Saturday, 26 July 2008


Ken Berwitz

Do the voters understand how biased media are? 

Read this short piece from Brent Baker of and see for yourself:

Fox Poll: Two-Thirds Recognize Journalists Want Obama to Win

Just days after a Rasmussen Reports survey was released showing more than three times as many likely voters believe most reporters will try to help Obama with their coverage than help John McCain, a Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll taken July 22-23 of 900 registered voters discovered six times as many think most member of the media want Obama to win than wish for a McCain victory. On Thursday's Special Report, FNC's Brit Hume relayed: 67 percent of the respondents think most media members want Obama to win. Just 11 percent think most in the media are for McCain.

A article added this damning finding: Only about 1 in 10 (11 percent) volunteers the belief that the media is neutral on the race to become the 44th President of the United States. Those polled recognize the tilt in action: When asked to rate the objectivity of media coverage of the campaigns, Americans feel Obama gets more of a positive spin by a better than 7-to-1 margin (46 percent more positive toward Obama; 6 percent more positive toward McCain).

I can't help thinking that this is why, after a week of non-stop all-positive coverage of his globetrotting, Barack Obama's poll numbers have barely moved upward.

Most of us didn't go to Harvard as Mr. Obama did.  But it doesn't take a Harvard graduate to see what is in front of our faces.


Ken Berwitz

I am not voting for Barack Obama and I am not a racist.  But I have no doubt that if Mr. Obama loses there are people - both White and Black - who will "know" that racism did him in.

Illustratively, just this past week I blogged about the incomparably nondescript Governor-by-resignation of New York, David Patterson, blaming criticism of Mr. Obama - and himself as well - on racism rather than the fact that there are things to criticize about both men. 

Matthew May, writing for American Thinker, outlines this issue very well.  Here is his article:

July 26, 2008

The Racism Cry Returns

By Matthew May

Having begun softly during the primary season, an incessant drumbeat has steadily gained strength and will soon reach its deafening crescendo as we march toward November: If you are white and vote for anyone other than Sen. Barack Obama (Savior-IL) for president you are a racist.

Joe Klein says that anyone horrible enough to suggest that Obama -- who isn't even the official nominee of his party -- is being a bit presumptuous in touring Europe and the Middle East automatically couples that criticism with "the subterranean tinge of racism."

Andrew Greeley says that black Americans (all, apparently) and the rest of the world will "scream racism" if Obama is defeated by John McCain. Greeley says that "Only the innocent and the naive think that the November election will not be about race."

New York governor David Paterson recently suggested at the national meeting of the NAACP   that an Obama loss is a racist victory.

I will not insult your intelligence and vainly attempt to assuage my supposed white guilt by claiming "some of my best friends are black," or revealing the racial background of my college roommate, and the artist who dominates my music collection. I refuse to do so not because it is a clich, but because it is unnecessary for the non-racist to do so.

I do not compartmentalize my friends into categories other than that labeled "Friends." My friends and associates are nobody else's business or concern. I have sought and will continue to seek them according to their worth to me as individuals -- the values we share, the equality of life to which we aspire, and our mutual respect and admiration for one another as individuals.

Calling someone a racist is one of the most serious charges than be leveled against an individual. It is outrageous enough that such a charge is being and will be thrown at tens of millions of people. It demonstrates the naked contempt the left have for the individual mind and the individual voter who approaches an election with certain fundamental benchmarks that a candidate must meet to earn his vote.

As a conservative, I will not be overly enthusiastic about voting for John McCain on November 4 -- but I will be sprinting to the polling place to do so. And, surprisingly enough to those of you who cannot fathom it, this white American will be voting against Barack Obama not because he is black, but because he has repeatedly shown himself to be nothing more than a politician from the Daley cesspool. I have plenty of reasons*

To those whose every move in life is political and wrapped up in busily placing people in one identity group or another rather than as individuals, it is impossible to comprehend that perhaps part of the problem with Obama is not the color of his skin but its thinness. Across the spectrum of presidential leadership throughout our nation's history, Americans have desired -- and fairly demanded -- that their political leaders endure the slings and arrows of satire with good humor. Such a mindset harkens back to the classical American disgust with and fear of the individual with too much power, accompanied by a royal bearing.

Obama and his associates act as if the candidate is beyond reproach. George W. Bush has endured much worse without protest. Abraham Lincoln too, if Bush is not to your liking. Everyone is free to consider what this sensitivity to criticism tells us about the candidate's character.

