Saturday, 17 November 2007

AN APOLOGY: I WAS WRONG ABOUT THE CNN DEBATE

Ken Berwitz

When I'm wrong, I'm wrong.  And I try to be a big enough man to admit being wrong when it happens.

With this in mind, I admit to being wrong about the CNN debate on Tuesday, when I said that two of the four "from the audience" questioners were hand picked.  It turns out that this was incorrect.

In actuality, all four were hand picked.  Not just two.  There wasn't an honest to goodness audience questioner in the bunch.

Here, from www.directorblue.blogspot.com are the facts.  As before, I urge you to click on every link and see the proof..

CNN plants questions to protect Hillary 

 Word on the street says that Hillary's campaign is extremely pleased with CNN's Wolf Blitzer for his softball questioning of Sen. Clinton during Thursday's Las Vegas debate. Blitzer "was outstanding, and did not gang up like Russert did in Philadelphia. He avoided personal attacks, remained professional and ran the best debate so far."

Who were the questioners upon whom Blitzer called?
According to CNN, they were "ordinary people, undecided voters. Like these folks:

Plant #1: LaShannon Spencer, whom Blitzer introduced as an "undecided voter", was tagged by Dan Riehl: in truth, she served as the political director of the Democratic Party of Arkansas.

Plant #2: Khalid Kahn, who expressed concern about profiling and the Patriot Act, asked "[m]y question is that -- our civil liberties have been taken away from us. What are you going to do to protect Americans from this kind of harassment?"
Classical Values notes that Mr. Kahn is the president of the Islamic Society of Nevada, who has hosted conferences like this one (with guest speakers like Muzzamil Siddiqi). In fact, Kahn in no stranger to CNN, appearing on a show called Keeping the Faith in Sin City.

Plant #3: Suzanne Jackson -- mother of a three-term Iraq war veteran -- is aso a well-known antiwar activist. She appeared in the Las Vegas Review Journal protesting -- with a poor monkey, no less -- outside of Harry Reid's office in May.

Plant #4: Maria Luisa -- the UNLV student who asked Hillary Clinton whether she preferred "diamonds or pearls" -- wrote that CNN forced her to ask the "frilly" question instead of a pre-approved query regarding the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste facility.

Update: Andy writes to point out the eerie similarities between Maria L. Parra-Sandoval and "Maria Luisa." Regarding Ms. Parra-Sandoval, the UNLV website states:

This spring she will serve as the political communications intern for Senator Harry Reid in Washington, D.C. Currently a junior at UNLV, Maria is... is an immigrant on a quest to become a United States citizen.

In other words, she's not even eligible to vote, unless the Democrats changed the rules when I wasn't looking.

* * *

Dan Riehl also notes that of 1,000 tickets given to UNLV, a measly one hundred made it to students.

I'm glad CNN randomly selected ordinary people like you and me. I wouldn't want anyone to think that Hillary was shielded from all of the tough, grueling questions that Tim Russert asked.
.
 
Let me again apologize to every reader.  I thought just the audience selection and a couple of the questioners were fraudulent?  It was far more than that. 
 
This "debate" was a complete fraud. In its entirety.  100%.  There wasn't a thing about it that was legitimate, right down to the fact that two members of the three-member analytical "panel" afterwards were Clinton operatives.
 
CNN likes to tell us it is "the most trusted name in Cable news".  The question is, trusted to do what?  Fix debates for Democrats in general and hillary clinton in particular?
 
When do the mainstream media start talking about this?  They better do it fast, or they will look just as inept and biased as they did when bloggers exposed the Dan Rather scandal days before they even knew it existed.
 
Or is it too late already/
 


THE CNN SETUP: WAS IT MORE THAN THE AUDIENCE AND THE QUESTIONS?

Ken Berwitz

You better be sittind down for this one.

It wasn't bad enough that CNN ran its Democratic "debate" with an obviously stacked audience, with pre-arranged scripted questions and with two of the three "political analysts discussing it afterwards straight from the Clinton camp (James Carville and David Gergen). 

Now, it turns out that, in at least one case that we know about so far, they stacked the people asking the questions too.

