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

Thursday, April 23, 2009


I'm now wondering who's advising gubernatorial candidate Terry McAuliffe.

No. Scratch that.

I'm wondering if anyone is advising gubernatorial candidate Terry McAuliffe.

It would certainly seem not.

In this bastion of conservatism we call Southwest Virginia the incredibly unctuous Democrat that even most Democrats don't want to be around decides he's going to bring the least admired political figure in modern history with him here to win votes?

Someone needs to get a hold of this boy and tell him what Southwest Virginia is all about. Arlington it ain't. Character still counts for something here.

And bringing a lying, conniving rapist here is not acceptable.

Nor is it all that bright:
Clinton to join McAuliffe in Roanoke
By Michael Sluss, Roanoke Times

Democratic gubernatorial candidate Terry McAuliffe will bring former President Clinton to Roanoke next week, the first time Clinton will campaign with his longtime friend and former fundraiser.

Clinton will appear at public events with McAuliffe on Monday in Roanoke and Richmond. McAuliffe's campaign will release additional details about the visits in the coming days.

McAuliffe, who lives in McLean, is one of three Democrats seeking the party's nomination for governor in a June 9 primary, competing with state Sen. Creigh Deeds of Bath County and former state Del. Brian Moran of Alexandria.

"We're thrilled to have President Clinton join Terry on the campaign trail," McAuliffe campaign manager Mike Henry said in a statement. [link]

So you know, it is this same campaign manager Mike Henry who, as deputy campaign manager for another candidate a year ago, helped Hillary Clinton win the Democratic nomination for the presidency and saw her sweep to victory in November.

With his kind of help, and with boneheaded moves like this - the despised Bill Clinton campaigning for votes in conservative Southwest Virginia!? - McAuliffe is assured of the same kind of success that Hillary achieved.

A word of advice: Find Plan B.

Ah, Yes. Consistency.

A reader emailed me a link to a Roanoke Times editorial from yesterday that has him somewhat perplexed.

Here's a snippet from that editorial:
Recessions bring painful decisions

Roanoke council must resist the temptation to raise taxes or raid the emergency fund.

Every dollar has a constituency. Roanoke City Council should remember that as it logs complaints received about the $7.5 million in budget cuts.

Already, some council members are having second thoughts. It's only natural to feel remorse when programs that people rely on are mothballed, especially the library's bookmobile that serves shut-ins and the swimming pools that give children from poorer neighborhoods relief from summer's heat and boredom.

[An] option is for council to raise the meals or lodging taxes. A 1 percent increase in the meals tax would bring about $2 million in revenue. While just a penny on a dollar would be tacked onto restaurant checks, the raise -- during a time when people are cutting back -- could prove a psychological barrier and cause harm to struggling businesses. [link]
The reader comments:

"The Democrat controlled Roanoke City Council did the courageous thing by reducing government services and holding the line on tax increases during slow economic times. However, the Republican lead House of Delegates is cowardly and obstructionist for refusing to increase the gas tax, sales tax, cigarette tax, or any other tax during the same economic conditions. Now where did I put that psychologist's number?"

It won't help. I'm afraid they are a lost cause, my friend.

This Is No Way To Run a Country

As time goes by, it appears more and more obvious that we are going to be exposed to a political tactic we haven't seen in decades. The Obama administration creates the bogeyman and the press runs with it.

Bear witness: We have recently gone from from vilifying AIG executives a few short weeks ago to reviling former Justice Department officials today.

They should be called on it. It's a despicable strategy worthy of a James Carville but not of an American president who came into office telling us that he was going to unite the country, not further divide it.

Investor's Business Daily on the latest attempt to distract the American people from this administration's bumbling:
Prosecuting Heroes

The Justice Department may launch a witch hunt against those who organized the enhanced interrogation of terrorists. That's no way to treat people who saved so many lives.

The American public has just seen how policy based on campaign rhetoric can come crashing into the reality of a successful past policy.

Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair, as a retired admiral who commanded the Navy in the Pacific and served on the White House's National Security Council, must be smarter than his recent statements make him out to be.

In a private memo to spy agency employees last week, made public by Blair this week, he conceded that "high value information" was obtained by the enhanced interrogation techniques the Bush administration authorized the CIA to use on terrorist detainees.

They gave "a deeper understanding of the al-Qaida network," according to President Obama's choice to oversee America's network of 16 intelligence agencies.

Meanwhile, Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin, D-Mich., has released a report claiming that CIA and Pentagon officials prepared groundwork for the enhanced techniques before receiving a legal OK — as if being prepared to help protect the nation constitutes a smoking gun.

Levin contends they "bear significant responsibility for creating the legal and operational framework for the abuses."

