Saturday, 03 November 2007


Ken Berwitz

They're like the flying Wallendas, that famous circus family.  Except what they do is whine.  They're the Whining Clintons, and they always are in the center ring.

Throughout Tuesday's Democratic debate, Hillary Clinton was shown up as a clumsy liar who tries to take both sides of major issues. In part she was shown up by her Democratic opponents, and in part she was shown up by the two moderators - former Jimmy Carter intern Brian Williams and former upstate New York Democratic operative Tim Russert.

Not a Republican in sight.  Only Democrats.

But the whining began virtually from the close of the debate:

-They asked unfair questions.  Waaaaaaahhhhhhhh

-They ganged up on me.  Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhh

-They're picking on me because I'm a woman. Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhh

-etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. 

Now, not content with whining on her own, the man she wants as her once and future co-President has chimed in. 

Take a look at this account, courtesy of the Associated Press:.

Clinton Presses for White House Papers

Nov 3, 4:30 AM (ET)


(AP) Former President Bill Clinton answers a question from a reporter upon arrival for a booksigning...
Full Image

REDMOND, Wash. (AP) - Former President Clinton said Friday that a letter he wrote to the National Archives was to expedite release of his papers, not slow the process or hide anything as rivals are suggesting in criticism of his wife.

Hillary Rodham Clinton was quizzed during this week's Democratic presidential debate as to why correspondence between her and her husband from their White House years remained bottled up at the National Archives. Barack Obama said that was a problem for her as a candidate after "we have just gone through one of the most secretive administrations in our history."

One issue is whether Bill Clinton had sent a letter to the Archives asking that the communications not be released until 2012, and whether Hillary Clinton would lift any ban, a question raised by debate moderator Tim Russert.

"She was incidental to the letter, it was done five years ago, it was a letter to speed up presidential releases, not to slow them down," the former president told reporters Friday. "And she didn't even, didn't know what he was talking about. And now that I've described to you what the letter said, you can readily understand why she didn't know what he was talking about."

Russert's question "was breathtakingly misleading," Bill Clinton said.

In response, Barbara L. Levin, spokeswoman for NBC, said: "Tim's question was entirely on the mark."

Clinton said that under the presidential documents law, he is not required to release any material until 2012.

"Unlike previous presidents, I have already released one million pages of documents, about half of which affect Hillary - the records of the health care task force," Clinton said.

The Republican National Committee said that Clinton's remarks referred not to the records of the health care task force but to records of a separate panel working on the issue, White House Health Care Interdepartmental Working Group.

Clinton spoke to reporters after delivering remarks to Microsoft Corp. (MSFT) employees about corporate giving in connection with his book, "Giving."  .

Every time I think of the possibility that there could be eight more years of this I want to run, not walk, to the bathroom, duck towards the bowl and launch my lunch.

Classic Bill Clinton. 

-When I asked, in writing, that documents not be made available until 2012, I wasn't preventing them from being seen, it was speeding things up. (Orwell is smiling in his grave); 

-Look at all the documents I DID release already, count them up.  (Never mind that the vast majority of documents are boring and procedural and by withholding a tiny percentage you will make sure people don't know what you don't want them to know.  That doesn't count, you see.); 

-Look at all the documents we did release on Hillary's health care talk force. (You mean the task force that was fined $290,000 for acting illegally?  How many of the documents which detail what Hillary did illegally have been released?)

-Oh, and, by the way, Tim Russert's question was "breathtakingly misleading".   Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

This is the Clinton formula.  It has worked before.  Will it work again? 

Whoops, excuse me, back to the bathroom.  Quick.

Steve Schneider It will work again. Steve (11/03/07)


Ken Berwitz

So I'm reading as I regularly do, and I come across an article by someone named Paul Ibrahim who writes for something called the Keizer Times. 

Mr. Ibraham's article aggressively argues against a Rudy Giuliani candidacy on the grounds that Giuliani is a highly distasteful liberal who is against Republican/conservative beliefs and wouldn't be able to beat Hillary Clinton anyway.

I consider this to be mindless drivel.  But that is not why I'm posting the link to his article, which you can read at  

The reason I am posting it is so you can see the comments made by readers.  Virtually all of them appear to agree with Ibrahim and virtually all of them are against Rudy Giuliani.  Many commenters appear to really dispise Mr. Giuliani.

I have shown you many comments from the LAMBs (Lunatic-left And Mega-moonbat Brigade) on the left, and how vicious, profane and generally nutty they are.  Here are their counterparts on the right.

Please read the comments and see if they are in any way comparable to what is pumped out by the left wing nutcakes of, say,, etc.

I think you'll see a vast difference.  But don't take my word for it.  Check for yourself.

