Sunday, 20 September 2009


Ken Berwitz

From ABC news:

Obama on ACORN: 'Not Something I've Followed Closely' Won't Commit to Cut Federal Funds

September 20, 2009 9:00 AM


It was one of the most popular topics among the questions you submitted to me for my interview with President Obama the controversy involving ACORN.


While the President said that ACORN "deserves to be investigated" in light of the "inappropriate" video that's gone viral, he did not endorse recent votes in Congress to cut off federal funding for the community group.

Heres our FULL exchange:


STEPHANOPOULOS:  How about the funding for ACORN?


OBAMA:  You know, if -- frankly, it's not really something I've followed closely.  I didn't even know that ACORN was getting a whole lot of federal money.


STEPHANOPOULOS:  Both the Senate and the House have voted to cut it off.


OBAMA:  You know, what I know is, is that what I saw on that video was certainly inappropriate and deserves to be investigated.


STEPHANOPOULOS:  So you're not committing to -- to cut off the federal funding?


OBAMA:  George, this is not the biggest issue facing the country.  It's not something I'm paying a lot of attention to.




September 20, 2009 in Barack Obama, This Week with George Stephanopoulos

Barack Obama is telling you in so many words that he did not know ACORN was getting significant federal money. 

A little refresher course: 

-ACORN is an organization Barack Obama intimately worked with for years;

-ACORN worked tirelessly for Mr. Obama throughout the campaign;

-ACORN was in the news virtually every day during the campaign regarding the fact that it was getting untold millions from the government, even as there were court actions against its members in a dozen or more states.

But Mr. Obama looks us in the eyes and says "I didn't even know that ACORN was getting a whole lot of federal money".

That is a flat-out lie.  And your job, if you accept it from Mr. Obama, is to be so ignorant and so gullible and so stupid, that you buy this blatant BS.

The sad part is, there are plenty of people who will.  For your own sake, I hope you are not among them.


Ken Berwitz

Here, for your enjoyment (or in case you like to gnash your teeth) is a classic "play the racist card" whine.  It comes to us from someone named Raina Kelley, writing for Newsweek:

Raina Kelley

Play the Race Card

Why avoiding the issue doesn't help.

Published Sep 19, 2009

From the magazine issue dated Sep 28, 2009


Let me say this clearly so there are no misunderstandings: some of the protests against President Obama are howls of rage at the fact that we have an African-American head of state. I'm sick of all the code words used when this subject comes up, so be assured that I am saying exactly what I mean. Oh, and in response to the inevitable complaints that I am playing the race cardrace isn't a political parlor game. It is a powerful fault line in a nation that bears the scars of slavery, a civil war, Jim Crow, a mind-numbing number of assassinations, and too many riots to count. It is naive and disingenuous to say otherwise.


So when Idaho gubernatorial candidate Rex Rammell jokes about hunting the president or South Carolina GOP activist Rusty DePass calls an escaped gorilla one of Michelle Obama's ancestors, it's racist. Which, in case of confusion, is the "ideology that all members of each racial group possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially to distinguish it as being either superior or inferior to another racial group." (That's from the Oxford English Dictionary, but leave the Brits out of this.) When "Tea Party" leader Mark Williams ap-pears on CNN and speaks of "working-class people" taking "their" country back from a lawfully elected president, he is not just protesting Obama's politics; he is griping over the fact that this country's most powerful positions are no longer just for white men. No, I do not believe that everyone who disagrees with Obama is racist. But racists do exist in this country, and they don't like having a black president.


Did anyone think it would be otherwise? There were always going to be aftershocks in an Obama presidency. Landmark events that change the paradigm between black and white people don't happen without repercussionssome are still complaining about Brown v. Board of Education. Black skin has meant something very specific in this country for hundreds of years. It has meant "less than," "not as good as," "separate than," and even "equal to." It has never meant "better than" unless you were talking about dancing, singing, or basketball. Obama represents "better than," and that's scary for people who think of black people as shaved gorillas.