If that is hard for you to believe, then read this, from www.riehlworld.com.  Be sure to click on the links so that you'll see there is no doubt:.

Talk About Clinton Friendly

Also another update, Allah is on this topic, as well. Developing ... as they say.

Also this update from comments - was the pearls or diamonds questioner a former Reid Intern and, um, if I read the large UNLV link available at link above correctly, is an illegal immigrant? And is that equivalent to your average voter, which, it is increasingly apparent, there were few if any in attendance thanks to CNN.

Okay, forgive me if there are two LaShannon Spencers here. But ... from last night:

LaShannon Spencer, who was identified as a member of the First African Methodist Church, asked the question near the top of the 10 pm Eastern hour. She highlighted how health care and the Iraq war had, in her view, dominated the questions during past debates.

Would that be the same LaShannon Spencer who is, or at least was the political director of the Democrat Party of Arkansas? She certainly didn't sound too undecided back in 2003 - though I suppose she could be an undecided voter as billed by CNN.

Lashannon Spencer, political director for the Arkansas Democratic Party, commented on her favorite part of Clinton's book.

"How she describes actually meeting Bill ... I enjoyed how they were both willing to put their lives on hold so each one of them fulfilled their dreams," Spencer said.  .

I grant you that it is hard to believe CNN would be so incredibly biased and unprofessional.  Even for CNN, this is beyond the pale and then some.  But go to those links and check it out,  Things are as they are.

Now, how hard is it to believe that, so far, the only place you can find any news about what a complete and utter fraud the "debate" was, right down to the hand-picked questioners, is the blogosphere? 

Sadly, this is not hard to believe at all.

But listen to them squeal like stuck pigs if you call them biased.


THE CLINTON STYLE

Ken Berwitz

I wonder how many people remember that, during the Bill Clinton presidency, every one of his enemies somehow had major skeletons in his/her closet that somehow the Clintons knew about and somehow became public knowledge.

Remember the 900 or so FBI files on their real and potential political enemies?  "Oh, WE don't know how we got those, the stork must have delivered them..."  Remember the "nuts and sluts" defense against every woman who came forth and talked about Clinton either raping or molesting them?  (Parenthetically, do you also remember that almost every one was a DEMOCRAT who was WORKING for Clinton in some capacity?  They couldn't attack them as Republicans so they went after them personally).

During the Clinton presidency I often speculated on how many people didn't come forth with information about Bill and/or Hillary because they knew that every mistake they ever made in their lives would be exposed to the world. 

Well, here we go again.  Read this piece by Bob Novak and see that, for Bill and Hill, The Clinton Style is never out of style:.

Hillary vs. Obama
Agents of Sen. Hillary Clinton are spreading the word in Democratic circles that she has scandalous information about her principal opponent for the party's presidential nomination, Sen. Barack Obama, but has decided not to use it. The nature of the alleged scandal was not disclosed.

This word-of-mouth among Democrats makes Obama look vulnerable and Clinton look prudent. It comes during a dip for the front-running Clinton after she refused to take a stand on New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer's now discarded plan to give driver's licenses to illegal aliens.

Experienced Democratic political operatives believe Clinton wants to avoid a repetition of 2004, when attacks on each other by presidential candidates Howard Dean and Richard Gephardt were mutually destructive and facilitated John Kerry's nomination.
.
 
Translation:  They scoured everything they could find to dig up dirt on Obama.  And, like all mortal human beings, there was dirt on him to be found.  But they are not making it public - yet.  They are hoping that between Hillary's lead and the damage done by spreading it quietly among Democratic operatives, it will do him in.
 
But these are the Clintons.  Never forget that.  If Obama should surge and become a real threat to Queen Hillary, this information will be out there for you to see.  That's an ironclad guarantee.
 
Do you want four, maybe eight, more years of The Clinton Style?  Speaking for myself, I want it about as much as an advanced bowel virus.


REVERSING THE TIDAL WAVE OF ILLEGALS: A START

Ken Berwitz

Here's a riddle for you:  How do you stop the tidal wave of illegal aliens crossing our southern border and streaming into the country?

Here, courtesy of the Cincinnati Post, is a story that might provide an answer.  As usual, the bold print is mine:.

