Friday, 19 October 2007

LINKAGE

Ken Berwitz

FYI - Based on various avenues of advice and input I have done some surgery on the ten right wing links this blog provides.

Gone are Anklebitingpundits, Instapundit and Neal Boortz.  Added are National Review, Newsbusters and Power Line.

There is nothing wrong with the three I removed, it's just that, all things considered, these three are better.

 

Ken


TED KENNEDY'S ENVIRONMENTALISM

Ken Berwitz

Perhaps you know about this fight, because it has been going on for years. But perhaps you don't because it is too embarrassing to Ted Kennedy for much of the media to talk about it.

Anyway, here it is, from Reuters:.

Cape Cod Commission denies Cape Wind application

Fri Oct 19, 2007 11:34am EDT

NEW YORK (Reuters) - The Cape Cod Commission in Massachusetts Thursday denied Cape Wind's application to bury electric cables needed to connect its proposed 420-megawatt offshore wind farm in the Nantucket Sound to the state power grid.

Cape Wind said in a release that it would challenge the Commission decision. The Cape Cod Commission is a local organization created by the state in 1990 to manage growth and protect Cape Cod's natural resources.

Sen. Ted Kennedy and many residents who own coastal property from where they could see the wind turbines on a clear day oppose the project along with some environmental groups concerned about disrupting the patterns of migratory birds and the potential effect on local sea life.

The project's supporters, who include other environmental groups, meanwhile claim it would provide renewable energy, improve air quality, lower electricity costs and increase the reliability of the power grid.

Although the wind farm would be located in federal waters, the transmission lines connecting the project to the grid crosses land controlled by state and local authorities.

The Commission said it did not have enough information to make a decision. Local papers said Cape Wind could offer to provide more information to the Commission or appeal to the state to override the local authorities, or both.

"The Commission's denial based, not on the merits but, on claims that Cape Wind provided insufficient information does not square with the record," Jim Gordon, president of Cape Wind, said in a release. .

Well, you can't say Kennedy is not into preservation. He has managed to preserve his view of the water at the cost of environmentally safe, clean, renewable energy for everyone else.  I'm sure his similarly mega-rich neighbors are all toasting him tonight with the finest champagne.

Oh, yeah, he managed to get a few environmental groups (a minority, thank god - most didn't cave in) to barf out something about migratory birds.  If you believe that, look for the toothie fairy among those birds.

Kennedy has spent a lifetime living like a king off of money someone else made.  That, and lecturing us on how we should behave as he gluttonizes his life away on mansions, private jets and myriad other affectations of wealth and privilege people like you and me will never get a sniff of.

This is his latest hypocrisy.  How do you like it?


MORE ON RANDI RHODES (AND, I HOPE THE LAST WE HEAR ABOUT IT)

Ken Berwitz

No one is covering the randi rhodes circus anywhere near as well as Brian Maloney, of www.radioequalizer.blogspot.com.

Here is his latest blog on the subject:.

Randi Rhodes Speaks About Non-Mugging, Raises New Questions

A DEEPER HOLE

Randi's Inconsistent Explanation Defies Credibility

Now that Air America Radio host Randi Rhodes has returned to the airwaves, at least one mystery has been solved: we know why her lawyer was in charge of making press statements.

That's because as soon as Randi opened her mouth on yesterday's show, new questions instantly began to emerge.

In this exclusive, Radio Equalizer- created video, listen as
Randi digs a deep, deep hole for herself:

Blaming everyone but herself for the events that transpired, with special venom reserved for the press, Rhodes only deepened the confusion surrounding her accident. Here are questions we'd like answered:


Why did she send an email to Air America staffers claiming to have been mugged if there was no indication one had occurred?


Why has host Jon Elliot been forced to apologize for simply relaying Randi's note to network listeners? Is he the fall guy for her dishonesty?


Since there was never any evidence to support an attack claim, why did she even suggest this possibility in a way she knew would reach the press?


Why won't she tell us how much she'd had to drink before she'd stepped out of the Irish pub?


