Wednesday, 03 June 2009


Ken Berwitz

The Vice President of the United States has again opened that big mouth of his.  This time it's a now-you-see-it-now-you-don't "endorsement" of New York Governor-by-accident David Paterson.

Charles Hurt of the New York Post has the details:





Last updated: 4:57 am
June 3, 2009

WASHINGTON -- Gaffe-prone Vice President Joe Biden backtracked yesterday from comments he made at a Democratic fund-raiser in Manhattan that were widely viewed as an endorsement of Gov. Paterson's re-election.

"It was a statement of friendship and admiration for the governor, and was not intended as a political statement," Biden spokes woman Elizabeth Alexander said.

Speaking of Paterson Mon day night, the loose- lipped Biden said, "Your once and future governor of the state of New York has been extremely generous to Barack and me and has been a major part of us trying to put this economy back together."

The vice president's comments were significant be cause the unpopular Paterson is facing a possible Democratic primary challenge from state Attorney General Andrew Cuomo. Polls show Cuomo would trounce Paterson if the election were held today.

Asked about Biden's endorsement -- or at least the strong prediction that Paterson will enjoy re-election -- White House spokesman Robert Gibbs punted.

"I have not seen the remarks," he said. "But let me go see if I can find that and see what the context is."

A short time later, Alexander issued her written statement explaining what Biden meant.

Biden is legendary for his off-the-wall gaffes -- most recently contributing to the swine flu panic.

"I would tell members of my family -- and I have -- I wouldn't go anywhere in confined places now," he said as the Obama administration was going to great pains to calm the public.

"It's not that it's going to Mexico," Biden continued. "It's you're in a confined aircraft. When one person sneezes, it goes all the way through the aircraft."

That statement sent the White House press shop into superspin, assuring reporters that Biden had "misrepresented" himself.

Then there are the towel-snapping, back-slapping Biden gaffes such as when he goofed on Chief Justice John Roberts for botching Obama's oath of office -- drawing a positively hateful stare from the president.

 Our wonderful "neutral" media spent years laughing and sneering at George Bush, Dan Quayle, etc. for their verbal gaffes.  That would be fair enough -- if those media did the same, with the same tonality, when the gaffe-meister is Joe Biden. 

But, other than the New York Post, see if you can find this one anywhere in mainstream media.  Has anyone put out a book of Biden gaffes the way they did about Bush (he's got decades of them)?  Has anyone at, say, the New York Times, written about the danger of a man with this big a mouth being one heartbeat away from the presidency?

Boy is it great to be a Democrat.


Ken Berwitz

With common sense like this, you have to wonder how much longer MSNBC will allow Joe Scarborough to be on its network.

From Mike Sargent at

MSNBC's Scarborough Explodes On The "Failure Of The Mainstream Media"

By Mike Sargent (Bio | Archive)
June 2, 2009 - 16:38 ET


In what could be a new record for the Morning Joe crew, Joe Scarborough exploded into an anti-media rant today a mere six minutes and forty-one seconds into the show.  From review of the tape, it is clear that Scarborough had not missed his morning coffee so that was apparently not the reason for his detonation.  What, then, set Scarborough off?

This Scarborough eruption was brought to you by the past (and continuing) failure of the main-stream media to cover President Obama fairly.  In Mika Brzezinskis morning news rundown, there was (what was supposed to be) a short segment on President Obamas comments yesterday; regarding the latest in a series of auto-maker bailouts:

JOE SCARBOROUGH: How can he say


JOE SCARBOROUGH: How can he say that with a straight face? Seriously. This is one of the things that's troubling about this President is he can say things with a straight face that the media does not call him on.

After arguing the details of the Presidents proposal at length (length for a TV show...), Brzezinski provided this gem:



BRZEZINSKI: Okay. I will just finish this off by saying people who had experience drove us into the ground.

Scarborough, who had kept himself generally calm to this point, lost his cool completely.

