The Free Lance-Black Hole strikes again!

Remember the name Richard Amrhine.  His column in the Free Lance-Black Hole is a museum piece of lefty elitism – the pure, distilled, undiluted version.  The entire column, in fact, reminds me of a famous phrase for those of us who got sucked into the Babylon 5 craze (Londo Molari, In the Beginning):

Arrogance and stupidity, all in the same package. How efficient of you.

To give you an idea of what I mean, let’s dive into the column.  The first two paragraphs are full of the usual lefty rant against campaign promises – honesty never being much of a value on the left:

CANDIDATES love to accuse one another of breaking past campaign promises. They do that because it raises questions of credibility and overall honesty. The accusing candidate is convinced that pointing out such contradictory behavior gives voters doubts about his opponent while providing traction to his own campaign.

Smart voters know, however, that campaign “promises” are no such thing. They represent a wish list and should be characterized as goals. Because they want to sound authoritative, candidates will sound as though they are promising this or that. Voters need to understand that circumstances change, and that such pledges hinge on a legislature going along with an idea and funding it if necessary.

In other words, voters should simply accept that candidates don’t say what they mean, or don’t have the fortitude to follow through on their promises.  Never mind that this practically eliminates any way for voters to inform themselves about the candidates, or hold those they elect accountable.  Of course, for the elite left, it’s all about getting politicians to listen to them – which they know requires hoodwinking the majority of Americans.

Amrhine then goes on to get recent Virginia history wrong, in particular Mark Warner’s record:

. . . Warner inherited a budget very much out of balance, a problem the depth of which Gilmore hid well. The only way Warner could provide a constitutionally mandated balanced budget without dismantling necessary state services was to raise taxes.

Good thing Warner hadn’t painted himself into a corner by signing one of those absurd no-tax pledges that Republicans favor.

This is flat-out, 100% false.  Mark Warner did much more than merely prevent the “dismantling necessary state services.”  He dramatically expanded Medicaid and busted the budget in the process.  Moreover, Warner actually did dismantle a state service – transportation.  He gutted the transportation budget in 2002 and then demanded northern Virginia and Hampton Roads raise taxes to restore the roads budget.  Of course, Amrhine may have still been in the Fredericksburg area back then, and likely didn’t notice, but ignorance of the facts never really slowed lefties down.

Amrhine then decides to opine about the Presidential race, with the usual lefty nonsense (“I wouldn’t say the coverage is biased”) along with some ridiculously ignorant commentary:

But the quantity of coverage suggests to even casual observers that McCain risks becoming the forgotten candidate.

It’s partly because, for example, while Obama is responding to the adoration of 200,000 in Berlin, McCain is reminding us to wash our vegetables before eating them. Which one would you think deserves better play?

Gee, I don’t know, Richard.  How about the candidate who took the lead on the Georgia crisis and the offshore drilling issue?  Perhaps Amrhine might have noticed McCain while he was swooning over Obama’s Berlin speech.

Finally, perhaps having noticed his drivel wouldn’t get anywhere, Amrhine resorts to the race card:

The polls show Obama and McCain surprisingly–to me–close. That can be only because more Americans than I care to think reject Obama because of his name, color, and diverse background. These are people who, if his words were coming from a white face, might actually agree with what he says.

Is that so, Richard?  Are you saying no Americans could possibly come to the conclusion that Obama is just too inexperienced and to suffused with moral relativism?  Should no one be upset by his refusal to support a bill to protect babies born alive?  Can no voter decide that its better to support the candidate who actually voted against the President’s Big-Corn fiasco?

I can assure you, Richard, that I wouldn’t agree with Barack Obama no matter what color he was, and for you to insinuate otherwise is an insult to me and every single John McCain supporter in America.

Then again, considering how little Amrhine actually knows about this campaign, I can’t be surprised.  Come to think of it, the Free Lance-Black Hole is perfect for him.

Cross-posted to Rappahannock Red