Monday, 25 January 2010


Ken Berwitz

A lot of Monday-morning quarterbacking is being done today about yesterday's NFL championship games.  Countless "why didn't he pass instead of hand off" and "why do that on fourth down" comments will be made before noontime.

But the term "Monday-morning quarterbacking" has another, more general meaning.  It is used to describe people who sit back, watch someone else handle a difficult situation, and then tell them what they're doing wrong - from a distant, safe vantage point.

And I have heard about as much Monday-morning quarterbacking about the US role in Haiti as I can take.

The US, under the directive of President Obama, has been nothing short of stellar since the Haitian earthquake.  We have turned chaos into at least some level of order, we are rescuing the trapped, providing food and water to the hungry and seeing to the physical needs of the injured to a degree that virtually no other country on earth is coming close to (with the exception of Israel which, despite its tiny size and its location half a world away, is both involved in rescue efforts, and is #2, behind only the US, in its medical services for Haitian people).

And this was put together from scratch in just a matter of days. (Yes I know that there are parallels between this and Hurricane Katrina, but this is not the place for them;  I will save that for another blog.)

Yet, even as we bring order to anarchy and save countless lives, we have been attacked mercilessly for our efforts. 

-We have the pathetic scumbag, hugo chavez of oil-rich Venezuela - whose contribution to my knowledge has been one ship's worth of supplies (whoopee doo) calling us "occupiers" and other worse names, and telling us we should send vaccines, not troops.  What he doesn't tell us is who will protect those vaccines - otherwise known as salable goods?  And who will negotiate the non-existent roads and the impossible amount of debris to get them to the field hospitals.  And who will protect the field hospitals, so they aren't robbed of the vaccine out of either greed or personal desperation?  I suggest that chavez should go back to turning his country into a socialist cesspool while regularly making an international laughingstock of himself, and leave the humanitarianism to people who care about humanity.

-Then we have the Alain Joyandet, the French  "minister in charge of humanitarian relief".  From London's Daily Telegraph:

The French minister in charge of humanitarian relief called on the UN to "clarify" the American role amid claims the military build up was hampering aid efforts.


Alain Joyandet admitted he had been involved in a scuffle with a US commander in the airport's control tower over the flight plan for a French evacuation flight.


"This is about helping Haiti, not about occupying Haiti," Mr Joyandet said.

Ooooh, poor baby.  You had a pwobwum with a US Commander (otherwise known as the guy who facilitates your ability to get anything done at all) and your wiwoo sensibiwities are bwoozed?  I have a great idea, Alain:  why don't you stop whining and complaining for a couple of minutes, and favor us with a quick narrative of France's glorious history with Haiti.  Tell us of the high road France took when it expropriated the country and turned it into one big slave plantation.  Explain to us how much better your country was than we "occupiers".  After that, you can go eff yourself.

-And now we have Guido Bertolaso of Italy.  Here is a man who had humanitarian success under circumstances that Haitians and US soldiers would be thrilled out of their minds with.  And he thinks that makes him an expert on what is happening in Haiti.  From Reuters:

ROME (Reuters) - Italy's top disaster expert has slammed the U.S. response to the Haiti earthquake, criticizing its lack of organization and the reliance on soldiers with no training in humanitarian operations. Guido Bertolaso, head of Italy's civil protection service who received international acclaim for his handling of an Italian earthquake last April, described "a pathetic situation which could have been much better organized."

Bertolaso, who arrived in Haiti on Friday, told RAI state television that Washington had made "a show of force," but military officers coordinating the emergency had no links with the humanitarian groups in the Caribbean island state.

"We are missing a leader, a coordination capacity that goes beyond military discipline," Bertolaso, who holds the rank of minister, said late on Sunday.

"The Americans are extraordinary, but when you are facing a situation in chaos, they tend to confuse military intervention with emergency aid, which cannot be entrusted to the armed forces."

A contingent of 13,000 U.S. troops is helping relief efforts after the January 12, magnitude 7 quake in Haiti, which killed up to 200,000 people and left up to 3 million hurt and homeless.

Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi's center-right government, which has tried to foster close ties with Washington, was quick to distance itself from the remarks.

"Bertolaso ... has attacked American and international organizations head on. The Italian government does not share these statements," Foreign Minister Franco Frattini told reporters on a visit to Washington.

