Thursday, 18 September 2008


Ken Berwitz

We all know, of course, that John McCain does nothing but lie in his ads and Barack Obama would never do such a thing.  George Washington himself would envy Mr. Obama's veracity level. 

At least that's what our wonderful, "neutral" mainstream media would have us believe.

That being the case, I would love a journalist or two to explain the following, which comes to us from Jake Tapper of ABC news, via John Hinderaker at

The Most Hateful Ad Ever?

Barack Obama's thuggish campaign has exceeded itself with a Spanish-language ad that is dishonest at several levels. ABC's Jake Tapper blows the whistle:

Sen. Barack Obama has launched a new Spanish-language TV ad that seeks to paint Sen. John McCain as anti-immigrant, even tying the Republican to his longtime conservative talk-radio nemesis Rush Limbaugh.

As first reported by the Washington Post, Obama's ad features a narrator saying: "They want us to forget the insults we've put up with...the intolerance...they made us feel marginalized in this country we love so much."

The screen then shows these two quotes from Limbaugh:

"...stupid and unskilled Mexicans."
--Rush Limbaugh

"You shut your mouth or you get out!"
--Rush Limbaugh

The narrator then says, "John McCain and his Republican friends have two faces. One that says lies just to get our vote...and another, even worse, that continues the policies of George Bush that put special interests ahead of working families. John McCain...more of the same old Republican tricks."

I don't think I've ever seen a more deeply contemptible political ad. Apart from the fact that the ad slanders Rush Limbaugh--the second statement, for example, describes Mexico's immigration policy--Limbaugh and McCain were opponents on the subject of immigration.

McCain's stance on immigration, more than anything else, alienated him from his party's conservative base, precisely because he put the interests of illegal immigrants ahead of a commitment to enforce our laws. McCain's position on illegal immigration, rightly or wrongly, is the opposite of Limbaugh's--as, for that matter, is that of President Bush, whom the ad casually maligns.

In the mainstream media, the last week has been consumed by tut-tutting over the supposed "lies" perpetrated by two McCain ads--which, however, were inconveniently true. It will be interesting to see how liberal pundits react to what must be the most dishonest, racist and hateful campaign ad published in many years.

The level of hypocrisy displayed by media in this election campaign is breathtaking. 

Last week, when John McCain put out an ad saying that Barack Obama voted to allow sex education to kindergartners, he was attacked throughout the media as a liar.  The extensive backup for that claim (which I posted here just a few days ago)?  Ignored. 

Yet here is Barack Obama trying to fool Latino voters with an utterly fraudulent ad, and those same media are busy doing something else - anything else - but noticing it.

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


Ken Berwitz

I can't tell you how much I regret to say that the above title is 100% correct.  And while Barack Obama, so far as I know, has nothing to do with this despicable action, he is clearly its beneficiary.

The culprit is Senate Majority Leader harry reid, who appears to be utterly useless when it comes to getting things done but very capable of blocking legislation, even when it designed to protect adolescents from sexual exploitation.

Brian Faughnan of www.redstate explains:

Reid Blocks Online Predator Bill to Help Obama

Is Oprah Winfrey Being Duped?

Posted by: Brian Faughnan

Thursday, September 18, 2008 at 01:13PM

This Congress hasn't accomplished all that much, so you'd think they'd be eager to pass a no-brainer such as bipartisan legislation to protect kids from online predators. You'd be wrong.

Last December, the House passed the Securing Adolescents from Exploitation Online Act by a resounding margin of 409-2. The bipartisan bill expands reporting requirements for child sex exploitation and child pornography, requires providers to disclose the identity of anyone who appears to have violated child pornography laws, directs the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children to report child pornography violations to law enforcement, and grants service providers and NCMEC limited immunity from civil and criminal liability for reporting information.

When the bill passed by such a huge margin, it seemed that Senate action was sure to follow soon. But one thing went wrong: John McCain won the Republican presidential nomination. And since he was the sponsor of the Senate version of the bill, the measure was suddenly dead. It didn't even matter that McCain's bill was cosponsored by HIllary Clinton and Chuck Schumer; it could not pass.

Fortunately, another good bill was also introduced, addressing some of the same issues. That bill -- S. 1738 -- creates a National Strategy for Child Exploitation Prevention and Interdiction, as well as a National Internet Crimes Against Children (ICAC) Task Force Program, and a National Internet Crimes Against Children Data System. It simplifies prosecution of child pornography cases, and increases funding for this effort. The bill is sponsored by Joe Biden. One of the cosponsors is Barack Obama. And wouldn't you know it -- Harry Reid is planning to hold a vote on this bill.

