Quote

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

Thursday, January 21, 2010

Head Of America's Premier Racist Organization Proclaims:

Racism exists.

He should know:
NAACP Chairman Julian Bond: Racism persists
By Tonia Moxley, Roanoke Times

Radford -- In a speech Wednesday, NAACP Chairman Julian Bond called on defenders of civil rights to support the country's first black president as he faces what is expected to be ... [blah blah blah] [link]
In all reality, Bond wants those "defenders of civil rights" to come to Obama's aid because he's black.

And he calls us racists.

Here's Hoping For a Speedy Recovery

I was catching the news about the coming ice storm on TV this morning when I was confronted with an image of Roanoke's WDBJ weatherman Leo Hirsbrunner delivering the weather wearing a baseball cap.  To me, that could mean only one thing.  Cancer.  Sure enough, there's this from a few weeks ago:
WDBJ weatherman undergoes chemotherapy
By Ralph Berrier Jr., Roanoke Times

WDBJ-TV meteorologist Leo Hirsbrunner has cancer, the station announced Friday.

Hirsbrunner, who does the weather during the station's "News 7 Mornin' " and "News 7 at Noon," is undergoing chemotherapy that will take him off the air for periods of time.

News director Amy Morris would not disclose the type of cancer Hirsbrunner has, or say how long he has had it. Hirsbrunner has missed several broadcasts for more than two weeks.

"He will be on and off the air depending on how he's feeling," Morris said. He could be back on air as early as this weekend, she said. [link]
Leo comes across on-air as enjoying his work and seems dedicated to the field of meteorology.  And he knows his stuff.  Obviously I don't watch often, but I still consider him to be my go-to guy when it comes to local weather forecasting.

Here's hoping he achieves a complete recovery and is good as new in no time.

That's Not a 'Bigger Tent'

I get a kick out of "moderate" Republicans who claim that the GOP needs to come up with a "bigger tent."  Not that America's conservative party wouldn't benefit from one.  But because of the way they'd go about it.  Their method?  By reducing the size of the tent.

Take for example this analysis from someone who claims special insight:
Can Massachusetts GOP Ride on Brown’s Coattails
By Byron Tau, Frum Forum

“Apr├Ęs moi, le deluge?” is a fair question for Scott Brown to ask.

The real question at the heart of this most bizarre special election is whether Senator-elect Scott Brown is just an outlier who captured the popular zeitgeist of a restless, dissatisfied Massachusetts electorate, or something more – a harbinger of a competitive, yet moderate Republican Party in a state where liberal Democrats overwhelmingly dominate the machinery of government.

in the last three years, the political winds in Massachusetts may have shifted – in part because the party has moved towards the center and away from the ideological battles tearing apart the national party.

Brown himself epitomizes some of these compromises. In a conversation with him last November – before his meteoric rise to frontrunner status – Brown stuck to bread and butter economic issues and all-around pragmatic conservatism.

“As a party, we need to have a larger tent. And we need to have some diversity of ideas,” he told me. In response to a question I asked about the debate then raging over whether the GOP should adopt an ideological purity test, Brown was dismissive. “I’m a fiscal conservative. I’ve never voted for a tax increase. Another Republican may not feel that way. I think it’s shortsighted to have a purity test.”

The current state party chair in Massachusetts, Jennifer Nassour, emphasized roughly the same points. She made waves in national Republican circles when she told a LGBT [jf: Lesbians, Gays, and God knows what else] newspaper that, “there shouldn’t be a monolithic party position” on social issues – rather individual candidates should be free to embrace a pro-choice or a pro-gay marriage position if their conscience dictates.

“To me social issues are personal issues. Those are personal views, and we are not legislating here – at least I am not legislating anyone’s personal views,” she added. [link]
I'm not going to suggest that the analysis is wrong.  But I will suggest that one shouldn't lead people to conclude that EXcluding those who want their social issues addressed is somehow more INclusive.  To stifle their voices, to ignore their concerns - to banish social conservatives from that Big Tent - is to make it smaller ideologically, not bigger.

If one accepts the premise that (victorious) conservative coalitions of the past were comprised of fiscal conservatives, national security champions, and social conservatives - the three pillars of conservatism - how does removing one of those pillars and driving out those who seek protections for the American way of life make that tent bigger?  Rationally, it makes it ideologically smaller.  Much smaller.