Bertolaso won plaudits for his handling of last year's quake in the Abruzzo region of central Italy which killed 294 people and left 40,000 homeless.

However, the loss of life and scale of destruction was far smaller than in Haiti, and Italy as a wealthy nation is much better equipped to cope with disasters than impoverished Haiti.

Read those numbers again.  Bertolaso oversaw humanitarian efforts after an earthquake of 5.8 magnitude, about 300 dead, and some collapsed buildings along with a lot of damaged ones.  Can this world-class imbecile actually think that qualifies him to critique Haiti, where the aftershocks are stronger than the Italian earthquake, the buildings are almost all completely decimated, 3 million are homeless and the the death toll is something like 200,000 - and counting?  Evidently he does.  That's the equivalent of the guy you work with bowling one 200 game and telling you he is ready for the PBA tour.

I would like to think that much of the world is thanking us for what we are accomplishing in Haiti. I would also like to think that much of the world is giving credit - as well it should - to President Obama for his immediate commitment and, most of all, to our magnificent troops, for being there, with the goods, in just a matter of days. 

But then you get the three stooges I mentioned above, along with plenty more just like them, I assure you.  These are the Monday-morning quarterbacks, whose greatest contribution is to flap their lips and whine out criticisms and insults.

Why don't they just shut up and let the United States do what it has done so well in so many places -- help human beings in need.  Then they can go to bed where, along with dreaming up new complaints about how we're accomplishing it, they can fantasize that their countries ever came close to our record of humanitarianism. 

That would be some hell of a fantasy.

Zeke ... ... There are thousands of NGO's in Haiti doing important work -- promoting their individual roles so they can get more donations and appropriations. ... ... Publicity, seizing the 'moral high ground' and making themselves appear pure and above reproach are their important objectives. ... ... The US military is providing the major portion of resources - medical, food, shelter, transportation, security. This seems to be the case in in many natural catastrophes, while the 'holier than thou' grandstanders make real, but relatively minor contributions. ... ... Interestingly, AL JAZEERA mentioned that Israel provided a medical and rescue team of 220 specialists. Israel was the first to have a functioning hospital performing surgery. (01/25/10)


Ken Berwitz

Massachusetts?  Gone.  North Dakota?  Almost certainly gone.  Arkansas?  Probably gone.  Nevada?  Probably gone (good riddance!)  And plenty of others either ripe for the picking or realistically competitive.

And now there's Delaware.

Beau Biden, Joe's son, who is the Attorney General of Delaware and Joe's heir-apparent - or so we thought - has read the tea leaves, smelled the coffee and decided not to run for his father's seat.  I don't know that he could have won, but I'm pretty sure he had at least a realistic chance.  That is now irrelevant.

This means Mike Castle, current 9-term congressperson (which is a statewide office since Delaware has just one congressional seat), former two-time Governor and far and away the most popular Republican in the state, is running one.

Nor does there appear to be any competition on the horizon who could beat him.

Another Democratic senate seat lost?  Take that bet.


Ken Berwitz

Does this administration have the capacity to admit an impossibly damaging error and change the status of a terrorist so that he is interrogated like one?

From Jennifer Rubin at Commentary Magazine:

Its Not Too Late to Fix a Grievous Error

Jennifer Rubin - 01.25.2010 - 3:13 PM

Sens. Joe Lieberman and Susan Collins have written a letter today to Attorney General Eric Holder and counterterrorism adviser John Brennan urging them to designate Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the Christmas Day bomber, as an unprivileged enemy belligerent so he can be questioned and charged accordingly. The senators note that Obama himself has declared that we are at war with al-Qaeda. However, Abdulmutallab was read his Miranda rights and, as others have reported, provided only 50 minutes of conversation to FBI agents who lacked the needed detail to elicit all the helpful material he might possess. The senators note that last week, Dennis Blair and other officials conceded in congressional testimony that the Justice Department did not consult with leadership in the intelligence community and the Department of Defense for their input on whether or not to treat Abdulmutallab as a criminal and read him his Miranda rights. Senators also learned that the High Value Detainee Interrogation Group, which the Department of Justice announced last August more than four months ago is not yet operational.

The senators conclude that the presidents repeated admonitions that we are at war do not appear to be reflected in the actions of some in the Executive branch. But they note that the president can reverse this error and transfer the Christmas Day bomber to the Department of Defense.

