Saturday, 23 October 2010


Ken Berwitz

Excerpted from an Associated Press article I found at (whose on-air talent should damn well learn something from it):

Gunmen sprayed bullets into a family party in the violent Mexican border city of Ciudad Juarez, killing at least 12 youths aged 14 to 20, local media reported Saturday.

It was the second massacre at a party this month in Ciudad Juarez, which borders El Paso, Texas, and is one of the world's most violent cities as drug cartels battle security forces and each other over smuggling routes into the United States.

Is it any wonder that, other than President Barack Obama, Attorney General/Obama sock-puppet eric holder, and a few of their congressional henchman (e.g. raul grijalva) most of us want - are begging for - seriously secured borders?  

This is already spilling over into the United States.  How many massacres are we in for before the Obama administration figures out that we need real borders, not PR-motivated soundbites that sound good but mean nothing? 

Or will it take the 2012 election to put someone who actually cares about border security into the oval office?

If so, let's see if there is a constitutional way to move up the election.  Please.


Ken Berwitz

What do you say when two polls, evaluating the same issue and conducted about the same time, go in opposite directions?

Well, try these two on for size.

From Newsweek, based on polling conducted October 20-21 (the bold print is mine):

Despite doom-saying about Democrats chances in the midterms, the latest NEWSWEEK Poll (full results) shows that they remain in a close race with Republicans 12 days before Election Day, while the presidents approval ratings have climbed sharply. The poll finds that 48 percent of registered voters would be more likely to vote for Democrats, compared with 42 percent who lean Republican (those numbers are similar to those in the last NEWSWEEK Poll, which found Democrats favored 48 percent to 43 percent). President Obamas approval ratings have jumped substantially, crossing the magic halfway threshold to 54 percent, up from 48 percent in late September, while the portion of respondents who disapprove of the president dropped to 40 percent, the lowest disapproval rating in a NEWSWEEK Poll since February 2010.

And from Rasmussen (each date's data is comprised of the three previous days combined.  So October 20's data would be the combination of October 17th, 18th and 19th, October 21's data would combine the 18th, 19th and 20th, and so on):



 Presidential Approval Index  

 Strongly Approve  

 Strongly Disapprove  

 Total Approve  

 Total Disapprove  

























Fascinating.  At the same time Newsweek's polling shows President Obama jumping to a 54% approve-40% disapprove, Rasmussen's shows him dropping to 45% approve-54% disapprove.

Do you still wonder why I'm skeptical of political polls?


Ken Berwitz

You certainly can excuse Andrew Breitbart of for his sarcasm.  As the following excerpt from his must-read blog about the Philadelphia "new black panther" scandal shows, it is more than justified:

Washington Post Blockbuster Confirms Worst Fears About Holder Justice Dept. Race Policies

Congratulations to the editors at the Washington Post. Seventeen months after the Eric Holder Justice Department dismissed a slam-dunk case against the New Black Panther Party for voter intimidation, the Post gets around to printing a thorough vetting of the dismissal. The story is slated for Saturdays print edition. While other media like Breitbart/The Bigs, Fox News, the Washington Times, the Weekly Standard, Pittsburgh Tribune Review, Investors Business Daily, Pajamas Media, and Drudge have had dozens of stories on the corrupt New Black Panther dismissal, the Washington Post at last is in the game.  (NOTE:  AS REGULAR READERS CERTAINLY KNOW, YOU CAN ADD HOPELESSLYPARTISAN.COM TO THIS LIST)

There are small problems with the story. For one, the Washington Post is the only outlet that calls King Samir Shabazz by his old slave name (Shabazzs own words) of Maruse Heath. Of course this takes some of the sting off Shabazzs rants against Jews and calls to kill cracker babies in their crib.

But overall, the story is very bad news for Eric Holder. It debunks many of the myths spun by the administration. Inside DOJ sources describe deep hostility to protecting whites at Justice. DOJ sources say panther prosecutor Christian Adams never allowed his conservative views to influence his work, contradicting administration spin. And perhaps most damning of all to Holder, sources defending the administration defend the idea that whites arent protected by the Civil Rights laws. The latter is the blockbuster news in the Post piece.

Washington DC is no stranger to scandal.  But this is not just any scandal.

It is huge. 

It is racial. 

And it goes straight to the heart of the Obama administration.

eric holder was President Obama's choice to be Attorney General.  And the President has never had a bad word to say about holder regarding this disgraceful perversion of justice.  Nor has Mr. Obama ever had a bad word to say about holder for a myriad of other disgraces; among them, his fight on behalf of illegal aliens/against secure borders, and his disinclination to enforce the MOVE act which is supposed to insure our military can vote in the upcoming elections.

Based on his actions as Attorney General, eric holder is an amoral toady, a suck-up and an Obama sock puppet.

And it only took the Washington Post a year and a half to get around to mentioning it.  Imagine that.

Well, better late than never.  And I have to admit that the timing is a pleasant surprise;  this is the kind of expos I would expect mainstream media to publish the week after the election, not two weeks beforehand when the information might can affect how people vote.

Now let's see if other major media pick up on this utter disgrace and talk about it as well.  Maybe the Washington Post will have shamed them into it - just as that list of web sites Mr. Breitbart enumerated may have shamed the Post into it.


