Quote

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

Tuesday, November 03, 2009

As The Election Results Start Coming In ...

9:00pm update:

Here's how Southwest Virginia looks tonight:

1st District - Republican.
2nd - Democratic.
3rd - Republican.
4th - Democratic.
5th - Republican.
6th - Republican.
7th - Republican.
8th - Republican.
9th - Republican.
10th - Democratic.
11th - No decision.

Here's the aggravating part of this: Two of the three victorious Democrats tonight had no Republican opposition.  Such a lost opportunity.

- - -

Special note: Here in Bland County, Anne Crockett-Stark beat Carole Pratt 75% to 25%.  Even her native Wythe County didn't provide her with that kind of margin.

McDonnell beat Deeds 76 to 24.  And Deeds hails from right up the road!

It's fair to say that Bland is the reddest of Virginia's counties.

And we're proud of it.

- - -

Note II: McDonnell was victorious 60% to 40% in Dickenson County!  What happened to that vaunted Democrat machine over there?

Can you say climate tax?

- - -

8:49pm update:

The city of Roanoke still hasn't reported the first precinct result. Nearly two hours after the polls closed.

Is anyone in charge there?

- - -

8:30pm update:

McDonnell, Bolling and Cuccinelli still leading by 21, 17, and 19.

In the 3rd District (95% reporting) Morefield leads Bowling 58% to 42%. Morefield beats the incumbent!

6th - Anne B. Crockett-Stark leads by 29 (64-35) with 60% of the precinct results in.
7th - Nutter still holds his 19 point lead (49-40). (35% reporting).
8th - Griffith wins big.
9th - Poindexter (R) wins big.
10th - Armstrong wins by 15.
11th - This is interesting.  Onzlee Ware (D) is losing to challenger Troy Bird (R) 62-38, but with only 8% reporting.

- - -

8:16pm update: 

Smyth County and Wythe Counties have 100% of their precincts reporting.

Bland County has 0% reporting.

Hello?

- - -


8:00pm update:

Fox News just declared McDonnell the winner in the governor's race a few moments ago.

3rd - Morefield (R) up by 17! (82% reporting).
6th - Annie B (R) still holding a massive lead.  65 to 34.  (46% reporting).
7th - Nutter (R) winning by 19.  (27% returns in).
8th - Griffith (R) up by 39 points! (48% in).
10th - Armstrong (D) expands his lead to 56 - 44. (84% reporting).
13th - Bob Marshall (R) winning big.
14th - Danny Marshal (R) ditto.

Statewide races -

It's Bolling (R) 59 to 40 over Wagner.
Cuccinelli (R) 60 to 40 over Shannon.
McDonnell (R) 61 to 39 over Deeds.
49% of the precinct counts are in.

Is this even possible?

- - -

At 7:30pm (the polls closed 30 minutes ago) McDonnell is up statewide 64% to 36%, with 12% of the precincts reporting.

Locally, all the candidates who were expected to win are winning (again with most returns not yet reported), except for Danny Bowling over in Buchanan County.  There he's down 57% to 42% to Republican Will Morefield. (51% of the precincts reporting!).

In the 6th Crockett-Stark is up by 36 points over her challenger with 25% of the returns in.

Nutter is comfortably ahead over in the 7th.  62% to 38%.  (13% reporting).

Besides the surprising result over in the 3rd (Bowling/Morefield), there's another that's closer than I'd expected - in the 10th.  Democrat Ward Armstrong is up by only 12% (with 35% reporting).  No.  It just changed.  Armstrong is up by 11% with 48% of the votes tabulated.

This surprises me.

More to follow at 8pm.

I'm Off To The Polls

Here's my prediction:

McDonnell by 14.
Bolling by 11.
Cuccinelli by 6.

Locally, Crockett-Stark by 13.
Nutter by 12.
Bowling by a lot.
Armstrong too close to call (kidding).
Carrico, Kilgore, Phillips, Johnson in romps.  (A rather easy prediction since they run unopposed).

Take it to the bank.

Now, I'm off to do my small part ...

Jim Moran, The Best Friend a Conservative Could Have

Yes, Virginia's 8th District Democratic congressman is a buffoon.  And yes, he's about as anti-Semitic as a person outside of the prison system could get.  Liberal?  ┼░berly so.

But we love him anyway.

Why?

Because he represents the best Virginia's liberals have to offer the commonwealth.

From today's news:
Jim Moran Calls GOP the "Taliban Ticket"
By Amy Gardner, Washington Post

lways good copy, U.S. Rep. James P. Moran Jr. (D-Va.) likened the Republican ticket in Virginia this year to Afghanistan's radical Taliban movement in comments broadcast Sunday by WAMU radio.


