Wednesday, 03 February 2010


Ken Berwitz

A week ago we were told that abdulmutallab, the so-called "Christmas bomber" was interrogated for 50 minutes, and that they get everything they could get out of him.  This was in response to the outcry over him being given a civil court trial and a taxpaye- funded lawyer who told him to stop talking.

Yesterday we were told that the FBI brought abdulmutallab's father over from Nigeria (maybe other family members too), they implored him to give the information he has, and now he's giving all sorts of information.  This was in response to the disbelief that everything he new was extracted in those 50 minutes.

There is a whole lot of lying going on here.  And this administration is treating us like a bunch of ignorant morons who can't figure it out.

Unfortunately, for some people they will be right.  Do yourself a favor and don't be one of them. 


Zeke ... ... ... Nothing to worry about. ... ... Note that photos of Obama, janet napolitano, Rahm, all show them smiling, with their fingers tightly crossed. ... ... ... They are in a great position: Firmly in control. ... ... And the country won't change leaders if there is a massive terrorist attack - stick with what you have in the time of danger. Scary to thing THAT is Obama's strategy. (02/03/10)


Ken Berwitz
Do you wonder how ol' blue eyes would have handled umar farouk abdulmutallab?
CLICK HERE and you won't wonder any more.
I guarantee you will laugh.  Heck, you might even cheer him on.


Ken Berwitz

"That is the stupidest thing I've been asked in a long time. That is insane, the suggestion could only come from a demented right wing source," erupted Representative Barney Frank (D - MA), when asked by The Washington Times about what he thought of assertions that Massachusetts Democrats would stall the certification process should Mr. Brown win. "There isn't the slightest possibility of it happening---a way of doing it. That is conspiracy theory at its most contemptible."

Remember that?  Barney Frank said it a little more than two weeks ago.

Ok.  Now read this excerpt from an article in todays Washington Times:

Sen.-elect Brown demands to be seated

By Joseph Curl

Massachusetts Sen.-elect Scott Brown on Wednesday demanded to be seated immediately, saying that while he is set to be sworn in Feb. 11, "there are a number of votes scheduled prior to that date."

In a letter from his lawyers to Gov. Deval Patrick and Secretary of the Commonwealth William Galvin, Mr. Brown argues that the results of the special election in Massachusetts on Jan. 19 are not in doubt and he should be able to take the seat right away.

"We represent Senator-elect Scott Brown. We understand that the election returns from Massachusetts cities and towns were transmitted this morning to the State Secretary's Office and by the State Secretary to the Governor's Office. While Senator-elect Brown had tentatively planned to be sworn into office February 11, he has been advised that there are a number of votes scheduled prior to that date, For that reason, he wants certification to occur immediately. As he is the duly elected United States Senator from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, he is entitled to be seated now.

"Accordingly, on behalf of Senator-elect Brown, we request that the results of the special election January 19, 2010, be certified without delay and that a duplicate be provided me in hand no later than 11:00 a.m. on Thursday, February 4, 2010, so we may deliver the original by hand to the Secretary of the United States Senate in time to allow Senator-elect Brown to be administered the oath of office by the Vice President tomorrow afternoon," wrote lawyer Daniel B. Winslow.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid seemed amenable to the demand. "Once we get his certificate we expect to swear him in tomorrow afternoon as early as five o'clock, which is earlier than he suggested," Jim Manley, Mr. Reid's spokesman, told The Hill on Wednesday.

Once sworn in, Mr. Brown would give the GOP 41 votes in the Senate, one more than the party needs to sustain a filibuster of Democratic initiatives.

Mr. Brown wants to vote on several issues coming before the Senate soon. "There are votes coming up on nominees for GSA administrator, Solicitor of Labor and the National Labor Relations Board," said one of his top aides, Eric Fehrnstom.

As pre-election polls showed him with a chance of winning, Mr. Brown complained when Mr. Galvin -- a Democrat -- said it would take him several weeks to certify the results because of a state law requiring a 10-day waiting period to receive absentee ballots. There also is an additional five-day waiting period for cities and towns to send him their official results.

On Jan. 20, Mr. Galvin sought to defuse the situation by sending the Senate clerk a letter saying it appeared Mr. Brown had won the election. Similar documents had previously allowed newly elected members of the House to be sworn in.

Anyone hear from Barney about this?  I didnt think so.  What a complete liar and fraud he is.  How pathetic that the people of Newton, MA will undoubtedly re-elect this sorry sack of excrement again in November.  If there is such a thing as collective guilt, they are guilty of stupidity in the first degree.