Contractor sentenced to 18 months
1 of 7 accused of hiring illegals

A contractor who admitted supplying illegal immigrant workers to the Northern Kentucky home building industry was sentenced Thursday to serve 18 months in federal prison.

After he was sentenced on the federal charges, Robert Pratt was immediately arrested by Boone County authorities on charges of fraud, saying he had underpaid unemployment taxes.

Pratt, who lives in Franklin, Tenn., was one of seven people sentenced Thursday in U.S. District Court in Covington for knowingly hiring illegal workers. The other six - all of whom worked with or for Pratt, several of whom are family members - drew sentences ranging from probation and house arrest to 12 months and a day in prison.

Pratt, called the ringleader and mastermind of the ring, received the stiffest sentence. Still, his penalty was cut in half from what it could have been, because he has cooperated with authorities who continue to investigate what companies knew about the illegal immigrants working for them.

U.S. District Judge David Bunning told Pratt during the hearing that his role in organizing, paying, housing and transporting the illegal workers to their jobs called for a substantial sentence. Pratt not only used his cultural connections to Mexican workers to take advantage of them - he is bilingual and of Mexican descent - but he used his own children to set up and run some of his companies, Bunning said.

Pratt also betrayed his fellow countrymen in the United States by using the illegal immigrants, a cheap source of labor that denies better paying jobs to those here legally and puts honest businesses at a competitive disadvantage, said Bunning.

"You were the brain trust behind the conspiracy," Bunning said.

In May 2006, agents from Immigration and Customs Enforcement raided several Fischer Homes building sites in Boone County, rounding up nearly 100 people. Most were illegal immigrants from Mexico or Central America, but at least a dozen were contractors who provided workers for construction of the homes.

Also arrested were four supervisors from Fischer Homes. A fifth supervisor was subsequently indicted, but the charges against all five were eventually dropped after the key witnesses against them fled the country.

Fischer has not been charged, and its officials deny they knew of any illegal immigrants working for it.

But the investigation is continuing. Fischer was conspicuously not mentioned during Thursday's three-hour hearing, and when Assistant U.S. Attorney Robert McBride spoke about Pratt's specific cooperation, he did so privately with the judge.

In the other cases, McBride spoke openly about the cooperation of the witnesses and defendants.

During his hearing, Pratt alluded to other, unnamed companies that were "fully aware" he was hiring and employing illegal immigrants.

He said he is far from the only person who hires illegal immigrants. They are in restaurants, farms and fields, and throughout the construction and other industries, he said. He maintained that rather than taking advantage of the workers, he was helping people who were looking for good, honest work.

"I never intended to get anyone in trouble," he said. "I never thought it was that big a deal ... when I was doing it."

Two of the others sentenced Thursday, Pratt's son, Howard Pratt, and his daughter, Jacqueline Pratt-Medina, were the owners of companies Pratt actually ran, McBride said.

The son and daughter shied away from running the companies - Pratt-Medina because she had little knowledge of the business and did mostly clerical work, and Howard Pratt because he avoided most work and had a poor work ethic, McBride said.

Howard Pratt was sentenced to 12 months and one day in prison. McBride said while he did little to run the company - his father eventually fired him - he was an American citizen who took advantage of those who were not. His cooperation in the investigation was minimal, McBride said.

His sister, on the other hand, received probation. While she also had a small role in running the company, she gave investigators information about how her father and brother flagrantly broke the law.

McBride attributed her cooperation to "her feelings of guilt ... and trying to make this right," he said..

So what do you think?  Do you think that if an employer or two goes to jail it will make other employers think twice about hiring illegals?

One can argue that this is heartless, since the people being hired are poor folk looking for work.  And you may be surprised to know that, certainly regarding the workers noted in this story, I agree.  These people ARE poor and ARE looking for work.  I sympathize with them for needing to seek it out as illegals, and I would lie to say that, in their shoes, I wouldn't do the same.

But here is the flip side:

-The reason they come here for work is that Mexico, a rich country with the means to provide for its citizens, does not do so.  By allowing millions to cross our borders and send money back to their homeland, we facilitate Mexico's disgraceful indifference to its own people.  By not doing so we force them to take care of their people or suffer the consequences. Maybe a little less loot in the pockets of Mexican officials and a little more for their most vulnerable citizens would help.