I will not be voting for Obama in November and will be proud to deny him my vote. To the forthcoming outrageous, serious charge that I am a racist for doing thusly I do not wish to plead "not guilty" because I am, simply, not guilty.


*A few reasons:

He has been wrong about the battle in Iraq and the war against jihad. Obama is devoid of knowledge of the duties of Commander-in-Chief. He offers tired, discredited pabulum in the way of economic policy and utopian nonsense. His gaffes, mistakes, misstatements, and backtracking have continued and Obama does not have any sense of humor about them or anything else for that matter. Despite his privileged education, Obama is not smart enough to be president. We've already seen this movie and the leading man was Jimmy Carter.

This is to say nothing of the seemingly endless sordid details of Obama's career and rhetoric; his association with unrepentant terrorists and slumlords; his stupendous arrogance (Obama said in Berlin that "Now the world will watch and remember what we do here" -- what was it Lincoln said about how the world would notice the dedication of Gettysburg?); the socialist realism posters; his wife telling us what "Barack will demand" of us; voting "Present" time after time.

In short, this guy is not remotely qualified for the presidency and it has absolutely nothing to do with his ethnicity.

I am not one to make predictions.  But this prediction I will make with absolute cosmic certainty:  A far greater percentage of White voters will be casting their ballots for Barack Obama than Black voters casting their ballots for John McCain. 

Are all of these Black voters racist?  Nope, but some of them are, just as there are White voters who will reject Mr. Obama out of hand for the color of his skin. 

It seems to me that, all too often, racism is seen as a one-way street travelled exclusively by White people in this country.  In reality that street open to the general public and, lamentably, there are people of all races travelling on it.

Let's not pretend otherwise. 


Ken Berwitz

I don't agree with Bob Herbert a lot of the time.  And I don't fully agree with his latest column on John McCain.  But Mr. Herbert makes some very important points about Mr. McCain and it is well worth reading.  So here it is:

July 26, 2008
Op-Ed Columnist

Getting to Know You

The conventional wisdom in this radically unconventional presidential race is that the voters have to get to know Barack Obama better. Thats what this weeks overseas trip was about: to showcase the senator as a potential commander in chief and leader of U.S. foreign policy.

According to this way of thinking, as voters see more of Mr. Obama and become more comfortable with him (assuming no major foul-ups along the way), his chances of getting elected will be enhanced.

Maybe so. But what about the other guy? How much do voters really know about John McCain?

Senator McCain crossed a line that he shouldnt have this week when he said that Mr. Obama would rather lose a war in order to win a political campaign. It was a lousy comment, tantamount to calling Mr. Obama a traitor, and Senator McCain should apologize for it.

But what weve learned over the years is that Mr. McCain is one of those guys who never has to pay much of a price for his missteps and foul-ups and bad behavior. Can you imagine the firestorm of outrage and criticism that would have descended on Senator Obama if he had made the kind of factual mistakes that John McCain has repeatedly made in this campaign?

(Or if Senator Obama had had the temerity to even remotely suggest that John McCain would consider being disloyal to his country for political reasons?)

We have a monumental double standard here. Mr. McCain has had trouble in his public comments distinguishing Sunnis from Shiites and had to be corrected in one stunningly embarrassing moment by his good friend Joe Lieberman. He has referred to a Iraq-Pakistan border when the two countries do not share a border.

He declared on CBS that Iraq was the first major conflict after 9/11, apparently forgetting at least for the moment about the war in Afghanistan. In that same interview, he credited the so-called surge of U.S. forces in Iraq with bringing about the Anbar Awakening, a movement in which thousands of Sunnis turned on insurgents. He was wrong. The awakening preceded the surge.

More important than these endless gaffes are matters that give us glimpses of the fundamental makeup of the man. A celebrated warrior as a young man, he has always believed that the war in Iraq can (and must) be won. As the author Elizabeth Drew has written: He didnt seem to seriously consider the huge costs of the war: financial, personal, diplomatic and to the reputation of the United States around the world.

He also felt we could have, and should have, won the war in Vietnam. We lost in Vietnam, said Mr. McCain in 2003, because we lost the will to fight, because we did not understand the nature of the war we were fighting and because we limited the tools at our disposal.

The spirit of the warrior was on display in the famous incident in which Mr. McCain, with the insouciance of a veteran bomber pilot, sang Bomb-bomb Iran to the tune of Barbara Ann by the Beach Boys.

No big deal. Just John being John.

But then, we are already bogged down in two wars. And John is running for president. Its hardly crazy to wonder.