So color me a little offended when the "mainstream media" suddenly discovered that there might be a racial element to the attacks on Obama. Maureen Dowd's Sept. 13 column in The New York Times is a perfect example: "I've been loath to admit that the shrieking lunacy of the summerthe frantic efforts to paint our first black president as the Other, a foreigner, socialist, fascist, Marxist, racist, Commie, Nazi; a cad who would snuff old people; a snake who would indoctrinate kidshad much to do with race." But at least she did acknowledge it. A Times piece just a day earlier explained why Obama is so unpopular in Louisiana and somehow managed to omit race as a factor. It took 20 paragraphs for a Politico column titled "What's the Matter With South Carolina?" to mention race. This hesitancy to even speak of racism widens the divide between readers and the journalists who are supposed to be covering the world as it is, not as they want it to be. It also explains, at least in part, the popularity of alternative news sources like The Daily Show or the Huffington Post that love to identify racist double-talk.


I had actually been looking forward to the aftershocks of an Obama victory. Maybe I'm the one who's naive, but I thought of the election of the first African-American president as the ultimate teachable moment. I wasn't expecting a holiday. But almost anything, really, would be better than all this "post-racial" and "Kumbaya" crap we're being pedaled. Even though Oprah and Will Smith are beloved by Americans of all hues, they are still exceptions in a country where judging people based on the color of their skin is a habit we've yet to break.


I get it. Race issues are scary. There are few souls brave enough to say what they think about race relations outside the privacy of their homes or the anonymity of the Internet. But rather than deal with the discomfort of talking about race, we've continued to follow outdated rules about what words can be said by whom or, even worse, to stay silent. As if not speaking of racism will somehow make it go away. Silence, even the well-meaning kind, rarely wins an argument. It just allows the lunatic fringe to fill the vacuum in the public debate. And this reluctance doesn't help the effort to achieve racial equality, it hurts it.

I love her game.  "Some" of the protests are racist in nature, followed by two quotes (which I will assume are accurately reproduced) by people I don't know, who are not in the forefront of anything.  And that is the basis for everything that whines forth.

Now, based on this nothingness, if you criticize Barack Obama you are a racist.  Just like Ms. Kelley tells us she knew would happen since Barack Obama won the presidency, and has been waiting for all this time.

What does it mean?  Are the tea parties racist?  Is my personal dislike of Mr. Obama's policies on health care and the middle east racist?  If I don't like the "czars" he has appointed am I a racist?  If I think eric holder is a disgrace am I a racist (or double-racist, since Holder is Black too)?

Read the column closely and see if you can find anything Ms. Kelley actually says, other than race, race, race, race and race.

When do people like this realize that the kind of garbage they pump out trivializes the race issue down to nothing?  That they make race an all-purpose panacea for explaining away anything Barack Obama does, no matter how much it would have been disliked even if he were White.

And, by so doing, they turn racism into a silly, whiney political strategy instead of the serious problem it is, and should be treated as.

What a sad, counterproductive thing to do.


Ken Berwitz

Ken Berwitz

The Kennedy succession scam.  Thats what Steve Gilbert at www.sweetness-light calls it, and hes 100% correct.  I am calling it a flip-flop (also 100% correct) only so I won't copy Steve's terminology:

Obama OKs Kennedy Succession Scam

September 20th, 2009

From an unfazed Politico:

Patrick, Obama talk succession plan


Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick said on Friday that he and President Barack Obama discussed a proposal that would pave the way for him to appoint an interim successor for the late Sen. Ted Kennedy and that White House aides have been in frequent contact with the governor about the matter.

In his first public comments about the push to change the states succession law in nearly three weeks, Patrick, a Democrat, said that the conversation with Obama took place at Kennedys funeral in Boston last month.

