Wednesday, 22 July 2009


Ken Berwitz

Here, from Dana Bash of CNN, is the problem in one (long) paragraph:

Senator: Democrats 'baffled' by president's health care stance

Posted: 10:46 PM ET

From CNN Senior Congressional Correspondent Dana Bash

WASHINGTON (CNN) As the prospects for passing health reform by the time Congress leaves for its August recess look bleaker, Democratic grumbling about President Obama is growing louder. One Democratic senator tells CNN congressional Democrats are baffled, and another senior Democratic source tells CNN members of the presidents own party are still frustrated that theyre not getting more specific direction from him on health care. We appreciate the rhetoric and his willingness to ratchet up the pressure but what most Democrats on the Hill are looking for is for the president to weigh in and make decisions on outstanding issues. Instead of sending out his people and saying the president isnt ruling anything out, members would like a little bit of clarity on what he would support especially on how to pay for his health reform bill, a senior Democratic congressional source tells CNN. The Democratic leadership had hoped the work going on behind closed doors for months could bear fruit in time for the presidents news conference Wednesday night. But multiple Democratic sources tell CNN thats looking very unlikely, and one senior Democratic source tells CNN there is some frustration among Democratic leaders that Senate negotiators have, "repeatedly missed deadlines."

And here is my translation:

President Obama does not offer specifics.  He doesn't want specifics, not at this time.  What he wants is a green light.  The more vague health care legislation is, the more he can run it as he sees fit.  Not the people, not even his fellow Democrats.  Him.

As Mr. Obama's view of the presidency becomes more and more overt, even some Democrats who support him are getting uncomfortable with it.

Good.  Join the club.


Ken Berwitz

Read this excerpt from Dick Morris and (his wife) Eileen McGann's latest column.  See if it resonates with you:

How, voters will ask, can we cover 50 million new people without any new doctors or nurses? The answer is to ration health care, with the U.S. government deciding who will get hip and knee replacements, heart bypass surgery and all manner of medical treatments. And what does rationing mean? It means that the elderly will be denied care, which they can now get whenever they want it.


The Obama plan effectively repeals Medicare. It puts a Federal Health Board between the elderly and their doctors. The board will instruct public and private insurance carriers on what procedures are to be approved, at what cost and for what patients. The bulk of this rationing will, of course, fall on the elderly. We will have to revisit the idea that the elderly have, in the words of former Colorado Gov. Dick Lamm, "a duty to die."


The more word gets around about what the bill contemplates, the firmer opposition is going to become. That's why Obama wants to push it through now, while he still has some popularity left.


And, if the bill passes, then what? The howls of protest from the elderly the first time they are denied health care will be something to behold. It will become evident that immigrants -- legal and not -- are being given the health care now reserved for the elderly, and the anger will be enormous and instant.


Most Americans are not sick and don't use medical facilities frequently. But the elderly are in constant touch with their doctors and medical providers. The curtailment of that access will become immediately apparent -- in more than enough time for the 2010 elections.

My one point of disagreement with Mr. Morris and Ms. McGann is that their commentary talks only about the elderly themselves.  What about the families of the elderly?  What about the children, who may have to choose between providing their parents care - at a financially ruinous cost - or letting them just die?

Denying health care for the elderly, AND handing illegals the health care instead, is the mother of all wedge issues. 

President Obama appears to be so arrogant and/or tone deaf that he seems blind to this fact.  But an increasing number of his fellow Democrats are not. 

The humanistic -and political - elements of this battle are monumental.  They will be fought out over the next two weeks.  I urge you to pay full attention;  your life may depend on how it turns out.


Ken Berwitz

Are you into comedy?  Then try this little snippet from a UPI article about President Obama's speech tonight:

White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel told The New York Times Obama intends to use the news conference as a "six-month report card," to talk about "how we rescued the economy from the worst recession" and the legislative agenda moving forward, including health care and energy legislation.

I kid you not.  He really said this.

The late, great, Jackie "Moms" Mabley used to sing a very funny song in which the refrain was, approximately, that "...if you ever see me fighting a bear, help the bear". 

Obviously her version was a lot funnier than anything I can type.  But the gag was that the person being sung to was so inept she'd be better off if he helped the bear she was fighting.

Over 2,000,000 jobs have been lost since the "stimulus package" passed and just about everyone expects double-digit unemployment is ahead of us.  Thinking  of that, and then thinking about what Rahm Emanuel said, that song comes to mind.