Part of the makeup of the man apparently a significant part, according to many close observers is his outsized temper. Mr. McCains temperament has long been a subject of fascination in Washington, and for some a matter of concern. He can be a nasty piece of work. (Truly nasty. He once told an extremely cruel joke about Chelsea Clinton too cruel to repeat here.)

If the McCain gaffes seem endless, so do the tales about his angry, profanity-laced eruptions. Senator Thad Cochran, a Mississippi Republican, said of Mr. McCain: The thought of his being president sends a cold chill down my spine.

Senator Pete Domenici, a New Mexico Republican, told Newsweek in 2000: I decided I didnt want this guy anywhere near a trigger.

Both senators have since endorsed Senator McCains presidential bid, but their initial complaints were part of a much larger constellation of concerns about the way Mr. McCain tends to treat people with whom he disagrees, and his frequently belligerent my-way-or-the-highway attitude.

Senator McCain has acknowledged on various occasions that he has a short fuse and has at times made jokes about it. He told Larry King in 2006: My anger did not help my campaign ... People dont like angry candidates very much.

My guess is that most voters dont see John McCain as an angry candidate, despite several very public lapses. The mythical John McCain is an affable, straight-talking, moderately conservative war hero who is an expert on foreign policy.

Barack Obama is not the only candidate the voters need to know more about.

Look, my eyes are wide open on this one.  Mr. Herbert has made it clear for some time that he is a strong Barack Obama supporter.  But, that notwithstanding, a lot of what he says about Mr. McCain is entirely correct. 

John McCain is no saint. He has significant flaws.  One of those flaws is a hairtrigger temper that he apparently is better able to hold in check when cameras are rolling than when he is one-on-one with people he disagrees with.  And while a temper may serve him well under certain circumstances (Harry Truman had one too) it can also be a damaging element to his presidency.

And, yes, Mr. McCain has made a great many gaffes and misstatements during this campaign (and will make more before its over, you can bet on that). 

But I disagree that Mr. McCain gets away with them while Mr. Obama doesn't.

Over the last few months I've chronicled a series of gaffes and misstatements by Barack Obama's which has somehow eluded the media.  A classic was just this week when, to thunderous applause, he told Germans that the walls in Northern Ireland had come down - which is demonstrably untrue.  Media gave him a free pass on that ridiculous statement.

In any event, the reality is that both major candidates have significant flaws.  Therefore the one we pick had better be the one whose flaws are easier to live with.


Ken Berwitz

Earlier today I blogged about the need for Republicans in congress to force their Democratic counterparts to excrete or get off the pot on oil drilling (in private I might put that a slightly different way).

Well, unbeknownst to me at that moment, they did.  I just read the particulars - and Harry Reid's obnoxious reaction to it - courtesy of Ed Morrissey at

Senate Republicans hold the line on energy; Update: Reid falls apart

posted at 10:31 am on July 25, 2008 by Ed Morrissey

Senate Republicans kept their word today to defeat any energy bill that did not include an end to the Congressional moratorium on off-shore drilling.  By a 50-43 party-line vote, the bill that supposedly would curb excessive energy speculation failed to gain cloture.  Instead of allowing a pro-drilling amendment to get attached to the bill, the Democrats will bury it:

U.S. legislation to rein in excessive energy speculation failed a key procedural vote on Friday to move forward in the Senate, and now lawmakers will set aside the bill to consider other legislation.

The House of Representatives may take up its own anti-speculation bill next week, and then lawmakers will get ready to leave for their month-long recess in August.

Senate Republicans strongly opposed the speculation bill, arguing the legislation should be modified to also boost U.S. oil production by allowing more offshore drilling and developing vast oil shale fields in the West. Republicans said tight petroleum supplies that were unable to keep up with demand were the cause of high energy prices.

Only Olympia Snowe (R-ME) crossed the party line to vote in favor of cloture.  Harry Reid (D-NV) voted against cloture, the only Democrat to do so, but only for procedural reasons.  His no vote will allow him to bring the bill back to the floor for another pass later in the session if he chooses to do so.

Jim DeMint and Tom Coburn promised a tough line on energy, daring the Democrats to defy the overwhelming will of the electorate on increased domestic oil production.  The Democrats walked into the trap and they may well find a way to lose a Congressional election that they had all but won this cycle.  If they adjourn for a summer break without allowing Republicans an opportunity to begin the long-term process of increasing domestic production and lowering gas prices, voters will hear all about it for the next four months and theyll let Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi hear about it in November.