Again, the link to Paul Ibraham's article and the comments about it is


Ken Berwitz

This little essay about a smile has been around for a long time.  No one knows who wrote it.  But it is so sweet and uplifting that I have been meaning to put it in a blog.  And today's the day.

A Smile

A smile costs nothing but gives much. 

It enriches those who receive without making poorer those who give. 

It takes but a moment, but the memory of it sometimes lasts forever. 

None is so rich or mighty that he cannot get along without it and none is so poor that he cannot be made rich by it. 

 Yet a smile cannot be bought, begged, borrowed, or stolen, for it is something that is of no value to anyone until it is given away. 

Some people are too tired to give you a smile.  Give them one of yours, as none needs a smile so much as he who has no more to give. 

Author Unknown


Ken Berwitz

This latest story of LAMBs in academia comes to us courtesy of the Bangor (Maine) News:.

Flag-burning 'lesson' provokes UM student

By Toni-Lynn Robbins

ORONO, Maine - A University of Maine student alleges her former professor offered extra credit to class members if they burned the American flag or the U.S. Constitution or were arrested defending free speech.

On the first day of class, associate professor Paul Grosswiler offered the credit to members of his History of Mass Communications class, according to sophomore Rebekah McDade. Disturbed by the comment, McDade dropped the class and intends to take the course again next semester with a different professor.

"I was offended," McDade said Friday. "I come from a family of military men and women, and the flag and Constitution are really important symbols to me because of my family background."

In an e-mail responding to a request for comment from the Bangor Daily News on Friday, Grosswiler said he thought McDade misunderstood the class discussion, which was intended to elicit thought about the First Amendment. He said he has held this same discussion for years without incident.

"I dont intend for students to burn either the Constitution or the flag, and over the years hundreds of students have understood that," Grosswiler wrote.

The incident was made public recently when The Leadership Institute, a Virginia-based nonprofit organization, distributed a press release detailing the classroom discussion.

The Leadership Institute was founded in 1979 by Morton Blackwell and has a mission to identify, recruit, train and place conservatives in politics, government and the media, according to the organizations Web site.

A field representative for the institute met McDade on Oct. 1 at UM, when she shared her experience and expressed an interest in spearheading a group "Students for Academic Freedom," Blackwell said Friday.

The groups initial goal would be to convince UM to enact a "Student Bill of Rights," as other colleges have, which would protect students from professors who treat and grade students differently based on religious or political beliefs, McDade said. The institute has assisted McDade in the startup process, she said.

"When we heard the story, we said Hey, this is probably worthwhile our doing a news release," Blackwell said. "When you expose leftist abuses, it invigorates conservatives. I am sure that the administration, like most administrations we deal with, is not happy when leftist abuses come to life. They far prefer to have students under their thumb and indoctrinated."

McDade said Friday she was a little uncomfortable with the publicity and that it might have gotten out of hand. She said her intent was not to put the focus on Grosswiler, but to give students an opportunity to voice their concerns.

A journalism and political science double major, McDade said the first class of her fall semester at UM began with the typical syllabus introduction and class overview. Despite repeated "liberal" comments made by Grosswiler, McDade said, she was not uncomfortable in the classroom until the flag burning comment.

"Everyone is entitled to their own political beliefs, and more power to you if you are passionate about it," McDade said.

When Grosswiler listed the extra-credit opportunities, McDade said the class of approximately 50 students grew very quiet, and some questioned whether he was serious.

At first, student Kathleen Dame said she thought Grosswiler was joking, but then he went on to explain to the class that burning the flag was not illegal. While Grosswiler approached the topic in a serious manner, Dame said she felt he used it as a tool to educate the class on the First Amendment.

"It was pretty outlandish and [he was] trying to prove a point," Dame said Friday.

While McDade said she would not be surprised if students followed through with the flag burning, Dame disagreed.

UM spokesman Joe Carr said Friday that Grosswilers classroom comments were not intended to be taken literally and that extra credit would not be granted for carrying out such activities.

A second person in the class did submit a complaint about the lecture, but Carr did not know in what form it was filed.

When asked whether the university would pursue disciplinary action, Carr replied, "No."

He said Grosswiler has worked at the University of Maine since 1991, is one of the more veteran professors in the department of communication and journalism, and is a "well-respected member of the faculty."

In his e-mail Friday, Grosswiler, who is a former BDN employee, explained that he refers to provocative examples, such as flag burning, to demonstrate the courage necessary to support free expression.

"If they dont tolerate thought that they hate, they dont believe in the First Amendment," he wrote.

"I applaud the students exercise of free expression. If she had stayed in the class, I would have given her extra credit for publicizing her opinions." .

To review some of the high (low?) points:

-The University is clearly scared that this resident genius was outed.  Enough so that they have a spokesperson fronting for him, telling us that it was all a misunderstanding and there wasn't any extra credit for burning the flag and/or the constitution, etc. 

