Monday, 11 October 2010


Ken Berwitz

If you like your politics racial, this blog will be most enjoyable.

Excerpted from an article by Carol E. Lee and Abby Phillip at

As Obama has steadily increased his outreach to African American voters over the past month. With interviews and campaign stops targeted at the black community our community, as the president likes to say he has sent a clear signal that this election is about him and his record.


Two years ago you defied the conventional wisdom in Washington, Obama told thousands of screaming supporters Sunday at a campaign rally in a predominantly black area of Philadelphia. They said, No you cant.


No you cant elect a skinny guy with a funny game to the presidency of the United States, he added. Whatd you say?


Yes we can! the crowd, waving VOTE 2010 signs featuring the Obama 2008 campaign logo, replied.


His voice hoarse, the president pleaded with the Philadelphia audience to defy Washington conventional wisdom again. Head to your beauty shops and your barber shops, and spread the word, he said. But most of all, he said, head to the polls three weeks from now, even though he is not on the ticket.


The message echoed the one Obama delivered last week at a historically black college in Maryland. Dont make me look bad, now, he said, urging the mostly African-American audience to vote.


In casting the election in such personal terms to black voters, Obama is making the kind of racial appeal - as understated as it is - that he has been reluctant to do in the past.

Try to imagine if George Bush had ever told White audiences in White venues to go to the places where White people would be likely to congregate, and spread the word.

But President Obama speaking to Black audiences?  No problem at all.  It's good politics.

Maybe I expect too much, but holding everyone to the same standard has a certain appeal to me.  And I'm not seeing it here.  Are you?

One other thing:  If the 2008 Black vote for Mr. Obama was as racial as he apparently thinks it was (otherwise, why would he be making such a raw racial appeal now?) he can exhort those predominantly Black crowds to vote in the midterm elections all he wants - but if he's not on the ballot, they're not coming.


Ken Berwitz

It costs too much and doesn't deliver what it promised.

That's government.  And that's the new, much-heralded Chevrolet Volt - at least according to Edmunds, which is is an organization I trust a lot more than GM or government.

Read this excerpt from Edmunds' article and see why:

GM Lied: Chevy Volt is Not a True EV

Published Oct 11, 2010

  • Despite promises that the Chevy Volt will operate as an electric car at all times, it will in fact at times be directly driven in part by its internal combustion engine.
  • The mechanical link between Ecotec internal combustion engine and drive wheels will be at high speed.

DETROIT It's the big headline currently on GM's media news site:


"2011 Chevrolet Volt Reinvents Automotive Transportation IN A Complete No Compromises Electric Package"

Um, well, no. Even conceding that all engineering projects involve compromise and chalking that phrase up to marketing hyperbole, the Chevy Volt isn't as electric as GM pretends it is. And it isn't as electric as GM has been saying for the past three years. You know, GM statements like this one:


"The Chevrolet Volt is not a hybrid. It is a one-of-a-kind, all-electrically driven vehicle designed and engineered to operate in all climates."


In fact the Chevy Volt is a plug-in hybrid and it has more in common with conventional "series-parallel" hybrids like the Toyota Prius than the marketing hype led us to believe. There are circumstances in which the Volt operates with the internal combustion engine directly driving the front wheels. That's right, like a Prius.

Enjoy this circus side show, folks.  Your tax dollars are paying for it.

And special thanks to the Obama administration for perpetrating this fraud on us.  I'm sure that you, and the auto unions you fattened with our wallets, are yukking it up big time over the switcheroo.

Oh, by the way, the Toyota Prius has a base price of $22,800.  The Chevrolet Volt, apparently using the same kind of technology, has a base price of $41,000. 

Which do you think consumers will pick?