SCARBOROUGH: No, no, no, no I cannot let, Chris, I can't let Mika get away with repeating the same thing. So you're saying. Just turn off the drum music, everything is killed. News is killed. Just stop it. So Mika, you just repeated the same thing!

After making a particularly entertaining analogy about choosing a lumberjack to perform spinal surgery (see the video above and to the right), Scarborough brought himself back on message:



SCARBOROUGH: The amazing thing is, Mika, if and this is the failure of the mainstream media.

BRZEZINSKI: What did I say?

SCARBOROUGH: If the mainstream media had covered Barack Obama instead of applauding him during the campaign, you would know off the top of your head that nobody got more money from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac executives than Barack Obama. Nobody ran resistance

BRZEZINSKI: I don't think there's anybody who

SCARBOROUGH: for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, more than Barack Obama. There is nothing that Barack Obama did. Nothing while he was in the United States Senate to stop this. Nothing whatsoever. And he's running it all. This is the man who's running our government.  Who is and that's fine. People voted on him to run the government. But did they vote on him to run car companies, to fire CEOs?

BRZEZINSKI: That's where we began this debate.

SCARBOROUGH: And if you say, if you say that people screwed up in the past, so let's just not have anybody with business experience running the biggest corporations in the world, if you say that, why are you allowing a guy that was in bed politically with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac even after they were indicted, making these decisions? Barack Obama was at ground zero of the sub-prime crisis from the day he got in, from the day Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac embraced him. There are going to be bloggers who kill me, oh how can you say that? You know what? Because nobody else is saying this or reporting it and we're supposed to trust him instead of somebody who's actually run a company with more than two people in it?


Scarboroughs incredulity at the lack of media coverage is, to put it lightly, not entirely misplaced.  As NewsBusters regularly documents, President Obama is breezing through the media gauntlet like James Bond - irrationally and inconceivably smoothly, and with never so much as a hair out of place.


Ken Berwitz

From Jan LaRue of  Pay special attention to the passages I've put in bold print:

June 02, 2009

White House and DOJ Silent on Shooting of Soldiers

Jan LaRue

Why haven't the President and Attorney General of the United States been as quick to condemn the murder of one U.S. soldier and the wounding of another as they were in condemning the murder of an abortionist?

The White House released a statement condemning the shooting of late-term abortionist George Tiller within hours of the shooting on Sunday. President Barack Obama said:


"I am shocked and outraged by the murder of Dr. George Tiller as he attended church services this morning. However profound our differences as Americans over difficult issues such as abortion, they cannot be resolved by heinous acts of violence."


Also within hours, attorney general Eric Holder issued a similar statement:


"The murder of Doctor George Tiller is an abhorrent act of violence, and his family is in our thoughts and prayers at this tragic moment. The Department of Justice will work to bring the perpetrator of this crime to justice."


Holder also announced that he had "dispatched the U.S. Marshals Service to protect "appropriate people and facilities around the nation" in the wake of the murder of late-term abortion provider Dr. George Tiller in Wichita, Kansas on Sunday morning."


Monday, police in Little Rock, Ark. arrested a Muslim on charges of murdering a U.S. soldier and wounding another after opening firing at the U.S. Army Navy Career Center in Little Rock.


According to Lt. Terry Hastings with the Little Rock Police Department, two people standing outside the office were hit when the unidentified suspect drove up and began shooting. Both of the wounded were taken to a nearby hospital, where one of the victims died a short time later, according to police


According to KATV, Little Rock:


According to Pulaski County Coroner Garland Camper, 23-year-old William Long of Conway died shortly after being transported to a Little Rock hospital.


At a briefing Monday afternoon, Little Rock police chief Stuart Thomas identified the suspect as Abdul Hakim Mujahid Muhammad, 24, of Little Rock. Thomas says Muhammad also goes by the name Carlos Bledsoe.