And perhaps most importantly, why doesn't it bother her that the phony mugging story was quickly turned into a chance to beat up on conservatives, who were actually blamed for the incident?


Sadly, the explanation of events given during a seven-minute opening segment yesterday simply doesn't hold water, especially her reason for initially telling others it was a mugging. Rhodes claims doctors told her she might have been attacked because they couldn't find any evidence she'd fainted.

Without a shred of real evidence to back that up, why make a statement like that? And if she did feel there had been an attack, then why not call the police at once?


Funny enough, in between complaining about the media presence outside her apartment building, Rhodes wonders aloud why her condition didn't generate more sympathy from others. Memo to Randi: try telling the truth next time, it will do wonders for what's left of your credibility. This is at best a weak attempt at cover- your- ass.
 
What a sorry spectacle.  The only saving grace is that so few people listen to air america, that this probably won't have much of an effect.
 
I'm sorry if Ms. Rhodes has drinking and/or drug problems.  I don't wish that on anyone and certainly would not do so because I disagree with someone's political views.  But that does not give her license to lie about a supposed mugging.  This is more than just political rhetoric, this affects other people and costs taxpayer money for police investigations. 
 
Maybe keith olbermann, who shares virtually all of Ms. Rhodes' views, can do a feature on this bait and switch circus.  Count on it happening about two days after hell freezes over.


THE IGNORANCE OF THE TODAY SHOW VIEWER

Ken Berwitz

I suppose the title of this blog comes across as an insult to people who view the Today show.  But I don't mean it that way.  I mean it as an insult - a very well earned and well deserved insult - to the Today show itself.

Let me explain.

Today is the most watched morning show on TV.  Millions and millions of people, mostly women I would think, put it on each morning.  And many people, probably millions, rely on Today for their news. 

This puts a special responsibility on the Today show.  If it provides the news fairly and accurately it makes Today viewers knowledgeable.  If it provides the news one-sidedly and inaccurately it makes Today viewers ignorant.

Simply stated, the Today show presents the news one-sidedly and inaccurately.  Very especially the political news.  Let me give you a couple of examples:

-Norman Hsu.  Norman Hsu is the convicted swindler and fugitive from justice who gave millions of dollars in dirty money to the Democratic party - at least some of it (probably a ton of it) by funneling donations illegally through third parties. 

Hillary Clinton appears to be the single biggest beneficiary of this dirty money.  It is estimated that about $850,000 was given to her by Hsu. 

When the Jack Abramoff scandal broke, and it turned out that about 2/3 of the dirty money he dispensed went to Republicans, Today couldn't stop reporting on it.  Weeks of major stories, features, panel discussions, etc.  Names named.  No mercy.

But when Hillary Clinton gets far more money than any individual got from Abramoff, and the source is someone who gave exclusively to Democrats?  Today gave it the "couple of days and out" treatment.  I doubt that many people who rely on Today for news even remember the name Norman Hsu, let alone what he did and how Hillary Clinton benefitted. 

-The law firm of Milberg Weiss.  Milberg Weiss is a law firm neck-deep in charges of fraud and bribery.  It also has contributed over $7,000,000.00. To Democrats.  That's right.  No typo.  SEVEN MILLION DOLLARS.  For their money, Milberg Weiss got favored-nation status from the Democratic party, particularly as relates to the class action suits they ran, the ones that made them so much money they could give truckloads of it to their Democratic benefactors.

According to the New York Times (which ain't exactly an enemy of the Democratic Party):.

Milberg Weiss reaped billions of dollars in legal fees over four decades as the acknowledged king of class action lawsuits, which accused executives of misleading investors with erroneous financial statements or some other fraud. According to the indictment, the New York-based firm ran a racketeering enterprise that collected a quarter billion dollars in 250 cases in which people were paid secret kickbacks for serving as plaintiffs. .

The Times continues.....

In addition to the kickback charges in the Milberg Weiss case, federal agents have investigated accusations that the firm funneled campaign contributions through plaintiffs and expert witnesses in the 1990s, said two lawyers familiar with the inquiry. The guilty plea entered by Mr. Lerach hinted at that, but it also specified that prosecutors would not pursue campaign finance violations, in exchange for Mr. Lerachs admission that he had conspired to obstruct justice by concealing the kickbacks.

