Monday, 19 October 2009


Ken Berwitz

I can't say I'm comfortable as a defender of Rush Limbaugh.  I don't care for his pompous, arrogant style and rarely listen to his radio show.

But it eats at me that Limbaugh is being singled out as divisive, when the NFL tolerates at least one person who is far worse.

Jeff Poor of has an excellent piece today comparing the way Limbaugh is treated versus the pathologically hate-filled keith olbermann.  Here it is:

Double Standard: Olbermann Given Pass on NFL Commissioner's 'Divisive Comments' Edict

By Jeff Poor (Bio | Archive)
October 19, 2009 - 08:40 ET

After conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh was forced out of a consortium seeking to buy the National Football League's St. Louis Rams, there's evidence there is a double standard at play in the NFL.

Last week, NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell said that people in "responsible positions" in his league are held to a "higher standard," reacting to the notion that Limbaugh could be a part-owner of an NFL franchise.

"I have said many times before that we are all held to a higher standard here," Goodell said. "I think divisive comments are not what the NFL is all about. I would not want to see those kind of comments from people who are in a responsible position within the NFL. No. Absolutely not."

That's a question Fox News and National Public Radio contributor Juan Williams had for the NFL on the Oct. 18 broadcast of "Fox News Sunday."

"Let me just come go back to something else Mara [Liasson] said, Oh, it's a business decision, and people don't make divisive statements,'" Williams said. "I watch MSNBC sometimes, I see their talk show hosts, they're mocking liberals, going on, this is Keith Olbermann ... Conservatives are terrible, they're a bunch of jerks, blah-de-blah. And then he's announcing the game. Nobody says, Well, because he makes divisive statements he can't announce an NFL game.' I don't see that." 

And that's something Williams is dead-spot on with, if you take a closer look at Olbermann's nightly MSNBC show.

'Countdown': The Place for Conservative Bashing

A closer look at Olbermann's nightly MSNBC show indicated he's not exactly Mahatma Gandhi when it comes to bridging what Goodell calls "divisive."

An analysis done by the Business & Media Institute indicated that since August 11, the beginning of NBC's coverage of the NFL, Olbermann has made conservative or right-leaning personalities the consistent target of his infamous "Worst Person in the World" segment.

The segment features three people of Olbermann's choosing to be the "Worse," "Worser" and "Worst Person in the World" set to Johann Sebastian Bach's Toccata and Fugue in D Minor. Since the beginning of football season Olbermann has named 91 right-leaning personalities or organizations as one of the three recipients, versus only two who could be perceived as left-leaning personalities or organizations. (Two others in the tally could not be defined as conservative or liberal.) That means Olbermann picks on conservatives 45 times more often than liberals - even worse than he used to be in 2006 when that ratio was only 8-1.

The two times since Aug. 11 Olbermann has attacked his own - once for whoever started a rumor about Glenn Beck as to whether or not he had once committed a crime, intended to disparage the Fox News host and the other - in defense of Limbaugh's NFL bid.

"The bronze tonight to critics of Rush Limbaugh," Olbermann said on his Oct. 8 program. "You heard me - critics of Rush Limbaugh, ones who were bristling at the news he and hockey executive Dave Checketts might buy the NFL's St. Louis Rams, suggesting he should not be permitted to because he made racist comments about Eagles quarterback Donavan McNabb that resulted in Limbaugh's firing by ESPN in 2003."

But other than that, the segment has been nothing but conservative-bashing sessions meant to appeal to his rabid left-wing viewers. In fact, since the beginning of football season, no liberal or left-leaning personality or organization has been the winner of his "The Worst Person in World" segment.

The Worst of the "Worst Persons in the World"

Olbermann's critique of conservatives has hardly been light-hearted. The MSNBC host doesn't pull any punches, even if it means hate-filled or misogynistic commentary.

For example, on his Oct. 13 program, Olbermann made some very disparaging remarks about conservative female blogger Michelle Malkin for her protest of what seems like the indoctrination of children in a school participating in a "song/rap" about President Barack Obama. The MSNBC host referred to Malkin as "a big mashed-up bag of meat with lipstick on it" (emphasis added):

"Runner up, Michelle Malkin. ... When this Obama song stupidity broke in New Jersey last month with elementary school kids there singing about the President, author Shariz Carney Nunez says she got an email from Malkin reading:

'I understand that you uploaded the video of schoolchildren reciting a Barack Obama song/rap at Bernice Young Elementary School in June. I have a few quick questions. Did you help write the song/rap and teach it to the children? Are you an. educator/guest lecturer at the school? Did you teach about your book, 'I Am Barack Obama,' at the school? Your bio says you are a schoolmate of Obama. How well acquainted are you with the President?'

