Monday, 22 March 2010


Ken Berwitz

John Hinderaker of speculates that the terrorist-sympathizing suckup Attorney General, eric holder, may be on the way out:

Holder on the Way Out?

March 21, 2010 Posted by John at 6:42 PM


Eric Holder's tenure as Attorney General has been rocky at best, but it's interesting that the first speculation I've seen that his days are numbered comes from a foreign source, AFP:


US Attorney General Eric Holder took office pledging a sharp shift away from the last administration's policies, but an apparent change of heart in the White House could see the top lawyer leave his job. ...


[A] series of gaffes, fights with both Republicans and Democrats, and apparent disagreements between him and the White House have left Holder looking increasingly embattled.


That's true, of course. But why aren't we seeing such commentary in the American press?


He came under renewed fire when he told lawmakers Tuesday that Osama bin Laden would not be captured alive, and that US officials would read legal rights to the Al-Qaeda leader's corpse.


But the ridicule and attacks that followed are only the latest blows Holder has faced in the 14 months since he took office....


[T]he final straw for Holder may be the increasing distance between him and Obama on national security issues.

The White House has relented on its original insistence to prosecute five men accused of plotting the September 11, 2001 attacks before a civilian court in New York City. Strongly defended by Holder, the plan was intended in part as a symbolic gesture to showcase how differently Obama dealt with the prickly subject than his predecessor.


Holder has refused to back away from the plan even as reports suggest the White House will agree to prosecute the five men before a military court in return for Republican support for the closure of the Guantanamo Bay prison camp.


The phrase "under the bus" comes to mind. It can't happen too soon, but the real problem, of course, isn't Holder, it's Obama.

What a loser eric holder is.  What a classic peter-principle hire.  What a debacle his year as Attorney General has been.

Let's hope that this is an instance of hope and change:  i.e. let's hope there will be a change. 

Soon.  Very, very soon.


Ken Berwitz

If you are gullible to the absolute max you will believe that ACORN is going to fold as an organization.

From Ben Smith of

Acorn folds

The national group ACORN is folding, an official there, Kevin Whelan, said in an emailed statement:

The ACORN Association Board met on Sunday March 21 and approved a set of steps to responsibly manage the process of bringing its operations to a close over the coming months. These include:

* Closing ACORNs remaining state affiliates and field offices by April 1st; and
* Developing a plan to resolve all outstanding debts, obligations and other issues.

ACORNs members have a great deal to be proud of--from promoting to homeownership to helping rebuild New Orleans, from raising wages to winning safer streets, from training community leaders to promoting voter participationACORN members have worked hard to create stronger to communities, a more inclusive democracy, and a more just nation.

ACORN was always a very decentralized group, with a great deal of its activity and power concentrated in local chapters from New York to Arkansas -- the strongest of which will survive. The collapse of the national group, though, reflects the impact of a conservative assault that never prompted any prosecutions.

If you are not gullible to the absolute max, you will realize that ACORN is going to continue to exist under one or more different names, with the same key people overseeing the same activities and getting massive amounts of taxpayer dollars, just as it did under the ACORN name.

The question is:  how gullible are you?

free` I wonder how you go about setting up an organization like that. If you can't beat them... (03/22/10)


Ken Berwitz

From cartoonist Steve Kelley


Political Cartoons by Steve Kelley



Ken Berwitz

For whatever it is worth, here are results from the single most recent poll on ObamaCare, completed yesterday - the day it was voted on.  It was conducted for CNN by Opinion Research Corporation:

As you may know, the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate are trying to pass final legislation that would make major changes in the countrys health care system.


Based on what you have read or heard about that legislation, do you generally favor it or generally oppose it?


          Mar 19-21, 2010


Favor 39%

Oppose 59%

No opinion 2%


21. (IF OPPOSE) Do you oppose that legislation because you think its approach toward health care is

too liberal, or because you think it is not liberal enough?  QUESTIONS 20 AND 21 COMBINED


                   Mar 19-21, 2010


Favor (from Question 20) 39%

Oppose, too liberal 43%

Oppose, not liberal enough 13%

No opinion 5%

Make of it what you will.


Ken Berwitz

MSNBC is to neutrality what the octomom is to chastity.

Here is the latest example, courtesy of Tim Graham at

MSNBC Relays 'Independent' E-Mailer Favoring ObamaCare -- And Online, He Loves Both Obama and MSNBC


By Tim Graham
Mon, 03/22/2010 - 13:26 ET


In the noon hour on MSNBC today, anchor Contessa Brewer read some online commentary from the American people, including this pro-Obama gush from an "independent."