Zeke ... There is a difference between the Volt and the Prius. ..... ..... Legendary Toyota quality and reliability ..... ..... The Volt is basically a 40 mile range vehicle powered by house current with a "go further " gas motor. .... .... Natural Selection would indicate that purchasers would fall within the 40 mile range for, say 80% of their driving. .... Now, tell me WHO is going to pay the State & Federal TAXES that are levied on gasoline ...... ..... Taxes that go for road repair and construction. ... .... That could be a VERY big number IF the 'house charging' concept is implemented. .... .... The reason the gas motor goes directly to the drive wheels is to reduce wear and tear on the battery pack .... .... Li-Ion batteries are good for a limited number of charging cycles. Having the gas engine directly power the car bypasses use of the $15,000 battery pack. .... .... Resale value of used Volts will be VERY dependent on the replacement cost of the battery pack ..... BTW, how is the 40 mile range affected by using the A/C, heater, going up and down hills .... .... ..... ..... Even with the $7,500 'incentive' to each Volt purchaser, it doesn't appear to make any financial sense to buy one. .... .... I rode in a Lexus Hybrid, and found it quite comfortable on a trip from New Jersey to Maine, with luggage. (10/11/10)


Ken Berwitz

It is a measure of how desperate Democrats have become during this midterm election campaign, that they have become so blatant even the New York Times is debunking them.

For almost a week Democrats have been claiming that the Chamber of Commerce, which is mostly supporting Republicans (who would you support if the issue is commerce) has illegally been funneling foreign money into political campaigns.

President Obama quickly picked up this unevidenced accusation and has repeated it (recited it from a teleprompter if you wish) at several major rallies.

The problem?  As I keep pointing out, there is no evidence to back up the claim. 

And what do you call it when someone claims something is true with no evidence to back up the claim?

Does the word "lie" come to mind?

Here excerpted from Erich Lichtblau's article on Saturday, is what the Times has to say about this lie:

In two campaign stops Thursday, Mr. Obama invoked what he portrayed as a specific new example, citing a blog posting from a liberal advocacy group as he teed off on a longtime adversary, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, over its political spending.

Just this week, we learned that one of the largest groups paying for these ads regularly takes in money from foreign corporations, Mr. Obama said. So groups that receive foreign money are spending huge sums to influence American elections.

But a closer examination shows that there is little evidence that what the chamber does in collecting overseas dues is improper or even unusual, according to both liberal and conservative election-law lawyers and campaign finance documents.

So how did Democrats, including the President, rationalize their lie?  Lichtblau continues:

The issue of the chambers funding first gained notice this week when ThinkProgress, a blog affiliated with the Center for American Progress, an influential liberal advocacy group, posted a lengthy piece with the headline Exclusive: Foreign-Funded U.S. Chamber of Commerce Running Partisan Attack Ads.

The piece detailed the chambers overseas memberships, but it provided no evidence that the money generated overseas had been used in United States campaigns. Still, liberal groups like pounced on the allegations, resulting in protests at the chambers offices, a demand for a federal investigation by Senator Al Franken, Democrat of Minnesota, and ultimately the remarks by Mr. Obama himself.

White House officials acknowledged Friday that they had no specific evidence to indicate that the chamber had used money from foreign entities to finance political attack ads.

In other words,

-A hard-left, Republican hating web site (please use the link and see for yourself) puts up a blog piece that indicates the Chamber of Commerce is funneling foreign money into the campaign.  The web site provides no actual evidence, let's remember, but a combination of circumstantial evidence and innuendo which clearly suggest that foreign money is being used illegally;

-Other hard-left, Republican hating blogs pick the claim up - again, with no evidence that it is true;

-Democrats, in the midst of a panic situation because, as things now stand, the party will almost certainly lose its gubernatorial majority, will almost certainly lose its house majority, and quite possibly the senate as well, jump all over the claim as if it were proven fact -- including the President, who is certainly no stranger to looking us in the eye and lying; 

-Then, when it turns out the claim has no actual basis?  Back off -  not completely, just enough to cover their backsides - and hope that enough people have been suckered in to change a few elections.