At a get-out-the-vote rally in Fairfax County, Moran said: "I mean, if the Republicans were running in Afghanistan, they'd be running on the Taliban ticket as far as I can see."

Moran was talking about Republicans Robert F. McDonnell for governor, Lt. Gov. Bill Bolling and state Sen. Kenneth T. Cuccinelli II, who is running for attorney general.  [link]
It is expected that 1,500,000 Virginians will vote Republican today.

Far more than will vote Democrat.

Members of the Taliban all?

Thanks for offending the majority of voters here in the commonwealth, big guy.

Like I said, he may be a buffoon, but he's OUR buffoon.  We like him right where he is.

So Many Virgins, So Little Time

Dither Dither Dither

Brian Stomski, writing in American Thinker, says we had a forewarning of Obama's inability to be decisive (think Afghanistan and endless dither) back when he was asked, during his race against John McCain, a simple question:

"At what point is a baby entitled to human rights?"
It's amazingly ironic that future Commander-in-Chief Barack Obama used "above my pay grade," a phrase most commonly used in the military, as part of his dithering non-answer to a very simple question. Obama responded to the question but never actually answered it. He tried to split the difference by giving a little something to those on each side of the issue. No one gets everything he wants, but no one goes home empty-handed, either. Obama's response clearly illustrates why it's taking him so long to decide about deploying the additional troops that General McChrystal requested in August. It takes Commander-in-Chief Barack Obama an agonizingly long time just to not answer a question about what his own view is, let alone somehow find a way to partially satisfy everyone holding an opinion and a future vote.

Decisions, decisions. How will Commander-in-Chief Barack Obama split the difference between those who want to pull out of Afghanistan completely and those who want the resources necessary to win a war? As our Commander in Chief continues to consider the politically correct answer between zero and 40,000, it may be time to take Air Force One out for another spin. It's always fun to get away and it looks presidential. It would be really tough to choose which of the two is more important. Let's split the difference.
This goes beyond the man's seeking due diligence.  He can't decide what to do.  And lives are being lost as our brave men and women in harm's way await a plan.

When asked the question about that point when babies gain human rights, Obama said it was "above my pay grade," before drifting off into incomprehensible ClintonSpeak.

Well, military decisions are now at his pay grade.  Leadership is required.

Obama either needs to start making decisions or be man enough to recognize - as did the general who became commander of the Army of Northern Virginia as the Civil War Battle of Fair Oaks was developing - that he is incapable of leading, and resign.

Americans are dying, Barry. YOUR soldiers await YOUR orders.

- - -

Related: "What are we to make of a White House visitors list that includes 22 swiftly scheduled appointments with a union boss at a time when Gen. Stanley McChrystal can't get face time with the commander in chief?"

'A Gaggle Is Not a Consensus'

Marc Morano at Climate Depot brings to us a letter that went to every member of the United states Senate regarding "global warming" from the American Physical Society.  That letter:
A GAGGLE IS NOT A CONSENSUS

You have recently received a letter from the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), purporting to convey a “consensus” of the scientific community that immediate and drastic action is needed to avert a climatic catastrophe.

We do not seek to make the scientific arguments here (we did that in an earlier letter, sent a couple of months ago), but simply to note that the claim of consensus is fake, designed to stampede you into actions that will cripple our economy, and which you will regret for many years. There is no consensus, and even if there were, consensus is not the test of scientific validity. Theories that disagree with the facts are wrong, consensus or no.

We know of no evidence that any of the “leaders” of the scientific community who signed the letter to you ever asked their memberships for their opinions, before claiming to represent them on this important matter.

We also note that the American Physical Society (APS, and we are physicists) did not sign the letter, though the scientific issues at stake are fundamentally matters of applied physics. You can do physics without climatology, but you can't do climatology without physics.

The APS is at this moment reviewing its stance on so-called global warming, having received a petition from its membership to do so. That petition was signed by 160 distinguished members and fellows of the Society, including one Nobelist and 12 members of the National Academies. Indeed a score of the signers are Members and Fellows of the AAAS, none of whom were consulted before the AAAS letter [was sent] to you. [emphasis mine]
I especially like that line - "You can do physics without climatology, but you can't do climatology without physics."  Truth be known, many of the leading proponents of global warming theory are neither climatologists nor physicists; they're statisticians and computer experts.  They would have you believe that you can do climate science without either climatology or physics.  All you need is a properly programmed computer with lots of number-crunching capability.

