Thursday, 14 October 2010

ILLINOIS: THE THREE COINCIDENCES (SO FAR)

Ken Berwitz

Do you believe in coincidences?  How many of them do there have to be at one time, before you start assuming they are not coincidences at all?  

Here's a test to find out:

From WLS 890 radio, Chicago:

CHICAGO (WLS) - The U.S. Justice Department is investigating whether the state of Illinois missed the deadline for mailing absentee ballots to members of the military and other overseas American voters as part of a new federal overseas voting law.

Cris Cray, Director of Legislation at the Illinois State Board of Elections, says not all of Illinois' 110 jurisdictions were compliant with the 2009 Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment Act (MOVE).

The law requires every state to mail their absentee ballots 45 days prior to Election Day to overseas troops, government employees and other Americans who want to vote from abroad.

Cray says she is currently compiling data from each of Illinois' jurisdictions to determine which were compliant and which were delinquent. Cray said it's possible the ballots may not be counted because the state was tardy in sending them out.

From the Chicago Sun-Times:

SPRINGFIELD -- The last name of Green Party gubernatorial candidate Rich Whitney is misspelled as "Whitey" on electronic-voting machines in nearly two dozen wards -- about half in predominantly African-American areas -- and election officials said Wednesday the problem cannot be corrected by Election Day.

The misspelling turned up on touch-screen machines in 23 wards overall. Whitney's name is spelled correctly on the machines' initial screens showing all of the candidates' names, but it is misspelled on review screens that later show a voter his or her choices, said Jim Allen, spokesman for the Chicago Board of Elections.

 

From the Drudge Report:

 

First lady Michelle Obama appears to have violated Illinois law -- when she engaged in political discussion at a polling place!

The drama began after Mrs. Obama stopped off at the Martin Luther King Center on the south side of Chicago to cast an early vote.

After finishing at the machine, Obama went back to the desk and handed in her voting key.

She let voters including electrician Dennis Campbell, 56, take some photos.

"She was telling me how important it was to vote to keep her husband's agenda going," Campbell said.

According to a pool reporter from the CHICAGO SUN-TIMES at the scene, the conversation took place IN the voting center not far from the booths.

Illinois state law -- Sec. 17-29 (a) -- states: "No judge of election, pollwatcher, or other person shall, at any primary or election, do any electioneering or soliciting of votes or engage in any political discussion within any polling place, within 100 feet of any polling place."

All three in Illinois, Barack Obama's Democrat-dominated home state, within a month of the midterm elections.

Do you still believe in coincidences?  If so, I have a great investment opportunity for you, with a Mr. Madoff.................

Could this possibly be more blatant and more disgraceful?  If so, how?

Zeke ......... ..... Was Michelle standing outside the polling place in a paramilitary uniform, brandishing a club ? .... ..... .... (10/15/10)


NOW'S CONTORTIONS ON BEHALF OF JERRY BROWN

Ken Berwitz

Every now and again another blogger hits it on the head so completely that all I have to do is post his commentary and wish I had written it instead.

Steve Gilbert of www.sweetness-light.com did it this morning, in his superb take-down of the NOW (the National Organization of Women) - or, as I now call them NOD (the National Organization of Democrats).

With apologies to Steve for lifting the entire piece, here is what he had to say. 

NOW: Fire Next Person Who Uses W-Word

From the laughably self-anointed National Organization Of Women:

NOW Responds to Jerry Browns Apology

Statement of NOW President Terry ONeill

October 13, 2010

Last night at the California gubernatorial debate, Jerry Brown apologized for a member of his campaign staff suggesting Meg Whitman, his opponent in the race, be called a "whore." This overdue apology was a necessary step; however, it was accompanied by an assertion that these sorts of comments are part and parcel of what happens inside political campaigns. If so, that needs to change.

While our California chapters Political Action Committee voted to endorse Brown on the basis of his support for womens rights, the National Organization for Women clearly and unequivocally condemns calling Meg Whitman, or any woman, a whore. This term is hate speech that carries with it negative connotations associated with women, and it has no place in contemporary society.