Which makes it a McCain tent.  Whatever that means.  Whatever that signifies.  Whatever it stands for.

To me, and to a whole pile of other voters in 2008, that tent was indistinguishable from the Democrat tent.  And the Democrats own that territory.  Google "President McCain's kickass inauguration" and you'll understand.

Don't bother.  Google will provide you with this:


The alternative to shrinking the tent in an effort to make it "Bigger"?  Well, a cynic would say one should do what Reagan and the Bushes did so effectively - give lip service to social conservatism ("compassionate conservatism" as one of them cynically called it), give taped speeches that are aired at pro-life rallies that they'd been advised to avoid, and include in meaningless party platform papers a few declarations about marriage being between a man and a woman and how the slaughter of America's babies is a bad thing that should not ... happen, and such.

There will be a resurgence of this kind of attitude within the Republican Party now that social liberal Scott Brown has won his race in Massachusetts.  And it wouldn't be an outrageous bet to find the movers and shakers within the party to bring forth as a candidate for president in 2012 one who epitomizes that kind of thinking ...

... John McCain ...

... again.

I've said it before - particularly with regard to McCain - and I'll say it again: If I want a Democrat, I'll vote for a Democrat.  Eliminate one of those pillars and risk there coming along a Democrat who talks the fiscal discipline talk and who blathers tough rhetoric about national security and wars on terrorists - Afghanistan! - and, interestingly, who champions social issues as they relate to homosexuals, and you get ...

... President Barack Obama's kickass inauguration. Again.

I think I'd be careful before I unleashed that winning strategy, fellas.

Quote of the Day

Barack Obama on Scott Brown's Massachusetts victory:

"Here's my assessment not just of the vote in Massachusetts but the mood around the country. The same thing that swept Scott Brown into office swept me into office."

Delusional?  Without doubt.

But we need for him to keep thinking that if the voters - including the all those in Massachusetts who voted against Obama's agenda as much as for Mr. Brown - are to send Mr. Wonderful's skinny butt back to Chicago any time soon.

Democrats Need Maine Liberals - Again

When everyone around you is of the leftist, radical progressive persuasion, liberalism most assuredly seems ... moderate.


Of course those two tax-raising, Big Government loving senators from Maine are moderate. Everyone in the press room knows that ...

'They Don't Know What's Good For Them'

You hear that a lot from leftist Democrats in this country.  "They don't know what's good for them."  The reason those tea party fanatics are opposed to Obama's health care plan, they'll tell you, is because the morons choose to remain blissfully ignorant of the facts.  And that those same morons were frightened into believing the most ridiculous stuff.  And, as those learned Democrats all know, they - the tea partiers - know nothing about the details of Obama's plans.

And the leftists believe it.

In fact, the American citizenry is better informed than any generation has been in history.  With the advent of the internet, and with the ubiquity of information flow regarding the doings in Washington, we now know what's going on as it's going on.  And we react.  Whereas it might have taken days in decades past for news to get from Washington to our doorstep - and that news was filtered by those making it - it now enters by way of broadband.  And modem.  DSL.  We know the facts.  And we know bullshit when we see it.  And we respond:



"Page 114 Line 22."

It drives politicians nuts.

You're supposed to listen to what they say, not what they do.  Darn it.

So when a 5th Congressional District representative here in Virginia tells you Obama's health care bill (one the congressman hasn't even seen yet because it is being negotiated behind closed and locked doors) reduces the federal deficit, improves care, protects and strengthens Medicare, and doesn't allow federal dollars to be used for abortions, the people of Southside Virginia can look the worm in the eye and say:

Bullshit. 

"Page 114 Line 22."

At no time in world history has an electorate been so well informed.  And because we know what the issues are, and we know what's going on in that tower of babble we call Congress, and because we and our children and our children's children have a monumental stake in the outcome of the machinations of those we send to Washington, we now choose to participate in our governance.  We have entered an era of participatory democracy like at no other time in the human experience.  They want to pass legislation?  They had better clear it with us first.


It drives the career politicians nuts.

To them we say: Tough.  Live with it.  Learn to accept it and join us.  Or don't.  We'll easily find your replacement.  There is an army of knowledgeable and engaged citizens out here who are willing to take your place.