This is a superb suggestion, which many conservative commentators have urged. There really isnt reason not to do so unless of course the criminalization of our national intelligence system and the self-imposed limits on our anti-terrorism efforts are in keeping with what the president wants. In that case, the actions of the executive branch have been in tune with Obamas wishes, and we are all in a great deal of trouble. Lets hope not.

The fundamental issue here is whether we are, or we are not, serious about protecting ourselves against international terrorism, which has a stated goal of ending western civilization and replacing it with shari'a law.

The reaction of President Obama and Attorney General holder to Ms. Collins and Mr. Lieberman's letter will give us some pretty clear insight.

Let's stay on top of this. 


Ken Berwitz

This piece, by Tom Blumer at, speaks for itself.  No need for addtional commentary by me:

Blatant vs. Balanced: CNN, MSNBC Played Faves With Mass. Election Night Speeches; Fox Carried All of Both

By Tom Blumer (Bio | Archive)
Mon, 01/25/2010 - 14:37 ET


Building on Brad Wilmouth's critique at NewsBusters of Keith Olbermann's disgraceful treatment of Scott Brown's U.S. Senate victory in Massachusetts, Johnny Dollar (HT Taxman Blog) measured the coverage of the victory/concession speeches of Brown and his opponent Martha (or is it Marcia?) Coakley.

Imagine my non-surprise when I saw the results (graph follows the jump):

During Tuesday night's coverage of the Massachusetts special election, CNN and MSNBC aired only a fraction of the Republican candidate's speech. Fox News Channel aired both candidates' speeches in their entirety.

.... CNN only ran 26% of Brown's speech, while MSNBC aired 37%. Fox News Channel carried 100% of both speeches:


Oh, but you don't understand, John. Letting Keith Olbermann rant on about Brown as "irresponsible, homophobic, racist, reactionary, ex-nude model, tea bagging, supporter of violence against women and against politicians with whom he disagrees," and "sexist" was much more important than actually letting the candidate's words get through to the audience. (/sarcasm)

If there's a bright side, it would at least be that showing all of Coakley's awful "dream lives on" speech probably turned off quite a few viewers, even in the fever swamps of CNN and MSNBC.


Ken Berwitz

It's belly laugh time.

This howler comes from Andy Barr at

MSNBC host Ed Schultz is tearing into Robert Gibbs and the rest of President Barack Obamas team, telling the White House press secretary that he is full of sh.

Speaking at the progressive Blue State Bash event at the Minneapolis Convention Center on Saturday, Schultz relayed a combative exchange he had off the air with Gibbs, who last appeared on his program The Ed Show on Thursday.

I know its being recorded, but I wasnt told it was off the record, Schultz said in a video posted on Mr. Gibbs and I had quite the conversation off the air the other night. Im gonna tell ya, I told him he was full of sh.

I did, Schultz continued. And then he gave me the Dick Cheney f-bomb the same way Sen. Leahy got it on the Senate floor. I told Robert Gibbs, I said: And Im sorry youre swearing at me, but Im just trying to help you out. Im telling you youre losing your base. Do you understand youre losing your base?

Schultz set a fiery tone in the nearly 20-minute speech that eviscerated the Democratic Party for not listening to its progressive wing.

We have to get these people who have infiltrated the Democratic progressive movement and get them the hell out, Schultz boomed. We are still in an ideological fight for this country.

The liberal talk show host who was asked by North Dakota Democrats to run for the Senate seat vacated by Sen. Byron Dorgans retirement implored the audience to hold the Obama administrations feet to the fire.

We have to make sure President Obama gets the message: Were with you, but you have to be with us, he said. If we dont speak up and tell the White House theyre wrong right now, who will do it?

Schultz also said that despite turning down an opportunity to run for the Senate, he would have used the same aggressive tone on the campaign trail.

I want all of you to know that I am not running for the United States Senate, he said. But I also want you to know that if I did, Id kick their ass.

The White House didnt respond to a request for comment.

You have to laugh.  Baghdad Bob Gibbs being given advice on how to gain votes by Ed Schultz.

Gibbs, a man who lies for a living (and, based on his performance, should get a big raise), being given advice for building up a base by Schultz, who has been on MSNBC for a year and has ratings so anemic that Dracula might give him a pity transfusion.

