Sunday, 18 April 2010


Ken Berwitz


A quick Q and A for you:

-Question:  Can the Democratic Party tie Republicans to extremists, even terrorists?  


-Answer:  Sure.  Theyve done it before.

 Here, via a blog from John Hinderaker at, is the blueprint for doing just that.  And the person supplying this blueprint is none other than the person who successfully accomplished it during the Clinton administration:  Dick Morris.


Read on and see for yourself:

Bill Clinton Returns to the Scene of the Crime

April 17, 2010 Posted by John at 6:37 PM

The fifteenth anniversary of Timothy McVeigh's Oklahoma City bombing has just passed, and the Democrats are seizing every opportunity to wring political advantage out of that sorrowful event. Bill Clinton appeared at a symposium on the bombing sponsored by a left-wing think tank and linked the mad bomber to today's opponents of the Democrats' radical agenda.

Just before the symposium, in an interview with the New York Times, Clinton elaborated on the theme:

"There can be real consequences when what you say animates people who do things you would never do," Mr. Clinton said in an interview, saying that Timothy McVeigh, who carried out the Oklahoma City bombing, and those who assisted him, "were profoundly alienated, disconnected people who bought into this militant antigovernment line." ...

Mr. Clinton pointed to remarks like those made Thursday by Representative Michele Bachmann, the Minnesota Republican, who when speaking at a Tea Party rally in Washington characterized the Obama administration and Democratic Congress as "the gangster government."

"They are not gangsters," Mr. Clinton said. "They were elected. They are not doing anything they were not elected to do."

As hockey fans like to say, that's debatable. It's worth noting, though, that the first person to use the phrase "gangster government" in reference to the Obama administration was not Congresswoman Bachmann, but the most sober of political commentators, Michael Barone. As we noted here, the context was the Chrysler bailout; specifically, the Obama administration's bullying bondholders into giving up their legal rights through threats of federal reprisal. (Nice business you've got here; shame if anything were to happen to it.) That was, as Barone wrote, "an episode of Gangster Government." Sadly, there have been others.

Byron York reminds us that Clinton has been down this path before, in most dishonorable fashion. The Oklahoma City bombing was providential for Clinton. It occurred at the low ebb of his Presidency, just the day after Clinton pathetically told reporters that "the president is still relevant here." When the bombing occurred, Clinton and his aides immediately saw political potential. Pollster Dick Morris went to work, and, as Morris has written, just eight days after the Oklahoma City bombing he gave Clinton a strategy for a political comeback. Here was Morris' agenda for the meeting:


A. Temporary gain: boost in ratings -- here today, gone tomorrow

B. More permanent gain: Improvements in character/personality attributes -- remedies weakness, incompetence, ineffectiveness found in recent poll

C. Permanent possible gain: sets up Extremist Issue vs. Republicans

Morris acknowledged one problem: the Republicans were not, in fact, extremists. But that was an obstacle that could be overcome:

Morris told Clinton that "direct accusations" of extremism wouldn't work because the Republicans were not, in fact, extremists. Rather, Morris recommended what he called the "ricochet theory." Clinton would "stimulate national concern over extremism and terror," and then, "when issue is at top of national agenda, suspicion naturally gravitates to Republicans."

It worked:

It was a political strategy crafted while rescue and recovery efforts were still underway in Oklahoma City. And it worked better than Clinton or Morris could have predicted. In the months after the bombing, Clinton regained the upper hand over Republicans, eventually winning battles over issues far removed from the attack. The next year, 1996, he went on to re-election.

Clinton knows how false and dishonorable his charges are. But they worked for him, and he is helping Barack Obama set the stage for a similar political comeback in the event that some violent event might occur; or, perhaps, in the absence of any such event. So far, all of the violence associated with Tea Party or townhall events has been perpetrated by union thugs employed by the Democratic Party, but that hasn't stopped the Democrats from claiming that it is the Republicans who are somehow violence-prone.

Glenn Reynolds draws the proper conclusion--a notably strong condemnation from an observer as balanced and good-humored as Glenn:

[T]his statement serves as a useful reminder to those who have come to think of Clinton as some sort of cuddly, not-so-bad figure. He was a demagogue who would say whatever he thought might work when he was President, and he still is.

As Hinderaker (and, of course, Morris) correctly point out, this is what worked so successfully (if thats the right term) 15 years ago on behalf of Bill Clinton.  And it is precisely what Democrats are trying to do again today.


Will it work again?  Only if we let it.


Ken Berwitz

Lisa Fabrizio, writing for, has summarized her view of what the left thinks of various ethnic and demographic groups in this country. 