Senator Tom Coburn tried to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. He introduced a third bill that essentially combines the other two. Senate Democrats have blocked the bill from coming to a vote -- twice. It seems that only Senator Biden's bill will see action before the election.

And what about the reforms in the McCain/Schumer/Clinton bill -- to find and identify those who spread child pornography? Maybe they'll get enacted somewhere down the line -- once Senator McCain can't take advantage of his bipartisan work on the issue.

A sidenote: Oprah Winfrey is a party to this -- although it's unclear whether she's been duped. She devoted her show on Monday to pushing for action on the Biden bill. Perhaps once she gets up to speed on the issue, she won't push so aggressively for a bill that seems to put politics over children's safety.

The saddest fact by far is that this legislation is not law already, and will not be enacted until after the election (when you can bet reid will allow a vote and proudly take credit for his involvement in its passage).

But the other sad fact is that this legislation, which is so basic that virtually everyone in the house of representatives on both sides of the aisle voted for it, is being held up for entirely political reasons.

harry reid is a despicable excuse for a human being.  The predatory actions which he is personally responsible for until he unblocks this legislation, will continue unchecked until congress reconvenes next year.  Every success of every sexual predator is on reid's head.  His, and the Democrats who are closing their eyes and their ears and not speaking up because it might get their candidate a few more votes in November.

It makes me want to puke.


Ken Berwitz

A new CBS poll shows that Barack Obama has jumped back to a 5% lead over John McCain.  If that is accurate it is a very strong comeback for Mr. Obama.

Just a little point to be made here, however:

The sample size was 1,133.  This included 326 Republicans, 437 Democrats and 370 Independents.

In other words,  29% of the sample was Republican and 39% was Democrat -- at a time when the latest data show only a few percentage points separating membership in the two parties.

Hey....I think I just found out where that 5% lead came from.

steve schneider and of course this significant obama lead will be plastered all over the mainstream media. what a joke.... steve (09/18/08)


Ken Berwitz

Politically the best thing Democrats can do about the energy shortage and the financial crisis is attack Bush and McCain, then run away and not address either in the congress that they control.

And that is exactly what they are doing, as Ed Morrissey of shows us:

Democrats to adjourn again?

posted at 10:02 am on September 18, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Send to a Friend | printer-friendly

You have to hand it to Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.  Once they decide on a strategy, they stick with it.  Bloomberg reports that the Democratic Congress will take action in the face of this economic crisis by beating a hasty retreat:

The Democratic-controlled Congress, acknowledging that it isnt equipped to lead the way to a solution for the financial crisis and cant agree on a path to follow, is likely to just get out of the way.

Lawmakers say they are unlikely to take action before, or to delay, their planned adjournments Sept. 26 for the House of Representatives, a week later for the Senate. While they havent ruled out returning after the Nov. 4 elections, they would rather wait until next year unless Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke, who are leading efforts to contain the crisis, call for help.

One reason, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said yesterday, is that no one knows what to do at the moment.

The stench from this hypocrisy is overwhelming.  Reid, Pelosi, Barack Obama, and every Democrat who could bitterly cling to a microphone over the last four days has spewed invective at the Bush administration, blaming the credit-market meltdown on Bushs policies.  Now, at the height of the crisis, not only do the Democrats admit they havent a clue as to how to address it, to whom do they turn to solve it?

The Bush administration! After all, Henry Paulson serves on the Bush administration Cabinet, and has been Bushs Treasury Secretary for over two years.  In fact, Paulson was one of the CEOs that Democrats love to demonize, having run Goldman Sachs for years at salaries over $15 million a year for the two years prior to his appointment.  Joe Biden just got done blaming the meltdown on people like Paulson.  Now Democrats want him to rescue America.

First Pelosi adjourns the House in the middle of an energy supply crisis that hammered the working class with sharp hikes in fuel and food costs.  Now both Pelosi and Reid want to adjourn both chambers of Congress rather than deal with the credit crisis that Washington created with its heavy-handed mandates to issue credit to marginally qualified borrowers and lack of oversight over government-guaranteed entities.  Given their ineptitude, we probably should be grateful as Bloomberg notes.  But considering their rhetoric over the last few days, their retreat may be one of the most cowardly acts in domestic policy seen in a very long time.