The latest data (from Thursday of last week):  Schultz has about 600,000 viewers, compared to over 3,000,000 for Brett Baier's straight news show on Fox, and about 700,000 for CNN's news show hosted by Wolf Blitzer.  Now there's a basis for giving advice....

But the best line of all is when Schultz says that IF he ran for the senate he'd "kick their ass".  Spoken by someone who is not running, and therefore can barf out as much bravado as he can muster.

Schultz's comment reminds me of the joke about a woman who goes to the butcher and asks for a pound of chopmeat.  The butcher says "That will be $3.95".  She says "$3.95?  The store two blocks over charges $2.95".  The butcher says "Then why don't you go there?"  The woman says "Because he's out of chopmeat".  The butcher says "Lady, if I was out of chopmeat I'd charge you $1.95".

Evidently Ed Schultz must have a little butcher in him.  Come to think of it, that stands to reason, since his ratings are butchering MSNBC every evening.


Ken Berwitz

Sometimes a cartoon says a great deal.  Like this one, which I picked up from a commenter at

Soros; Obama; politics; satire


Ken Berwitz

Well, Barack Obama promised you "transparency".  And you're getting it.

From Fox News:

White House directed a $25 million no-bid contract to Checchi & Company Consulting, Inc.

By FOX News  01/25/10 at 9:55 am


Despite President Obamas long history of criticizing the Bush administration for sweetheart deals with favored contractors, the Obama administration this month awarded a $25 million federal contract for work in Afghanistan to a company owned by a Democratic campaign contributor without entertaining competitive bids, Fox News has learned.

The contract, awarded on Jan. 4 to Checchi & Company Consulting, Inc., a Washington-based firm owned by economist and Democratic donor Vincent V. Checchi, will pay the firm $24,673,427 to provide rule of law stabilization services in war-torn Afghanistan.

Is that transparent enough for you?

It's transparent enough for Fox to report it.  Let's see how much of the rest of our wonderful "neutral" media do.

The 2010 elections cannot come fast enough.  And that goes double for 2012..


Ken Berwitz

Here is another of the seemingly countless instances in which the self-hating Jews who own the New York Times find a way to crap on Israel - even as they are forced to grudgingly acknowledge the country's disproportionate contribution to Haiti relief.

From Leo Rennert at

January 23, 2010

NYT can't run anything positive about Israel

Leo Rennert

Since Israel responded quickly to the Haiti earthquake with a major relief effort, including a field hospital that trumps all other medical services in the devastated country, it has received widespread, unalloyed recognition and praise from mainstream media in the U.S. and abroad.  ABC News, NBC news, CNN, Fox News, just to mention a few, along with many foreign media, have given extensive, favorable coverage to the life-saving efforts of Israeli doctors and nurses operating with cutting-edge skills and resources.

But NOT in the New York Times.


In its Jan. 22 edition, the Times carries an article by Jerusalem bureau chief Ethan Bronner that manages to rain on Israel's parade of rare media salutes for its display of genuine humanitarian caring half way around the world ("For Israelis, Mixed Feelings on Aid Effort -- Questions arise about image and the national character" page A11.)  As far as Bronner is concerned, Israel's life-saving marvels in Haiti are just a mixed bag -- with at least as many minuses as pluses.


Bronner starts by acknowledging that Israel has demonstrated that it is "one of the mst nimble countries in disaster relief" -- recognized as such by Western television news correspondents.


But he immediately balances this with a hefty dose of negativism -- quoting several Israeli leftists who fault the Haiti relief effort by asking why Israel can't be as generous to Palestinians in Gaza -- "the left has complained that there is no reason to travel thousands of miles to help those in need -- Gaza is an hour away."


And Bronner continues with his pejorative coverage by writing that Israel's government is trying to figure out "how to make the most of the relatively rare positive news coverage, especially after the severe criticism it has faced over its Gaza offensive a year ago."


Bronner, with his pluses-minuses balancing act, cites a Jerusalem Post commentator's assessment that the Haiti relief project shows that "the Jewish people demonstrated that their extended hand can bridge any gap and traverse any chasm when it comes to saving lives."


But just as quickly, Bronner neuters this kudo with a quote from another commentator, Larry Derfner, who wrote that "it's the Haiti side of Israel that makes the Gaza side so inexpressibly tragic.  And more and more, the Haiti part of the national character has been dwarfed by the Gaza part."


