Wednesday, 27 August 2008


Ken Berwitz

You can't say Nancy Pelosi-Ricardo isn't entertaining. Heck, look at what she's done just this week!

Only days ago she gave us a lecture on why we have to start using natural gas instead of fossil fuel.  Sounds great, except it somehow eluded her that natural gas IS fossil fuel.  How's that for a barrel of laughs?

But on Sunday, during her interview with Meet The Press, Ms. Pelosi-Ricardo truly outdid herself.  She decided to teach the Catholic church what it believes.  

If you haven't heard about this over the past couple of days (and anyone who relies on mainstream media probably hasn't), Pelosi-Ricardo informed the Catholic church - HER church that she has been in all her life - that it does not know its own teaching on abortion. 

Here, courtesy of excerpts from the article by Bob Cusack, writing for, are the particulars.  Read the entire article by clicking here:

Pelosis feud with archbishop escalates

Posted: 08/26/08 09:09 PM [ET]
The public feud over abortion between the Speaker of the House and the archbishop of Washington intensified Tuesday as Rep. Nancy Pelosi responded to his recent criticism and the archbishop fired another salvo at the California Democrat.

The latest development came Tuesday evening, when Washington Archbishop Donald Wuerl issued a statement to The Hill that brushed aside Pelosis explanation of her comments about conception on Sundays edition of Meet the Press.

Wuerl on Monday rebuked Pelosi for suggesting that the Catholic Church has long debated the moment of conception. Wuerl said that the church has taught that life begins at conception and has thus opposed abortion as a moral evil since the 1st century.

Pelosis office initially didnt comment on Wuerls remarks. After getting questions from the media, Pelosi spokesman Brendan Daly issued a statement on Tuesday that cited St. Augustine: Her views on when life begins were informed by the views of St. Augustine, who said, 'The law does not provide that the act [abortion] pertains to homicide, for there cannot yet be said to be a live soul in a body that lacks sensation.'

Wuerl swiftly denounced Pelosis statement, saying, As the Catechism and early Church documents make clear, abortion is always an evil. That is an unchanging teaching. The question on when the soul enters the body was a philosophical question that grew out of a lack of scientific data at the time of St. Augustine. We have the data today which shows the embryo is human. There no longer is any discussion of whether the unborn is human and so the philosophical discussion of St. Augustines time is not relevant today.

The conflict with Wuerl comes as Pelosi is chairing the Democratic convention and trying to unify the Democratic Party behind Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.).

In the statement issued Tuesday, Daly said that not all Catholics believe that life begins at conception, which is what Catholics are taught.

Isn't that special?  Nancy Pelosi-Ricardo knows better what the church position on abortion is than the church itself.

Look, this is the United States of America.  Ms. Pelosi-Ricardo is 100% free to invent whatever politically opportune definition of abortion and conception she can dream up. 

But for her to instruct the church that her politically opportune version is the TEACHING of the church?  This is straight out of the Lucy Ricardo playbook.  Zany and irrational to the max (and you can add incredibly offensive too - something Lucy never gave us.  Think of it as an extra bonus).

I've given up on asking how many more buffoonish idiocies Ms. Pelosi-Ricardo can come up with before mainstream media finally take her apart.  Because the answer appears to be infinity.

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

steve schneider she's an idiot. life begins at conception. that is science and not disputable. a zygote is a living organism. she was quoting doctrine from the 400's. the ovum wasn't discovered until the 19th century. steve (08/27/08)


Ken Berwitz

As Barack Obama's people desperately try to hide his long, deep association with william ayers, two things are happening:

1) The truth about their deep, extensive relationship is coming out despite legal and punitive threats from Obama's, supporters;

2) The truth about william ayers -what he did and why he did it - is coming out as well.