Is this the best thing Democrats can do for the country?  Obviously the answer is no.  But it is the best thing they can do for the party.  So what if both problems continue to fester and get worse.

Remember this on election day.  Because if you elect a Democrat to the presidency, we will have one party governance.  And if that happens, who will be able to stop these people from continunig to put politics ahead of party for at least the next two years?


Ken Berwitz

Here it comes.  The race card.  We knew it was going to be played.

But please note who is playing it.

Weeks ago Barack Obama pre-emptively ridiculed people who would attack him "because I don't look like them".   No such attack had been made by any Republican opponent, but he said it anyway.

Then Governor Kathleen Sebelius bitterly attacked racism that she could not specify one instance of.

Then a John McCain ad was called racist because, in it, Barack Obama was characterized as "disrespectful".

And now we have reliably left wing Jack Cafferty of CNN putting the following on his political blog:

Race is arguably the biggest issue in this election, and it's one that nobody's talking about.

The differences between Barack Obama and John McCain couldn't be more well-defined. Obama wants to change Washington. McCain is a part of Washington and a part of the Bush legacy. Yet the polls remain close. Doesn't make senseunless it's race.

Time magazine's Michael Grunwald says race is the elephant in the room. He says Barack Obama needs to tread lightly as he fights back against the McCain-Palin campaign attacks.

Translation:  You better vote for Barack Obama or you're a racist.  Why else would you vote against him?

If you fall for this absolute BS you are out of your mind.

Warner Todd Huston has addressed Cafferty's racist comments (that's right, HE is a racist for saying what he did) and dismantled them.  With the exception of his use of the Limbaugh term, "feminazi", which I find highly distasteful, Huston is right on target.

Here are the key excerpts from Huston's commentary about what Cafferty said.  I hope that it will help you to see which side is really playing the race card:

Lets devastate this absurd argument line by line

(Cafferty's) first line after the initial question claims that nobodys talking about the race factor in Obamas bid for the White House. What planet is this guy watching the campaign from, anyway? Nearly every single pundit, political maven, and news caster has brought up the race angle since the day Obama announced his intention to run.

Since day one it has been claimed that Obamas run for president is an historic one. Well, what does historic mean if it isnt because hes the first black man to win the nomination of a major political party to run for the top job? It sure isnt because hes male or a Democrat. In case Cafferty isnt aware, there have been more than a handful of male Democrats that have run for the White House in the past.

On top of that, Obama has thrown out the race card dozens of times, himself. Where Cafferty gets the crazy, uninformed idea that nobody is talking about race is anybodys guess. All Jackie would have had to do was Google Race plus Obama and my guess is hed get more than a hit or two (NOTE:  I did google it and got 43,900,000 listings)!

Now, paragraph two is so free of reason and logic that it boggles the mind. And it serves not only to make his argument absurd, it shows what a failure he is as a political analyst.

Cafferty says that the difference between the two candidates couldnt be more well-defined. That is a fair statement. Then he follows that with a lie so brazen that it chokes in the throat.

Obama wants to change Washington. McCain is a part of Washington and a part of the Bush legacy.

Cafferty just plain lied here. McCain has an actual record of challenging Washington. Hes done it for decades and raised the ire of his own party by being the maverick too many times to mention. Obama has talked a lot about change, sure, yet he has no history not one scintilla of a record of ever having changed anything. Hes never challenged the Senate. Hes never challenged his party. He never even challenged the status quo of corrupt Daley machine politics of Chicago when he was in state government back in Illinois. In fact, he benefitted quite handsomely from that corrupt system.

Then Cafferty, employing his Einstein-like powers of observation, gives us this trenchant analysis:

Yet the polls remain close. Doesnt make senseunless its race.

First of all, Einstein, the electorate itself has been closely hewn in half since the Clinton years heck even since Reagan realigned politics in this country. So, that reason alone could easily account for the close split in the polls today. But to ascribe it solely to race, while at the same time offering no real proof, demonstrates Caffertys utter lack of understanding anything in this campaign or this country.