Ken Berwitz

The Boston Globe's Jeff Jacoby has written one of his very best columns.  It is about a subject I spoke of earlier this week -- the Obama administration's reprehensible demand that a Jewish developer not build apartment houses in East Jerusalem.

Since Jeff writes so much better than I do, and his column has so many facts that I didn't speak of, I am going to post it here.  This is your chance to learn what Israel's "friend" Mr. Obama is up to these days (because you're not going to see it many other places).  The bold print is mine:

Jerusalem -- one city, undivided

by Jeff Jacoby
The Boston Globe
July 22, 2009

LATE LAST WEEK, the Obama administration demanded that the Israeli government pull the plug on a planned housing development near the Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood of Jerusalem. The project, a 20-unit apartment complex, is indisputably legal. The property to be developed -- a defunct hotel -- was purchased in 1985, and the developer has obtained all the necessary municipal permits.

Why, then, does the administration want the development killed? Because Sheikh Jarrah is in a largely Arab section of Jerusalem, and the developers of the planned apartments are Jews. Think about that for a moment. Six months after Barack Obama became the first black man to move into the previously all-white residential facility at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington, he is fighting to prevent integration in Jerusalem.

It is impossible to imagine the opposite scenario: The administration would never demand that Israel prevent Arabs from moving into a Jewish neighborhood. And the Obama Justice Department would unleash seven kinds of hell on anyone who tried to impose racial, ethnic, or religious redlining in an American city. In the 21st century, segregation is unthinkable -- except, it seems, when it comes to housing Jews in Jerusalem.

It is not easy for Israel's government to refuse any demand from the United States, which is the Jewish state's foremost ally. To their credit, Israeli leaders spoke truth to power, and said no. "Jerusalem residents can purchase apartments anywhere in the city," Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on Sunday. "This has been the policy of all Israeli governments. There is no ban on Arabs buying apartments in the west of the city, and there is no ban on Jews building or buying in the city's east. This is the policy of an open city."

There was a time not so long ago when Jerusalem was anything but an open city. During Israel's War of Independence in 1948, the Jordanian Arab Legion invaded eastern Jerusalem, occupied the Old City, and expelled all its Jews -- many from families that had lived in the city for centuries. "As they left," the acclaimed historian Sir Martin Gilbert later wrote in his 1998 book, Jerusalem in the Twentieth Century, "they could see columns of smoke rising from the quarter behind them. The Hadassah welfare station had been set on fire and . . . the looting and burning of Jewish property was in full swing."

For the next 19 years, eastern Jerusalem was barred to Jews, brutally divided from the western part of the city with barbed-wire and military fortifications. Dozens of Jewish holy places, including synagogues hundreds of years old, were desecrated or destroyed. Gravestones from the ancient Mount of Olives cemetery were uprooted by the Jordanian army and used to pave latrines. Jerusalem's most sacred Jewish shrine, the Western Wall, became a slum. It wasn't until 1967, after Jordan was routed in the Six-Day War, that Jerusalem was reunited under Israeli sovereignty and religious freedom restored to all. Israelis have vowed ever since that Jerusalem would never again be divided.

And not only Israelis. US policy, laid out in the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995, recognizes Jerusalem as "a united city administered by Israel" and formally declares that "Jerusalem must remain an undivided city." US presidents, Republican and Democratic alike, have agreed. In former President Clinton's words, "Jerusalem should be an open and undivided city, with assured freedom of access and worship for all."

As a presidential candidate, Barack Obama said much the same thing. To a 2008 candidate questionnaire that asked about "the likely final status Jerusalem," Obama replied: "The United States cannot dictate the terms of a final status agreement. . . . Jerusalem will remain Israel's capital, and no one should want or expect it to be re-divided." In a speech to the American Israel Public Affairs Council, he repeated the point: "Let me be clear . . . Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided."

Palestinian irredentists claim that eastern Jerusalem is historically Arab territory and should be the capital of a future Palestinian state. In reality, Jews always lived in eastern Jerusalem -- it is the location of the Old City and its famous Jewish Quarter, after all, not to mention Hebrew University, which was founded in 1918. The apartment complex that Obama opposes is going up in what was once Shimon Hatzadik, a Jewish neighborhood established in 1891. Only from 1948 to 1967 -- during the Jordanian occupation -- was the eastern part of Israel's capital "Arab territory." Palestinians have no more claim to sovereignty there than Russia does in formerly occupied eastern Berlin.