You may agree or disagree with what she says (I can find reasons to do both), but you can't say she isn't thought-provoking.

Here Ms. Fabrizio's take on this obviously sensitive subject:

April 17, 2010

The View from the Left

By Lisa Fabrizio


We find ourselves in the midst of the latest leftist media attempt to explain to us exactly who and what we conservatives are. You know the drill: racist, homophobic, bitter, gun-slinging, bible-clinging Neanderthals.


An effort to define its enemies happens every time the Democratic Party perceives itself to be in trouble.


You may recall that when America endorsed the Contract with America by giving Republicans the House majority in 1994, the late ABC anchorman Peter Jennings famously attributed it to a "temper tantrum" by the electorate. Similarly, when their rock star of a president, Bill Clinton, faced removal from office, his allies in the media dutifully regurgitated the daily talking points emanating from his infamous War Room. Their demonization of mild-mannered men like Ken Starr and Henry Hyde would have been laughable had it not been so scurrilously effective.


Yes, liberal media-spinners have had their way with manipulating public opinion for quite some time. They have ruined the reputations of conservatives with everything from live-mike verbal slip-ups to obscure spelling errors. Democrats can be found with thousands of dollars hidden in their freezers or stuffing sensitive security documents down their pants, but call somebody "macaca" and prepare to face the lynch mob.


But while they are effusive in pointing out the foibles of their opposition, they are not so forthcoming in addressing the rest of America. So lest there be any confusion, or some who still are unable to read between the lines, allow me to present a clear and concise encapsulation of just what the left really thinks of a few groups.




No matter what liberals say, no matter how they try and spin it, they consider you lazy, stupid, and most importantly, prone to violence and crime. They love it when many of you revel in your victimhood, and they do all they can to encourage it. Every action and piece of legislation they propose to pass for your benefit proves this over and over again. Even programs like affirmative action that explicitly purport to bestow a boon upon you serve only to taint the achievements you might have made without them.


They desperately want and need your children to embrace the gangsta and rap culture in order to keep them servile to "the struggle," and so they throw more and more money at an education system which values diversity over any real learning. And when some of you wise up and demand measures to empower individuals to succeed such as school choice, you are deemed as "no longer black" and therefore irrelevant.




Most everything liberals think about blacks applies to you, except that you have too many babies and therefore may have foreign attachments -- not to your countries of origin, but to Rome. Also, they assume that you came to this country not to raise your children as Americans, but to enjoy living in your own little barrios -- complete with all the poverty and devastation you fled -- and be grateful to them for the opportunity to do so.


Senior citizens


To them, you represent everything wrong with this country: You sacrificed all to ensure that your children would inherit the kind of America that would protect them from the same depredations of war and economic depression you lived through. And, reports to the contrary notwithstanding, Democrats have rewarded you by playing on your fears about Social Security for decades, all the while eating away at the financial security you worked your whole lives to build.


Worst of all, you were educated to believe that America is a good country, and you have a lifetime of experience that enables you to see through schemes which do not accord with human nature, or which are obvious cons. The reallocation of medical resources away from you will reduce your life expectancy, and hence your weight as a voting bloc.


Middle-class white men


Those of you who still vote for Democrats must truly be as doltish as Hollywood movies and TV commercials make you out to be. Liberals demonize you every day, and yet you keep coming back for more, from feminist women who seek to emasculate you to any and all victim groups who seek reparations at your hands for the dastardly crimes of your forefathers.


Yes, America, although they will vehemently deny it, this is what liberals truly think of you. And in the past, too many of you have seemed not to care. But now that you've given them the power they've so ardently desired, their agenda is making all of the above crystal clear as the months roll on. You can either embrace "the hope" or make "a change" come November.

One major area of disagreement I have with Ms. Fabrizio is her insistence (and she is far from alone) in equating liberals with left wingers.  They are not the same.  But, other than that, I can see enough justification for her opinions to present them in this blog,.

Now it's your turn to decide.  


Ken Berwitz

Excerpted from an Associated Press article:

Nearly 80 percent of Americans say they can't and they have little faith that the massive federal bureaucracy can solve the nation's ills, according to a survey from the Pew Research Center that shows public confidence in the federal government at one of the lowest points in a half-century.

The poll released Sunday illustrates the ominous situation facing President Barack Obama and the Democratic Party as they struggle to maintain their comfortable congressional majorities in this fall's elections. Midterm prospects are typically tough for the party in power. Add a toxic environment like this and lots of incumbent Democrats could be out of work.

The survey found that just 22 percent of those questioned say they can trust Washington almost always or most of the time and just 19 percent say they are basically content with it. Nearly half say the government negatively effects their daily lives, a sentiment that's grown over the past dozen years.