How bad is this for Obama?  Read Andy McCarthy's piece from today's edition of "the corner" from National Review and see for yourself:

Bill Ayers: Unrepentant LYING Terrorist   [Andy McCarthy]

In that Fox interview that Rich linked to, Ayers preposterously claimed that he and his fellow Weather Underground terrorists did not really intend to harm any people the fact that no one was killed in their 20 or so bombings was, he said, "by design"; they only wanted to cause property damage:

Between October 1969 and September 1973, the Weather Underground claimed credit for some twenty bombings across the country, in which no one was harmed save the three cell members who perished in a Greenwich Village townhouse in March 1970, when one of their creations detonated prematurely. Ayers claimed the fact that no other individuals were killed as a result of the Weathermens actions was by design.

In his autobiography, Fugitive Days: A Memoir, Ayers recalled, he posed the question: How far are you willing to take that step into what I consider the abyss of violence? And we really never did, except for that moment in the townhouse. I actually think destroying property in the face of that kind of catastrophe is so restrained. And I dont see it as a big deal.


First of all, "that moment in the townhouse" he's talking about happened in 1970.  Three of his confederates, including his then girlfriend Diana Oughton, were accidentally killed when the explosive they were building to Ayers specifications (Ayers was a bomb designer) went off during construction.  As noted in Ayers' Discover the Networks profile, the explosive had been a nail bomb.  Back when Ayers was being more honest about his intentions, he admitted that the purpose of that bomb had been to murder United States soldiers:

That bomb had been intended for detonation at a dance that was to be attended by army soldiers at Fort Dix, New Jersey. Hundreds of lives could have been lost had the plan been successfully executed. Ayers attested that the bomb would have done serious damage, "tearing through windows and walls and, yes, people too."

In fact, Ayers was a founder of the Weatherman terror group and he defined its purpose as carrying out murder.  Again, from Discover the Networks

Characterizing Weatherman as "an American Red Army," Ayers summed up the organization's ideology as follows: "Kill all the rich people. Break up their cars and apartments. Bring the revolution home, Kill your parents."

Now he wants you to think they just wanted to break a few dishes.  But in his book Fugitive Days, in which he boasts that he "participated in the bombings of New York City Police Headquarters in 1970, of the Capitol building in 1971, and the Pentagon in 1972," he says of the day that he bombed the Pentagon:  "Everything was absolutely ideal. ... The sky was blue. The birds were singing. And the bastards were finally going to get what was coming to them."

And he wasn't singular.  As I noted back in April in this article about Obama's motley collection of radical friends, at the Weatherman War Council meeting in 1969, Ayers' fellow terrorist and now-wife, Bernadine Dohrn, famously gushed over the barbaric Manson Family murders of the pregnant actress Sharon Tate, coffee heiress Abigail Folger, and three others:  Dig it! First they killed those pigs, then they ate dinner in the same room with them. They even shoved a fork into the victims stomach! Wild!  And as Jonah recalled yesterday, "In appreciation, her Weather Underground cell made a threefingered 'fork' gesture its official salute."  They weren't talking about scratching up the wall-paper.

A Weatherman affiliate group which called itself "the Family" colluded with the Black Liberation Army in the 1981 Brinks robbery in which two police officers and an armed guard were murdered.  (Obama would like people to believe all this terrorist activity ended in 1969 when he was eight years old.  In fact, it continued well into the eighties.)  Afterwards, like Ayers and Dohrn, their friend and fellow terrorist Susan Rosenberg became a fugitive. 

On November 29, 1984, Rosenberg and a co-conspirator, Timothy Blunk, were finally apprehended in Cherry Hill, New Jersey.  At the time, they were actively planning an unspeakable bombing campaign that would have put at risk the lives of countless innocent people.  They also possessed twelve assorted guns (including an Uzi 9 mm. semi-automatic rifle and an Ithaca twelve-gauge shotgun with its barrel sawed off), nearly 200 sticks of dynamite, more than 100 sticks of DuPont Trovex (a high explosive), a wide array of blasting agents and caps, batteries, and switches for explosive devices.  Arrayed in disguises and offering multiple false identities to arresting officers, the pair also maintained hundreds of false identification documents, including FBI and DEA badges.