The governor told reporters that Obama aides have been in touch with him since then and that they are supportive of a bill that would give Patrick the authority to temporarily fill the vacant United States Senate seat, providing the administration with a crucial 60th Democratic vote in the chamber as lawmakers debate health care reform.

He and his whole team have been very clear about that, Patrick told reporters after holding a meeting with his cabinet in Richmond, Mass. where he is recuperating from hip replacement surgery

The bill that would give the governor the power to appoint an interim senator cleared a major legislative hurdle on Thursday night, winning approval in the Massachusetts House of Representatives, only to encounter resistance in the state Senate on Friday.

After more than eight hours of contentious debate, the House passed the succession bill by a 95-58 vote, but Republican state senators used parliamentary delaying tactics to put off consideration of the proposal until next week. Senate Democratic aides said that it was unlikely the bill would come up for a vote until Tuesday or Wednesday

White House senior strategist David Axelrod has been lobbying lawmakers to support the bill, and the Massachusetts director of Organizing for America, Obamas grass-roots political organizing arm, recently sent an e-mail to supporters calling on them to urge their state legislators to vote in favor of changing the states succession law.

Patrick said that if the bill makes it to his desk, he would sign it and name the temporary appointee as quickly as possible. But the governor offered few clues about the selection process.

As I consider who that appointee might be, Im looking at criteria that includes a sure stewardship of our interests, he told reporters

Lest we forget, Mr. Axelrod is Deval Patricks puppet master, too.

As I consider who that appointee might be, Im looking at criteria that includes a sure stewardship of our interests, he [Patrick] reporters.

No kidding.

And the people of Massachusetts interests be damned.

But notice that the Politico doesnt even deign to mention that the law being overturned here was written by Ted Kennedy to protect the Democrat Partys interests just a few short years ago.

As noted by the op-ed writers Wall Street Journal back in August, when Mr. Kennedy first suggested the change:

What Mr. Kennedy doesnt volunteer is that he orchestrated the 2004 succession law revision that now requires a special election, and for similarly partisan reasons. John Kerry, the other Senator from the state, was running for President in 2004, and Mr. Kennedy wanted the law changed so the Republican Governor at the time, Mitt Romney, could not name Mr. Kerrys replacement. Prodded by a personal appeal from Senator Edward M. Kennedy, reported the Boston Globe in 2004, Democratic legislative leaders have agreed to take up a stalled bill creating a special election process to replace U.S. Senator John F. Kerry if he wins the presidency. Now that the state has a Democratic Governor, Mr. Kennedy wants to revert to gubernatorial appointments.

Even the Solons at the New York Times came out against this latest crass political maneuver less than a month ago:

Senator Edward M. Kennedy has asked the Massachusetts Legislature to change state law to let the governor, currently a fellow Democrat, fill vacant Senate seats. Abandoning the current system, in which voters choose, would be undemocratic, even at the request of such a respected lawmaker.

But thats all forgotten now.

Indeed, the Politico and our media masters dont even see anything wrong in having the President of the United States and his astroturf army getting involved in such an obvious anti-democratic, political ploy.

We really have become a third world country.

We have talked about this before:  In 2004 Senator Ted Kennedy engineered a change in Massachusetts law that would prevent the (then-Republican) Governor, Mitt Romney, from replacing John Kerry if he were to win the presidency.

Now it is 2009 and Deval Patrick is Governor, thus Ted Kennedys replacement would be a Democrat, not a Republican.  So these high-minded paradigms of virtue and rectitude are going to change it back.

They have no honor and no shame.  

The one point of solace is that the people of Massachusetts, who cant seem to elect anyone but Democrats these days and especially the people of Boston, whose governments corruption is a nationwide joke (think Big Dig), are getting exactly what they deserve.

Good for them.  And watch them come back for more anyway.

Ken Berwitz Steve - thanks for the laugh....rueful though it was. (09/21/09)

steve schneider to avoid any problems in the future they should change the law to only democratic governors have the power to appoint an interim senator. steve schneider (09/21/09)

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!!