Sunday, 31 October 2010


Ken Berwitz

Just how politically "neutral" was the farce in Washington DC yesterday?

It was about as neutral as a progressive caucus rally held in Berkeley.

From David Swindle's blog at

NewsReal Blogs Dan Joseph was at the Rally to Restore Sanity today and took some pictures and shot some footage. His report and the video will be coming soon, but heres a sneak peek of the sanity that he found.

Visit Dans blog Falling Panda for more.

Could anyone in his/her mind possibly have thought this would be anything else?


UPDATE: I just read the New York Times account of this farce.  Not one mention of the hate-filled lunatics who clearly were well represented in the crowd, several (not all) of whose signs I have shown above. 

Here is the Times' account, if you can call it that, of the event's signage:

For many who came, the rally was an opportunity to take control of the political narrative, if only for one sunny Saturday afternoon. Participants, overwhelmingly liberal, wore political buttons, waved flags and carried signs, often with funny messages.

A cluster of women in their 50s held small white signs that read Shrinks for sanity. A man in a fleece jacket held a sign that said, I can see the real America from my house.

Others signs were absurdist. Daniel Short, 29, a visual effects artist from New York City, said the message of his sign, taped to a cardboard tube Tights are not pants was just another one of those silent majority issues.

Political protests also came in costume. One man wore only a diaper and a sombrero, and carried a large wooden anchor a depiction of an anchor baby, the name conservative talk show hosts have given to children born in the United States to immigrant parents. Im feeling a little exposed, he said, shortly after the rally finished.

Just like they reported about signs at Tea Party rallies, right?

Well, at least they admitted the crowd was "overwhelmingly liberal".  That's one small step for reality, but a giant leap for the New York Times.


Ken Berwitz

Here is what Democratic, contributors are being sold today, straight from the email from the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC). 

It is signed by that noted paradigm of civil discourse, Paul Begala. 

And it is complete BS:

Dear XXXX,

If I had any hair, it would be on fire right now!

Colorado: 47-47. Pennsylvania: 46-46. In West Virginia we're pulling ahead. Saying things are tight is an understatement.

Remember how bad things looked in September? But because people just like you stepped up and gave, we were able to fight back. Now the only way we can change these ties into Democratic wins is with your support.

Thanks to the grassroots, the DSCC spent $10 million in the last 5 days, pushing our candidates ever closer to victory on November 2. But we need your help to keep going and win on Nov 2.

Just 48 hours to go.  We need  $150,000 by midnight tonight so we can rush it to battleground states tomorrow. And if you give right now, we'll match your donation two dollars for every dollar - tripling your impact!

Click here to rush your donation of $5 or more to the DSCC now. We absolutely must make our goal of raising $150,000 by midnight tonight so we can keep fueling our candidates right up until Election Day.

If we lose November 2, we'll be pining for the good old days, when Sarah Palin was the most extreme figure on the right. Seriously, these candidates make Sarah Palin look like Mary Poppins.

The Tea Partiers and their right-wing third-party donors have been pummeling our candidates with their million-dollar ad buys. But we've not only managed to survive, we've been coming back with a vengeance. And it's all because of you.

FYI, the three polls cited in this email are a) not identified so you cannot judge the source of the data and b) in any event are almost a week old which, at the end of a political campaign, is nearly eternity.

Checking the most recent poll data at, which compiles all the major polls and identifies them, we see that:

-In Colorado, the last three polls, all conducted during or after Begala's unidentified one, show Republican Ken Buck ahead.  The last two show him ahead by 4%.

-In Pennsylvania, the last four polls, all conducted after Begala's unidentified one, show Republican Pat Toomey ahead, by an average of about 4%.

-In West Virginia, the only poll available after Begala's unidentified one, Republican John Raese is closing to within 3% of Joe Manchin.

-Illinois, for some reason, is not mentioned in Begala's email.  But Begala shows a chart which indicates that Democrat Alexi Giannoulias is leading Republican Mark Kirk by 2% (41%-39%).  At, however, the last four polls have Kirk ahead.  The latest, conducted after Begala's unidentified one, shows him with a 4% lead.

So which of these two are you going to believe?  A nonpartisan web site which identifies and compiles the major polls, or a Democratic operative and ranking hatchet man, Paul Begala, who shows you one out-of-date poll without any identification of who took it? 