The great obstacle to Middle East peace is not that Jews insist on living among Arabs. It is that Arabs insist that Jews not live among them. If Obama doesn't yet grasp that, he has a lot to learn.

I am not at all optimistic about the prospect that Mr. Obama will see the error of his ways regarding Israel.  It becomes clearer and clearer to me that he is too self-impressed and too arrogant - at least as of now - to rethink things and concede he might be wrong (though plummeting poll numbers may at some point affect his intractability level).

But where are our media on this?  Where are the network news shows?  Have they even reported this in passing, let alone done features on it?  Where is the New York Times?  The Today Show?  etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.? 

Nowhere.  That's where.  Saint Barack must be protected.  Who cares if he demands that Jews not live in parts of Israel's capital city?

Then they wonder why people call them biased.


Ken Berwitz

Here is Ben Shapiro's column on President Obama's foreign  policy, in its entirety.  No commentary from me on this one - Ben says it all just fine:

Anguish Across the Globe as Obama Rolls Back American Influence

by Ben Shapiro

Somewhere in the dark unknown blotch that is North Korea, there is a young man bent beneath a heavy burden. He is dozens of pounds underweight, fed on corn and salt, hunched over at the waist. His teeth are turning black, and several have already fallen out. He suffers from diarrhea and fever.

Every so often, he watches as the camp guards shoot disobedient prisoners in the head. Sometimes, he watches as camp doctors lead young pregnant women into a room where they perform forced abortions. The young man will die before he hits 50; he'll be lucky to make it to 40. He will die in chains, as his fathers and grandfathers did before him; according to a Korean Bar Association report released this week, hundreds of thousands have suffered the same fate.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton calls his government "unruly."

Somewhere in Iran, there is a young girl. She has been placed in a dirty cell on charges of treason to the government. She is frightened and alone; her family does not know where she is. She knows that the next morning, she will be executed.

But she does not fear her execution as much as she fears the night to come. She is a virgin; she knows that under Iranian law, she cannot be executed until she is deflowered. And she knows that the Iranian Basji militia are determined that she be killed, which means that this night, she will be forcibly married. Then she will be raped, in order to make her eligible for the death penalty. Dozens of young girls have suffered the same fate, according to a Jerusalem Post report released this week.

President Barack Obama says that the American strategy with regard to the Iranian government remains negotiations.

Somewhere in China, there is a political dissident, a woman who stood up to the communist regime. She sits in silence, waiting for her death. Her stomach grumbles, and a guard laughs outside. She puts her hand over her heart and feels it beating through her fingers. After her execution, her heart will be removed from her body and sold by the government on the open market. It's a common occurrence, according to the British Broadcasting Corp.

Secretary of State Clinton says the United States ought to ignore these issues. "(O)ur pressing on these issues can't interfere with the global economic crisis, the global climate change crisis and the security crisis."

Somewhere in Cuba, there is a man planning to flee the country in an old floating Chevy. He will brave the waves and the sharks. He'll attempt to avoid the Cuban authorities; if he is caught, he will be jailed and likely tortured. If he is not -- if he makes it to America -- his family will be barred from leaving Cuba. That's the way they handle emigration in Cuba, according to human rights organizations.

Obama says "The US seeks a new beginning with Cuba," and recently apologized to the Cuban regime, stating "I know there is a longer journey that must be traveled to overcome decades of mistrust ."

In Honduras, millions tremble as exiled would-be dictator Manuel Zelaya threatens to overturn the constitutional structure once and for all. After the elected government of Honduras threw Zelaya out in order to prevent him from forcing through a false referendum that would place him in power indefinitely, the United States backed Zelaya. Obama called Zelaya's removal a coup; Clinton has implied that U.S. aid to Honduras is contingent on Zelaya's reinstatement.

Encouraged by U.S. interference, rapist, murderer and Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega has pursued Zelaya's coup strategy -- he's now calling for a referendum to seek his own illegal re-election. Obama's reaction? Silence -- the same deafening silence he exhibited while enduring Ortega's anti-American diatribe at this year's Summit of the Americas.

Oppression is on the march around the globe. So far, President Obama's administration has tacitly energized radically anti-American and tyrannical regimes to do their worst. We are watching the rollback of thirty years of American influence across the world -- and millions around the world are worse off for it.



Ken Berwitz

The more things change, the more they stay the same. 

Want proof?  Here it is, courtesy of Michelle Malkin:

Knock, knock. Whos there? Obamas not telling

By Michelle Malkin    July 22, 2009 11:59 AM


Shouldnt the public know which health care CEOs the White House is courting in its desperate attempt to save Obamacare?


