Saturday, 06 February 2010

PRESIDENT OBAMA'S THEORETICAL CABINET

Ken Berwitz

About a month or so ago I blogged this information on a bar chart.

But my sister saw it again on TV in the last day or two and sent it along to me.  I think it is worth a repeat performance.

Here is a chart with each administration in the past century, along with the percentage of cabinet appointees who came from the private sector (as opposed to government or academia):

T. Roosevelt   38%
Taft              40%
Wilson           52%
Harding         49%
Coolidge        48%
Hoover          42%
F. Roosevelt   50%
Truman         50%
Eisenhower    57%
Kennedy        30%
Johnson         47%
Nixon            53%
Ford              42%
Carter           32%
Reagan         56%
GH Bush        51%
Clinton          39%
GW Bush       55%
Obama            8%

Is the problem not obvious?

President Obama has selected an administration that is virtually devoid of anyone with experience in what most of us would call the real world.  He has surrounded himself with people like himself:  bureaucrats, political wonks and academicians.  In other words, people who can only theorize about the real world because they don't function within it.

That explains a lot, doesn't it?


A "PALINDROME" WORTH SEEING

Ken Berwitz

As many of you know, a palindrome is a word or name that spells the same thing backwards and forwards:  for example, the names Ava and Otto, the words mom, pop and racecar (which is the longest single-word palindrome I'm aware of).

Well I am going to show you a "palindrome" of sorts.  It can be read forward and backwards and will be coherent both ways.  But what a difference in the message!!!!

It supposedly was entered in an AARP contest called U@50.  At least that's what West Coast Russ (one of the people who told me about it) says. 

Regardless of the source, it is so brilliant and so inspiring that I would love everyone to see it.  And that includes you.

Just   CLICK HERE.   Then sit back, watch and listen. 

The entire presentation takes less than two minutes.  But I bet you will be as amazed, and as moved, as I was.


PATRICK KENNEDY - A BAD JOKE

Ken Berwitz

Patrick Kennedy is the Democratic answer to Ron Reagan:  someone whose entire career is based on family lineage.

Mr. Kennedy is the son of the late Senator Ted Kennedy.   So his bouts with drugs and alcohol, his roughing up of a female security guard at Los Angeles Airport (LAX), his drunken car-crash in 2006, etc. etc. etc. are all somehow trumped by the Kennedy name. 

Politically, why else would a 27 year old druggie be nominated for, and elected to, congress from Rhode Island in 1994?  Would it have happened if his last name was not Kennedy and his daddy was Ted?  You tell me.

You would think this sorry background would cause Patrick Kennedy to think twice before making sport of other people's political careers, wouldn't you?  Well, it wouldn't.  Read this, from Michael O'Brien and Jordy Yager, writing for www.thehill.com:

Patrick Kennedy: Scott Brown's candidacy 'a joke'

By Michael O'Brien and Jordy Yager - 02/04/10 05:07 PM ET

 

Sen. Scott Brown's (R-Mass.) election has been shown to be "a joke," the son of the late Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) said Thursday.

Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D-R.I.) castigated Brown for having pushed to be sworn in ahead of schedule to permanently fill the Senate seat left vacant by the congressman's father's death in August.

"Brown's whole candidacy was shown to be a joke today when he was sworn in early in order to cast his first vote as an objection to Obama's appointment to the NLRB," Kennedy said Thursday

 

Kennedy was referencing some Democrats' thoughts that Brown tried to bump up his swearing-in in order to give Republicans 41 votes, enough to filibuster the nomination of Craig Becker, a controversial nominee to join the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).

"Seven out of ten of Brown's voters were labor households and he stressed that he was independent and while he was originally scheduled to be sworn in next week, they moved it up to today so he could cast his first vote, the most anti-labor, the most anti-what his constituents thought they were voting for when they voted for him," Kennedy said.

Brown, for his part, has denied trying to move up his nomination to block Becker's nomination.

"This is where he shows that when they need him, he's in the tank for the Republicans," Kennedy said.

Scott Brown pushed the swearing-in ahead?  No, Patrick, he demanded that he be sworn in when the votes were counted and he therefore was legally the senator - that it not be held up a week for partisan reasons.

Scott Brown is "in the tank" for Republicans?  Er, Patrick:  Scott Brown IS a Republican.  And of course he would be likely to vote the Republican position on a given issue.  You have a fascinating definition of "in the tank".

But since you brought it up, Mr. Kennedy; are you "in the tank" for Democrats and their most liberal/leftward causes?  Let's find out.

Here, from www.vote-smart.org, are some of  the ratings interest groups give you on your votes:

-100% from abortion groups

-100% from the ACLU 

-95% -100% from almost every union group

-100% from the ADA (liberal)

-0% from the American Conservative Union.

Using your own definition, Patrick, you are so far "in the tank" that you're pressing against the plug.

If ever a man should just shut the hell up and thank his lucky stars that someone else gave him everything he has - no matter how many chances he blew - that man is Patrick Kennedy.  But, as you can see, he does the polar opposite instead.

Scott Brown is not a joke.  Patrick Kennedy is.  And a bad one at that.


THE "REE-TARD" COMMENT: WHEN TALK SHOW HOSTS, AND PUNDITS, DON'T GET IT

Ken Berwitz

From "allahpundit" of www.hotair.com - a source I usually agree with.  But not now:

Palin spokesman on Limbaughs retard joke: Crude and demeaning

posted at 5:58 pm on February 4, 2010 by Allahpundit


Its on. A little.

I asked Palin spokesperson Meghan Stapleton for comment on Rushs rant, and she emailed me this:

Governor Palin believes crude and demeaning name calling at the expense of others is disrespectful.

It hardly has the passion of her response to Rahm, and theres no call for him to step down. But given Rushs stature among conservatives, its pretty interesting that she went this far, denouncing his on-air rant as crude and demeaning name-calling.

His on-air rant was just an extended goof at Emanuels expense for describing lefty activists as retarded, but having chosen to pick this fight, I guess Sarahcuda cant make exceptions for humor. This is the second prominent conservative her team has had to chastise in two days: An advisor to Rick Perry, whom shes supporting, was upbraided in similar terms yesterday for using the word retarded on a conference call (its now become a minor issue in the Texas Republican primary). Ted Nugent, wholl be playing at a Perry/Palin rally this weekend, has also been quoted using the term in interviews, so presumably hes next. I wonder how much mileage Olby will get out of all this before the scoldings are finally done.

In my opinion this is dead wrong.

The issue is not whether Limbaugh meant it to be a sarcastic put-down of Rahm Emanuel - which he did, and which Emanuel deserved.

The issue is that, in doing so, Limbaugh employed exactly the same crude, demeaning, hurtful use of the term "REE-tard" (that is how he kept pronouncing it) that Emanuel did. 

Think of it this way:  If Robert Byrd used the term "nigger", as he did on TV a few years back - and then apologized for doing so, as Rahm Emanuel apologized for saying "REE-tard" - would it be OK for a radio talk show host to gleefully use the term "nigger" over and over again, each time reminding listeners that he was quoting Byrd?  Would repeated use of that insulting, offensive name be ok then?  Would Black people laugh it off and say "wow, what a great satirist that guy is?? 

How about kike?  Dago?  Mick?  would it be ok then?

I hope you see my point.  I only wish that Rush Limbaugh - and "allahpundit" - would see it as well.


Buy Our Book Here!


Return to Current Blog
We're Hopelessly Partisan

hopelesslypartisan.com, 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!!