Rick Mordecon writes: As an independent, seeing the health care bill passed makes me much more likely to vote for the Democratic agenda this fall. I think the decision they made with strong leadership from the president, was courageous & visionary, two things I look for in my representatives to government.


The online people at MSNBC might want to Google these things before they transmit them. One Rick Mordecon, a New York filmmaker, has a Facebook page that clearly states he is a "fan" of Barack Obama (and of MSNBC's Luke Russert).


On his MySpace page, this Rick Mordecon lists Obama and George Soros as "Heroes" and expresses among his "Interests" the program "Countdown with Keith Olbermann."


He lists Obama, Thomas Friedman of the New York Times, and Fareed Zakaria of CNN and Newsweek among people he'd like to meet.


His MySpace page also mentions a blog and on there, he really unloads like an MSNBC fan:


Reality Check 2- "Massachusetts Mayhem" - Martha Coakley was the wrong candidate in the wrong race. An Ed Markey might've done a lot better. I'm an independent for Obama, and if I was a voter in Massachusetts last week, i would've been hard pressed to vote for Coakley, although to support this president, I probably would've voted for her. Still, my impulse not to vote for such a terrible candidate would've been strong. But not as strong as my belief that if you do not vote, you do not have any real claim to legitimacy when it comes to political opinions. So I might've taken one for the team on Coakley.


Reality check 3: "Dysfunction Junction" or "A great president needs a great congress to get things done". if Mr Obama gets a B+ for his first year in office, congress gets a D. This is significant part of Mr Obama's problem. Any president's problem. Presidents can't be kings. They need congess to get things done, and this congress is more dysfunctional that most. On one side you have the radical racist right wing tea baggers who jsut hate the fact that we have a bi-racial president, and will use any tool any tactic to derail his smallest initiative. These people are reprehensible, but they are real, and no american should discount their power. You can be killed by a sledgehammer, or a mosquito. These tea baggers are the mosquitoes of American politics. They are small, but organized, and vocal. Sometimes the loudest voice does not represent the largest person. So the democrats need to watch for political malaria from these tea baggers.


Then there's his poem to Obama's election (and did I mention he's a huge fan of Maya Angelou?) That comes through:


In a field of others dreams, the nightmares of rope and chains.
In the sun, no shade, in the winter, pain and longing.
In a lanky, lovely, lonely man, a spark of humanity that becomes a bonfire of revolution, maiming brothers, splitting rivers, dividing reason, then healing wounds with soft touch and hard loving.

Yep, Rick Mordecon is an independent all right.

Why would you trust anything that comes from this network?


Ken Berwitz

Here it is, short, sweet and definitive.


Stupak flashback: Remember when pro-life fraudster Bart Stupak held his town hall last year and said that hed vote for Obamacare even if it funded abortion? Of course, at the time he didnt know he was being recorded.


If everything I want [is] in the final bill, I like everything in the bill except you have public funding for abortion, and we had a chance to run our amendment and we lost. OK, I voted my conscience, stayed true to my principles, stayed true to the beliefs of this district, could I vote for healthcare? Yes I still could.

There's your proof.  The Stupak holdup was, in reality Mr. and Ms. Taxpayer being held up by Stupak.  He was a "yes" vote all the way.

End of story. 


Ken Berwitz


Yesterday I blogged an opinion about the house vote on ObamaCare.  It didn't exactly qualify me as a prophet;  it was in front of our eyes, plain as day.  I said that


by virtue of one political bribe after another to individual congresspeople (all briberies being funded by the US taxpayer), it might well squeak through.


Today we wake up to the result of that vote.  And it turns out that I was wrong.  


The 219-212 margin, while numerically slight, is close only because the insufferably smug, smirking dishonest Nancy Pelosi released a number of congresspeople in at-risk districts to vote no.  If it were closer, they would have been espected to vote yes.


In other words, the vote was an orchestrated little dog and pony show right from the start including the theatrics between Pelosi and the equally phony Bart Stupak.  Did you have any doubt at all that he and his people were going to be given a rationale to vote yes on this legislation one which was designed to fool a few of his more gullible constituents?  For your sake, I hope not.


This is my first chance to blog about how the vote went down, because my wife and I spent a beautiful Sunday with our son, daughter in law and our grandchildren.  