Didnt the president promise the dawn of the greatest era of sunlight and open records and transparency and an end to the dark days of George Bush?


Uhhhhh, never mind:


Invoking an argument used by President George W. Bush, the Obama administration has turned down a request from a watchdog group for a list of health industry executives who have visited the White House to discuss the massive healthcare overhaul.


Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington sent a letter to the Secret Service asking about visits from 18 executives representing health insurers, drug makers, doctors and other players in the debate. The group wants the material in order to gauge the influence of those executives in crafting a new healthcare policy.


The Secret Service sent a reply stating that documents revealing the frequency of such visits were considered presidential records exempt from public disclosure laws. The agency also said it was advised by the Justice Department that the Secret Service was within its rights to withhold the information because of the presidential communications privilege.


Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics said it would file suit against the Obama administration as early as today.


Obama lied, transparency died!

I hope for your sake that you are not hanging by your thumbs waiting for the Democrats who railed about Dick Cheney's "secret" meetings with energy executives to do a little railing about this.


Ken Berwitz

Here are the latest Quinnipiac poll data for Pennsylvania's senate race between the two most likely candidates - Republican-turned-Democrat Arlen Specter and Republican Pat Toomey:


If the 2010 election for United States Senator were being held today and the candidates were Arlen Specter the Democrat and Pat Toomey the Republican, for whom would you vote?


                                Jul 22  May 28  May 4

                                2009    2009    2009

Specter                      45      46      53

Toomey                     44      37      33

SMONE ELSE(VOL)                  1       2

WLDN'T VOTE(VOL)         -       3       1

DK/NA                       10      14      10


There are the data, and there is the trend.  Make of it what you will.


Ken Berwitz

My apologies to Adam Sandler for that title***

I am far from an enthusiastic fan of Bobby Jindal's -- I agree with him on some issues and disagree with him on others. 

But I have great admiration for his intelligence and his knowledge level.  Given his academic credentials and how he has moved, politically, in so short a time, how could I not?

John Roberts of CNN apparently does not share my feelings in this regard.  Armed with poor preparation and talking points from web sites that are to neutrality what the Sahara is to a monsoon season, he tried to have his way with Mr. Jindal.

Here, courtesy of at Mike Sargent at, is what happened:

Rhodes Scholar Bobby Jindal Schools CNN's John Roberts

By Mike Sargent (Bio | Archive)
July 21, 2009 - 16:08 ET


John Roberts, on the July 21 edition of American Morning, appeared to expect Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal to turn in a weak performance on the issue of health care.  Hilarity ensued, as Jindal, who turned down Harvard Medical and Yale Law for a Rhodes scholarship at Oxford, proved to be anything but a pushover.

The would-be newsman kicked off with some misleading statistics about Jindals performance as governor:


Governor, its good to see you.  You penned a rather scathing editorial for the on the Democrats health care proposals. But your state ranks dead last in the United Health Foundation survey of overall health. It also had the fourth highest Medicare cost per patient in the country from 1996 through 2006, according to the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. So some people out there might be wondering if youre the best person to be criticizing the administrations plans for health care reform?


Since Jindal is a classy fellow, and realizes that this debate is not about his performance as Louisiana Governor, he neglected to point out that he took office January 14, 2008.  Thats at least a full year after Roberts statistics ended.  The Rhodes scholar responded:


GOV. BOBBY JINDAL: Well John, a couple of things. Weve actually got a very aggressive waiver in front of the federal government allowing us asking them for permission to allow us to revamp our public health care programs to put more of an emphasis on outcomes. Louisianas a great example of whats wrong with many of our government-run health care programs. You look at Medicare the Dartmouth data shows that higher spending doesnt always correlate to better outcomes.


This is not the full quote from Jindal, but you get the idea.  Roberts, finding himself uncomfortably on his heels, fires back:


ROBERTS: Okay, a couple of other points here.  You said most Americans would end up being forced into  government-run health care, in this editorial. What makes you think that most Americans would be forced into anything, first of all? And secondly, saying its government-run health care really is misleading, isnt it? Its actually not the government that would be running the health care system. That would still be private, it would just be providing insurance.


Jindal, instantly recognizing the advocacy, replied:


JINDAL: No, youre talking about a government-run health option. And this is a very important point

ROBERTS: But its government-run health insurance, its not government-run health care, which is what you said in your editorial.