-They take jobs from legals.  I am so sick of the lie that "they do the work no one else would do for so little money" that I have a physical reaction when I hear it. 

Yes, they take jobs for lower pay than legals would accept -- because they will WORK for lower pay and usually without any benefits.  Their illegality is SETTING that wage scale. 

If illegals weren't here, the jobs would still have to be done.  But employers would have to hire legals and pay what the market dictates, not the crumbs they give to illegals.

-They are industrious hard working people just looking to support themselves and their families.  In a great many cases this is 100% true, that should be said up front.  But every illegal who is not here to work hard can come in too, and there are plenty of them as well. 

Is it politically incorrect to note that California and Arizona have become de facto arms of the Mexican health care system?  Do you live in one of those states, or in another state that has a large illegal population?  Then understand that YOU pay for THEM to use our health services - as well as countless other social services.  And Mexico gets another free pass on taking care of its citizens, as we discussed earlier.

Then we have drug dealers.  They can come in too, just like the hard working industrious illegals.  So can career criminals.  So can anyone else.  To characterize every illegal as hard working and industrious is fantasy.

-The ease of entering the USA illegally extends to everyone, not just Mexicans.  If a hard working Mexican laborer can cross the border, so can a hate-filled terrorist who wants to bomb the building you work in or the sports stadium you go to or the school your children attend.  Never ever forget this.

These reasons, among others, are why I so strongly support the punishment dished out to the exploiters who used cheap illegal labor at the expense of our own workers.  Good.  Let there be more sentences like this.  A lot more. 

Give the jobs to people who live here legally, and force Mexico to take care of its own people in the bargain.  That's like hitting for the daily double.


THE WASHINGTON POST WAKES UP (NY TIMES STILL SOUND ASLEEP)

Ken Berwitz

The Washington Post has never been a fan of hugo chavez, the paper has made it clear for some time that it is not.

But Thursday's editorial is notable for being the Post's bluntest, most realistic assessment of chavez' budding dictatorship to date. 

Here it is -- bold print is mine:.

Mr. Chavez's Coup

A constitutional 'reform' could complete Venezuela's transformation into a dictatorship.

Thursday, November 15, 2007; Page A24

TENS OF thousands of Venezuelan students marched to the Supreme Court in Caracas last week to protest the new "socialist" constitutional reform that President Hugo Chavez is preparing to impose on the country. On their return, students from the Central University of Venezuela were fired on by gunmen who roared onto the campus on motorcycles. Nine were hurt; university officials later identified the shooters as members of government-sponsored paramilitary groups. That's just one example of the ugly climate of intimidation Mr. Chavez is creating in advance of a Dec. 2 referendum that he expects will formally confirm him as de facto president for life and give him powers rivaling those of his mentor, Fidel Castro.

Mr. Chavez's apologists like to dismiss the Venezuelan forces opposing his deconstruction of democracy -- which include the Catholic Church, the private business community and labor unions as well as students -- as a corrupt elite. So it's worth noting what some of Mr. Chavez's long-standing allies are saying about his constitutional changes. The political party Podemos, whose members ran for parliament on a pro-Chavez platform, call it "a constitutional fraud." Mr. Chavez's recently retired defense minister, Gen. Ral Isaas Baduel, said it was an "undemocratic imposition" and that its approval would amount to "a coup."

In fact, Mr. Chavez's rewrite would complete his transformation into an autocrat. It would lengthen his presidential term from six to seven years and remove the current limit of two terms, allowing him to serve indefinitely. He would have broad powers to seize property, to dispose of Venezuela's foreign exchange reserves, to impose central government rule on local jurisdictions and to declare indefinite states of emergency under which due process and freedom of information would be suspended. As a populist sop, one provision would reduce the workday from eight to six hours; that benefit, the state's control over national television and the voting process, and the apparent intention of many Venezuelans to stay away from the polls are expected to deliver the necessary ratification.