When she was sentenced to 58 years' imprisonment in 1985, the only remorse Rosenberg expressed was over the fact that she and Blunk had allowed themselves to be captured rather than fighting it out with the police.  Bernadine Dohrn was jailed for contempt when she refused to testify against Rosenberg.  Not to worry, though.  On his last day in office, the last Democrat president, Bill Clinton, pardoned Rosenberg commuting her 58-year sentence to time-served.

These savages wanted to kill massively.  That they killed only a few people owes to our luck and their incompetence, not design.  They and the Democrat politicians who now befriend and serve them can rationalize that all they want.  But those are the facts.

willam ayers is a USA hating terrorist scumbag.  So is his wife.  Their ties to Barack Obama are devastating to his campaign.....if the public finds out about them. 

That is why the Obama, supporters (why do I keep making that mistake) are doing everything and anything they can to hide this from you. 


Ken Berwitz

Have you seen the backdrop Barack Obama is going to make his acceptance speech from?  The one they are hurriedly building at Mile High Stadium?

Remember, this is the same Barack Obama who, until he was ridiculed into removing it, had been standing in front of podiums with a version of the presidential seal and his name on it, as if he'd already been elected.  It is also the same Obama who had the American flag removed from the tail of his campaign plane and substituted with an Obama logo.

Well take a gander at his podium for the acceptance speech and see what you think:

Omigod.  A TEMPLE??????????

Is there something wrong with this man?  When he was elected a U.S. senator did he think he was also elected a senator from Rome? 

Iin fairness, I suppose there is room for confusion -- given that, since being elected, he has spent about as much time in Rome as he has in the U.S. senate.  But even so.......

Can Barack Obama possibly be this full of himself?  Can anyone?


NOTE:  I have been advised that the backdrop may not be that of a Roman temple.  It may be a Greek temple (that's what Charles Krauthammer thinks) or even the Lincoln Memorial. 

Unfortunately for Mr. Obama, however, other than the references to the Roman senate any one of those three would have generated the same commentary.  Hubris is as hubris does.

ShaneBertou You people really are pathetic. The columns look like EVERY SINGLE PIECE OF ARCHITECTURE in Washington. Just float out this temple nonsense and the lemmings will eat it up eh? (08/27/08)

Tam Um, it may be true that the columns look like columns in DC, but this isn't DC-- it's a stadium in Denver. The whole thing is odd. (08/27/08)


Ken Berwitz

Hey, while we're at it, here is ANOTHER testy exchange (also found at among, MSNBC personnel.  This time it is between keith olbermann and Joe Scarborough (olbermann in the middle of another one?  What a shock).

In the course of disagreeing with Scarborough's analysis of McCain's chances, olbermann sneered that he should "get a shovel", presumably to dig himself out of the excrement olbermann decided he was immersed in.  "Silent Patriot" at crooksandliars thinks he hears olbermann say "Jesus Joe.  Why don't you get a shovel?" (and, while I didn't hear it distinctly, he may be right).

Then, after olbermann's broadside, Scarborough answers him, adding his own "dig" at the end:


  video_wmv Download | Play

Y'know, a fella could get the impression that these guys aren't just nasty and abusive for theatrical purposes, they're nasty and abusive for real.

Elyza I was so confused about what to buy, but this makes it uendrstandable. (09/19/11)


Ken Berwitz

Was this arrest of an ABC reporter the doing of the Brown Palace Hotel?  Or was it orchestrated by the Democratic party, so ABC viewers would not know about their meetings with "corporate lobbyists and wealthy donors at the convention"?

You decide:

ABC Reporter Arrested in Denver Taking Pictures of Senators, Big Donors

Asa Eslocker Was Investigating the Role of Lobbyists and Top Donors at the Convention


Aug. 27, 2008

DENVER--Police in Denver arrested an ABC News producer today as he and a camera crew were attempting to take pictures on a public sidewalk of Democratic Senators and VIP donors leaving a private meeting at the Brown Palace Hotel.

Police on the scene refused to tell ABC lawyers the charges against the producer, Asa Eslocker, who works with the ABC News investigative unit.