And what a fraud is being perpetrated on the people of Massachusetts, as Paul Kirk, the interim senator who has absolutely no legal right to be there anymore, continues to be seated and operate as the Democrats 60th vote. 

Where are our wonderful neutral media in demanding that at the very least Kirk be disallowed from voting in the US Senate?  The same place they are when it comes to demanding that Scott Brown be seated two weeks after the election - and after the waiting period for absentee ballots and for cities and towns to send their official results.  Nowhere.

This is not just a disgrace and a scandal.  It is a purposeful ignoring of our laws and of the constitution.  

It has to stop.  Now.

Zeke ... ... wow, Ken ... ... You are amazing. ... ... Harry Reid jumped when you said "Get Scotty Brown sworn in as Senator." ... ... Mr. Brown will be a Senator this afternoon. ... ... Somehow, it got moved up a week from the original date (Feb 11). All it took was a letter from Brown's attorneys to the MA governor and Secretary of State demanding this. (02/04/10)


Ken Berwitz

Frankly, I did not want to blog about this.  I try to give the benefit of the doubt when people make stupid offhanded comments even for someone like Rahm Emanuel, who would pounce on a Republican doing the same thing.

But since the story is festering and growing, I have to chime in.

From Peter Wallsten of the Wall Street Journal:

February 2, 2010, 9:47 PM ET

Emanuel Steps Up His Apology

By Peter Wallsten

Washington Wire reported earlier today that White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel privately apologized last week to the Special Olympics after the Journal reported that he used the word retarded in a derogatory manner.

But advocates for people with disabilities didnt think that apology, coming in a phone call to Special Olympics head Tim Shriver, was enough.

Now, Emanuel is taking his contrition one step farther hosting a delegation of advocates, including two people with mental disabilities, at the White House.

A statement from the Special Olympics issued late Tuesday described the session as a face-to-face discussion with Rahm Emanuel about the suffering and pain of people with intellectual disabilities that is perpetuated by the use of the terms retard and retarded as well as the damage that can be done by the casual use of the R-word even if it is not directed toward people with intellectual disabilities.

The release said that the group will ask Emanuel to take The R-word pledge at and to join in the March 3, 2010 Spread the Word to End the Word campaign, as well as invite him to be a leader of change surrounding the pervasive and damaging use of the R-word.

The delegation will include Shriver, Chairman and CEO, Special Olympics, Andrew Imparato, president of the American Association of People with Disabilities, Hannah Jacobs,  parent of a disabled child, and two so-called self advocates: Julie Petty and Ricardo Thornton, a Special Olympics athlete.

A late addition appears to be Peter Berns, head of another advocacy group, The Arc, who told Washington Wire earlier that he considered Emanuels private apology to be inadequate.

Berns said that he received a late phone invitation from Kareem Dale, a top White House aide on disability issues.

The White House has acknowledged that Emanuel made the offending statement, which was first reported in a Wall Street Journal account of an encounter last summer between the chief of staff and liberal activists.

Some groups were planning to air ads attacking President Obamas health care overhaul, and a frustrated Emanuel scolded them, calling the idea f retarded.

Emanuel made a stupid, offensive comment, he was called on it, and his apology should have ended the issue.

But instead of apologizing sincerely, Emanuel did so politically.  He cherry-picked the head of the Special Olympics and apologized specifically to him.  Frankly, thats what a PR flak would tell him to do.

Are all mentally disabled people in the Special Olympics?  Nope.

And what about the specific people he used the term fucking retarded to.  Are they in the Special Olympics?  Nope.

In other words, Emanuel used the Special Olympics as a political prop to get past what he said.  And it made things worse.

Now he is being asked to make The R word pledge, and promise never to say it again - which, however well meaning, is offensive in its own way. 

Cant Mr. Emanuel just think harder about the consequences of what he says and act accordingly, instead of publicly purging of the word from his vocabulary?  When he does that, it comes across more as a self-imposed restriction of free speech than a sincere rethinking of why the term was inappropriate.

I would have assumed a savvy pro like Rahm Emanuel would know better.  But evidently I would have been wrong in making that assumption.


Ken Berwitz

I was just reading a piece at, and came across this excerpt from President Obamas proposed budget.  According to John Hinderaker, it can be found on page 40:

Reduce the Itemized Deduction Write-off for Families with Incomes over $250,000.

Currently, if a middle-class family donates a dollar to its favorite charity or spends a dollar on mortgage interest, it gets a 15-cent tax deduction, but a millionaire who does the same enjoys a deduction that is more than twice as generous.