This anti-government feeling has driven the tea party movement, reflected in fierce protests this past week.

"The government's been lying to people for years. Politicians make promises to get elected, and when they get elected, they don't follow through," says Cindy Wanto, 57, a registered Democrat from Nemacolin, Pa., who joined several thousand for a rally in Washington on April 15 the tax filing deadline. "There's too much government in my business. It was a problem before Obama, but he's certainly not helping fix it."

Majorities in the survey call Washington too big and too powerful, and say it's interfering too much in state and local matters. The public is split over whether the government should be responsible for dealing with critical problems or scaled back to reduce its power, presumably in favor of personal responsibility.

If these data are accurate, it is nothing short of disastrous for the Democratic Party.

Simply stated, if the electorate thought Mr. Obama's policies were yielding positive results, or at the very least propelling us in the right direction, those numbers could not be anywhere near as ominous as they are for his party.

A lot can happen between now and November.  But if this is the way things are, you will see a far different congress than you did in 2008. 

And there will be real hope for a far different oval office in 2012 as well.


Ken Berwitz

First we have the story of neo-nazis from Detroit protesting illegal immigration.  The neo-nazis did this as provocatively as possible - i. e. they traveled to Los Angeles, which apparently has a large illegal presence, and mounted the protest in front of city hall -  in an obvious attempt to get as emotional and over-the-top a reaction as possible.

From an Associated Press article posted at

Blood spilled, emotions stirred at LA Neo-Nazi rally

LOS ANGELES (AP) -- A neo-Nazi white supremacist group rallied against illegal immigration in downtown Los Angeles on Saturday as hundreds of counter-protestors gathered to shout them down in a tense stand off that included thrown rocks and police in riot gear.

Police officers stood between the white supremacists and counter-demonstrators on the south lawn of Los Angeles' City Hall, where about 50 members of the National Socialist Movement waved American flags and swastika banners for about an hour.

The neo-Nazis shouted "sieg heil," but their words were mostly drowned out by chants of "racists go home" and "stop the Nazis" from the larger crowd of about 500 counter-protestors who held signs that read "Nazis: Get Out of Los Angeles" and "Racists Are Ignorant."

City Hall was selected for the Detroit-based group's "Reclaim The Southwest!" event because of Los Angeles' large population of immigrants -- some of whom are in the country illegally, regional director Jeffrey Russell Hall said.

The group was also responding to the recent flurry of street marches encouraging legislators to enact reform that includes amnesty for some illegal immigrants.

There was a brief flare-up of violence when a man removed his shirt revealing tattoos that featured Nazi lightning bolts, which some in the crowd deemed offensive.

Counter-protestor James Lafferty, executive director of the National Lawyers Guild, said he saw the tattooed man punched and kicked as a plainclothes officer dragged him behind police lines. Blood could be seen at the base of his neck, Lafferty said.

As the rally ended, counter-protestors hurled rocks, branches and other items over the police line toward the neo-Nazis.

No injuries were reported and it was unclear if any arrests were made, Police Officer Wendy Reyes said.

First off, let's say it plainly:  Whether or not you agree with these "people" on any given issue, they are the absolute scum of the earth.  If this bunch doesn't make you sick to your stomach, you either don't have a stomach or you're one of them. 

How sad, then, that the tactic used by this scum of the earth is precisely the same tactic used by a group of Democratic congresspeople just a few weeks ago when, just prior to the vote on health care, they intentionally marched through a crowd of Tea Party people protesting against the legislation. 

Congresspeople almost never walk to the house chamber on the street - they are provided passages below street level to do so.  But this bunch, including four Black congresspeople, not only went above-ground, but - with a full complement of media to catch every reaction - marched through the heart of the protest.

When none of the tea partiers said anything they could use to "prove" what racists and bigots they were?  The congresspeople lied, claiming they were called "nigger" anyway.  

And our wonderful "neutral" media, ever on the alert to second a Democratic motion, ran with the lie even though, with all their recording devices, not one such instance could be found. 

Now, millions of people who were not there, and who rely on mainstream media for their information "know" tea partiers hurled those racial epithets, even though there is absolutely no evidence that they did.

Let me ask you this:  suppose the media treated counter-protesters at the neo-nazi rally the same way?  Suppose the reports of this confrontation were full of condemnation for the counterprotesters, and written to communicate that they fomented gratuitous violence against people who were doing nothing other than peacefully protesting against illegal immigration?  Would you be outraged? 

And, if so, who would you be outraged at?  The protesters, the counterprotesters or the media?

See my point?

I titled this blog "A Sad Comparative".  And is it ever.

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!!