Further, his sheer astonishment is based on a central assumption that also proves he has no capacity to understand American culture and politics and should, therefore, never be taken seriously as a political commentator. Caffertys amazement that anyone could possibly want to support McCain is based solely on his assumption that Barrack is clearly 100% right on all points. This assumption is so blindly partisan that it admits not one shred of understanding that there truly is a substantive difference between the philosophy behind Republican thinking and that of Democrats. It assumes that Democrats are all 100% correct in their political philosophy and that Republicans are merely racists for not following along.

Are there people who wont vote for Obama because hes black? Surely there are. Is it the predominant reason that millions wont vote for him? What proof of this is there? Further, there were many millions who didnt vote for Obama in the primaries for the reason that he isnt a woman. Did Cafferty attack every femenazi for their assertion that people should vote Hillary because she was a she and not a he? If so, Id like to see it.

Cafferty completely misses the salient fact that millions of Americans stand against Barack Obama because they feel his ideas are anti-capitalist, anti-military, pro-Eropean policies that pull against American exceptionalism. They see his terrorist pals, his racebaiting pastors, his wife who isnt proud of her country and they wonder why they should vote for such a person?

Cafferty is so blind to the real reasons that people vote the way that they do that he simply blows off the whole closely split political balance with the shadowy excuse of rampant American racism. This failure of Caffertys totally discredits him as a political observer.

Now, it is perfectly possible to assume that the other half of the electorate is wholly wrong in its thinking as Cafferty clearly does, and still be an effective political analyst (Michael Barone and Brit Hume are prime examples of this). For example, the philosophy behind the Democrats has long ago strayed from what it once was to a philosophy closer to a Euroesque amalgam of socialism, and populism. Democrats ceased being truly American in their thinking many decades ago. So, yes, they are horribly wrong. But to discount that those ideas exist and are a major player in American politics is simply absurd. So discounting that other side that it interferes with your ability to see the whole of the electorate dooms serious political analysis.

This, in truth, is where Cafferty has ended up. He so hates traditional American conservatism, so despises and discounts the Republican Party that he cant even admit that many millions of Americans hold to those principles and will vote that way because of them. To Cafferty, no one is voting McCain because they adhere to Republican principles, they are just racists against Obama.


Ken Berwitz

Do you feel patriotic when you are told to pay more taxes?  Or do you feel taken?

If you earn $250,000 or more a year you are already shouldering a far higher tax burden than your percent of the population.  But, in an Obama administration, you'll pay more -- a lot more.  Is that patriotism or redistribution of income?

Following is the Associated Press article which first reports Joe Biden's position on this issue and then immediately defends  it in a way the DNC would use word for word.  (Great job guys, what a fine demonstration of neutral journalism at its best):

Biden: Paying higher taxes patriotic for wealthy

By DOUGLASS K. DANIEL, Associated Press Writer 1 minute ago

WASHINGTON - Democratic vice presidential candidate Joe Biden said Thursday that paying more in taxes is the patriotic thing to do for wealthier Americans. In a new TV ad that repeats widely debunked claims about the Democratic tax plan, the Republican campaign calls Obama's tax increases "painful."

 Under the economic plan proposed by Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, people earning more than $250,000 a year would pay more in taxes while those earning less the vast majority of American taxpayers would receive a tax cut.

Although Republican John McCain claims that Obama would raise taxes, the independent Tax Policy Center and other groups conclude that four out of five U.S. households would receive tax cuts under Obama's proposals.

"We want to take money and put it back in the pocket of middle-class people," Biden said in an interview on ABC's "Good Morning America."

Noting that wealthier Americans would indeed pay more, Biden said: "It's time to be patriotic ... time to jump in, time to be part of the deal, time to help get America out of the rut."

McCain released a television ad Thursday charging that Obama would increase the size of the federal government amid an economic crisis. Contending that "a big government casts a big shadow on us all," the ad features the image of a shadow slowly covering a sleeping baby as a narrator misstates the reach of the Obama tax proposal.

"Obama and his liberal congressional allies want a massive government, billions in spending increases, wasteful pork," the ad says. "And we would pay painful income taxes, skyrocketing taxes on life savings, electricity and home heating oil. Can your family afford that?"

The McCain campaign said the ad is set to run nationally.

Let's see if we understand this "logic".  Obama has proposed so many new social programs that there is no way they can be accomplished without still more tax money coming in.  So let's raise taxes on the most well-to-do as if they aren't paying a ton already.  Just tell 'em that it's a show of patriotism, not a way of picking their pocket.