Beyond campaign contributions, Milberg Weiss became deeply ingrained in the financial firmament of the Democratic Party in other ways. Members of the firm gave $500,000 toward construction of a new Democratic National Committee headquarters, and some became partners in a private investment venture with several prominent Democrats. They included former Senator Robert G. Torricelli of New Jersey, who is a fund-raiser for Mrs. Clinton, and Leonard Barrack, a Philadelphia trial lawyer who was once the national fund-raising chairman for the Democratic Party..

You can read the entire unbelievably scandalous story right here.  Just scroll back to yesterday's blogs, or link to http://www.hopelesslypartisan.com/item_1588.htm

Importantly, every major Democratic candidate has taken money, and plenty of it, from these paragons of virtue.  And if you're wondering how a couple of them are reacting to the scandal, here is one more snippet from the Times story:.

A spokesman for Mrs. Clinton said her presidential campaign did not intend to return the contribution from Mr. Weiss. A spokesman for the Obama campaign, whose Milberg Weiss contributions came from lawyers not directly involved in the kickback scandal, declined to comment. .

So tell me, do you think there is a story in here somewhere?  Do you think there is a very big story?  A huge story?  A story that could not possibly be buried by any media venue that provides news about the political campaigns?

Well, guess who has not done a word about this since the story broke in the Times (they've had two days to talk about it now)?

The Today show, that's who.

When people decide which candidate and/or which party they intend to vote for, I hope they make the most informed decision possible.

But the Today show is clearly insuring that its viewers make their decisions from the standpoint of ignorance.  As I have shown you, Today is doing what it can to make sure Democrats get as many votes as possible, and they are doing it by burying negative stories about Democrats.  Plain and simple.

I suppose I should expect this.  The news and commentary arms of NBC and its affiliated station MSNBC are comprised vastly of former Democrats who are supposed to provide neutral reportage.  Like Brian Williams (Jimmy Carter intern), Chris Matthews (Tip O'neill's chief of staff), Tim Russert (he and his father were Democratic operatives in Buffalo NY), and so on and so on and so on.

I'm just blogging here. I can't stop the Today show or a mammoth like NBC from manipulating its viewers.  But I can try to educate my readers that it is happening. 

And I hope I've done this....Today.


LIMBAUGH SMEAR LETTER UPDATE

Ken Berwitz

The bidding ends at 1:00PM Eastern Time today.  But as of right now?  The idiotic "condemnation" letter against Rush Limbaugh, signed by 41 Democratic senators and members in good standing of the DCC (Democratic Clown College), is bid at.........

$2,100,000 !!!!!! 

As you know by now, Mr. Limbaugh is going to match the total. 

This means over $4,000,000 will be generated for the fund which goes to education expenses for the families of fallen marines and law enforcement officers.

The DCC members who signed their idiotic condemnation have been asked to match this...maybe even toss in a sawbuck or two.  Not a peep out of them.

And the Today show, which we put on each morning?  They have not seen fit to report any of this.  People who count on Today for news don't have a clue that this is happening.

Media bias?  Naaaaaahhhhhhhh


WHAT HAPPENED TO THE COLUMBIA NOOSE STORY?

Ken Berwitz

Unless you read and view different major media than I do (and I read/view a lot of it), it has been a week since we have had any news about the noose that was hung on a Black professor's door at Columbia University Teacher's College.

The last we heard, Columbia U. had 56 hours of tape from 6 different cameras which covered the area around that door.  It stands to reason that those cameras would have seen how the noose got there.

But, without explanation, Columbia refused to hand over the tapes to police.  Then, some time later (you'll pardon my skepticism, but after enough time to edit those tapes) it finally did - again with no explanation of their initial refusal.

Now it is a week later. There is no doubt that the tape has been reviewed.  So police must have knowledge of how the noose got there -- assuming it is still on the tapes, that is.  But not a word from anyone.

This is starting to reek to the high heavens.