JINDAL: Well, its government-run health care in that theyll be deciding the rates. Theyll be deciding what benefits are covered. Theyll be deciding who theyre going to pay, what procedures you can get. Thats government-run health care. But look at the Lewin study. They estimate that as many as 100 million Americans may leave private coverage for this government-run plan. And this is a very important point


Under Roberts frame of mind, since the government would not actually directly control hospitals, doctors, pharmacists, et al., its not a government takeover its not socialism, if you will.  And Roberts is technically correct.  The term used for indirect government control over privately-run companies is not socialism, its fascism.  A tongue-in-cheek kudos to Roberts for figuring that out.

But Roberts is still not content to simply take his lumps and move on.  Jindal then is forced to explain market economics versus government-subsidized enterprise in a nutshell:

ROBERTS: But they also say that as few as 10.1 million may leave for government-run health care depending on how the plan is formulated. That 119 million was the upper level and even the people who wrote that report said thats a worst case scenario.

JINDAL: But youre talking about the same government thats paying for health care, regulating health care, now competing. Its going to be taxpayer subsidized. By their own estimates they say because the government will be shifting costs to the private sector, theyre going to be underpaying providers. Theyll be able to undercut their competition until they drive the competition out of the marketplace.


And now, the coup de grace John Roberts, falling back on a liberal think-tank and Kos talking-points to back his claims:


ROBERTS: That is one argument. But the Urban Institutes Health Policy Center said, Private plans would not disappear. Private plans that offer better services and greater access to providers, even at somewhat higher costs than the public plans, would survive the competition in this environment. You also pointed out in your editorial, you said someone other than patients and doctors would make the decision on treatments and medicines that we can have. Doesnt that already happen under private plans?


The Urban Institute normally pairs with the left-leaning Brookings institute for its studies advocating liberal tax policies.

Now, lets recap.  Roberts shows up for the interview in attack mode, using left-leaning statistics from left-leaning groups, backs them with Kos talking points and even attempts to implicate Jindal for failing, federally mandated health-care programs that predate his term as governor.  And Jindal crushed him for it.

The moral of this story is, don't start up with someone who knows what he is talking about unless you know what you're talking about.  And if you do, try not to put it on TV so that hundreds of thousands of people watch you get your butt handed to you on a silver platter.

That's a valuable lesson.  I wonder if John Roberts learned it.


***As you may know, Adam Sandler starred in, co-wrote and co-produced last year's "You Don't Mess With The Zohan".   My one sentence review of this movie is that if you are willing to engage in 100% suspension of disbelief and (temporarily, I hope) rid yourself of about 4/5ths of your IQ for a couple of hours, it is utterly hilarious.

PS:  Emmanuelle Chriqui, who plays Sandler's eventual love interest, is unbelievably delectable.


Ken Berwitz

Suppose, for the sake of discussion, that Dick Cheney attacked the Obama administration, and a news agency referred to him as an "independent".  Would you get angry after you stopped laughing, or would you laugh after your anger subsided?  I assume it would be one of the two.

Well, Steve Gilbert at has found an actual example, identical to the one I just put up.  But instead of a Republican who attacks Obama being called an "independent, it is a Democrat who attacks Sarah Palin. 

And who calls the Democrat an independent?  The Associated Press, that's who. 

Read it and see:

Top Dem Declares Sarah Palin Guilty

July 22nd, 2009

A bit of stenography from the DNCs slavey lickspittles at the Associated Press:

Investigator rules against Palin in ethics probe

By RACHEL DORO Associated Press Writer

July 21, 2009

ANCHORAGE, Alaska An independent investigator has found evidence that Gov. Sarah Palin may have violated ethics laws by trading on her position as she sought money for lawyer fees, in the latest legal distraction for the former vice presidential candidate as she prepares to leave office this week.

The report obtained by The Associated Press says Palin is securing unwarranted benefits and receiving improper gifts through the Alaska Fund Trust, set up by supporters.

An investigator for the state Personnel Board says in his July 14 report that there is probable cause to believe Palin used or attempted to use her official position for personal gain because she authorized the creation of the trust as her legal defense fund.

The practical effect of the ruling on Palin will be more financial than anything else. The report recommends that Palin refuse to accept payment from the defense fund, and that the complaint be resolved without a formal hearing before the board. That allows her to resolve the issue without a formal ethics reprimand.

Palin posted an entry on Twitter in which she said the "matter is still pending," a statement echoed by her lawyer.