Our two pre-school grandchildren are the ones who will shoulder the lions share of debt that Barack Obama and his sycophants are running up with gleeful abandon.  The only saving grace for them is that, if this legislation holds (and there is no guarantee that it will, as I detail further on), they will probably not remember what the USA was before its government was legislated into a social democracy, on its way to being who knows what.  To them it will just be the way things are.  Small consolation.


This morning the Today show hosts, along with Meet The Press host Dick Gregory, were clearly thrilled over passage of the bill.  You sort of get the drift when you hear Republican opposition referred to not as an equally valid point of view, but as gumming up the works (yes, that is the exact terminology used on the show).  Not surprisingly, The New York Times, via its lead editorial, is equally thrilled, if not more so.


Having said this, however, the Attorneys General of two states so far - Virginia and South Carolina - will challenge the constitutionality of this seemingly unconstitutional federal takeover. 


No one knows where this will lead, or how fast it will lead there.  And no one knows how this Supreme Court would rule on, say, whether parts of it violate the 10th amendment, or any other of the number of grounds which might be offered.  


Also, though I m not 100% clear on how it works, I have heard that there may be a basis for the senate parliamentarian (did you ever hear of such a thing until now?) might force it to go back to the house for a revote.


Maybe Today and the Times are suffering from an acute case of premature exhilaration.  


I hope so.


Ken Berwitz

I read the Gallup organization's web site earlier today, and noted an article by Frank Newport, its editor-in-chief.  Mr. Newport went into an extensive analytical discussion of health care polling from other organizations, and mentioned that, tonight, Gallup would be conducting its own poll. 

Here is what I wrote in the comments section - and I hope they take me up on it:

March 22, 2010 2:28 PM  


I'm more than a little surprised that, unless they are suppressing them, the studies you've mentioned overlook several extremely important anylitical issues.

One such issue is where support and non-support for this legislation comes from. If, for example, the preponderance of support comes from congressional districts that invariably vote Democratic (as I suspect is the case) then, for obvious reasons, the data are not as good for Democrats as they may seem.

Another such issue is breaking the data by Democrats, Republicans and Independent voters (i.e. the segment without party loyalty).

I assume we agree that most people affiliated with a party will reflect that party's line. But if independents - i.e. the people most likely to swing an election one way or the other - are strongly to one side? Then we have something genuinely significant to talk about.

I hope that Gallup's study tonight incorporates these issues. If so, good for Gallup. If not, there is still time to revise the questionnaire. I'll wait and see.

Is it just me, or are you also astonished that health care data are so infrequently reported by party affiliation/non-affiliation? 

Isn't seeing how independents break (along with how many defections there might be from the faithful of each party) hugely important to understanding what the poll says?  Even more important than the total sample percentages?

I very much hope that Gallup takes me up on my suggestion.  And the fact that it published my comment, verbatim - right down to my typo on "analytical" - gives me at least some hope that they will do so.

We'll know tomorrow.....


Ken Berwitz

From central Florida's WDBO, we have this:

WDBO Local News

Florida Attorney General: health care reform violates the Constitution


Bob Hazen

@ March 22, 2010 7:10 AM


The Democrats' health care reform bill passed late Sunday night is facing a legal battle spurred along by Florida's Attorney General.


Attorney General Bill McCollum says he and eight other states' attorneys general plan to file a lawsuit against the reform bill approved by Congress.


"The health care reform legislation passed by the U. S. House of Representatives this last night clearly violates the U.S. Constitution and infringes on each state's sovereignty," McCollum said in a release after the vote.

McCollum says South Carolina, Nebraska, Texas, Utah, Pennsylvania, Washington, North Dakota, and South Dakota will join him in the legal fight.

McCollum has pointed specifically to the provision that requires all Americans to carry insurance or face a penalty as being unconstitutional. He'll talk about the lawsuit in Orlando Monday at 10:30

If Mr. McCollum is correct, 8 states are already lined up to fight this legislation. 

And, given the current Supreme Court, I have to think there is a very good chance that they can prevail, too.

Look at it this way:  even if the two most vulnerable USSC justices (Stephens, due to age, Ginsburg due to health) suddenly resign and are somehow immediately replaced by Mr. Obama (an almost impossible scenario), the makeup of the court will be no more liberal/no less non-liberal than it currently is.

Plus, we have the wild card known as Sonya Sotomayor - who, despite many people's assumptions that she is hard-left, has not shown us where she stands on this sort of issue yet.  No one knows for sure.

To paraphrase Margo Channing:  Fasten your seat belts.  It's going to be a bumpy process.

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!!