Wednesday, 11 August 2010


Ken Berwitz

No one can say the Tea Party movement isn't showing results.  But just how beneficial are those results to what Tea Partiers want?

Let me show you what I mean by citing three examples:

-In Kentucky the Tea Party favorite, Rand Paul (Ron Paul's son), with no elective political experience, won his gubernatorial primary over Secretary of State Trey Grayson;

-In Nevada the Tea Party favorite, state legislator Sharron Angle, won her senatorial primary over former state senator Sue Lowden;

-In Colorado the Tea Party favorite, Weld County District Attorney Ken Buck, won his senatorial primary over former Lt. Governor Jayne Norton.

In each of these cases the Republican establishment wanted the opponent to win.  In each of these cases the establishment believed the opponent would be more likely to win the general election.   But in each of these cases the Tea Party candidate came out on top anyway.

On the one hand these are victories for philosophical purity:  Paul, Angle and Buck all stand for Republican ideals, such as lower taxes and less government, a good deal more stringently than their opponents.

On the other hand, however, their level of stringency may put them on the fringe of the Republican Party, too far from the center for many voters who would have considered their opponents.  And if that is true, instead of winning with less pure Republicans, the party will lose with purists and Democrats will occupy those seats

In fairness, there are also factors that might work in favor of the Tea Party favorites such as increased conservative energy and turnout because of how strongly purist they are.  But that remains to be seen.  Besides, why speculate when Election Day is less than four months away.

It will be more than a little interesting to track these three and see how things turn out.  Especially because the results may well tell us whether the Tea Party movement is here to stay, or is nothing more than an electoral albatross to be discarded after November.

free` I have never belonged to a political party, but wouldn't you rather have someone who stands for your beliefs even if they may lose, than the candidate that may win but doesn't stand for your beliefs? (08/11/10)


Ken Berwitz

In Colorado's Democratic senate primary, appointee Michael Bennet defeated Andrew Romanoff and will now run for a full term.

The good news for President Obama is that he supported Bennet and Bennet won with room to spare (the latest information I've seen has him 54% - 46% over Romanoff).  This breaks a major losing streak for candidates supported by Mr. Obama, who campaigned for Creigh Deeds in Virginia, Jon Corzine in New Jersey, Martha Coakley in Massachusetts and Joe Sestak in Pennsylvania, all of whom then lost.

The bad news for President Obama is that - according to my wife (I was in the shower at the time and didn't see/hear it first-hand), Bennet was asked whether President Obama's endorsement was a decisive factor in his win, and made a point of saying that it wasn't.

That is bad news, because it seems to pretty clearly communicates that even Bennet, an Obama-endorsed winner - does not want Mr. Obama's "help" during the campaign.

This, of course, may change as time goes on.  But that's how it looks now.

Stay tuned.


Ken Berwitz

Here is Harry Reid's latest stupid, ignorant comment. 

What makes a stupid, ignorant comment by Harry Reid particularly notable, given how many others he has made in the past?  This one is also a racist comment.

From John McCormack at

Harry Reid: "I don't know how anyone of Hispanic heritage could be a Republican."

BY John McCormack

August 10, 2010 11:26 PM

While campaigning in Nevada Tuesday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid told an audience of mostly Hispanic voters: "I don't know how anyone of Hispanic heritage could be a Republican, okay. Do I need to say more?" Watch the video here:

Reid's racially-charged comments come as the Nevada Democrat is trying to boost Hispanic turnout in his bid for reelection this November. Polls show, however, that Reid's positions on immigration are very unpopular with Nevada voters in general. Reid supports the Obama administration's lawsuit against Arizona over its immigration law, but 63 percent of Nevada voters oppose the lawsuit, according to a Rasmussen poll.

Reid voted against a measure to complete a 700-mile fence along the Mexican border in May, but 68 percent of voters nationally support building a border fence, according to Rasmussen.

Could this man be more stupid?  More ignorant?  More hopeless?

Reid is telling us that people of Hispanic heritage should uniformly support the Democratic position on border security - namely that there shouldn't be any, and if a state (Arizona, for example) tries to do what the Obama administration will not - i.e. enforce immigration laws - the DOJ will sue to stop that state.

Let's forget for a moment that there are a great many people of Hispanic heritage who SUPPORT secure borders, and WANT illegals stopped.  Let's talk about the fact that Reid's position is overtly racist. 

This is literally Harry Reid's version of "you've seen one, you've seen 'em all."   It is despicable.

Harry Reid:  Stupid.  Ignorant.  Hopless. Racist.  And, if we are very lucky in November, defeated.


Ken Berwitz

Want to see the depths of political depravity?  Then you've come to the right blog entry.


CONCORD The New Hampshire Republican State Committee today denounced Democrat NH House candidate Keith Hallorans public death wish for former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin. The Party also called on Governor John Lynch and Congressional Candidate Ann McLane Kuster to personally denounce his hateful remarks and call for him to apologize to the Palin family.
In a Facebook post yesterday regarding the tragic plane crash that killed former Alaska Senator Ted Stevens, Halloran wrote, Just wish Sarah and Levy [sic] were on board." Levi Johnston is the father of Governor Palins grandson

How low, how disgusting can this "man" get.?

Will Democrats demand that Halloran apologize?  I would think the answer is yes - if, for no other reason, because of the political fallout.   But I would hope the key reason is moral outrage.

And if they are morally outraged, they will also be demanding that he step down as a candidate.  Look at it this way:  they'll be better off because someone spewing that kind of sick filth is bound to do it again before election day.

We'll wait and see what happens.....


UPDATE:  What a strange update this is:

-Keith Halloran has now apologized for his imbecilic remark.  As well he should.  But he is staying put

-However, Rep. Timothy Horrigan, a New Hampshire State Representative, has resigned, because he put on his facebook page that  dead Palin wd be even more dangerous than a live one and she is all about her myth & if she was dead she cdnt commit any more gaffes.  Horrigan is also declining to run for re-election.

That's some classy bunch they have up there.....

free` "morally outraged" Do you even think the democrat party is capable of that? Don't you first have to have morals? (08/11/10)

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!!