Where are our intrepid media on the apparent burying of this story, other than complicitly abetting the burial?

When it looked like a racial incident they couldn't stop reporting it.  Now that there is no doubt that the police either saw what happened or saw that what happened was spliced out?  No interest at all.

You can do the math on this one.  Right now it looks like 2+2.


THE LIMBAUGH SMEAR LETTER, FINAL BID

Ken Berwitz

It's all over. The bidding at E-bay has ended.

The smear letter which condemned Rush Limbaugh for saying something he did not say, and signed by all 41 members in good standing of the DCC (Democratic Clown College), has been sold in E-bay for......

$2,100,000!

And since Mr. Limbaugh is matching it dollar for dollar, the amount is:

$4,200,000

And now we add in all the pledges of all the DCC members combined and the grand total is....

$4,200,000

Whoops, that didn't change.  Why?  Because, between them, all 41 members of the Democratic Clown College did not match even one thin dime. 

I'm elated that the organization this money is being given to, which provides education to the families of fallen marines and law enforcement officers, can do so much now that it couldn't before the DCCs smear letter. 

Huge thanks' are in order for the bidder (I'm told her name is Betty Casey), Rush Limbaugh for his creativity in taking this idiotic letter and auctioning it off, and Rush Limbaugh again for his superseding philanthropy as he matches the bid and therefore doubles the contribution.

And the DCC?  I guess they felt their contribution ended with signing the smear letter.


INCREDIBLE: ANOTHER HILLARY CLINTON MONEY SCANDAL

Ken Berwitz

This has to be nearing critical mass.

Earlier this week the New York Times, one of hillary clinton's most stalwart protectors, did its second major expos on a money scandal that goes directly to her doorstep.  First Norman Hsu, then Milberg Weiss.

Today, the Los Angeles Times, an equally stalwart defender of Ms. clinton, has exposed another money scandal that goes straight to her. 

Here it is (its long but you should see everything).  As usual the bold print is mine:.

An unlikely treasure-trove of donors for Clinton

The candidate's unparalleled fundraising success relies largely on the least-affluent residents of New York's Chinatown -- some of whom can't be tracked down.

By Peter Nicholas and Tom Hamburger
Los Angeles Times Staff Writers

October 19, 2007

NEW YORK Something remarkable happened at 44 Henry St., a grimy Chinatown tenement with peeling walls. It also happened nearby at a dimly lighted apartment building with trash bins clustered by the front door.

And again not too far away, at 88 E. Broadway beneath the Manhattan bridge, where vendors chatter in Mandarin and Fujianese as they hawk rubber sandals and bargain-basement clothes.

All three locations, along with scores of others scattered throughout some of the poorest Chinese neighborhoods in Queens, Brooklyn and the Bronx, have been swept by an extraordinary impulse to shower money on one particular presidential candidate -- Democratic front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Dishwashers, waiters and others whose jobs and dilapidated home addresses seem to make them unpromising targets for political fundraisers are pouring $1,000 and $2,000 contributions into Clinton's campaign treasury. In April, a single fundraiser in an area long known for its gritty urban poverty yielded a whopping $380,000. When Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) ran for president in 2004, he received $24,000 from Chinatown.

At this point in the presidential campaign cycle, Clinton has raised more money than any candidate in history. Those dishwashers, waiters and street stall hawkers are part of the reason. And Clinton's success in gathering money from Chinatown's least-affluent residents stems from a two-pronged strategy: mutually beneficial alliances with powerful groups, and appeals to the hopes and dreams of people now consigned to the margins.

Clinton has enlisted the aid of Chinese neighborhood associations, especially those representing recent immigrants from Fujian province. The organizations, at least one of which is a descendant of Chinatown criminal enterprises that engaged in gambling and human trafficking, exert enormous influence over immigrants. The associations help them with everything from protection against crime to obtaining green cards.

Many of Clinton's Chinatown donors said they had contributed because leaders in neighborhood associations told them to. In some cases, donors said they felt pressure to give.