That was at 6:47 in the morning. By nighttime, Malkin and the lunatic fringe had decided Carney-Nunez was responsible for the song and whichever plot their fevered little paranoid minds saw behind it. She received death threats and hate-filled voice mails all thanks to the total mindless, morally bankrupt, knee-jerk, fascistic hatred, without which Michelle Malkin would just be a big mashed-up bag of meat with lipstick on it. Ms. Carney-Nunez had nothing to do with the song. By the way, the fringe is out protesting at the school again scaring the kids. You know, exactly the way that psychotic pastor protests at military funerals."

And Olbermann's misogynistic tirades aren't relegated to just conservative media personalities, but also conservative female politicians. One of his favorite targets has been Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn. On his Oct. 6 show, Olbermann targeted Bachmann, suggesting there was some sort of "slasher movie" going on inside her head, since she had been an outspoken critic of a health care reform proposal Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi had been trying to force through Congress.

"But our, Congresswoman Michele Bachmann," Olbermann said. "Speaking about how Speaker Pelosi might handle Blue Dog Democrats over health care reform, Bachmann says, she will either beat them to death, bludgeon them to death, or she'll try to buy them off.' Yes, don't let that out to lunch look behind the eyes fool you. There's some sort of slasher movie obsession going on inside that congresswoman. This is at least the second time she has applied violent imagery to the public discourse. Just last month, she had told her fellow Republicans that to stop health care reform, they needed to make a covenant to slit their wrists.'"

Bachmann has been a regular recipient of Olbermann's "Worst Persons" tirades, having been awarded one of the three awards five times in the last two months.

And the inflammatory language isn't relegated to just Olbermann's "Worst Persons" segment. On his Aug. 25 program, the MSNBC host called viewers of "Fixed News," his euphemism for Fox News, "tin foil hatters, conspiracy theorists, paranoids and racists."

"I hate to intrude with the facts, but ours is the highest rated cable news program viewers 35 and younger, and the highest rated cable news program for all viewers not on Fixed News," Olbermann said. "And since Fixed News has now migrated completely over to serving propaganda to tin foil hatters, conspiracy theorists, paranoids and racist, it's not a news organization, making this show the highest-rated cable news program, period."

In other words, Olbermann with one broad brush called millions of people "tin foil hatters, conspiracy theorists, paranoids and racists." Fox News highest-rated show "The O'Reilly Factor" averages over 3 million viewers a night, three times as many viewers as Olbermann averages on a nightly basis.

Will someone please explain to me why Olbermann is persona grata for the NFL and Limbaugh is not?

I'd love an answer to that.


Ken Berwitz

What do say about a liar when you don't want to admit the liar who told the lie was lying? 

Well, two of the lamer things you can say are that the liar mis-spoke and was just trying to offer a contrast.  As evidenced by this article from London's Daily Times:

October 19, 2009

Hillary Clinton suffers mis-speaking relapse with Belfast bomb claims


Hillary Clinton has been caught out mis-speaking again in a manner that suggests that she hasnt learnt from past experiences of her globe-trotting, lily-gilding speeches.


The US Secretary of State was exposed during her battle with Barack Obama to become the Democratic presidential nominee over her claims to have landed in Bosnia under sniper fire.


She was even described as a wee bit silly for claiming greater credit than was her due for the Irish peace process, having made several visits to Northern Ireland as First Lady.


She was back in Belfast last week, giving a gentle push to politicians dragging their heels over a final piece in the peace process jigsaw.


But according to the Sunday Life newspaper, during a speech she made to the Stormont parliament she said that Belfasts landmark Europa Hotel was devastated by an explosion when she first stayed there in 1995.


The Europa, where most journalists covering the decades-long conflict stayed, was famed as Europes most bombed hotel, earning the moniker the Hardboard Hotel.


However, the last Provisional IRA bomb to damage the Europa was detonated in 1993, two years before President Clinton and his wife checked in for the night.


The last time the Europa underwent renovations because of bomb blast damage was in January 1994, 22 months before the presidential entourage booked 110 rooms at the hotel.


Mrs Clinton told assembled politicians at Stormont: When Bill and I first came to Belfast we stayed at the Europa Hotel ... even though then there were sections boarded up because of damage from bombs.


During the presidential campaign Mrs Clinton drew on her Bosnia experience, saying: I remember landing under sniper fire. There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport but we just ran with our heads down to get in the vehicles to get to our base.


After archive news footage was shown of her walking calmly from her plane with her daughter, Chelsea, Ms Clinton admitted: I did mis-speak the other day.