By reducing this disparity and returning the high-income deduction to the same rates that were in place at the end of the Reagan Administration, we will raise $291 billion over the next decade.

Giving a greater tax deduction to the $250,000 person is more than twice as generous? Generous?

That sounds pretty impressive until you consider one teeny weeny little factoid Mr. Obama leaves out:  The $250,000 person pays a far higher tax rate to begin with.  

Suppose you are a middle class person and, after all your deductions, you are in, say, the 15% tax bracket.  For every dollar that goes to contributions or mortgage interest, you will get a 15% deduction.  Why?  Because that is what you pay in taxes.

And if you are at a 36% tax rate?  You will get a 36% deduction.  Not because the government is being generous, but because that what you pay in taxes just like the middle class example.

If Mr. Obama wants the same deduction for both situations, I have a very simple solution for him:  either tax the middle class person at 36% or tax the $250,000 person at 15%.  There, that does it.  Badda bing, badda boom.

Tell you what, though:  If I were you I would not expect to see that solution any time soon.  Not on page 40, or anywhere else.


Ken Berwitz


People who live in glass multi-million dollar co-ops shouldnt throw stones.


Sorry for revising that old saying, but somehow it works better with Katie Couric (or Katie Carwreck as I call her, based on the lousy ratings she generates for CBS evening news).


From Lachlan Markay of 


Katie Couric Gets Some of Her Own Class Warfare Medicine for $14m Salary


By Lachlan Markay (Bio | Archive)
Wed, 02/03/2010 - 10:47 ET

Katie Couric may be getting a taste of her own populist medicine. When the Dow hit 10,000 last October, she (and other network news personalities) used the opportunity to bemoan massive payments to Wall Street bankers. But now the populist sentiment has turned on her. She faces dramatic pay cuts as CBS News downsizes.

Couric, shown in a, er, file photo at right, "makes enough to pay 200 news reporters $75,000 a year! It's complete insanity," one CBS News insider told the Drudge Report. "We report with great enthusiasm how much bankers are making, how it is out of step with reality during a recession. Well look at Katie!"

The employee was referring to Couric's roughly $14 million annual salary, the highest in network news. That salary may be cut dramatically in the face of massive layoffs at CBS News branches in Washington, San Francisco, Miami, London, Los Angeles and Moscow.

CBS News has been one of the most outspoken networks against massive Wall Street bonuses and executive payments. The "Early Show" hosted economist Peter Morici late last year to whine that "it's absolutely unfair for Wall Street to be paying itself record bonuses. The taxpayers made these bonuses possible by loaning Wall Street money at near zero rates. This is all quite unseemly and inappropriate."

Couric herself has also been critical on occasion. She said last year, "Pick up today's Wall Street Journal and you'll read banks and securities firms are on track to pay their employees Record amounts this year. And, you pick up The New York Times and you'll see some workers are being forced to take huge pay cuts."

Days later, she recounted on Evening News that "Taxpayers all over the country were outraged when they heard that companies they helped bail out turned around and gave their executives huge bonuses."

Couric probably would have been better off staying away from criticisms of executive bonuses. Her $300,000 per week salary was sure to raise eyebrows in the event of layoffs.

Maybe as a rule of thumb, multi-millionaires should just avoid inciting class warfare, for their own sake if no one else's.

Who have media very much including CBS media been outraged over for years, and especially for the last year and a half?  Corporate executives who do a lousy job (i.e the company goes downhill rather than uphill) and are paid fortunes for their failures.

But what about Katie?  Well, lets look at an excerpt from Tom Shales January 28th column in the Washington Post, in which he tries desperately to convince us that Ms Courics star is finally rising.  Buried all the way down in the 10th paragraph we have this:

NBC's Brian Williams and his nightly newscast continue to score an emphatic first place in the Nielsens, with about 10.1 million viewers, followed by Charles Gibson and ABC with 9.1 million and Couric and CBS at 7.2 million. But Couric's numbers are up about 5 percent over the same period as last year, CBS says.

Do the math and you will find that Brian Williams has 40% more viewership than Katie Couric does.  Second-place finisher Charles Gibson has 27% more viewership.  And these numbers are after Ms. Couric has been in the anchor chair over 3 years.

That is what the big hoo-hah from Shales is about?  A modest (to say the least) 5% rise in viewership that keeps her a distant third?  Ill just bet the CBS top brass are giddy with delight.

So let me ask you:  How can Katie Couric fulminate against executives who do a lousy job and get huge compensation packages for it, when she is so far down the crapper ratings-wise and is paid $14,000,000 a year?

Now theres a feature story I would love to see on CBS.  When do you figure it will be aired?

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!!