NOW calls on Brown[, from this point forward,] to fire any member of his staff who uses this word or any hate speech against women.

###

Update: NOW clarified this statement with the addition of "from this point forward" to the final paragraph.

It really is to laugh. Speaking of "overdue," the National Organization Of Women took a week to even notice this outrage. Worse yet, their California chapter still subsequently endorsed Mr. Brown without even batting a false eyelash.

And even so NOW still had to quickly "update" this press release. They went from demanding Mr. Brown immediately fire whoever said this, to demanding that he fire anyone who uses the word "from this point forward." What courageous champions of women they are!

(Of course the news reports that the W-WORD was actually used by Mr. Browns wife, may had something to do with their sudden walk back.)

Indeed, the harridans at NOW were so flustered they actually released this laughably inept sentence: "This term is hate speech that carries with it negative connotations associated with women, and it has no place in contemporary society."

So the word whore is "hate speech" and it "carries with it negative connotations"? Really. Hate speech without negative connotations is bad enough. Cleary, Ms. ONeill is as tone deaf to the English language as she is to the political views of the majority of women of this country.

Worse yet, NOW has once again made it abundantly clear that they will happily perform any contortions to try to get their Democrat masters elected.

Indeed, the National Organization Of Women puts the W-Word in NOW politically speaking, of course.

Bullseye.

 

If you find Steve's analysis as worthwhile as I do, please use the link I have provided above and read him every day.

I do.

Zeke .... NOW -- National Organization of Whores ....... H&H -- Harlots 'n Hussies .... ..... SW / P --- Street Walkers & Prostitutes .... .... ... .... And, what is Moonbeam Jerry doing, co-opting Elliott Spitzer's Agenda .... .... (10/14/10)


THE O'DONNELL-COONS DEBATE

Ken Berwitz

 

Despite being out of town at a business convention, and with other people, I still managed to watch a good part of the ODonnell-Coons debate last night.

 

In overview, I thought Mr. Coons, despite being evasive and unconvincing at times, looked and sounded a lot more senatorial than Ms. ODonnell, who kept stumbling over her words and talked in a sing-song rhythm, which sounded like she was doing an oral term paper instead of discussing issues. 

 

Despite Coons college article in which he talked about the leftist transformation he had gone through, I thought ODonnell sounded ridiculous calling him a Marxist.  If Chris Coons were a Marxist, wed have known about it from his political career so far. His political career so far pegs him as a left winger, but not a Marxist.  And ODonnell did herself no favor by being unable to specify any recent supreme court decision she opposed.

 

For his part, Coons did a clumsy, inarticulate dance about troop withdrawals in Afghanistan, in which he seemed to claim that the only objective there is withdrawal, rather than making sure the taliban stay out of the countrys governance and al qaeda does not re-establish it as a base of operations, which is what the country was under previous taliban rule.  And Coons' claim that his college "transformation article was a joke?  Not true.  Even the most cursory reading of the article renders this claim ludicrous.  It is clear that while in Kenya he was significantly influenced by the leftist regime, and an avowed Marxist.

 

In short, Coons was no bargain either.  The problem for Republicans is that ODonnell is off the charts.

 

That said, Paul Mirengoff of www.powerlineblog.com has a very different take than mine.  Here are the key excerpts:

Christine O'Donnell beats expectations. . .and her opponent

October 13, 2010 Posted by Paul at 9:12 PM

I watched most of tonight's Delaware Senate debate between Chris Coons and Christine O'Donnell. Coons was articulate and polished, but O'Donnell was also articulate, and she was much sharper on the issues. In my view, she won the debate handily.

The only bad moment I saw for O'Donnell was when she could not name or otherwise identify a recent Supreme Court decision she disagreed with. But this came late in the debate, long after she had demonstrated solid knowledge about a broad range of substantive issues.

... tonight we saw one of the upsides to nominating O'Donnell - the forceful and articulate presentation to Delaware voters of the conservative case on foreign, domestic, and economic issues.

Ok, now youve seen two different takes on the debate. 

 

You decide.