The fund aims to help Palin pay off debts stemming from multiple ethics complaints against her, most of which have been dismissed. Palin says she owes more than $500,000 in legal fees, and she cited the mounting toll of the ethics probes as one of the reasons she is leaving office on Sunday.

Kristan Cole, the funds trustee, said organizers have frozen the fund pending the personnel boards review. Politicians are routinely allowed to have such funds to pay off legal bills, but quirks in Alaska law can present ethics issues.

The investigator, Thomas Daniel, sided with Palin in her frustration with having to defend herself against a barrage of ethics complaints. He suggested that Alaska lawmakers may need to create a law that reimburses public officials for legal expenses to defend complaints that end up being unfounded.

Palins friends and supporters created the Alaska Fund Trust in April, limiting donations to $150 per person. Organizers declined to say how much it has raised, and had hoped to raise about $500,000. A Webathon last month brought in about $130,000 in pledges.

In his report, Daniel said his interpretation of the ethics act is consistent with common sense.

An ordinary citizen facing legal charges is not likely to be able to generate donations to a legal defense fund, he wrote. "In contrast, Governor Palin is able to generate donations because of the fact that she is a public official and a public figure. Were it not for the fact that she is governor and a national political figure, it is unlikely that many citizens would donate money to her legal defense fund."

The ethics complaint was filed by Eagle River resident Kim Chatman shortly after the fund was created, alleging Palin was misusing her official position and accepting improper gifts.

"Its an absolute shame that she would continue to keep the Alaska Fund Trust Web site up and running," Chatman told the AP.

At least 19 ethics complaints have been filed against Palin, most of them after she was named the running mate for GOP presidential candidate John McCain. Most of those have been dismissed, and Palins office usually sends a news release with the announcement.

The multiple ethics complaints include an investigation by state lawmakers over Palins firing of her public safety commissioner in the so-called Troopergate scandal.

John Coale, a Washington lawyer who helped set up the fund, called the probable cause finding "crazy," adding that if upheld, it would mean that no governor could ever defend themselves against frivolous ethics complaints.

"If this complaint is true, theres no way to defend yourself" as governor, Coale said. "Anybody can keep filing ethics complaints and drive someone out of office even if youre a nut."

Coale said that unlike other states, Alaskas governor has no legal counsels office to defend the governor from allegations brought against the governor in her official capacity.

Meanwhile, a quick search of the Federal Election Commission contribution records reveals something the Associated Press neglected to mention:

Contributions to Political Committees













Total Contributions:    3500.00

Mr. Daniel is a very active Democrat.

Moreover, he is a partner of the law firm of Perkins Coie.

From Wikipedia:

Perkins Coie

Perkins Coie also serves as counsel of record for the Democratic Party and its candidates; its political law group is headed by top campaign lawyer Bob Bauer. Perkins Coie represented John Kerrys presidential campaign and recently represented the Presidential campaign of Barack Obama. The firm represented Christine Gregoire in the prolonged litigation surrounding her 2004 Washington State gubernatorial election, and a team of Perkins lawyers headed by Marc Elias is currently representing Al Franken in his legal battle over the 2008 Senatorial election in Minnesota. The firm also represents the Democratic Leadership Council, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

In 2006, Perkins Coie made headlines when, led by partner Harry Schneider, it represented Salim Ahmed Hamdan, the alleged driver and bodyguard of Osama Bin Laden. The case made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court, where the Bush Administrations Military Commissions were held unconstitutional.

What an independent investigator, huh?

No wonder Mr. Daniel leaked this to the Associated Press.

No wonder he wants Mrs. Palin to settle, rather than to go before the ethics panel.

Hes just trying to be fair.

But dont you think the AP should give its reader a little hint as to his motives?

Unbelievable, but true.  You see it with your own eyes, don't you?

Now grow old waiting for most mainstream media to report the truth about this despicable partisan witchhunt.

Benito Strange bedfellows – Sarah Palin and scientologist John Coale, Greta Van Susteren’s (Fox News) lawyer husband advised Palin to start her legal legal defense fund . Whats up with that? (07/22/09)

Paul Back in September 2008, we saw her wagging her finger that Hillary Clinton, that Hillary should not whine about tough media coverage, she was not doing women any good, she should just plow through it, she should have known what she was getting into and should just try harder and prove herself. “WOW”, I guess she loves measuring others by standards that she does not follow. What a hypocrite, but expected from most political false prophets types. Now we see that she attempted used her official position for personal gain, this is too sweet. Thank you Sarah, great job. (07/22/09)

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!!