Well, you get the picture, as sketched by Bronner -- anythng good done by Israel in Haiti is neutered, erased by what it's doing to the people in Gaza.


Except, the Haiti-Gaza contrast fails on two counts:


1.  The devastation and suffering in Haiti are due to a natural disaster; while the plight of Gazans is due entirely to human factors -- i.e. the terror war waged by Hamas and Islamic Jihad against Israel with a decade-long barrage of thousands of rocket and mortar rounds against Israeli civilian populations.   Bronner doesn't bring himself to point out this obvious and telling difference between these two calamities.  Likening Haiti to Gaza is a totally irrelevant apples-and-oranges ploy.


2.  Even with the Israeli-Palestinian economic blockade of Gaza, Israel sends about 100 truckloads daily into Gaza, carrying food, medicines and other basic necessities.  Plus it provides sufficient diesel fuel to meet Gaza's needs.  Plus it has admitted hundreds of injured and sick Gazans into Israel where they receive the same dedicated, advanced medical care that Haitians receive in Israel's field hospital at Port-au-Prince.  Again, while Bronner gleefully quotes slanderous allegations about Israel's lack of humanitarian zeal, he omits any mention of the vast extent of humanitarian aid that is pouring into Gaza from Israel every day.


While Bronner relies on a few Israelis spouting a leftist-chic line against their country, he doesn't have the grace to quote the simple, short comment of Prime Minister Netanyahu that Israel, with its Haiti operation, shows "it's a small country with a big heart."


And the same can be said of Israel in regard to Gaza, when taking into account the unremitting terror war waged against it from Hamas-ruled Gaza.


Both Haiti AND Gaza demonstrate that Israel indeed has a "big heart."  No other country in the world, given the same provocations and rocket barrages, would treat its enemy as kindly as Israel has in responding to Hamas's war making from Gaza.


Bronner's Haiti-Gaza contrast doesn't hold water.

And yet, the Times remains a revered news venue among "enlightened" Jews - most of whom, presumably support Israel

How do I explain it?  The same way I explain the fact that 78% of Jews voted for Barack Obama in 2008, even knowing his long, close association with the virulently anti-Israel, anti-Jewish, anti-White jeremiah wright.

At this point, I could repost what I've written before on this blog.  But if you want a really good answer, read Norman Podhoretz' new book, "Why Are Jews Liberals?".  He's better at explaining it than I am (though just as exasperated).


Ken Berwitz

This post is for anyone who still believes that hugo chavez is the head of a democratic state.  It comes to us from the Associated Press:

CARACAS, Venezuela - Police and National Guard troops have fired tear gas and plastic bullets to disperse thousands of Venezuelans protesting after President Hugo Chavez's government forced a critical TV channel off cable television.

Protests broke out after cable companies dropped the anti-Chavez channel Radio Caracas Television Internacional, or RCTV, over the weekend.

The channel was forced off cable after defying new rules requiring cable channels to carry mandatory programming including some of Chavez's speeches.

Authorities sought to prevent a march by university students Monday from reaching the state telecommunications agency. Chavez supporters held a counter-demonstration, and some were seen throwing rocks and bottles at anti-Chavez protesters.

This is the real hugo chavez -- hero of the OAS and the man who lectures Honduras and other countries on how to govern.

It is why this obnoxious, socialistic barroom loudmouth is an international laughingstock -- except for the people he is subjugating, that is.

The sooner hugo chavez is ousted from power, the better off Venezuela and other central and south American states will be. 


Ken Berwitz

Remember when the Obama people and their scurrying little squirrels from the left were accusing the Tea Party movement (teabagggers, as they called them) of "Astroturfing" - i.e. presenting themselves as everyday citizens, when they were really an organized movement?

Well, does the name Ellie Light mean anything to you?  I'm betting it doesn't - and if I'm right, it means that the same media which couldn't put out enough stories about the tea party "Astroturfers" their leftward masters invented and then told them about, have buried a real "Astroturf" strategy on behalf of the Obama left.

Want specifics?  Sure.  Here they are, courtesy of Michelle Malkin:

The Astroturf Presidency

By Michelle Malkin    January 25, 2010 03:18 AM

Who is Ellie Light?


I predict youll start seeing the question as a popular bumper sticker soon (a la Who is John Galt?and voila, someone has already made a t-shirt!).