What frauds.  What liars. 


Ken Berwitz

I'm listening to the debate between Rep. Barney Frank and Republican challenger Sean Bielat (you can too, by clicking here).

So far I've gotten through the first 15 minutes.  So far, Bielat is making mincemeat of Frank, whose main contribution is incessant whining that Bielat occasionally tries to answer his mini-speeches while they are in progress.

I don't know that Mr. Bielat can unseat Mr. Frank.  But I would love for it to happen.


UPDATE:  Ok, I've heard the entire debate.  To me, Bielat was a big winner on substance, and Frank came across (not surprisingly given his past performance) as a whining crybaby who has a hissy-fit if he isn't given free reign to toss out charge after charge without challenge.  

Frank also managed to get the last word virtually every time (if Bielat was doing that, Frank's head would have exploded - as it almost did in the final, almost comical, minute when he went near-wild trying to be the last voice we heard).

And, possibly because it is easier to give in than to deal with his whining, Frank was allowed to speak far more than Bielat (I'm guessing he got in somewhere between 55% to 60% of the total words). 

Frank's excessive verbiage notwithstanding, however, Bielat sounded more logical, more sensible and certainly more in personal control.

To repeat:  I don't know that Mr. Bielat can unseat Mr. Frank.  But I would love for it to happen.

WisOldMan MA will send four GOP members to Congress in January, and one of them will be Sean Bielat. (10/12/10)


Ken Berwitz

I have never bought in to the "hate the sin, love the sinner" concept.  Not because it's a bad concept, but because my experience is that most people who hate the sin hate the sinner just as much.

That is one of the reasons (not the only one) that I cannot in any way abide Carl Paladino's comments about homosexuality, made to an orthodox Jewish congregation this weekend.

Excerpted from David Gibson's article at

Tea Party favorite and New York's Republican candidate for governor, Carl Paladino, on Sunday sharply attacked homosexuality in a speech to Orthodox Jews in Brooklyn even as the tragedy of gay bullying has riveted the nation and a day after three gay men were tortured in the Bronx because of their sexual orientation.

Being homosexual "is not how God created us," Paladino told an enthusiastic crowd at Congregation Shaarei Chaim in the trendy and traditional Williamsburg section of Brooklyn, where hipsters live cheek by jowl with Hasidic Jews.

"I just think my children and your children would be much better off and much more successful getting married and raising a family, and I don't want them brainwashed into thinking that homosexuality is an equally valid and successful option -- it isn't," said Paladino, who has a reputation for being frank to the point of volatility.

Paladino also had controversial remarks that he did not deliver, writing at one point in his prepared speech: "There is nothing to be proud of in being a dysfunctional homosexual."

In an interview early Monday on the "Today" show, Paladino sought to clarify his remarks, saying that "discrimination against homosexuals is horrible. It's terrible." And he insisted that he would "absolutely" recruit gays to work in his administration. "You name it. Wherever their expertise may be, we'll put them in our government."

Is there any truth to what Mr. Paladino says?  Yes, there is some, though probably not for the reasons he was trying to express.  For example, I doubt you will find many homosexuals who think the playing field is even for them.  I doubt you will find many who feel they have the full complement of rights, privileges and options available to heterosexuals.  And, yes, life is a lot easier for heterosexuals who get married and raise a family than it is for homosexuals who, in almost every state of the country, can do neither.

But, as I have said many times in this blog, being gay is not some option that you decide on after reviewing all the plusses and minuses.  It is what you are.  And it is what you have every right to be. 

Personally, I never decided to be a heterosexual, I just am.   And homosexuals do not make that decision any more than I did.  If other people don't like it, that's just too bad.  It is none of their business. 

Regarding Carl Paladino, I do not think that, if he were elected governor, he would ban homosexuals from working in his administration.  Nor do I think he would propose legislation that specifically would discriminate against homosexuals.