The strength and courage of the resistance to Mr. Chavez is nevertheless growing. Despite the attacks by government goons, students have continued to march by the thousands. Bloggers have posted photos and videos of the government-sponsored violence. Opposition leaders have continued to speak out despite being labeled "traitors" by Mr. Chavez and harassed with death threats. Venezuela is on the verge of succumbing to a dictatorship that will isolate and retard the country, maybe for decades. It's encouraging that so many of its people aren't prepared to give up their freedom without a fight.  .

Thanks to a demonstrably fixed election, in which an 18% loss for chavez in the exit polls magically became an 18% victory, not only is he still in power, but he is emboldened enough to remove what little is left of Venezuela's once-democracy in favor of a castro-like dictatorship.

I commend the Washington Post for having the elementary dignity to see what is in front of their eyes.  As you are about to find out, however, not every newspaper does so.

This brings us straight to the New York Times.

There is no such condemnatory editorial in the Times today.  And don't bet on ever seeing one.

In fact, today, just two days after the Post editorialized so eloquently about what a despicable totalitarian chavez is on his way to being, the Times did a puff piece on him.  First page. 

If you think I'm kidding, that this couldn't possibly be true, I direct you to the following page 1 story in today's edition:.

Chvezs Vision Shares Wealth and Centers Power

Chvez campaign staff, via Reuters

President Hugo Chvez of Venezuela rallied support for a referendum on his constitutional overhaul in Maturn this week.

Published: November 17, 2007

CARACAS, Venezuela, Nov. 16 In two weeks, Venezuela seems likely to start an extraordinary experiment in centralized, oil-fueled socialism. By law, the workday would be cut to six hours. Street vendors, homemakers and maids would have state-mandated pensions. And President Hugo Chvez would have significantly enhanced powers and be eligible for re-election for the rest of his life.

David Rochkind for The New York Times

Supporters of President Hugo Chvez hand out flyers encouraging people to vote in favor of the referendum.

A sweeping revision of the Constitution, expected to be approved by referendum on Dec. 2, is both bolstering Mr. Chvezs popularity here among people who would benefit and stirring contempt from economists who declare it demagogy. Signaling new instability here, dissent is also emerging among his former lieutenants, one of whom says the president is carrying out a populist coup.

There is a perverse subversion of our existing Constitution under way, said Gen. Ral Isaas Baduel, a retired defense minister and former confidant of Mr. Chvez who broke with him in a stunning defection this month to the political opposition. This is not a reform, General Baduel said in an interview here this week. I categorize it as a coup dtat.

Chvez loyalists already control the National Assembly, the Supreme Court, almost every state government, the entire federal bureaucracy and newly nationalized companies in the telephone, electricity and oil industries. Soon they could control even more.

But this is an upheaval that would be carried out with the approval of the voters. While opinion polls in Venezuela are often tainted by partisanship, they suggest that the referendum could be Mr. Chvezs closest electoral test since his presidency began in 1999, but one he may well win.

We are witnessing a seizure and redirection of power through legitimate means, said Alberto Barrera Tyszka, co-author of a best-selling biography of Mr. Chvez. This is not a dictatorship but something more complex: the tyranny of popularity. .

Unbelievable.  The headline glowingly calls chavez a visionary, and is followed by a picture of him in front of an adoring crowd which, further down, is supplemented by a picture of smiling supporters handing out leaflets to eager takers.  You'd swear this hatefilled little pus pimple was the second coming.

Then the "journalist" gratuitously tosses in a few paragraphs indicating there are people against what chavez is doing, but quickly bring you back to the preferred point of view by claiming that voters will probably approve his steps toward dicatatorship.  There you go...the Venezuelan public wants what hugo is offering.

No need to mention how completely the opposition is being intimidated before this vote takes place.  In pinch sulzberger's little feifdom, it is hugo chavez happy-time. 

This, folks, is the difference between a newspaper and a propaganda organ.  The Washington Post, though far from perfect, is the former.  The New York Times is the latter.


JOHN HINDERAKER, ON DEMOCRATIC ATTEMPTS TO SURRENDER

Ken Berwitz

Here, courtesy of www.powerlineblog.com, is John Hinderaker's analysis of how Democrats are desperately trying to snatch defeat from the prospects of victory. 