The other piece of the strategy involves holding out hope that, if Clinton becomes president, she will move quickly to reunite families and help illegal residents move toward citizenship. As New York's junior senator, Clinton has expressed support for immigrants and greater family reunification. She is also benefiting from Chinese donors' naive notions of what she could do in the White House.

Campaign concerns

As with other campaigns looking for dollars in unpromising places, the Clinton operation also has accepted what it later conceded were improper donations. At least one reported donor denies making a contribution. Another admitted to lacking the legal-resident status required for giving campaign money.

Clinton aides said they were concerned about some of the Chinatown contributions.

"We have hundreds of thousands of donors. We are proud to have support from across New York and the country from many different communities," campaign spokesman Howard Wolfson said. "In this instance, our own compliance process flagged a number of questionable donations and took the appropriate steps to be sure they were legally given. In cases where we couldn't confirm that, the money was returned."

The Times examined the cases of more than 150 donors who provided checks to Clinton after fundraising events geared to the Chinese community. One-third of those donors could not be found using property, telephone or business records. Most have not registered to vote, according to public records.

And several dozen were described in financial reports as holding jobs -- including dishwasher, server or chef -- that would normally make it difficult to donate amounts ranging from $500 to the legal maximum of $2,300 per election.

Of 74 residents of New York's Chinatown, Flushing, the Bronx or Brooklyn that The Times called or visited, only 24 could be reached for comment.

Many said they gave to Clinton because they were instructed to do so by local association leaders. Some said they wanted help on immigration concerns. And several spoke of the pride they felt by being associated with a powerful figure such as Clinton.

New take, old game

Beyond what it reveals about present-day campaign fundraising, Chinatown's newfound role in the 2008 election cycle marks another chapter in the centuries-old American saga of marginalized ethnic groups and newly arrived immigrants turning to politics to improve their lot.

In earlier times, New York politicians from William "Boss" Tweed to Fiorello LaGuardia gained power with the support of immigrants. So did politicians in Philadelphia, Cleveland, Chicago and other big cities.

Like many who traveled this path, most of the Chinese reported as contributing to Clinton's campaign have never voted. Many speak little or no English. Some seem to lead such ephemeral lives that neighbors say they've never heard of them.

"This is a new game," said Peter Kwong, a professor at Hunter College in New York who studies Chinatown communities across the country. Historically, Kwong said, "voting in Chinatown is so weak" that politicians did not go out of their way to court residents.

"Today it is all about money," he said.

The effort is especially pronounced among groups in the Fujianese community. More than a decade ago, Fujianese cultural associations ran gambling operations and, more ominously, at least one was home to a gang that trafficked in illegal Fujian native immigrants.

The human-smuggling problem came to a head in 1993, when a cargo ship, the Golden Venture, ran aground off New York City. As shocked police and immigration officials looked on, hundreds of Fujian natives who had spent weeks below deck struggled to make it to shore. Several died in the attempt.

A crackdown by the FBI's organized-crime task force led to the indictment of more than 20 Fujian native traffickers. Today, the problem has substantially dissipated, says Konrad Motyka of the FBI's New York field office, who participated in the investigation of the Golden Venture.

Although Motyka is wary of the havoc wreaked in the past by Fujianese organized crime, he said: "I welcome signs that the community is participating in politics."

High hopes

At his tiny restaurant in the south Bronx, which has one table and a takeout counter, Chang Jian Lin displays a prized memento: a photo of himself and Clinton. The picture was taken at a fundraising banquet in Chinatown this spring.

Lin and his wife, who also works in the restaurant, said through an interpreter that they believe Clinton, if elected president, will reunite their family. The Lins' two teenage children remain in Fujian, a mountainous coastal province in southeastern China opposite Taiwan.

"If she gets to be the president, we want our children to come home," Chang Jian Lin said.

Campaign officials point out that Clinton has sponsored legislation aimed at family reunification; the proposals failed. And immigration measures being discussed in Congress would assign a lower priority to family reunification, which tends to bring in poor people, and give preference to immigrants with more-lucrative job skills.

Moreover, the Lins appeared to have an exaggerated impression of a president's ability to change such things as immigration laws single-handedly.