But I am 100% sure Mr. Paladino, whose Catholic religion defines homosexuality as a sin, would be uncomfortable in their presence and would hire fewer qualified homosexuals than, say, Andrew Cuomo (who also is Catholic, by the way).  I am also 100% sure Paladino would never propose any significant legislation guaranteeing equal treatment of homosexuals beyond what already is in place.

How will Mr. Paladino's position on homosexuality affect the election?  I don't know, but it would not surprise me if he gains votes because of what he said - especially among devout religionists, both Christian and Jewish.

Sometimes it pays to think ugly.

Zeke .... ..... .... The Daily News calls him "Crazy Carl". ... .... .... Carl keeps feeding Sound Bites to the Dems. ... .... He comes off unhinged, angry, immature. .... ... Not his ideas, not his achievements, not his plans for NY state --- but his manner of expressing them .... .... Cuomo is the absolute worst choice for NY ... ... but you would never know that from listening to Paladino's crude, ill-thought-out speeches. ...... (10/11/10)


Ken Berwitz

Now that the Chamber of Commerce foreign money "scandal" turns out to be so much excrement, Michelle Malkin has written an article in which there is a compilation of real foreign money scandals.  And guess which party is culpable:

Remember Obama/Hillary/Democrat top fund-raiser and convicted fraudster/campaign finance crook Norman Hsu.


Remember Obama/Hillary/Democrat top fund-raiser and convicted fraudster/campaign finance crook Hasan Nemazee.


Remember soft-on-China Obama Commerce Secretary Gary Locke, shady Buddhist temple cash collector.


Remember Senate Democrats raising funds in Canada.


Remember Obamas presidential campaign soliciting foreign donations on its website (via Doug Ross):




Remember: Obamas Foreign Donors: The media averts its eyes.


Remember: FEC Issues Record Fines In Democrats Scandals; Commission Faults Players in 1996 Foreign Fundraising.


And dont forget this fun fact: The outrage over the Chamber is especially amusing considering the role of foreigners in U.S. labor unions. According to the Center for Competitive Politics, close to half of the unions that are members of the AFL-CIO are international.


Distraction. Deflection. Projection. Yup, its the best they can do.

Maybe some of the venues which jumped all over the phony Chamber of Commerce story would like to discuss a few of these.....


Ken Berwitz

I'm going to post an assessment of Barack Obama.  Then you tell me who said it, from a list of possible sources:

Barack Obama is being politically crushed in a vise. From above, by elite opinion about his competence. From below, by mass anger and anxiety over unemployment. And it is too late for him to do anything about this predicament until after November's elections.

With the exception of core Obama Administration loyalists, most politically engaged elites have reached the same conclusions: the White House is in over its head, isolated, insular, arrogant and clueless about how to get along with or persuade members of Congress, the media, the business community or working-class voters. This view is held by Fox News pundits, executives and anchors at the major old-media outlets, reporters who cover the White House, Democratic and Republican congressional leaders and governors, many Democratic business people and lawyers who raised big money for Obama in 2008, and even some members of the Administration just beyond the inner circle.

Whew. That's some assessment. 

Ok, based on what is said here, which of these five choices is the actual source:

-Sarah Palin:  Former Alaska Governor and Vice Presidential candidate

-Mark Levin:  Syndicated conservative talk show host

-Sean Hannity:  Syndicated conservative talk show host and host of a nightly show on Fox News

-Ann Coulter:  Syndicated conservative columnist and frequent cable news show guest

-Mark Halperin:  Editor-at-large and senior political analyst for Time Magazine

The truth is, any one of the five could have said that.  But until I read it in Mark Halperin's latest column, I would only have picked among the first four. 

For years I have characterized Barack Obama as a Chicago Machine politician, without any qualifications to be President of the United States and in 100 miles over his head. 

How interesting to learn - from a generally liberal writer for a decidedly liberal/left publication - just how much company I have.

savannah43 Time is a rag. (10/12/10)

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!!