Maybe they'll buy it and maybe they won't.  But what the hell, who cares anyway?  There are a lot more people making less than $250,000 a year than people who make that much or more.  So we'll gain votes by proposing it. 

The fact that it will make the population segment which pays most of the taxes more likely to find ways of sheltering their money (this is why higher taxes often result in less tax revenue and lowering taxes often raises revenues)?  So what.

The fact that it will make the most productive segment of the population less likely to build businesses in the USA instead of overseas?  So what again.

Blame it on Republicans, baby.  Media won't give us any trouble on that.

Well, at least we now know how Joe Biden defines patriotism.


Ken Berwitz

charles rangle is the chairman of the house Ways & Means Committee - the committee that writes tax law.

He has cheated on his taxes for years.

He illegally holds at least three and possibly all four rent-stabilized apartments in a very nice building in Harlem.

And Democrats are making damn sure that he doesn't pay for it, at least until after the election.

Here are the specifics, courtesy of an excerpt from an article by Susan Crabtree, writing for

Posted: 09/18/08 03:44 PM [ET]

Democrats shot down a second GOP attempt in as many months to punish Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) for a series of alleged ethics violations. 

Democrats easily tabled a motion House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) offered that was aimed at forcing Rangel to give up his chairmanship of the powerful Ways and Means Committee while the ethics committee investigates the charges. It also would have ordered the ethics committee to establish an investigative subcommittee to look into the matter. The motion went down, 226-176, with only the five Democrats on the ethics panel voting present and eight Democrats not voting.

They do not come dirtier than charles rangel.  But no one will touch a hair on his head, at least not until the election is over. 

Why would someone this dirty be protected at all costs?  That seems obvious.   Democrats don't want to be embarrassed by rangel during an election, while votes are out there to be mined.

Now, why would media be protecting charles rangel?  Where are the condemnatory articles?  Where are the daily "troubling information about ...."  features every morning on The Today show?  What does this tell you about their "neutrality" level?

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


Ken Berwitz

Here is the transcript of a fascinating back-and-forth which took place last night, between Karl Rove and Alan Colmes of Hannity & Colmes.  I will post it without comment.  You decide who "won":

Colmes: I don't know how John McCain and Sarah Palin present themselves as reformers. she took oil money when she ran for Lt. Governor. John McCain has oil lobbyists.
Rick Davis who's campaign manager..

Rove: You know Alan..

Colmes: was a lobbyist..

Rove: Alan with all due respect you can rattle on all you want about this. But if this is the standard then you have to tell me why Tom Daschle is in charge of the transition for Senator Obama?
And why Jim Johnson the former head of Fannie Mae was the head of his Vice Presidential Search Committee?
And why is Franklin Raines one of his close advisors?
We can get in this tit for tat all day long.

Colmes: But Karl..?

Rove: The fact of the matter is John McCain are reform minded mavericks and the American people see them as such.

Colmes So all candidates have oil related lobbyists? They all have people in the financial community running their campaigns?
McCain has more lobbysists.. McCain..

Rove Look Alan. With all due respect Axelrod the Chief consultant to the Obama campaign makes his living by having a grassroots lobbying firm to even out his billings in between elections.
Please do not sit there and lecture me that the special interest money from trial lawyers and labor unions somehow disappears because you found 19 people inside the McCain campaign who've been lobbyists.

Colmes: Well actually it's 59. That's more than any other Presidential candidate running this time.
You can't paint a one sided picture and say McCain's the only reformer and he's done none of this stuff and he's totally clean and everybody else is on the take and..

Rove: Alan you sound suspiciously like that Obama commercial that calls McCain dishonorable. Nobody believes that John McCain who took on Jack Abramoff and Campaign Finance Reform is in the pocket of lobbyists.

Colmes: I'm not saying he's dishonorable I'm saying he's got more lobbyists..

Rove: You're better than that Alan. Alan please. You are embarrassing yourself. I'm sorry but this is ridiculous.

Colmes: I think that's a rather insulting thing to say when I'm pointing out a fact that he has X number of lobbyists working on his campaign..

Rove: SO WHAT!! He probably has 2 or 3-thousand fundraisers raising money for his campaign.

Colmes: Alright.. mumble.. mumble.. let's move on.

Rove: He has 10's of thousands of Volunteers.. so what Alan!?!? So what if 19 of them are lobbysists?!

Colmes: Well if you campaign as a sole reformer here.. We'll be back with more from Karl Rove after the break.

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!!