This has been a very long campaign. Last week, for the first time in 12 years or so, I mis-spoke.


A spokesman for Mrs Clinton said that she had simply been trying to express a sincere perception of a Belfast in darker days.


The spokesman told a Belfast newspaper: We are not talking about the same thing [as mis-speaking about Bosnia]. Secretary Clinton was simply contrasting.

Can we face some facts here?  Hillary Clinton, for all the hype and good press she has received over all these years, is an incompetent and a liar. 

What are her accomplishments? 

-When her husband became Attorney General of Arkansas she was made a partner at a corrupt law firm, without trying almost any cases. 

-When her husband became Governor of Arkansas she was made a senior partner - again, without trying almost any cases. 

-When she was made a (low level) part of the legal team during the Watergate hearings, her work was so shoddy and underhanded that the chief counsel, (Democrat) Jerome Zeifman, refused to give her a referral.

-While her husband was Governor of Arkansas he put her in charge of education, and education went nowhere. 

-While her husband was President she was put in charge of health care and health care went nowhere. 

-While her husband was President he pardoned and released 16 Puerto Rican terrorists, just in time for her to benefit by getting the Puerto Rican vote in New York and cinching her election to the senate.

-In her eight years in the senate she accomplished what? 

And now that she is Secretary of State in the Obama administration (which, in reality, was a way of stuffing her in a suitcase and throwing it overboard, since she seems to have very little influence on Mr. Obama), what has she accomplished? 

Well, at least she got Northern Ireland to laugh, if ruefully, at the, contrast, she told about staying at the Europa Hotel just after bombings -- bombings that had occurred TWO YEARS BEFORE. 

Helluva Secretary of State.

But, look at the bright side.  She could have been President.  Oh, wait, we got Barack Obama instead.


Simon Rose How does she think she can get away with it, time after time? You can see her "misspeaking" by going to YouTube and searching for "Hillary Clinton lies about Irish bomb damage" (10/20/09)


Ken Berwitz

President Obama is unable to make a decision about sending additional troops to fight the war in Afghanistan.  Even after his commanding General tells him in so many words that our soldiers are at too much risk with the current troop strength and we are in danger of losing.  Two months have passed since the request was made, and Mr. Obama still dithers and dawdles while our casualties rise.

But making a decision on going to war against Fox News - for the crime of strongly criticizing the administration (along with praising it, depending on who is doing the talking)?  That doesn't seem to be any problem at all.

Interesting set of priorities, wouldn't you say?

Here are the particulars, via excerpts from an Associated Press article:

WASHINGTON - White House advisers have stepped up their attacks on Fox News, claiming the cable television network is a Republican mouthpiece whose programming "is geared toward making money."

Several critics questioned the wisdom of the move while one of President Barack Obama's top adviser pledged Sunday that administration officials would still appear on the top-rated cable news network.

Last week, White House communications director Anita Dunn said Fox News operates "almost as either the research arm or the communications arm of the Republican Party."

On Sunday, Rahm Emanuel, President Barack Obama's chief of staff, said, "It is not a news organization so much as it has a perspective."

In response to the criticism, Fox News executive Michael Clemente on Sunday accused the White House of continuing to "declare war on a news organization" rather than focusing on issues such as jobs and health care.

"The door remains open and we welcome a discussion about the facts behind the issues," said Clemente, senior vice president of news, in a written statement.

Tough looks at the administration

Fox News commentators Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity have been strong Obama critics, and Bill O'Reilly has taken tough looks at the administration. Obama avoided "Fox News Sunday" when he visited five Sunday morning news shows last month; three aides carried the administration's message on Afghanistan, health care and the economy this Sunday to ABC, CBS, CNN and NBC, but not Fox; and a recent White House blog post accused Beck of lying. Beck has called Obama a racist.

( is a joint venture of Microsoft Corp. and NBC Universal, owner of NBC News and the MSNBC cable news network.)

Karl Rove, a Fox News contributor and former White House adviser to President George W. Bush, said the Obama administration is trying to demonize Fox News for asking questions officials do not like. He compared Obama's approach to that of President Richard Nixon, who included journalists on an "enemies list."

"This is a White House engaging in its own version of the media enemies list," Rove said. "And it's unhelpful for the country and undignified for the president of the United States to so do."

Appearing on ABC television's "This Week," senior Obama adviser David Axelrod said Fox News shouldn't be treated as a news organization. "And the bigger thing is that other news organizations, like yours, ought not to treat them that way, and we're not going to treat them that way," he said.

Unbelievable, but there it is. 

Does the Obama administration really think that this heavy-handed, attack-dog behavior is going to intimidate Fox into toeing the line and giving smiley-face coverage to them? 