Update: What does Harry Reid do when he gets caught in a vice?  He lashes out at reporters and distorts the truth:

At a pen and pad a more casual, off-camera chat with reporters Reid attacked and scolded correspondents in attendance, telling them hes really disappointed in how they have been writing his energy plans, which include a bill to reign in speculation in the energy futures markets.

According to two Senate Democratic aides, Reid and other Democratic leaders were particularly stung by an article Thursday in The New York Times. It followed on several other reports that have highlighted Democrats attempts to fend off defections from their ranks to GOP-sponsored amendments, measures that would permit new drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf and in the West for oil shale. .

Reporters tried to pin Reid down Thursday on the amendment issue.

In the exchange, Reid told one reporter she should watch the [Senate] floor more often. You might learn something.

Another reporter explained she had watched the Senate proceedings and said it was not clear he was offereing separate amendments, to which Reid asked the reporter if she spoke English.

Turn up your Miracle Ear, Reid added.

Reid may need to check his own comprehension of English. He did allow only two amendments on the bill, which Dick Durbin confirmed during a floor speech. If Reid cant count to two, he should stop worrying about the English skills of reporters and get into a remedial math class.

It would be hard to overemphasize the importance of this issue to Republicans and Democrats alike.  If the Republican Party is perceived as the folks trying to get us our own oil so we don't pay a king (abdullah's) ransom to people who hate us, and Democrats are perceived as the folks trying to prevent this from happening, it could change votes - literally millions of them.

Well, that, in fact, is exactly where the two parties stand.  So keep your eyes and ears tuned in and let's see where it goes.  With a special attention to what Barack Obama has to say about it.


Ken Berwitz

Yesterday's Investors Business Daily had a powerful editorial on how to force the congress into action, or at least accountability, regarding the oil crisis.  Here it is:

Call Congress Back To Vote On Drilling

By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Friday, July 25, 2008 4:20 PM PT

Leadership: When it comes to giving relief at the pump by drilling for more oil, this is truly a "do-nothing" Democratic Congress. President Bush should give 'em hell like Harry Truman did.

IBD Series: Breaking The Back Of High Oil

Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution states that the president "may, on extraordinary occasions, convene both houses" of Congress. On more than two dozen occasions in our history, presidents have done just that, forcing the Senate and House of Representatives to meet on extraordinary matters of defense or economic peril.

Sixty years ago this month, President Truman called such a special session to shame into action what he labeled a "do nothing" Republican Congress. He dubbed it the Turnip Day Session, because of the day on which it began. According to folklore in Truman's native Missouri, "On the 25th of July, sow your turnips, wet or dry."

Congress refused to do Truman's bidding in the session, but the bold move saved the president's political skin. He defied the odds that November and was re-elected largely because the public came to view the 80th Congress as in the grip of a cowardly paralysis.

Today's Democratic-controlled 110th Congress is just as paralyzed, but the stakes are far higher. Our irrational dependence on oil from foreign nations is squeezing American consumers and businesses with sky-high fuel prices. And it makes us vulnerable to blackmail by hostile, oil-rich regimes.

Americans use nearly 21 million barrels of oil a day. The U.S. Geological Survey has just identified 90 billion barrels of recoverable oil in the Arctic nearly 30 billion barrels of it in Alaska. Yet House Speaker Nancy Pelosi refuses to allow a floor vote on drilling because the idea it would make a difference is "frivolous," she said last week.

Suffering consumers disagree. This month, an IBD/TIPP Poll of 920 adults found that by more than 3-to-1 Americans believe gas prices to be a bigger problem than global warming. A broad-based 64% of respondents favor offshore drilling, and 65% want oil shale development in the Western states.

A Rasmussen survey in June found 67% of voters in favor of drilling off the coasts of California, Florida and other states, and 64% believing gas prices would drop as a result. A Zogby poll last month found that 74% want offshore drilling in U.S. waters.

This is a potential political gusher, if only Republicans would fully tap into it. Bush has the opportunity to do so before this hot, cash-guzzling summer ends. Like Truman, he can use his constitutional authority to call this negligent Congress back once it embarks on its long August recess to campaign for re-election.

In so doing, he can demand that instead of nonsolutions like its failed attempt to release more oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve [SPR], Congress carry out the will of the vast majority of Americans by passing laws that authorize drilling.

In one fell swoop, a presidential recall of Congress would strengthen national security, boost our economy and maybe even turn things around for Republicans and avoid the losses being predicted for them this election year.

If giving 'em hell worked for Harry, you bet it can work for Dubya.


Barring a terrorist attack or a major catastrophe in Iraq or Afghanistan, I see energy - its cost, who we buy it from and whether we aggressively exploit the vast resources we have - as the single most important wedge issue of the presidential campaign.

