Saturday, 18 October 2008


Ken Berwitz

Well well well.  We've finally found something that john murtha would apologize for.

You may recall that murtha is a 17 term Democratic congressperson from western Pennsylvania, whose three most important accomplishments are:

-being an unindicted co-conspirator in ABSCAM;

-generating massive amounts of defense spending contracts for his brother and his pals;

-and being the "man" who called the 8 marines accused of murder in Haditha, Iraq "cold blooded killers" -- without benefit of a trial or presentation of any evidence. 

FYI, 7 of the 8 have been exonerated and the 8th is likely to be.  Yet murtha has never apologized for calling these soldiers murderers before he knew what he was talking about.

But now we have finally found something murtha will apologize for.  Here are the particulars via an excerpt from an Associated Press article:

Murtha: Western Pa. 'racist' but Obama should win

WASHINGTON (AP) -  Democratic Rep. John Murtha said Wednesday his home base of western Pennsylvania is racist and that could reduce Barack Obama's victory margin in the state by 4 percentage points.

The 17-term Democratic congressman told the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette in a story posted Wednesday on its Web site: "There is no question that western Pennsylvania is a racist area."

Why did murtha apologize for this statement and not for the Haditha statement?  That's not hard to figure out:

-It is one thing to attack soldiers during an unpopular war when it looks like they might be guilty, and to do it a half year before election day when you have plenty of time to blow smoke about it; 

-But it is another thing to call your constituents racist in the last weeks of an election campaign.  That could cost you lots of votes.

There's your answer.  murtha opened that stupid, big mouth of his when he stood to lose something for it.  Thus his reason for apologizing is self-interest.  Not contrition, not because it was an unfair stereotype, not anything like that.

Ironically, murtha is running against Bill Russell, a career miltary veteran who served in Iraq.  It isn't easy to beat a 17 term incumbent, not even one as disgusting as john murtha.  But I am rooting hard for Mr. Russell to do so next month.  I hope you are too.


Ken Berwitz

Here is an excerpt from Ann Coulter's latest column, complete with her biting sarcasm.  It is well worth reading if you are paying attention to the presidential polling data this month:

Political correctness has taught people to lie to pollsters rather than be forced to explain why they're not voting for the African-American.

This is how two typical voters might answer a pollster's question: "Whom do you support for president?"

Average Obama voter: "Obama." (Name of average Obama voter: "Mickey Mouse.")

Average McCain voter: "I'm voting for McCain, but I swear it's just about the issues. It's not because Obama's black. If Barack Obama were a little more moderate -- hey, I'd vote for Colin Powell. But my convictions force me to vote for the candidate who just happens to be white. Say, do you know where I can get Patti LaBelle tickets?"

In addition to the social pressure to constantly prove you're not a racist, apparently there is massive social pressure to prove you're not a Republican. No one is lying about voting for McCain just to sound cool.

Reviewing the polls printed in The New York Times and The Washington Post in the last month of every presidential election since 1976, I found the polls were never wrong in a friendly way to Republicans. When the polls were wrong, which was often, they overestimated support for the Democrat, usually by about 6 to 10 points.

In 1976, Jimmy Carter narrowly beat Gerald Ford 50.1 percent to 48 percent. And yet, on Sept. 1, Carter led Ford by 15 points. Just weeks before the election, on Oct. 16, 1976, Carter led Ford in the Gallup Poll by 6 percentage points -- down from his 33-point Gallup Poll lead in August.

Reading newspaper coverage of presidential elections in 1980 and 1984, I found myself paralyzed by the fear that Reagan was going to lose.

In 1980, Ronald Reagan beat Carter by nearly 10 points, 51 percent to 41 percent. In a Gallup Poll released days before the election on Oct. 27, it was Carter who led Reagan 45 percent to 42 percent.

In 1984, Reagan walloped Walter Mondale 58.8 percent to 40 percent, -- the largest electoral landslide in U.S. history. But on Oct. 15, The New York Daily News published a poll showing Mondale with only a 4-point deficit to Reagan, 45 percent to 41 percent. A Harris Poll about the same time showed Reagan with only a 9-point lead. The Oct. 19 New York Times/CBS News Poll had Mr. Reagan ahead of Mondale by 13 points. All these polls underestimated Reagan's actual margin of victory by 6 to 15 points.

In 1988, George H.W. Bush beat Michael Dukakis by a whopping 53.4 percent to 45.6 percent. A New York Times/CBS News Poll on Oct. 5 had Bush leading the Greek homunculus by a statistically insignificant 2 points -- 45 percent to 43 percent. (For the kids out there: Before it became a clearinghouse for anti-Bush conspiracy theories, CBS News was considered a credible journalistic entity.)

A week later -- or one tank ride later, depending on who's telling the story -- on Oct. 13, Bush was leading Dukakis in The New York Times Poll by a mere 5 points.

Admittedly, a 3- to 6-point error is not as crazily wrong as the 6- to 15-point error in 1984. But it's striking that even small "margin of error" mistakes never seem to benefit Republicans.