If so, they better think harder.

So far, the result has been appreciably higher ratings for Fox News Channel.  Here are a couple of possible reasons:

-Non-viewers are now tuning in out of curiosity to see what the big hoo-hah is all about.  Some of them probably won't stay with Fox very long, but others will become regulars;

-The war against Fox may convince a segment of viewers that the other networks are kowtowing to President Obama and his administration -- i.e. that Fox is the only place which has not knuckled under to their demands. This actually elevates the status of the network, by suggesting it is the only one with courage enough to stand up to Obama & Co.

If I were part of the brain trust at Fox, I would be thanking my lucky stars every day for the Obama people's childish, petulant vindictiveness. 

It makes them look ridiculous, Fox look impressive....and it's good for business.


Ken Berwitz

No, I am not Chicken Little.  I am just quoting him. 

Chicken Little is known to most of us as UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown.  And here is his version of "The sky is falling!  The sky is falling!", straight from the BBC:

PM warns of climate catastrophe


The UK faces a catastrophe of floods, droughts and killer heatwaves if world leaders fail to agree a deal on climage change, the prime minister has warned.


Gordon Brown said negotiators had 50 days to save the world from global warming and break the "impasse".


He told the Major Economies Forum in London, which brings together 17 of the world's biggest greenhouse gas-emitting countries, there was "no plan B".


World delegations meet in Copenhagen in December for talks on a new treaty.


'Rising wave'


The United Nations (UN) summit will aim to establish a deal to replace the 1997 Kyoto treaty as its targets for reducing emissions only apply to a small number of countries and expire in 2012.


Mr Brown warned that negotiators were not reaching agreement quickly enough and said it was a "profound moment" for the world involving "momentous choice".


"In Britain we face the prospect of more frequent droughts and a rising wave of floods," he told delegates.


"The extraordinary summer heatwave of 2003 in Europe resulted in over 35,000 extra deaths.


Grim warning


"On current trends, such an event could become quite routine in Britain in just a few decades' time. And within the lifetime of our children and grandchildren the intense temperatures of 2003 could become the average temperature experienced throughout much of Europe."


The costs of failing to tackle the issue would be greater than the impact of both world wars and the Great Depression combined, the prime minister said.


The world would face more conflict fuelled by climate-induced migration if a deal was not agreed, he added.


He told the forum, on the second day of talks in the capital, that by 2080 an extra 1.8 billion people - a quarter of the world's current population - could lack sufficient water.


Mr Brown said: "If we do not reach a deal at this time, let us be in no doubt: once the damage from unchecked emissions growth is done, no retrospective global agreement, in some future period, can undo that choice.


"So we should never allow ourselves to lose sight of the catastrophe we face if present warming trends continue."


Agreement at Copenhagen "is possible", he concluded.


"But we must frankly face the plain fact that our negotiators are not getting to agreement quickly enough. So I believe that leaders must engage directly to break the impasse."


In recent days there have been a number of warnings that progress is stalling.


Rajendra Pachauri, head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, told Newsweek magazine "the prospects that states will actually agree to anything in Copenhagen are starting to look worse and worse".


The Major Economies Forum is not part of the formal UN process and so firm commitments are unlikely to come from the meeting.


It is seen instead as a gathering where countries can explore options and positions in a less pressured environment.

Unfortunately, this Chicken Little has plenty of Henny Penny's Cockey Lockey's and Loosey Goosey's to follow him.  One of them currently resides in the White House.

We can only hope that President Obama isn't as crazed as Prime Minister Brown.

Well, we can hope.....

Zeke ..... Global Warming: One of the coolest summers in decades .... Earliest snowfalls on record for Iowa, Colorado, etc -- ski resorts are open .... Extremely wet summer on east coast ..... major rainfall in California in the past week ..... sounds more like a coming ICE AGE, to me. (10/19/09)


Ken Berwitz

From London's Daily Sun:

Hate preacher: Convert Queen

ANJEM Choudary sparks fury by calling for Her Majesty to become a Muslim

Hate preacher tells Queen: Turn Muslim

HATE preacher Anjem Choudary sparked fury yesterday after calling for the Queen to become Muslim.

He demanded an Islamic revolution across Britain.

Choudary, 42, said Her Majesty - head of the Church of England - should convert to ensure her place in paradise.

He also wants to see senior members of the Government switching faiths. Choudary, a key henchman of rabble rousing cleric Omar Bakri, said: "We invite everyone from the Queen, to the ministers, to the Parliament, to the aristocracy, to the ordinary person in Britain to embrace Islam.