Ken Berwitz

You cannot beat Joe Biden for sheer entertainment value.

The following excerpt is from Michael D. Shear's article in yesterday's New York Times.  Mr, Biden's quotes are in bold print:

Conservative groups have not dumped $200 billion in political ads on the heads of Democratic candidates.

It evidently just feels that way to the White House.

In an interview with Al Hunt of Bloomberg News scheduled to be shown Friday night, Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. commented on the need for disclosure when corporate interests contribute to political groups.

I was amazed at the amount of money, this $200 billion of money that is where theres no accountability, he said. When I say accountability, we dont know where its coming from. Theres no disclosure, so the folks watching the ad cant make a judgment based upon motive when you say its paid for by so-and-so.

Mr. Biden clearly meant million with an M, not billion with a B.

But his tongue slipped again a moment later. So it really Ive never seen this before, so the only caveat Id put in terms of the House is how much impact this $200 billion are going to mean.

My congratulations to Michael Shear for trying to paint a smiley-face on this comment by pretending Vice President Biden "clearly meant 'million'", even though he again said billion, just "a moment later".  Uh, Mr. Shear; when he says it twice, it's not a slip of the tongue.  It's what he meant to say.

And my thanks to Joe Biden for simply being himself.  Mr. Biden's grasp of money amounts certainly explains his claim that the so-called "stimulus package" has been a rousing success.

Not for nothing do I call him "Jackass Joe".


free` I think we all agree with Sarah Palin, Don't tell obama [and i would add biden and the other dems] what comes after a trillion. (10/23/10)


Ken Berwitz

The title of this blog is also the title of a commentary - a very, very worthwile commentary, written by Rich Trzupek for

Within the commentary, Mr. Trzupek describes his view of what has become of "liberalism" in recent years, and how illiberal it now is.

Since I find myself in almost 100% agreement with his description, I thought I would post it for you to see:

This is another example of what the left has become. They are, to paraphrase William F. Buckley, interested in your opinion so long as that opinion dovetails with their worldview. Theyre not liberals, not even remotely in the classical sense. Classical liberalism encouraged debate and welcomed the intellectual enrichment that grew out of discussions of opposing viewpoints. The left, of which NPR is unquestionably a part, believes that it is the sole gatekeeper of truth, thus removing any obligation to consider other views. Even if Vivian Schillers hypothesis were true that NPR personalities dont opine, only guests on their programs do it would not matter. Somebody has to choose what guests to interview. Somebody has to decide on the questions to ask them. Somebody has to figure out which interviews NPR will feature and how to edit them. All of these decisions involve people who have personal opinions about the way the world works and their decisions reflect it. If youve spent any time listening to NPR, you cant have any doubt that the people making those editorial decisions are leftist through and through. Thus, their demand that on-air personalities remain neutral is meaningless.

That, folks, is hitting the nail on the head.

Liberality is supposed to mean openness to, and tolerance for, a diversity of views - including views you don 't agree with.  Try and find any in today's so-called "liberal" left.  I dare you.


Ken Berwitz

I guess it must be de rigeuer for Hollywood types to go on Bill Maher's "Real Time" and spout their version of the left wing hatred Maher regularly dishes out.  They know they'll get a sympathetic ear from Maher and a big round of applause from the audience - which, of course, is comprised of people who like Bill Maher.

The latest Hollywoodie to do so is Rob Reiner.  Here is what he has to day about the Tea Party movement - seconded, of course, by Maher:

REINER:  You never get into a political discussion unless you bring the word hitler in.  You have to have Hitler, so lets put Hitler out there.  Heres Hitler, ok?

You have, you have, you have a bad economic times, right?  Hitler, by the way, never got more than 33% of the vote, ever in Germany. You have bad economic times.

He wasnt a majority guy, but he was charismatic and they were having bad economic times just like we are now people were out of work, they needed jobs and a guy came along and rallied the troops. My fear is that the Tea Party gets a charismatic leader, because all they're selling is fear and anger and that's all Hitler sold. Im angry and Im frightened and you should hate that guy over there.

MAHER:  Right

REINER:  And thats what theyre doing.

If you know anything about "Real Time" and its audience, it will not surprise you that hitler got a great reaction, with people laughing as though the mention of his name was somehow brilliantly funny. - a little like those foul-mouthed comedians you sometimes see on cable TV, whose audience roars with laughter every time the word "fuck" is used, regardless of how, or why, or whether it is part of anything that could even nominally be construed as humorous.

And it will not surprise you that comparing the Tea Party to nazi types waiting for a charismatic leader also got a major-league positive reaction from the audience, as well as Maher and his other guests.

Rob Reiner was a good actor.  He is an accomplished, successful director.  But, sad to say, these comments also show him to be a left wing idiot.

If Mr. Reiner should happen to see this blog, I have a personal message for him: 

Mr. Reiner:  Read your description of the Tea Party types and what they are waiting for very closely.  Then, when you are finished, ask yourself where it differs from who Barack Obama appealed to and what he did to get elected in 2008.  Keep in mind that Germany was economically devastated, with its angry, fearful people looking for a leader who would give them hope and change.

That's worth thinking about. 

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!!