John McCain is on the right side of this issue and Barack Obama is on the wrong side.

McCain advocates offshore drilling (he is against ANWR drilling, which is inexplicable to me - I have a feeling that will change during the campaign) and the construction of dozens of nuclear plants throughout the country. 

Mr. Obama is not only against these fastest-track solutions to the energy crisis, but is also saddled with years and years of his Democratic counterparts demanding HIGHER gas prices through more taxes on gas.

President Bush may not be the most popular guy in the world to share a stage with during this campaign.  But he can benefit John McCain incalculably by doing exactly what Harry Truman did in 1948.  And, not incidentally, if it shames the Democratic congress into action, we all will benefit.

I hope Mr. Bush reads the IBD editorial and acts on it immediately.


Ken Berwitz

This Johnny Dollar guy is really something.

He hates keith olbermann's guts. That, in and of itself, is neither newsworthy nor unique. 

But he also seems to have dedicated a great deal of time and effort to checking olbermann's accuracy and honesty.  As it turns out, when that is done we see that olbermann doesn't have a lot of either.

Here is the latest example, in which olbermann (again) lies to his audience's faces - complete with the videos that prove it:

Olbermann Lifts Newshound Lie, Airs It as Fact!

Keith Olbermann is notorious for filching stories from the blue blogs, particularly ones that attack the eeevil Bill O'Reilly. But now his sloppy, unprofessional practices have come back to bite him. He aired an out-and-out falsehood Wednesday as fact, ripping and reading from the most unreliable source in existence.

On Countdown June 23 (NOTE:  the date is actually July 23) Olbermann assailed O'Reilly over his segment on Rep. Robert Wexler. After some crack about altering the color of Wexler's lips (a confirming clue as will be seen), he then turned the indignation up to '11' and ridiculed Bill for not knowing that Florida doesn't have a state income tax:

OLBERMANN: The Frank Burns of News then speculated that Wexler was somehow trying to cheat Florida out of income tax. Fund had to inform him that Florida doesn't have an income tax. "No income tax? This is where my argument falls to the ground!"
Don't believe us? Here's the video:

Unfortunately this is completely false, and in fact the opposite of what actually happened. It was O'Reilly who brought up Florida's lack of an income tax:
O'REILLY: You say it's legal. You can do that, based upon how he set it up. Now, taxes. Doesn't he have to pay taxes in both states if he has dual residency there?
FUND: Members of Congress can choose to pay taxes either in the Washington area or in their home state.
O'REILLY: OK so they have the choice. So he would pay it in Florida because Florida doesn't have a state tax. And Maryland taxes like crazy.
FUND: And you have just identified one of the big reasons he has to have this phantom residence, because that enables him to pay no state income tax.
Don't believe us? Here's the video of the segment, the video Olbermann was careful not to show:

Obviously Olbermann's entire segment was built on a lie, constructed around a conversation that never happened. So how did he come up with his twisted, doctored version of what O'Reilly said? Where else, but from the masters of twisting words and doctoring quotes, the newshounds (another fine product of the Outfoxed syndicate). No other site that we could find reported this peculiar, and demonstrably false, version of the conversation:
While Bill O'Reilly elaborated on the dubious charge, a photo of Wexler with unusually red lips was shown on the screen.... BOR continued the probe speculating about the state taxes Wexler pays insinuating that he is trying to cheat in some way. Fund couldn't help him with that either informing him that Florida has no income tax anyway.
Aha! Olbermann's "news source": another lie from the newspoodles.

We have exposed literally hundreds of falsifications, doctored quotes, and lies from the newsmutts on this site. There is no more dishonest source for smears against Fox News. But Keith Olbermann is supposed to be a journalist. He's supposed to check sources and facts before he airs a story. That means something more than merely lifting something from an unreliable blue blog and airing it as if it were fact.

To say that the next Edward R Murrow's journalistic standards are subpar would be the understatement of the eon. Does Olbermann not care that he is just spewing lies? Was the story "too good to check?" Can you imagine a "journalist" taking the word of a discredited blogger, without even bothering to look at the video to see if it's true?

You don't have to imagine it. MSNBC brings it to you every night, on Countdown with Keith Olbermann.

What a liar.  What a fraud.  What a joke. 

Call it "Smackdown, with Johnny Dollar"

Allie That's the best asnwer of all time! JMHO (12/10/11)

chris u did miss one other note: robert cox and johnny dollar has a site called: which documents olby lies/distorations/double standards should check it out (07/28/08)

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!!