Hastings identified the second wounded soldier as Quinton Ezeagwula, age unknown. He remains at a local hospital in stable condition with non-life-threatening injuries.


Sweetness & Light is asking, "Where is Mr. Obama's statement denouncing this murder? Where are the US marshals to protect the recruiting centers? Indeed, where is the media coverage?"


Excellent questions, especially since there have been other attacks on recruiting centers.

Although the shootings occurred at 10:00 a.m. Monday morning, as of midnight Monday, neither the White House nor the Department of Justice had issued any statements about the shootings of the soldiers.


And don't hold your breath waiting for any anti-war and "moderate" Muslim organizations to condemn these "heinous acts of violence" against our military.


Every pro-life organization in the country issued statements condemning Tiller's murder within hours of his death.

What a disgrace. 

Shame on the Obama administration for caring more about a late-term abortionist than a volunteer member of our military.  And shame on our media for giving Saint Barack & Co. a free pass on it.


Ken Berwitz

Michelle Malkin's column on President Obama and mainstream media's sickening double standard regarding abortionist George Tiller and army recruiter is absolutely excellent.  See for yourself.




Last updated: 6:49 am
June 3, 2009
Posted: 1:29 am
June 3, 2009


WHEN a right- wing Christian vigilante kills, millions of fingers pull the trigger. When a left-wing Muslim vigilante kills, he kills alone.

This is the narrative in the Sunday shooting death of late-term abortion provider George Tiller of Kansas and the Monday shootings of two Arkansas military recruiters.

Tiller's suspected murderer, Scott Roeder, is white, Christian, anti-government and anti-abortion. The alleged gunman in the military recruitment center attack, Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad, is black, a Muslim convert, anti-military and anti-American.




Both crimes are despicable acts of domestic terrorism. The disparate treatment of the two brutal cases by both the White House and the media is striking.

President Obama issued a statement condemning "heinous acts of violence" within hours of Tiller's death. The Justice Department issued its own statement and sent federal marshals to protect abortion clinics. News anchors and headline writers abandoned all qualms about labeling the gunman a terrorist.

An almost gleeful excess of mainstream commentary poured forth on the climate of hate and fear created by conservative talk radio, blogs and Fox News in reporting Tiller's activities.

By contrast, Obama was silent about the attacks that left 24-year-old Pvt. William Long dead and 18-year-old Pvt. Quinton Ezeagwula gravely wounded.

More than 24 hours after the attack on the military recruitment center in Little Rock, Ark., Obama held a press conference to announce his pick for Army secretary. It would have been exactly the right moment to express condolences for the families of the targeted Army recruiters and to condemn heinous acts of violence against our troops.

But Obama said nothing. The Justice Department was mum. So were the legions of finger-pointing pundits happily convicting the pro-life movement and every right-leaning writer of contributing to the murder of Tiller. Obama's omission, it should be noted, comes just a few weeks after he failed to mention during his speech on homeland security the Bronx jihadi plot to bomb synagogues and a National Guard airbase.

Why the silence? Politically and religiously motivated violence, it seems, is only worth lamenting when it demonizes opponents. Which also helps explain why the phrase "lone shooter" is ubiquitous in media coverage of jihadi shooters gone wild -- think convicted "Jeep Jihadist" Mohammed Taheri-Azar at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill or Israel-bashing gunman Naveed Haq, who targeted a Seattle Jewish charity, or Los Angeles International Airport shooter Hesham Hedayet, who opened fire at the El Al Israeli airline ticket counter -- but not in cases involving rare acts of anti-abortion violence.

Even Jeffrey Goldberg of the left-leaning Atlantic magazine noticed the double standards. He called attention to a National Public Radio report on the military recruiter attack that failed to mention the religion and anti-military animus of the suspect.

The truth is that the "climate of hate" doesn't have just one hemisphere. But you won't hear the Council on American-Islamic Relations acknowledging the national security risks of jihadi infiltrators who despise our military and have plotted against our troops from within the ranks -- including convicted fragging killer Hasan Akbar and terror plotters Ali Mohamed, Jeffrey Battle and Semi Osman.