(Click here to watch video of the arrest.)

A cigar-smoking Denver police sergeant, accompanied by a team of five other officers, first put his hands on Eslocker's neck, then twisted the producers arm behind him to put on handcuffs.

A police official later told lawyers for ABC News that Eslocker is being charged with trespass, interference, and failure to follow a lawful order. He also said the arrest followed a signed complaint from the Brown Palace Hotel.

Eslocker was put in handcuffs and loaded in the back of a police van which headed for a nearby police station.

Video taken at the scene shows a man, wearing the uniform of a Boulder County sheriff, ordering Eslocker off the sidewalk in front of the hotel, to the side of the entrance.

The sheriff's officer is seen telling Eslocker the sidewalk is owned by the hotel. Later he is seen pushing Eslocker off the sidewalk into oncoming traffic, forcing him to the other side of the street.

It was two hours later when Denver police arrived to place Eslocker under arrest, apparently based on a complaint from the Brown Palace Hotel, a central location for Democratic officials.

During the arrest, one of the officers can be heard saying to Eslocker, "You're lucky I didn't knock the f..k out of you."

Eslocker was released late today after posting $500 bond.

Eslocker and his ABC News colleagues are spending the week investigating the role of corporate lobbyists and wealthy donors at the convention for a series of Money Trail reports on ABC World News with Charles Gibson.

Which is more plausible?  That the Brown Palace Hotel would shoo away national coverage, thus free publicity?  Or that Democrats are terrified of their faithful base finding out that, despite all their condemnations of lobbyists and rich donors, and all the insinuations about what these people demand from Republicans, they are perfectly happy to do business with the same people - as long as no one finds out about it?

Not a very hard question........

free the link to the video doesnt appear to be working. but here is the direct link for nyone else that would like to watch it. (08/27/08)

Ivalene This does look promising. I'll keep conmig back for more. (09/19/11)


Ken Berwitz

While we're waiting for McCain to have a field day with Hillary Clinton's "No way, nohow, no McCain" softball, his campaign has put out a powerful, disturbing assessment of Barack Obama's ignorance regarding foreign policy - specifically his incredibly naive dismissal of the threat from Iran. 

Here it is.   (If you have trouble clicking on it, click here instead):

Ok, who does this ad target?  Obviously it is targets anyone who disagrees with Mr. Obama's assessment of Iran and anyone who is concerned about his naivete about foreign affairs.  But it most specifically targets supporters of Israel, both Jewish and non-Jewish.

The ad works because it draws its strength from Barack Obama's own words.  It makes him sound ridiculous.  

John McCain sounded ridiculous a few days ago when he stumbled and bumbled over how many houses he owns.  But that's the kind of ridiculous we can laugh at.  Sounding ridiculous about a nuclear threat against the USA's single most reliable ally is no laughing matter.

If I were the McCain people this would be airing most heavily in Jewish areas, especially Jewish areas within swing states (e.g. Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio). 

I suspect John McCain is going to get the greatest number of Jewish votes for any Republican since Ronald Reagan.  Maybe even more than Reagan.  Partly it is because he has been such a steadfast supporter of Israel.  But, fascinatingly, it is also because of how much help he is getting from....Barack Obama.

steve schneider you may be right, but those same jewish voters didn't support bush despite the fact that he is the most pro israel president we have ever had. obamas israel stance is clear when he allows jimmy carter to speak at his convention. unfortunately many jewish voters will never vote for a republican. for the life of me i don't know why. steve (08/27/08)

Ken Berwitz Steve - I wish I could dispute your comment but I can't. I know that in my own family and among some Jewish friends (by no means all, happy to say), there is some kind of permanent setting that compels them to find a reason, however far-fetched and however counter to their own self-interests, to vote for Barack Obama over John McCain. That said, however, I see hope in the fact that more Jewish family members and acquaintances have told me they are voting for McCain (i.e. the Republican instead of the Democrat) than in any other presidential election I can recall. Maybe the lockbox (or is that loxbox) is finally opening a bit. (08/27/08)


Ken Berwitz

Sometimes a negative is a positive.  That was proven by Hillary Clinton last night, in her "vote for Obama" speech.