Anyway, next time you hear Al Gore saying that the debate is over, that consensus has formed around the notion that the planet is warming, remember: A gaggle is not a consensus.

Wasn't This Obama's Original Intent?

It's such a distant memory.  Obama wanting to reduce the ever-rising cost of health care.

Before he got pressured into making it just another monster of a welfare bill.

His intentions were good anyway.

But what was that saying about good intentions?

Well, there are those who haven't forgotten us:
GOP health bill focuses on lower costs
By Pastrick O'Connor, Politico

The Republicans’ health care bill in the House focuses more on lowering costs than on expanding coverage, party leaders said Monday — setting up a stark divide between the GOP and Democrats who have made near universal coverage a top priority of their bills.

“Our substitute aims at driving down costs,” House Minority Leader John Boehner told reporters Monday. “If you drive down costs, you can expand access.”

Boehner hasn’t released the full details of the bill but has said that it would make it easier to buy insurance across state lines, impose strict limits on medical malpractice lawsuits and allow individuals and small businesses to pool their resources to buy insurance as a group. That is designed to boost their purchasing power to help lower individual premiums.

The legislation would also direct federal funds to states that establish pools to defray the costs of covering the most high-risk individuals, encouraging the 16 states that don’t to establish them. Republicans think lowering the costs to insure these high-risk individuals is the key to reducing premiums across the entire health care system. [link.]
We could (and should) argue the merits of the GOP proposal (especially that revenue-sharing scheme, the stuff of which only a Richard Nixon could love), but the point is: The GOP has a plan the intent of which is to accomplish that which President Obama wanted to accomplish before he slipped back into traditional liberal mode and decided he'd tax the hell out of those who produce in order to provide for those who don't.  ObamaCare is now nothing more than another welfare program.  One of many we're saddled with.

Thanks, GOP, for being there for us.

- - -

Related: See "AP sources: House health bill totals $1.2 trillion."

That's $1.2 trillion you'll be paying, folks.  To ... reduce ... your ... costs.

Shucks, the Facts Are Getting In The Way Of 'Science'

A devotee of global warming theory, writing in the Times of London, bemoans the fact that too many global warming scientists have drawn conclusions about climate that are too easily rebutted by empirical evidence.

Darn.  If only there were no data.  They could really get their movement to send the civilized world back into the Stone Age into high gear.

Alas:
Exaggerated claims undermine drive to cut emissions, scientists warn
By Mark Henderson

Exaggerated and inaccurate claims about the threat from global warming risk undermining efforts to cut greenhouse gas emissions and contain climate change, senior scientists have told The Times.

Environmental lobbyists, politicians, researchers and journalists who distort climate science to support an agenda erode public understanding and play into the hands of sceptics, according to experts including a former government chief scientist.

Excessive statements about the decline of Arctic sea ice, severe weather events and the probability of extreme warming in the next century detract from the credibility of robust findings about climate change, they said.

Such claims can easily be rebutted by critics of global warming science to cast doubt on the whole field. They also confuse the public about what has been established as fact, and what is conjecture. [link]
Let's separate out "claims" from claims.  A claim, in the classic sense of the word, means an assertion that something is true or factual.  "The globe is warming" is a claim.  "CO2 is causing the planet to warm" is a claim.

But global warming scientists have also made "claims" - or predictions - regarding future mating habits of polar bears to "claims" about future migration patterns of Bangladeshis to "claims" of rising sea levels swallowing up the Maldive Islands.

The problem these scientists face is that their "claims" can't stand up to scrutiny because their claims have proven to be bogus.

The claim that the planet is warming is factually inaccurate.

Any "claim" that flows from that assertion is therefore bogus.

Undeniably so.

(Think CO2).(Think emissions). (Think of the 4.5 million at-risk children).

The writer bemoans the penchant of some scientists to make exaggerated claims based on known facts.

Well, the data are in.  All claims regarding climate from this point forward must begin with the established fact that the planet is not warming.

Take it from there, "scientists."

Like I've Said Many Times

We win the abortion debate, not through legislation, but through the hearts of America's women.

See "Planned Parenthood director quits after watching abortion ultrasound."

A tiny beating heart will have that effect.

Question of the Day


Guess we're soon to find out.

We Don't Like Them Anyway

Boo hoo:


And Americans find Canadian males to be colorless and wimpy little girly men who think speed limits on I-81 are only for Americans to abide by.

They distrust us.  Then they should stay there in the Arctic tundra at vacation time and leave us alone.