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

Sunday, May 22, 2011

It's Hard To Be a Republican

Everyone, right down to Rush Limbaugh, has been harshly critical of the national Republican Party of late for its being - or seeming to be - lost in the wilderness.  Adrift.  Without a clear message.  And they may be justified in their criticism.

But if Republicans lack a driving narrative, it could be because the electorate doesn't really have a good, hard stance on the issues of the day either.  Or, to put it another way, the people of the United States of America want their cake and eat it too.  Federal debt?  Fix it.  Taxes?  Lower them.  Defense?  Defend it!  Medicare and Social Security?  Hands off!

Uhhhhh.  What do you do with that?

Well, you do what Obama and his Democrats do.  You ignore all America's problems and attack Big Oil and Big Banks. (And you continue to attack a TV talk show host, Sarah Palin, and a radio talk jock, Rush Limbaugh; the searing issues of the day, don't ya know?) And you let Social Security and Medicare go headlong toward that cliff.  And you ignore defense spending (they have powerful contractor constituencies/donors too, make no mistake).  And you give lip service to the crushing federal deficit.  Unemployment?  Hey, let's talk about opening the immigration flood gates for our Latino brothers and sisters who will be flocking here by the millions to take jobs ... that don't exist.  It's the .. humane ... thing to do!

At least give the Democrats some credit.  They know what they hope to achieve with that smoke-and-mirrors and they are totally focused on achieving their goal.  That being reelection.

And the GOPers?  Pity them.  The poor bastards actually hope to solve America's oppressing problems.  Those that the American people demand be fixed.  As long as the solution doesn't have any adverse effect on their plans to vacation in Cancun.  Or mess with their Social Security.  Or reduce their free access to Medicare.  Or raise their taxes.  And why aren't we doing more for those pitiful polar bears in Alaska?  And the AIDS afflicted in Africa?  And our poverty-stricken schools ...

So the Republican Party isn't addressing "the issues."

BOO freaking HOO.

As in HOO could blame them?

How To Explain This?

Virginians have become appreciably more liberal on social issues over the last four years?  If a Washington Post poll, as portrayed by David Boaz with the Cato Institute, is a solid reflection of our attitudes, it sure seems so (click on the image to enlarge it):

Mr. Boaz:
Thanks to the generosity of Post polling director Jon Cohen, I can report that the percentage of Virginians who said they were socially liberal or moderate and fiscally conservative went from 16 in 2007 to 23 in the latest poll. This reflects a small increase in the number of social liberals and a larger increase in the number of fiscal conservatives. 
The Washington Post poll results - and analysis - can be found here.

I have a few comments (call them guesses):

1) The 2007 poll was taken just weeks after Virginians voted overwhelmingly against homosexual marriage.  The Post poll suggested that 31% of us were - to one degree or another - liberal, while 37% of us were conservative.  This despite the fact that 57% of the voters who turned out in November, 2006 voted conservative on this very "social" issue57%.  So be a bit suspect.

2) One wants to attribute the rise in social liberalism here in the Commonwealth to the growth in the D.C. suburbs, where government jobs have mushroomed in recent years and private-sector jobs have plateaued.  But that flies in the face of the flip side of the poll.  Considerably more Virginians are fiscally conservative now than four years ago.  How to explain that?

3) Much has been written - whether accurate or not is anybody's guess - about the decline of the evangelical movement in politics in recent years.  Could this be another reflection of that?  Maybe.  For that we need to consult an expert over at Liberty University (the powerhouse that Jerry Falwell built) (which thrives, by the way).  The "religious right" seems to have lost its sway since the days when - not long ago - a Pat Robertson or, more recently, a Mike Huckabee could draw legions to their cause.

4) "Social issues" go well beyond the issue of gay marriage.  On another subject that falls within this category - the legalization of pot - I'd be considered liberal.  And brutha, nobody ever considered me liberal.  (In fact I fall under the heading of libertarian on the issue, being accepting of getting government out of our smoking habits altogether.)

5) With social issues off the table in 2012 (unless Obama does something stupid like force gay marriage on the country by presidential decree) this bodes favorably for Senate candidate - and staunch conservative - George Allen.  His opponent, Tim Kaine, is best known in this start for his efforts - his repeated efforts - to raise our taxes.  An increasingly conservative electorate will not look kindly on that effort as 2012 rolls around.

(A memo to Kaine's handlers: get the gay marriage amendment and "gays in the military" back on the radar.  If you believe in the accuracy of this poll, that is.)

(A memo to George Allen: When Kaine's handlers try to resurrect these "social issues," laugh, and remind them that it was they who routinely criticize conservatives for "dwelling on ... social issues.")

* Graphic (modified in a small way by me) courtesy of the Cato Institute.

Never Again

It may be only tangential to Obama's latest effort to abandon Israel to its fate, but it's worth noting just the same: What the Jew-haters in the Middle East have in store for those who simply wish to be left alone has been tried before.  With remarkable success.

See "A Film Unfinished."

And understand what the Israelis are up against.

Not that Obama will ever be able to grasp its meaning or its context:  לעולם לא עוד

They Don't Believe In God ...

... but ask any astronomer if he has faith in this bit of wild, unproven, unprovable speculation ...

... and the answer is a firm YES.



Maybe when they figure out what they're doing, they can let the rest of us know:

Our goal in killing Libyans, according to this "resolution"?

To be there for NATO.

And what's NATO's goal in this "war"?

Even they don't know.

For the love of God.

Well, Not All Entertainers Are Morons

Rocker and "reality TV" star Gene Simmons has been out there in the world.  And when asked what he thought of Obama's plan for Israel to give land back to the Arabs - because the Arabs so deserve it to be returned - had this reply:
President Obama, I voted for an idea. What I didn’t realize what I was getting was an idealist. If you’ve never been to the moon, you can’t issue policy about the moon. You have no f—king idea what it’s like on the moon. For a president to be sitting in Washington, D.C., and saying, “Go back to your '67 borders in Israel,” how about you live there and try to defend an indefensible border nine miles wide? On one side you’ve got hundreds of millions of people who hate your guts, on the other side you’ve got the Mediterranean. Unless you control, in Israel, unless you control those Golan Heights, it’s an indefensible position.

It’s a nice idea, when you grow up you find out that life isn’t the way you imagined it, and President Obama means well. I think he’s actually a good guy. He has no f—king idea what the world is like because he doesn’t have to live there. [source]
A good point.  Obama is an academic.  And he approaches the worlds problems with that perspective alone.  His solutions therefore are detached, deluded, and dumb.  He hasn't a clue.  And it shows.

Here's to Gene Simmons for speaking out.