What was that Shakespeare line that "the lady doth protest too much"?  This has all the believability of michael moore going on Oprah to talk about his bout with anorexia;

-Professor grosswiler had two complaints filed against him, not one as the headline suggests.  You have to read most of the way through to know that, which many people don't do.  Since grosswiler used to work for the newspaper which filed the above report, maybe they're in the protection racket on his behalf like the University is.  Hey, you never know when a favor might need to be returned;

-grosshiler tells us this is just a misunderstanding, just like the university's PR flak claims.  Yep, that's credible all right. 

So tell me;  do you see any instance in which he suggested a right wing expression of  "free speech" that would fit the same after-the-fact rationale he's trying to get you to believe?  Did he, for example, suggest starting an "I love Coulter" club, or marching on behalf of unborn babies? 

If you want to believe this is just generic support of free speech, those activities, or other activities of a similar vintage, would be just as welcome for exactly the same reason.  So where were they?

This, folks is fraud.  Obvious fraud.  And the University of Maine is participating in it. 

If you have college age children, you might remember this, so you'll check the Universities that your children want to go to and know what your tuition might be paying for. 



YOO HOO, LISA.........

Ken Berwitz

Three days ago I wrote a blog about senate malaise leader harry reid's latest idiocy - that the California wildfires were due to global warming. 

I cited an article on the subject written by Lisa Mascaro of the Las Vegas Sun who, based on her office and cell phone number, appears to be based in Washington D.C. 

One sentence in her article really stuck with me:  .  "Reid has become notorious for making occasional off-the-cuff remarks that land him in trouble, even if some seem prescient down the road." .  To tell you the truth, I thought and thought and couldn't come up with even one example of an off the cuff comment like that from reid which ever seemed prescient afterwards. 

So I called Ms. Mascara, got her on the phone, and tried to ask if she could supply a couple of examples which I would then post at this blog.  Ms. Mascara told me she was on deadline, did not have the time to talk, and could I call back tomorrow.  I of course agreed.

Well, for the next two days I tried getting Ms. Mascara, both at her office and on her cell phone (she provided the cell phone number).  I left several messages assuring her that all I wanted was a couple of examples (i.e. this would be a very short call) and could she get back to me with them.  Keep in  mind that she asked me to make the callback.

It is now almost three days since our abbreviated conversation, yet I have not heard from Ms. Mascaro.  (Keep in mind that she asked me to call her back).

Maybe this is because that line was made up, she has no examples to provide, and is therefore giving me the brushoff to avoid admitting so.  Maybe it isn't. 

But, to be entirely honest, in the absence of a callback it is the first reason that I would think of. 

If I do hear from her I'll let you know. 


Ken Berwitz

This is why I sometimes call him Joe Lieden

He lies.  Or, to be very, very charitable, he is such a shoot-from-the-hip bigmouthed jerk that untrue things come out before he thinks enough to not say them.

The latest example?  He lied about President Bush to a group of schoolchildren.  Nice.  

Here it is, courtesy of


Biden's Revisionist History Lesson

The Associated Press recounts Joe Biden's encounter with a group of fourth-graders in New Hampshire, under the headline "Biden's History Lesson to Fourth-Graders." Someone asked Biden, "How did the war in Iraq start?" Here is Biden's answer:

Osama bin Laden set up camps there, and he was getting a lot of help from folks running that country called Afghanistan. And that's where he planned an attack on America to bring the World Trade Towers down and kill all those innocent Americans. We had a right to, and we should've gone, to Afghanistan to try to get bin Laden and those people who've done very bad things to America," he said.

"But the president, I think, he got a little confused," he continued. "I think he thought the folks in another country, way, way far away, far from here, it's also far from Afghanistan, called Iraq. He said, 'The guy in Iraq he helped bin Laden do bad things to us,' and he didn't. He wasn't a good guy, but he didn't help. So we used that kind of as an excuse to attack Iraq."

Actually, President Bush has never said that Saddam's Iraq had anything to do with the September 11 attacks. One would think that Biden must know this, even if the AP reporter doesn't. So one wonders: after four years, have the Democrats started to believe their own propaganda, or is Joe Biden really willing to lie to a group of schoolchildren? .

What President Bush did say was that "there is no evidence" that saddam was involved in 9/11.  He did NOT accuse him of direct involvement.  You can look through his statements until your eyeballs fall out of their sockets and not find him saying any such thing.

You can, however, find countless articles and attacks which CLAIM he did.  Never, ever with a quote reference to prove it.  This is the classic "big lie" technique.  Say it often enough and it becomes a fact.

Maybe to Joe Biden it is a fact.  Lies seem to be facts to him.

Buy Our Book Here!

Return to Current Blog
We're Hopelessly Partisan, 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!!