"Save yourself and your children in this life from misery and prepare them for a great destiny in the hereafter."

He made his call during an internet rant to promote a march in London later this month supporting Sharia law.

The ex-lawyer also made a scathing reference to the next general election, declaring: "Britain does not need a new leader, it needs a revolution - an Islamic revolution."

Labour MP Andrew Dismore said: "It'd be laughable if we didn't know that some take this man seriously." A Muslim group branded Choudary an "extremist nut".

Make of it what you will.  But read that last paragraph (the one in bold print) and think about it.



Ken Berwitz

Rahm Emanuel was on CNN yesterday.  He was asked to explain why President Obama, who was told in August by the commanding General his administration selected, that more troops were needed in Afghanistan, still has not made a decision.

His answer, as reported at

Oct. 19 (Bloomberg) -- White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel signaled the U.S. may refrain from deciding to send more troops to Afghanistan until a legitimate and credible government is in place.

The president will not be rushed to making a decision on Afghanistan, Emanuel said on CNNs State of the Union program yesterday. It would be reckless to make a decision on U.S. troop levels without a thorough analysis of the countrys ability to govern itself, Emanuel said.

The Obama administration maintains that Afghanistan needs a legitimate, stable government to harness the support of the countrys people and security forces to marginalize extremists. Uncertainty surrounding the results of the Aug. 20 presidential election, which has been plagued by allegations of fraud, was among the elements that prompted Obama to reconsider U.S. strategy and troop levels in the country.

The review is going to continue to go on, Emanuel said on CNN. President Barack Obama met Oct. 17 with his national security advisers on the war in Afghanistan, Emanuel said on the CBS Face The Nation program. More meetings are scheduled for this week and the following week, he said on CNN.

Were getting closer and closer to where the president wants to be, Emanuel said on CBS. The question isnt how many troops you send, but do you have a credible Afghan partner, he said on CNN.

In other words, the explanation for two months of dithering while our soldiers are in grave danger is....well, things aren't just so, and President Obama will only decide when they are.

If we fought World War II that way, we would all be speaking German now.

This is insanity.  President Obama agrees with and supports the war in Afghanistan - or so he says.  The commanding General that his own administration put in place has told him that without significant additional troops there is greater danger there, and we might lose the war altogether. 

President Obama's answer?  It is not to answer. 

Plenty of time to for a jaunt to Copenhagen (where he was humiliated by the Olympic Committee), plenty of time for fundraisers in places like San Francisco.  Plenty of time for a music bash at the White House. 

But dealing with the realities of war in Afghanistan?  No time for that.  Keep waiting.

Oh, and by the way, in case you had any doubt at all, Emanuel blamed this on President Bush.  From Iran's Press TV (not our wonderful "neutral media, all of which could have quoted him just as Iran's news media did):

An adviser to US president Barack Obama says Washington is "beginning" from "scratch" the war in Afghanistan, which he says the Bush administration had set "adrift."

White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel said on Sunday that former US president George W. Bush had failed to ask key questions regarding the war in Afghanistan.

"The president [Obama] is asking the questions that have never been asked on the civilian side, the political side, the military side and the strategic side," Emanuel told CNN's State of the Union.

"Do you have a credible Afghan partner for this process that can provide the security and the type of services that the Afghan people need?" Emanuel cited as one of the outstanding questions to be asked from Afghan leaders.

The White House chief of staff added that the Obama administration, upon coming to power, had to start the war in Afghanistan from the beginning.

"It's clear that basically we had a war for eight years that was going on, that's adrift, that we're beginning at scratch, just at the starting point ... and that there's not a security force, an army, and the types of services that are important for the Afghans to become a true partner," Emanuel said.

Earth to the Obama administration:  We were attacked on 9/11/2001.  The attackers were recruited to, trained at, and sent into the US from, training camps run by osama bin laden in Afghanistan.  President Bush's first order of business was wiping out both the training camps, and the bin laden-supporting taliban government which allowed them to freely operate.  It was not to ask about credible Afghan partners or to wait until conditions were just perfect.

As long as there are still brain stems out there willing to buy the premise that every Obama failure is Bush's fault, Rahm Emanuel and his pals will keep pumping this utter BS out at us.  Count on it.

Zeke Fraud in the Afghanistan elections? ? That is guaranteed in the Afghani Constitution. .... Let's get Albert Gore over there to demand hand recounts of the HANGING CHADS on the ballots. .... (only in the provinces where it will get more votes for Obama's candidates) ... HOW can the Dems complain... when Afghanistan is doing EXACTLY what our American Democracy practices in major urban centers. .... But, to be sure, we can also send ACORN over there, as well. (10/19/09)

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!!