In 1992, Bill Clinton beat the first President Bush 43 percent to 37.7 percent. (Ross Perot got 18.9 percent of Bush's voters that year.) On Oct. 18, a Newsweek Poll had Clinton winning 46 percent to 31 percent, and a CBS News Poll showed Clinton winning 47 percent to 35 percent.

So in 1992, the polls had Clinton 12 to 15 points ahead, but he won by only 5.3 points.

In 1996, Bill Clinton beat Bob Dole 49 percent to 40 percent. And yet on Oct. 22, 1996, The New York Times/CBS News Poll showed Clinton leading by a massive 22 points, 55 percent to 33 percent.

In 2000, which I seem to recall as being fairly close, the October polls accurately described the election as a virtual tie, with either Bush or Al Gore 1 or 2 points ahead in various polls. But in one of the latest polls to give either candidate a clear advantage, The New York Times/CBS News Poll on Oct. 3, 2000, showed Gore winning by 45 percent to 39 percent.

In the last presidential election the polls were surprisingly accurate -- not including the massively inaccurate Election Day exit poll. In the end, Bush beat John Kerry 50.7 percent to 48.3 percent in 2004. Most of the October polls showed the candidates in a dead-heat, with Bush 1 to 3 points ahead. So either pollsters got a whole lot better starting in 2004, or Democrats stole more votes in that election than we even realized.

Does this mean Barack Obama's performance in the polls is more impressive than his actual vote totals will be?  I don't know.

But it certainly gives you reason to suspect that might be the case, doesn't it?

There are less than three weeks to the election (otherwise known as the real thing).  We'll see......


Ken Berwitz

My sister sent me the following (obviously tongue-in-cheek) poll. 

I don't know what the third option says, and hope it is not offensive.

But I can't resist posting it here, so I'll take the chance:

Are there too many immigrants in Britain?

The results of a poll recently conducted are as follows:-

21% Said: Yes

17% Said: No

62% Said: ; عهد الأمن العالمي بواشنط


Ken Berwitz

I saw this excerpt from Charles Krauthammer's latest (and, as always, superb) column in, and felt I should pass it along. 

As you can see, it says a lot more than just three paragraph's worth:

Let me get this straight. A couple of agitated yahoos in a rally of thousands yell something offensive and incendiary, and John McCain and Sarah Palin are not just guilty by association - with total strangers, mind you - but worse: guilty according to the New York Times of "race-baiting and xenophobia."

But should you bring up Barack Obama's real associations - 20 years with Jeremiah Wright, working on two foundations and distributing money with William Ayers, citing the raving Michael Pfleger as one who helps him keep his moral compass (Chicago Sun-Times, April 2004) and the long-standing relationship with the left-wing vote-fraud specialist ACORN - you have crossed the line into illegitimate guilt by association. Moreover, it is tinged with racism.

The fact that, when John McCain actually heard one of those nasty things said about Obama, he incurred the boos of his own crowd by insisting that Obama is "a decent person . . . that you do not have to be scared [of] as president" makes no difference. It surely did not stop John Lewis from comparing McCain to George Wallace.

Thank you, Mr. Krauthammer, for so perfectly encapsulating the lion's share of media coverage during this election. 

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


Ken Berwitz

It stands to reason that Barack Obama will do whatever he can to protect ACORN, the national "get out the fraudulent vote" organization which has been so helpful to him. 

Now I admit that under normal circumstances it would be highly dangerous for a candidate to demand that the appropriate authorities should lay off a supersedingly dirty organization that is working day and night to elect that candidate.  The media would be all over it.

But this is 2008, the candidate is Saint Barack, and the media are not all over it.  When it comes to scrutinizing Mr. Obama's campaign you can just leave out the last word.  They are all over.

Here is the unbelievable but true story from

Obama Demands DOJ Stop ACORN Probe

October 18th, 2008

Gee, what a surprise. The Obama campaign is once again running to the Department Of Justice to try to get their way.

Which is, in this case, to be allowed to steal the election.

From the DNCs CNN:

Obama camp requests special prosecutor for fraud investigation

October 17, 2008

From CNN Associate Producer Martina Stewart

Sen. Obamas campaign requested Friday that an independent special prosecutor handle any federal investigations into voter irregularities during the upcoming election.

(CNN) The Obama campaign announced Friday that it is asking Attorney General Michael Mukasey to turn over any investigations of voter fraud or voter suppression to Special Prosecutor Nora Dannehy, the same special prosecutor recently appointed to investigate the U.S. attorney firing scandal.

Its the latest salvo in an escalating war over allegations of possible voter irregularities during the upcoming presidential election.

What theyre actually about is the unprecedented effort to essentially sap the American people of confidence in the voting process, Bob Bauer, the Obama campaigns general counsel, said Friday on a conference call.

You can download the Obama campaigns letter to Mukasey (a pdf file) here.