Read it and see what you think.  For what it's worth, my take is that Hinderaker is dead on target.

.

"Democrats Unable to Bring Troops Home"

That's the risible headline that the Associated Press attaches to its account of the Democrats' so-far-unsuccessful effort to surrender to al Qaeda in Iraq.

If you think about it, it isn't easy to attempt to surrender, but fail. The best analogy I can think of is the first Gulf War, when groups of Saddam's soldiers were seen following unmanned drones with their hands in the air, in a futile effort to be taken prisoner. Little did we know then that just a few years later, a majority in Congress would try to surrender to al Qaeda at the very moment when our troops are crushing them. At least Saddam's soldiers had an excuse: they were losing.

The AP buys into the idea that the Dems are carrying out the will of the people by advocating defeatism:

Nearly a year after anti-war voters put them in power, congressional Democrats remain unable to pass legislation ordering troops home from Iraq. Frustrated by Republican roadblocks, Democrats now plan to sit on President Bush's $196 billion request for war spending until next yearpushing the Pentagon toward an accounting nightmare and deepening their conflict with the White House on the war.

I don't know who put the Dems into power--it certainly wasn't me--but the idea that everyone who cast a ballot for a Democrat was pro-surrender is ridiculous. From here on, though, the AP does better. If you actually read the article, the fecklessness of the Democrats comes through loud and clear:

Now, Democratic leaders say they won't send President Bush a war spending bill this year. They calculate the military has enough money to run through mid-February.

Responding to the congressional blockage, Defense Secretary Robert Gates on Friday signed a memo ordering the Army to begin planning for a series of expected cutbacks, including the layoffs of as many as 100,000 civilian employees and another 100,000 civilian contractors, starting as early as January, Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell said.

"The memo reflects the urgency of the situation we find ourselves inwe are in a real crisis," Morrell said, noting that layoff notices to some civilian employees would have to be sent as early as mid- December. He decried Congress' refusal thus far to provide the money needed to continue fighting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, accusing lawmakers of "holding hostage the well-being of our men and women in uniform, and our national security."

The delay will satisfy a Democratic support base that is fiercely anti-war. But it also will give Republicans and the White House ample time to hammer Democrats for leaving for the holidays without funding the troops.

I should certainly hope so. I'm sure that past Congresses have done something as disgraceful as the Dems' current attempt to bring about defeat by starving the military, but I can't, offhand, think when.

.


CNN'S ORCHESTRATED DEBATE

Ken Berwitz

It occurs to me that, however improbable it is, there might be someone with an IQ above 63 who still thinks the CNN "debate" was not entirely orchestrated on behalf othe candidates, mostly on behalf of Queen Hillary.  If so, this article from Mark Ambinder of the Atlantic Monthly should put such foolishness to rest for once and for all:.

"Diamonds v. Pearls" Student Blasts CNN (Updated With CNN Response)

16 Nov 2007 11:21 am

Maria Luisa, the UNLV student who asked Hillary Clinton whether she preferred "diamonds or pearls" at last night's debate wrote on her MySpace page this morning that CNN forced her to ask the frilly question instead of a pre-approved query about the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository.

"Every single question asked during the debate by the audience had to be approved by CNN," Luisa writes. "I was asked to submit questions including "lighthearted/fun" questions. I submitted more than five questions on issues important to me. I did a policy memo on Yucca Mountain a year ago and was the finalist for the Truman Scholarship. For sure, I thought I would get to ask the Yucca question that was APPROVED by CNN days in advance."

Now, Luisa is getting "swamped" with critical e-mails.

So what happened?

Writes Luisa:

"CNN ran out of time and used me to "close" the debate with the pearls/diamonds question. Seconds later this girl comes up to me and says, "you gave our school a bad reputation.' Well, I had to explain to her that every question from the audience was pre-planned and censored. That's what the media does. See, the media chose what they wanted, not what the people or audience really wanted. That's politics; that's reality. So, if you want to read about real issues important to America--and the whole world, I suggest you pick up a copy of the Economist or the New York Times or some other independent source. If you want me to explain to you how the media works, I am more than happy to do so. But do not judge me or my integrity based on that question."
Rivals to Clinton believe that the debate audience had a pro-Clinton tilt. UNLV was responsible for distributing most of the tickets.