Kwong thinks Clinton may be "exploiting the vulnerabilities of recent immigrants."

Nonetheless, Lin is planning to attend another Clinton fundraiser, a birthday bash next week. He said his support rested on more than his hope for reuniting his family. "Besides the immigration issue with my kids, the overall standard of living will improve for the Chinese people" living in the U.S., he said.

He has never before supported a U.S. politician and, not yet a citizen, he is barred from voting. But when Fujianese community leaders asked him to donate to Clinton, he said, he eagerly contributed $1,000. Immigrants who have permanent resident status can legally make campaign contributions.

Coming up with the money was hard, Lin acknowledged, adding: "The restaurant is really small."

Missing persons

The tenement at 44 Henry St. was listed in Clinton's campaign reports as the home of Shu Fang Li, who reportedly gave $1,000.

In a recent visit, a man, apparently drunk, was asleep near the entrance to the neighboring beauty parlor, the Nice Hair Salon.

A tenant living in the apartment listed as Li's address said through a translator that she had not heard of him, although she had lived there for the last 10 years.

A man named Liang Zheng was listed as having contributed $1,000. The address given was a large apartment building on East 194th Street in the Bronx, but no one by that name could be located there.

Census figures for 2000 show the median family income for the area was less than $21,000. About 45% of the population was living below the poverty line, more than double the city average.

In the busy heart of East Broadway, beneath the Manhattan Bridge, is a building that is listed as the home of Sang Cheung Lee, also reported to have given $1,000. Trash was piled in the dimly lighted entrance hall. Neighbors said they knew of no one with Lee's name there; they knocked on one another's doors in a futile effort to find him.

Salespeople at a store on Canal Street were similarly baffled when asked about Shih Kan Chang, listed as working there and having given $1,000. The store sells purses, jewelry and novelty Buddha statues. Employees said they had not heard of Chang.

Another listed donor, Yi Min Liu, said he did not make the $1,000 contribution in April that was reported in his name. He said he attended a banquet for Clinton but did not give her money.

Clinton "has done a lot for the Chinese community," he said.

One New York man who said he enthusiastically donated $2,500 to Clinton doesn't appear to be eligible to do so under federal election law. He said he came to the United States from China about two years ago and didn't have a green card.

Out of the periphery

A key figure helping to secure Asian support for Clinton is a woman named Chung Seto, who came to this country as a child from Canton province and has supported Bill and Hillary Clinton since the 1990s. She called Fujian natives' support for Hillary Clinton the beginning of civic engagement for an immigrant group that had long been on the periphery.

She said she stationed translators at the entrance of one event to try to screen out improper contributions.

Qun Wu, a 37-year-old waiter at a Chinese restaurant in Flushing, saw a reference to a Clinton fundraiser in a Chinese-language newspaper. He took a day off from work to go. Though he only makes $500 a week, he considers his $1,000 donation to be money well-spent. He got his picture taken with Clinton, hung it prominently in his house, then had color reprints made and sent to family in China.

"Every day I go home and see it," he said. "I see my picture with Hillary, and I feel encouraged. It's a great honor."

Many, on the other hand, said they gave for reasons having more to do with the Chinese community than with Clinton. He Duan Zheng, who gave $1,000, said of the Fujianese community: "They informed us to go, so I went.

"Everybody was making a donation, so I did too," he said. "Otherwise I would lose face."
.

Is it just me or does this come across as dishonest, even depraved?

The only way hillary clinton can possibly get away with this is if media run interference for her - something they have very willingly done for a long time.

But if the New York Times and Los Angeles Times are any harbinger of what is to come, Clinton's status as a protected species in the media may be coming to an end.

And if it does, what is left? 

Hillary Clinton, who wants to run the country and command our armed forces, has never successfully run anything in her adult life. 

-She became a partner, then a senior partner at a corrupt law firm (The Rose law firm in Little Rock) when her husband became state Attorrney General, then Governor

-Her husband put her in charge of Arkansas education and it stayed exactly where it was in the ratings...49th out of 50 states. 

