sex with men, heterosexual and injected drug use* -- "going up, all on the rise, and we have to deal with them," Hader said. [link]
Well, "we" have been "dealing" with "them" for three decades now and our strategy of coddling these people has been so successful that we're now faced with a freaking epidemic. Any more of this kind of show-'em-some-love remedy to the problem - one that each "victim" can prevent with absolutely no difficulty** - and we as a civilization will become extinct.
Here's an alternative. Start thinking of those who participate in risky behavior as human waste. And tell them face-to-face. No hand-holding. No tears. Hand them a shovel and point to the cemetery and tell them we aren't going to waste our precious energies on them; they can dig their own graves. We have enough people on this planet. They won't be missed. Go.
Perhaps that'll change their ways. Perhaps it won't.
But one thing is for certain: Making victims of the nitwits who are working diligently to kill themselves isn't working all that well either.
- - -
* Don't ask me. I haven't the first clue as to what "heterosexual and injected drug use" means.
** I make exception of those women who have had sex with their male partners, partners who have been playing hide-the-salami and gimme-that-syringe outside of marriage and who have brought HIV home with them.
Remember this ad run by the Mark Warner campaign in which the "Republican" Chichester sang fawningly the virtues of the liberal NoVa Democrat?
If there is a media darling in the state GOP these days, it has to be Chichester, even though the man left active politics years ago.
Kyle Smith, tongue-in-cheek:
As I've often said, the mainstream press would have you believe that the only way Republicans can be a viable political force is if they adopt Democrat platform positions. Didn't the McCain nomination and defeat pretty much kill that goofy notion? Again?
All that remains of the Griping Old Party is a tattered remnant, an embittered rump faction of 46%. I have devised a simple one-step solution to reversing our losing position in the last election: Move to the side that won.
It's time for bipartisanship. A third way. A new majority in which new conservatives consider new ideas, such as the New Deal, which is still spry and vigorous at 76 and is a model worth remembering because it led directly to the end of the Depression only seven years later.
I love trillion-dollar spending sprees that triple the deficit overnight. All I ask is that they be for a good cause, like massive increases in welfare. We need to get past old conservative policies, such as those signed into law by President Clinton, that assumed welfare is counterproductive. We should expand welfare in a conservative way. Instead of calling welfare checks initiative-crushing poverty-reinforcing handouts, we should call them "Freedom Opportunity Vouchers."We need new ways of thinking about foreign policy, too. I'm not saying we need to send red roses to the Taliban, but maybe we just need to meet them halfway.
So, yeah, there are a lot of RINOs out there who get lots of face time on TV. RINOs, like Chichester, who are called upon to denounce conservatives and to demand that Republicans be Democrats. A role he, and they, gleefully assume.
But he and they are wrong. What we need is a principled, articulate, willing-to-take-'em-to-the-mat opposition to the big government/anti-business/crushing taxation/terrorist appeasing types who are running rampant in Washington these days.
Until the GOP recognizes the fact that voters - when given the choice between a liberal Democrat and a liberal Republican - will choose the real deal every time, their little organization will remain a minority party.
Announcer:Maybe this will jog your memory:
"On health care, John McCain promises a tax credit. But here's what he won't tell you: McCain would impose a new tax on health benefits, taxing your health care for the first time ever.
It's a multi-trillion-dollar tax hike. The largest middle-class tax increase in history. You won't find one word about it on his Web site. But the McCain tax could cost your family thousands. Can you afford it?" [source]
"I'm Barack Obama and I approve this message."
And what was it that candidate Obama was so vehemently opposed to? It was John McCain's intriguing proposal during the campaign to tax employer-provided health benefits and, in turn, to provide every family with a $5,000 credit so that each could shop around for a provider, bringing competition to the health care coverage business.
Well, vehement opposition one day becomes tacit approval the next. What might have changed in the meantime, I wonder?
Our new president truly gives me a headache:
Administration Is Open to Taxing Health BenefitsAnother flip-flop. Is there anything that Obama said during the campaign that he hasn't reversed himself on?
By Jackie Calmes and Robert Pear, New York Times
Washington — The Obama administration is signaling to Congress that the president could support taxing some employee health benefits, as several influential lawmakers and many economists favor, to help pay for overhauling the health care system.
The proposal is politically problematic for President Obama, however, since it is similar to one he denounced in the presidential campaign as “the largest middle-class tax increase in history.” Most Americans with insurance get it from their employers, and taxing workers for the benefit is opposed by union leaders and some businesses. [link]
Sad thing is, you were warned at the time and chose to ignore me. You wanted the black dude.
And now you have him.
The British, too, are coming to that realization:
Britain is fighting a war – and we are too soft on our enemiesObama, like many in Britain, would just as soon pretend that the problem no longer exists. It was Bush's little difficulty and Bush is history.
By Con Coughlin, writing in the London Telegraph
It's not just soldiers who win wars. Governments also have a crucial role to play – and to judge by the response of most Western governments to the threat we face from radical Islamism, we are simply not competing on equal terms with the enemy.
No one can claim that we in Britain don't understand the nature of the threat we face. In recent months, there has been a succession of reports highlighting the increasingly pernicious influence British Islamists are having on the Nato-led campaign to bring stability to Afghanistan.
And yet, for all the compelling evidence that British-based Islamist radicals are actively participating in a jihad against Britain and its coalition allies, the Government, together with those who have opposed our involvement in the War on Terror from the start, seems determined to give the Islamist radicals the benefit of the doubt. [link]
But radical Islamists are going to strike again. It's just a matter of body count. And when they do ... God help us.