Far from abuse, they were serving the nation more than the average senator. All those involved in this program are owed a debt of gratitude from all of us. [link]

Today they go after the heroes who saved American lives by using aggressive interrogation techniques on terrorists.

Tomorrow Obama goes after soldiers in the field who used aggressive military techniques to subdue a merciless terror foe while engaged in battle.

To McCain political strategists who advocated dilusory campaign advertising.

To fatcat doctors.

To fatcat pharmaceutical executives.

To global warming skeptics.

To anyone who disagrees with him ...

Boo. Hoo.

The lesson to be learned here:

There just aren't enough lesbians or loons in this country to keep a lesbian loon's ranting - and excruciatingly trite - TV show from going into the tank:
MSNBC's Rachel Maddow suffers big audience loss
By David Zurawik, Baltimore Sun

MSNBC show host Rachel Maddow has suffered some steep audience erosion in recent months, down more than 40 percent in viewership from her peak last fall during the election.

According to the Los Angeles Times, Maddow's audience has gone from a high of 1.9 million viewers in the fall to just over 1.1 million in March. That's a big drop.

"I think Rachel is a rock star," Phil Griffin, the president of MSNBC, told the Times.

That's one of the problems with MSNBC: It's looking for "rock stars" instead of journalists or analysts to host its shows. If a rock star's CD sales dropped by 44 percent, believe me, the record company would be worried. [link]

To be fair to Ms. Maddow, this debacle can't be foisted onto her shoulders entirely. MSNBC as a whole has tanked in recent years. She's just one of many hosts appearing on the far-leftist cable channel to see her viewer ratings go into the toilet.

Still, with all the hype that accompanied her grand entrance into cable talk, there is some sweet justice to be found in this news.

How's Hannity doing, by the way?

Nope. No Irony Here.

From a New York Times editorial a while back ("Another Coke Classic"):
Coke, America's most iconic brand, no longer seems to be it, or even the real thing. It isn't just Coca-Cola's lackluster performance that is worrisome. After all the attention placed on corporate governance in the post-Enron world, this blue-chip company's blue-chip board has become a weak guardian of shareholder interests. The board does not seem to have noticed that doling out tens of millions of shareholder dollars for mediocre results is no longer in vogue.

Uh, wait.

It seems that same New York Times's top management doesn't read its own editorial page and hasn't gotten the message either:
Bonuses To New York Times Execs Under Fire
By Thomas B. Edsall, Huffington Post

At a time when New York Times managers are forcing all employees to take a five percent pay cut, and demanding even larger sacrifices from the NYT-owned Boston Globe, top executives of the beleaguered newspaper received substantial bonus and fringe benefit payments over and above their salaries, according to a proxy statement released on March 11.

These bonuses and benefits to top Times company executives have provoked growing resentment among Times staffers, and frank anger from Globe reporters who have been warned by Times executives that their paper will be folded if they do not come up with $20 million in pay cuts and layoffs.

According to the New York Times proxy statement filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, corporate president and CEO Janet L. Robinson received a total compensation package valued at $5.58 million in 2008, up well over a million from the $4.14 million she received in 2007, and the $4.4 million she received in 2006.

A number of NYT staffers contacted said that there was considerably more resentment voiced on the newsroom floor, and in newspaper guild meetings, about Robinson's pay than about compensation awarded to Arthur Sulzberger Jr., the NYT board chairman and publisher.

One NY Times reporter described the empathy for Sulzberger and the antipathy toward Robinson as follows: "Arthur [and his family] own the paper, but no one expects him to be a businessman. Janet was hired to be the CEO, she should know [how to run the business]." [link]
So. Is that which the New York Times considers good for Coke not good for the New York Times?

I think we all know the answer ...

Another Janet Reno?

The mainstream press gave Bill Clinton's pathetic and bumbling attorney general a pass for all those years she bounced off the walls at the Justice Department.

The question is: Will that same fawning press give our new Homeland Security Secretary a similar pass?

You'd think this would make it into American newspapers:
The border for dummies
National Post editorial

Can someone please tell us how U. S. Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano got her job? She appears to be about as knowledgeable about border issues as a late-night radio call-in yahoo.

In an interview broadcast Monday on the CBC, Ms. Napolitano attempted to justify her call for stricter border security on the premise that "suspected or known terrorists" have entered the U. S. across the Canadian border, including the perpetrators of the 9/11 attack.

All the 9/11 terrorists, of course, entered the United States directly from overseas. The notion that some arrived via Canada is a myth that briefly popped up in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, and was then quickly debunked.

Informed of her error, Ms. Napolitano blustered: "I can't talk to that. I can talk about the future. And here's the future. The future is we have borders."

Just what does that mean, exactly? [link]
Trying to decipher a government official's ramblings.

It's déjà vu all over again.

And the mainstream press?

Not one word.