-When her husband became president he put her in charge of health care and her committee's recommendations were so disastrous that every DEMOCRAT voted against them along with every Republican.  And a federal judge fined the committee $290,000 because of its ethics violations.

In other words, clinton's entire rsum is based on who her husband is, not who she is or what she has done..  And when she is put in charge of something she fails at it.  Miserably.

Simply stated, hillary clinton has no qualifications to be the president of the United States.  In the absence of any qualifications, her two greatest assets have been what her husband can procure for her, and that she has had protected species status from the media.  Now one of those assets - her protected species status - is clearly diminished and may soon be gone altogether.

A good many political pundits keep telling us it is inevitable that hillary clinton will be our next President.  Does this sound like it is inevitable to you?  Not to me it doesn't.


PELOSI & REID, WHERE ARE YOOOOOOOOOO

Ken Berwitz

This one is for the old-timers in the house.  The ones who remember Car 54, Where Are You, the classic TV comedy starring Joe E. Ross and Fred Gwynne.

Pardon my liberty with the lyrics.  But this is a political blog, isn't it?

 

There's a scandal: Norman Hsu,

And another: Milberg Weiss,

pete stark's loony hateful spew,

Well it wasn't very nice,

You're a legislative bust

With poll numbers in the dust........

Pelosi and Reid, where are, yoooooooooooooooooo


REIDEPLOYMENT: THE WORDS OF A CLOWN

Ken Berwitz

After senate malaise leader harry reid and the 40 other members of the DCC sent their idiotic smear letter, that was based on a lie, to Rush Limbaugh...

... and after they tried to get Mark May, the CEO of Limbaugh's syndicator Clear Channel, to publicly admonish Limbaugh (with no success at all)...

...and after Limbaugh made utter mincement of reid and the rest of the DCC by showing that the basis for their smear letter was false...

...and after Limbaugh put the letter up for auction at E-bay, promising to donate all proceeds to an educational fund for the families of fallen marines and law enforcement officers...

...and after Limbaugh pledged to match the winning bid...

...and after the letter sold for the unbelievable amount of $2,100,100, which means that, with Limbaugh's matching amount, over $4,000,000 will go to this eminently worthwhile cause...

...and after Limbaugh challenged reid and the rest of the DCC to match the bid...

...and after none of them offered a penny towards doing so....

Harry Reid goes to the floor of the senate and tells Limbaugh that...

"Never did we think that this letter would bring money of this nature. And, for the cause, Madam President, it is extremely good. Now, everyone knows that Rush Limbaugh and I don't agree on everything in life and maybe that is kind of an understatement. But without qualification, Mark May -- the owner of the network that has Rush Limbaugh -- and Rush Limbaugh should know that this letter that they're auctioning is going to be something that raises money for a worthwhile cause."

You read this stuff and you don't believe your eyes.  After all that happened, Harry Reid is TELLING Limbaugh and May that they are raising money and it's a worthwhile cause?  He's INFORMING them of this? 

What a guy.  Next thing you know he'll go on tour telling pregnant women they're having babies.  Maybe even telling men who don't shave that they will start to grow a beard.  My god, what would we do without a source of information like this?

If there is a more ridiculous clown in the senate than Harry Reid, I have not seen that person.  And please spare me the pleasure.


Buy Our Book Here!


Return to Current Blog
We're Hopelessly Partisan

hopelesslypartisan.com, is a web site which is dedicated to honest, blunt, debate on the issues of our time.


About Us



Privacy Notice: In conjunction with the ads on this site, third parties may be placing and reading cookies on your browser, or using web beacons to collect information.


At “Hopelessly Partisan” we discuss all issues, big and small. In here, nothing is sacred and nothing is out of bounds.

So settle back, preferably after laughing your way through a copy of “The Hopelessly Partisan Guide To American Politics”, and let the battle begin. In this blog, your opinion counts every bit as much as anyone else's, maybe even more.

And to show that my willingness to provide all sides of the issues is sincere, here are links to a variety of web sites, from the left, the middle (more or less) and the right. Read them and either smile in agreement or gnash your teeth in anger!!