WisOldMan If Coons was out to show people how arrogant he could be...how condescending he could be...how rude he could be...how he could treat a woman like she was sub-human...while trying to explain how he really wouldn't be a direct, in-the-tank replacement for Joe Biden, then for him the debate was an incredible success. (10/14/10)


OBAMACARE RAISES MEDICARE COSTS? SUR-PRAHZ, SUR-PRAHZ

Ken Berwitz

Sur-prahz, sur-prahz.  It's what Gomer Pyle used to say, as TV audiences laughed at how gullible he was.

But I doubt too many seniors are laughing at this sur-prahz, which I have excerpted from Jennifer Haberkorn's article at politico.com:

Medicare actuary: Reform will cost some seniors

By JENNIFER HABERKORN | 10/13/10 12:00 PM EDT Updated: 10/14/10 5:35 AM EDT

A Medicare official concedes that seniors may have to dig deeper into their wallets next year thanks to the health care law.

The new analysis obtained by POLITICO finds the health care overhaul will result in increased out-of-pocket costs for seniors on Medicare Advantage plans. Richard Foster, the actuary for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid, also tells Senate Republicans that the overhaul will result in less generous benefit packages for Medicare Advantage plans next year. Foster is independent from the administration and non-partisan.

Democrats have long contended that Medicare Advantage plans private insurance alternatives to Medicare overpay private insurers, increasing premiums for everyone, and needs to be reformulated.

Did you doubt this would happen?  Could you possibly have been Gomer Pylishly gullible enough to think of this as a sur-prahz, rather than the logical consequence of extracting over half a trillion dollars from medicare to make the ObamaCare books look good?

Could we have been lied to more blatantly by the Obama administration -- just as we have been lied to by the administration so many other times in its less than two years of existence?

And how many more lies, how many more surprahz-surprahz situations, are we in for over the next two years?

The 2010 elections cannot come fast enough.  And that goes double for 2012.


PRESIDENT OBAMA'S SHOVEL-READY BS

Ken Berwitz

Since I have already  blogged about one of President Obama's lies this morning - the one where he told seniors that medicare costs would not go up under ObamaCare - let's hit for the daily double and talk about another one as well - the lie about "shovel-ready jobs" and the so-called "stimulus package" that put our children and grandchildren a trillion more dollars into debt.

Excerpted from Chris Bounds' article at libertyjuice.com:

It was early last when year President Obama was touting the shovel-ready projects all across the country would jump start the with a little stimulus help. From Washington Post:

On Meet the Press, fill-in host Tom Brokaw wants to know how quickly Barack Obama can create jobs, and the president-elect promises to move fast. After all, he says, hes met with a bunch of governors and all of them have projects that are shovel-ready.

Announcing his energy team, Obama beams about shovel-ready projects all across the country. Unveiling his choice for education secretary, Obama plugs his plans to start helping states and local governments with shovel-ready projects.

From NPR:

As President Obama urges Congress to pass the $800 billion-plus stimulus package, one of his favorite selling points is the thousands of projects nationwide that he calls shovel ready meaning planning is complete, approvals are secured and people could be put to work right away once funding is in place.

So what is the President saying about all of those shovel-ready projects now?  From New York Times (emphasis mine):

While proud of his record, Obama has already begun thinking about what went wrong and what he needs to do to change course for the next two years. He has spent what one aide called a lot of time talking about Obama 2.0 with his new interim chief of staff, Pete Rouse, and his deputy chief of staff, Jim Messina. During our hour together, Obama told me he had no regrets about the broad direction of his presidency. But he did identify what he called tactical lessons. He let himself look too much like the same old tax-and-spend liberal Democrat. He realized too late that theres no such thing as shovel-ready projects when it comes to public works. Perhaps he should not have proposed tax breaks as part of his stimulus and instead let the Republicans insist on the tax cuts so it could be seen as a bipartisan compromise.

The jobs may not be shovel-ready.  But Barack Obama's BS certainly is, since he has continously shovelled it at us throughout his election campaign and his presidency.

And let us never forget that Mr. Obama has been faithfully abetted by a lopsidedly Democratic, compliant, congress.

I'll say it again as I have so many times before:  the 2010 elections cannot come fast enough.

And that goes double for 2012.


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!!