You won't hear about the escalating war on military recruitment centers on the op-ed pages of The New York Times -- including vandalism and obstruction of campus stations across the country and the shutdown of a Pittsburgh military recruitment office by zealots holding signs that read: "Recruiters are Child Predators."

You'll certainly hear little about the most recent left-wing calls to violence by a Playboy magazine writer who published a list of conservative female writers and commentators he said he'd like to rape. The list was hyped by the magazine's publicity team and light-heartedly promoted by such mainstream publications as

Is it too much to ask the media cartographers in charge of mapping the "climate of hate" to do their jobs with both eyes open?

By now, there is barely a person in the USA who does not know the name George Tiller the late-term abortion doctor who was killed, apparently by an unhinged anti-abortionist named Scott Roeder.  Media have made good and sure of that - as they have made good and sure that Tiller's murder is tied to the overall anti-abortion movement.

But let me ask you a question:  Do you even know the names of the two Army recruiters who were shot - one killed, the other seriously wounded?  Have media tied them to the overall anti-war movement or to radical Islam?

FYI, the murder victim was PRIVATE WILLIAM LONG, just 23 years old.  The seriously wounded victim was PRIVATE QUINTON EZEAGWULA, even younger, at 18. 

I put their names in capital letters and bold print in the hope that it will help you remember them, since most of our wonderful "neutral" media do not care enough to mention their names beyond a passing reference, if even that. 

For whatever it's worth, George Tiller, the late-term abortionist, was 67 years old - he lived 26 years longer than both of the army recruiter victims combined.

That's another fact for media to ignore. 


Ken Berwitz

I have to admit that this morning's Today Show departed somewhat from its standard routine of citing one racist comment Sonia Sotomayor made (there are others), explaining/rationalizing it away, and assuring us that the only people troubled by the comment are Republicans/conservatives/Rush Limbaugh/etc.

This morning (unless I missed it) Today didn't indicate that the only troubled people are Republicans/conservatives/Rush Limbaugh.  It just cited it and immediately explained it away again.

As you probably know, the party line on Sotomayor's comment that she would hope "... a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasnt lived that life" has evolved, over a period of days, into the claim that it was just "a poor choice of words".  

This implies that she didn't mean to suggest racial and gender superiority, it just came out wrong.  The fact that it sat there for EIGHT YEARS before she realized it was a poor choice of words?  Irrelevant'n'immaterial. 

But wait.  What did Ms. Sotomayor mean instead of the words she actually said?  Did she give us a revised version? 

The answer is yes.  But the Today Show didn't report her explanation/revised meaning. 

Why do you suppose Today would avoid telling you about her revision?  Maybe becauser of this (with a tip of my nonexistent hat to Manu Raju of, whose article is my source):

Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), who also sits on the Judiciary Committee, said she didnt acknowledge using a poor choice of words but put in a context for him to understand better. She told him: basically it means thats part of my life experience that I bring to my judgment. She said, Maybe it means with this background Im a better listener, I listen for better things. But ultimately, its not going to decide any case for me.

Say WHAT???????????

Sotomayor's explanation, as you can plainly see, is nothing other than a different way of saying she is superior to White Males.  Now, instead of saying she would reach better conclusions, Sotomayor is saying that she is a better listener and listens for better things (whatever that means). 

In other words, instead of saying she is superior to White Males, Sotomayor is saying she is superior to White Males.  That's quite a difference.

Little wonder that the Today Show, which is totally in the tank for both Sotomayor and her mentor, President Obama (another major puff piece on them this morning), would avoid telling its viewers about her new version of that comment.

Sadly, Today is no longer providing news to its viewers.  It is providing propaganda.  And the (many, many) people who rely on Today for their news are not being informed, they are being propagandized. 

What a shameful circus they're running.

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!!