Its a handy rhetorical rejoinder the next time the White House or your nutroots neighbors and co-workers try to tar the Tea Party or any other grass-roots revolts against President Obama as phony, top-down operations.

When Obamas Soros-funded, Big Labor-directed, K Street-organized goons engage in classic projection and you need a glib way to call out the pot calling the kettle black, just snap back:


Who is Ellie Light?


A Cleveland Plain Dealer blog first broke the story over the weekend of a suspicious letter-writer named Ellie Light who submitted more than a dozen pro-Obama letters to the editors in recent weeks using addresses from Philadelphia to California and all points in between. Open-source-optimizing blogger Patterico has added much more information on both Donald Trump Astroturfing (a letter published in multiple places from one person claiming to live in multiple cities) and David Axelrod Astroturfing (identical letters published in multiple places claiming to be from different people).


Kudos to the Plain Dealer for smoking out the initial ringer and Patterico and his readers/tipsters for delving deeper. But so much for the rest of the vaunted gate-keepers of the Fourth Estate, eh?


The bogus letters are just the latest example of Obama theater doctors in costumes, town hall stage props, trumped-up Obamacare anecdotes, kiddie proxies, etc., etc., etc.


Underscoring this administrations dependence on centrally planned, teleprompter-dependent perpetual campaigns of manufactured support, the other half of Obamas Astroturf Twin Power David Plouffe will soon rejoin Chicago cronies David Axelrod, Valerie Jarrett, and the rest to rescue the Democrats in a new expanded role as outside White House adviser.


A reminder from my August 21, 2009 column on Corporate Shills for Hope and Change:


Money from pharmaceutical firms and health care companies is dirty, evil, and corrupting except when key members of Team Obama are pocketing it. White House spokesman Robert Gibbs derides grass-roots opponents of socialized health care as industry-funded lackeys with questionable motives and conflicts of interest. But what about the corporate shills at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue?


Two weeks ago, the White House embraced $150 million in drug industry ads supporting Obamacare. This week, Bloomberg News reported that White House senior adviser and chief campaign strategist David Axelrods former public relations firm, AKPD Message and Media, has raked in some $24 million in ad contracts supporting Obamacare along with another p.r. firm, GMMB, run by other Obama strategists.


The ads are funded by Big Pharma, the AARP, AMA, and the powerhouse Services Employees International Union (whose Purple Shirts dumped $80 million in independent expenditures to get Obama and the Democrat majority elected). In trademark Axelrod-ian style, the special interest coalition adopted faux grass-roots names first under the banner of Healthy Economy Now and more recently as Americans for Stable Quality Care.


Because, well, Corporate Shills for Hope and Change doesnt have quite the same ring of authenticity.


Astroturf master Axelrod was president and sole shareholder of AKPD from 1985 until last December, when he resigned to take his White House position. His son, Michael, works there. So does former Obama campaign manager David Plouffe. Axelrod is prominently featured on AKPDs website, from a founders quote on the front page (CHANGE IS SOMETHING YOU HAVE TO FIGHT FOR) to the glamorous election night photos of Plouffe and Axelrod with the Obamas. AKPD still consults with Axelrod on strategy and research for the Democratic National Committee. The firm owes Axelrod $2 million, due in annual installments of $350,000, $650,000, $400,000 and $600,000.


That Axelrod and his old firm benefit mutually from their respective roles selling Obamacare should be gobsmackingly obvious. Axelrod pushes the White House plan on TV news shows. AKPD derives mega-income from ad contracts selling the White House-endorsed plan. The windfall allows AKPD to settle its debts with Axelrod, whose name, face, and high-powered ties are critical to future wheel-greasing for AKPD and future salary-earning for Axelrods son and close associates.


Plouffe authored an op-ed for the Washington Post over the weekend crusading to save the Demcare government takeover. His Washington Post byline does not mention his position at AKPD and does not disclose his financial conflicts of interests in promoting Demcare while serving as senior adviser to AKPD, which raked in an estimated $24 million in drug industry ads supporting Demcare along with Obama-tied p.r. firm GMMB.


Another MSM failure to keep readers fully informed:


David Plouffe, campaign manager of Obama for America and Obama-Biden 2008, is the author of Audacity to Win.


Who is Ellie Light?

The article is a good deal longer than what I've posted, and you can read it all by clicking here.  But I think you get the pictures.

Another example of our wonderful "neutral" media in action.

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

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!!