Here is the McCain campaigns response, from their website:

Statement On Obama Campaigns Letter To Justice Department On Voter Fraud

October 17, 2008

ARLINGTON, VA Today, McCain-Palin 2008 Spokesman Ben Porritt issued the following statement in response to the Obama campaigns letter to Attorney General Michael Mukasey:

After a week of shifting stories and clumsy corrections regarding Barack Obamas connections to ACORN, the Obama campaign resorted to their now-customary heavy handed tactic of attempting to criminalize political discourse. Todays outrageous letter to Attorney General Mukasey and Special Prosecutor Dannehy at the Justice Department asking for a special prosecutor to investigate Senator McCain and Governor Palins public statements about ACORNs record of fraudulent voter registrations (including in this weeks Presidential debate) is absurd. It is a typical time-worn Washington attempt to criminalize political differences. For someone who promises change, it is certainly only more of the same.

The letters request that the Department of Justice investigate recent partisan Republican activities throughout the country is almost a parody of the Obama campaigns attempt to intimidate their political opponents. In case Sen. Obamas lawyer did not notice, we are in the midst of a political campaign, not a coronation, and the alleged criminal activity he calls recent partisan Republican activities are what the rest of us call campaign speeches and debates. All of this is unfortunately reminiscent of the Obama campaigns recent creation of a truth squad of Missouri prosecutors and sheriffs to target people who criticize Sen. Obama. Rest assured that, despite these threats, the McCain-Palin campaign will continue to address the serious issue of voter registration fraud by ACORN and other partisan groups, and compliance by states with the Help America Vote Acts requirement of matching new voter registrations with state data bases to prevent voter fraud.

If the Obama people win, 2004 may turn out to have been the last election we will ever have that even approximated an honest polling of the citizenry.

God help us all.

And we were worried about hanging chads?  We should be so lucky this time around.


Ken Berwitz

If readers of this blog know one thing, they know I am sick to my stomach over what a biased propaganda sheet the New York Times has become.

Here is the latest explanation of why, courtesy of John Hinderaker at  It is an especially disgusting one, as you will see:

How Low Can They Go?

For those who thought the New York Times couldn't sink any lower, check out today's hit piece on Cindy McCain. The real target, of course, is her husband, and the Times takes every opportunity to dredge up their favorite anti-McCain talking points, while painting an unflattering personal picture of the candidate.

Still, what is shocking about the piece is the tone it takes toward Cindy McCain. I don't think I've ever seen a Presidential candidate's spouse treated so negatively or so unfairly. It's a safe bet that the National Enquirer wouldn't have run this article; only the Times is this committed to putting politics above news judgment or basic fairness.

The lead reporter on the story, Jodi Kantor, went trolling for trash among schoolmates of the McCains' 16-year-old daughter, Bridget. Here is the email Kantor sent via Facebook to another kid at Bridget's school:

I saw on facebook that you went to Xavier, and if you don't mind, I'd love to ask you some advice about a story. I'm a reporter at the New York Times, writing a profile of Cindy McCain, and we are trying to get a sense of what she is like as a mother. So I'm reaching out to fellow parents at her kids' schools. My understanding is that some of her older kids went to Brophy/Xavier, but I'm trying to figure out what school her 16 year old daughter Bridget attends-- and a few people said it was PCDS. Do you know if that's right? Again, we're not really reporting on the kids, just seeking some fellow parents who can talk about what Mrs. McCain is like.

Also, if you know anyone else who I should talk to-- basically anyone who has encountered Mrs. McCain and might be able to share impressions-- that would be great.

Thanks so much for any help you can give me.

Jodi Kantor
Political correspondent
New York Times

Kantor's fishing came up empty; she couldn't find a single parent willing or able to contribute dirt on John or Cindy McCain. A single sentence sums up the fruit of Kantor's "research" among Xavier kids and their parents:

Some of Mr. McCain's Washington friends say they have barely met Mrs. McCain, while fellow mothers at their children's schools say they have little sense of her husband.

Now there's a shock! I'm sure if you interviewed the mothers of kids who have gone to school with my son or daughters, most of them would say they have "little sense" of me. But the Times apparently didn't want its Facebook trolling to go completely to waste.

It's a typically disgusting production from a news organization that long ago forfeited any claim to credibility or respect

A point of order here:  Bridget McCain is an adopted child of the McCains'.  She is from Bangladesh and she is very dark-skinned -- at least as dark-skinned as Barack Obama and moreso than a great many other African Americans. 

For John McCain's part, he has not used his daughter's skin color in any way throughout this campaign, even though there is an obvious political gain in doing so.  In other words, he is acting the way a loving, protective parent would act - which venues like the Times would never give him one second of credit for.

That said, what do you think Jodi Kantor was looking for?  Given the Times' nonstop effort to elect Barack Obama President, do you think it just might have had something to do with Bridget McCain's skin color?  That's about the only angle the Times hasn't exploited against McCain yet, so it's a pretty good bet.

Once upon a time, the New York Times was a newspaper.  Now that is just a fairy tale.  Without a happily ever after ending.


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!!