In all the years I have seen and heard Ms. Clinton, I have almost never found her to be sincere.  She comes across as devious and calculating to me.

And yesterday was a situation in which she had to convince a convention full of Democrats that she sincerely wants Barack Obama to defeat John McCain - which, if it happens, effectively ends any realistic chance for her to be President.

I do not for one second believe Ms. Clinton has any less ambition to be President now than she did at the beginning of her run (which, arguably, dates back to 1992). 

And I have no doubt whatsoever that she resents Mr. Obama and hopes that he loses in November so that she can be the "I told you so, here's your chance to get it right" candidate in 2012.

With this in mind, the question becomes "how did she do it"?  How did she get up there and make that go-Obama-go speech?   The answer, in my opinion, is that the fact that she never sounds sincere was her savior.

If Ms. Clinton typically came across as sincere, I don't think she could have pulled it off.  I can't imagine her sounding as if she really wanted Barack Obama to win. But since she never comes across that way (at least not to me) it sounded like just another speech, no different than any other.  So that's how she squared the circle.

The speech itself?  Pure boilerplate stuff.  There was virtually nothing in it other than what she had to say to be on the podium at all.

And her dramatic "No way, no how, no McCain" line the morning shows were all playing?  That might be the best tip-off that she wants Obama to lose.  Because, in reality, it was a tremendous softball tossed to the McCain people.

Why?  Because Ms. Clinton stated during a nationally televised debate that, based on the fact that McCain has enormous experience and Obama has just about none, McCain was a superior candidate to Barack Obama.  Do you have any doubt at all that the McCain people will put out an ad juxtaposing those two statements?  I would be surprised if it isn't already in production.  What a gift from Hillary Clinton to John McCain!

Bottom line:  The net result of Ms. Clinton's speech, I suspect, is nothing.  No gain, no loss.  This is because some Hillary people will come over to Obama, some will be unpersuaded but will vote for him anyway because they feel any Democrat is better than a Republican, and some will jump to McCain. 

That probably would have happened if she hadn't made the speech at all.


Ken Berwitz

Wow, it is starting to get genuinely testy at MSDNC...., er, MSNBC.

Yesterday morning Joe Scarborough literally blew up at David Shuster after Shuster referred to him as a partisan Republican (Scarborough sees himself as a former partisan Republican who dances down both sides of the aisle these days....and seems to have some merit to his claim based on the increasing frequency with which he takes non-Republican positions).

But, though shorter in duration than the Shuster/Scarborough dust-up, this angry exchange between Chris Mouthews and keith olbermann is even better.  And I got it, of all places, from my "friends" over at

I left in their commentary, because it's fun to see Nicole Belle sneer at Mouthews - a man the crooksandliars crew derides as something of a rightwinger, despite his lifelong allegiance to the Democratic party.

Here it is:

Chris Matthews Needs A Nap, Gets Snippy With Olbermann

Either the altitude or the hours are getting to MSNBCs Chris Matthews.  Either way, Tweety needs a nap.  Yesterday, in his intro to Steny Hoyer, Keith Olbermann made an off-handed reference to the hosts yapping as a way to apparently apologize to Hoyer for the delayed appearance, to which Matthews took offense.

This, folks, is not happy-talk.  Two super-egos who don't like each other in the same place at the same time rarely is.

I wonder what will happen next.


Ken Berwitz

As things now stand, I am voting for John McCain for President. 

I am not voting for Barack Obama.  But maybe you are.  And, if so, you certainly have reasons for doing so.

If you want to post an essay on why you prefer Barack Obama (or Bob Barr or Cynthia McKinney) to John McCain, please use the "comments" link below and submit it with either your real name or a "pen name" that you want to use. 

Unless it is intentionally offensive, I will happily post it word for word under the name of your choice. 

I want both sides to be heard, and your side is 100% welcome here. 

Be my guest..................

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!!