In a separate post, Luisa provides the question she wanted to ask:

Yucca Mountain, NV is the proposed site for the country's nuclear waste repository. Despite scientific evidence that it is a vulnerable site, the federal government continues to push for the plan to move forward. The evidence relied on is unsound and the risks involved in transporting high-level radioactive waste across the country are high. What will you [Sen. Clinton] do to ensure that the best site/s is/are chosen for the storage of spent nuclear reactor fuel?

Sam Feist, the executive producer of the debate, said that the student was asked to choose another question because the candidates had already spent about ten minutes discussing Yucca Mountain.

"When her Yucca mountain question was asked, she was given the opportunity to ask another question, and my understanding is that the [diamond v. pearls] questions was her other question," Feist said. "She probably was disappointed, but we spent a lot of time with a bunch of different candidates on Yucca Mountain, and we were at the end of the debate." .

Poor Maria Luisa.  She didn't get to ask the fully vetted, fully rehearsed question she wanted to ask.  Instead she was forced to substitute a different fully vetted, fully rehearsed question instead.

You might gather that, as disgusted as I am with how completely non-spontaneous CNN's "debate" was, I am not particularly sympathetic to Ms. Luisa either.  If so, you gather correctly. 

Luisa, you see, was fine with being a scripted actress on behalf of CNN and the Democratic party.  She just didn't like the script they stuck her with. 

After the debate, Hillary Clinton and her people were highly complimentary towards moderator Wolf Blitzer.  They called him "a lamb" - so help me, I am not making this up, they really did.

And with good reason.


DISDAIN FOR THE TROOPS - BOTH MILITARY & BOY SCOUT

Ken Berwitz

This editorial from the Boston Herald speaks for itself.  And if you aren't sickened by what marsha weinerman and her fellow idiots on the Cambridge election commission did, you ought to be.  The bold print is mine -- and please reread the last paragraph because that says it eloquently:.

Clueless in Cambridge

By Boston Herald editorial staff   |   Friday, November 16, 2007 |  http://www.bostonherald.com  |  Editorials

Cambridge lefties have at last begun to show their true colors - and they sure as hell arent red, white and blue.

You know all that rhetoric about hating the war in Iraq, but supporting the U.S. troops who are there? Well, fuhgedaboudit!

A troop of Boy Scouts in Cambridge set up donation boxes at 33 polling stations in that city on election day last week. Their mission was to collect amenities for troops serving overseas - those little items like snacks and lip balm that make life a little easier. The Scouts had spent considerable time and money to publicize the event, distributing fliers in city buildings, libraries and local businesses well ahead of time, according to their troop leader, Jamisean Patterson, writing in this weeks Cambridge Chronicle.

Most of the boxes were set up in the lobbies of those polling stations with the permission of the Cambridge Election Commission, Patterson wrote.

Then one resident in one precinct complained about the implied pro war message, according to Marsha Weinerman, executive director of the Election Commission. The citys law department was consulted and it was determined that the best course of action would be to remove the boxes, Weinerman told the Chronicle.

Takes your breath away, no?

It gets worse. At the same polling station that was the scene of the complaint, on the same bulletin board where the Scouts had posted their flier were about 75 other fliers. According to Patterson they included those promoting Get Out of Iraq, Campus Green, College Democrats of America. The only one removed belonged to those evil Boy Scouts collecting things for the troops, he added.

The Cambridge cave-in was shameful but instructive. There are in this world those so blinded by hatred of this war and of George Bush that they would punish those who have been called to fight it - denying them, what, granola bars? That is mindless and its stupid. That public officials caved in to such mindlessness - yes, even in a city like Cambridge - is a public disgrace. .

Honestly?  This story makes me want to puke.

Refresh my memory:  Isn't Cambridge where you will find Harvard and MIT? 

Wouldn't you think there would be an election commission official with a brain there too?  Even a small one? 

Maybe marsha weinerman can do an interview or two to explain why she wants to punish our troops individually.  Oh, wait, she can't.  She's too busy SUPPORTING the troops, right?


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!!