Sadly, some Democratic suckers are going to buy this BS and send more money based on Begala's lies.

I hope you are not one of them.

free` In my opinion the Democrat Party should not be called Democratic!!! ------------------------------ I see this all the time, the democrat party being called the democratic party. Hell how do you not support a democratic party? Are you against democracy? ------------------------------------ dem·o·crat·ic    /ˌdɛməˈkrætɪk/ Show Spelled[dem-uh-krat-ik] Show IPA –adjective 1. pertaining to or of the nature of democracy or a democracy. 2. pertaining to or characterized by the principle of political or social equality for all: democratic treatment. 3. advocating or upholding democracy. -------------- They are the democrat party. (10/31/10)


Ken Berwitz

Once upon a time there was a popular singer named Cat Stevens.


Mr. Stevens decided to convert to Islam. He changed his name to Yusef Islam.


When author Salman Rushdie wrote a book called The Satanic Verses which, some Islamic clerics considered blasphemous, they called for his death.  Cat Stevens now Yusef Islam agreed completely and acknowledged that, given the right circumstances, he would kill Mr. Rushdie.


Cat Stevens/Yusef Islam was one of the performers at the Jon Stewart/Steve Colbert farce in Washington DC yesterday.


That's right.  These two geniuses featured a convert to radical Islam who told the world that he was willing to kill a writer for what was in one of his books.


What do Stewart and Colbert think he would do to them, if they dared to satirize Islam?  


And what do you think our wonderful neutral media will say about it?  The same thing they would have said if Glenn Beck had featured a singer who converted to a Christian sect which advocated killing abortion doctors?


Today we'll find out.  But we already know the answer, don't we?


Ken Berwitz

This comes to us via, (and is available at numerous other web sites as well).

Read, listen, and find out how the news is created (and I do mean created) when a reporter is working against one of the candidates:

The following voice mail message was inadvertently left on the cell phone of Joe Miller campaign spokesperson Randy DeSoto.


The voices are believed to be those of the news director for CBS Anchorage affiliate KTVA, along with assignment editor Nick McDermott, and other reporters, openly discussing creating, if not fabricating, two stories about Republican nominee for U.S. Senate, Joe Miller.


The following is a transcript of a call recorded after CBS Alaska affiliate KTVA called Joe Millers Senate campaign spokesperson. The call failed to disconnect properly. It was later authenticated by McDermott, who sent a text to Randy DeSoto stating, Damn iPhone I left you a long message. I thought I hung up. Sorry. Audio KTVA




Clearly the reporters were conspiring to set up some type of smear of Joe Miller. With glee, they even cite a recent controversy over an incident involving the Rand Paul campaign, while discussing how they would spread the story via social media after whatever incident they had in mind came off. It also brings to mind another recent episode that ended with Jerry Browns California gubernatorial campaign being caught up in controversy when someone from Browns camp called Browns opponent, Republican Meg Whitman, a whore.


This calls into serious question what type of campaign coverage CBS KTVA has been providing Alaskans all along, given their reporters willingness to conspire against Miller.

As anyone who reads this blog is aware, I have problems with Joe Miller.

But if this is authentic (and it almost certainly is) the problem of a "reporter" who, away from the cameras and microphones, conspires to sabotage his campaign is 100 times more serious.

CBS owes Miller an apology.  And it owes its news director, assignment editor and the reporters who found this so funny a bunch of pink slips.  BEFORE election day.


Ken Berwitz

President Obama lies so much, and so matter-of-factly, that I sometimes wonder if he even knows the truth anymore.

Yesterday was a great example.  Mr. Obama was speaking in Connecticut on behalf of Senate candidate Richard Blumenthal.  During his speech he was loudly heckled by AIDS activists who feel he has lied to them about what he would do on behalf of their cause.

And then, in a remarkable three minutes of visible anger and frustration, he actually heckled them back.   

If Mr. Obama were admonishing the hecklers to be respectful of the people who wanted to hear him speak, I would be supporting him in this blog. 

But this is Barack Obama.  And their reaction bruised his monumentally large ego.  So that did not happen. 

Here is part of what he did say:

Excuse me, excuse me, excuse me, young people? Let me just say this: You've been appearing at every rally we've been doing, and we're funding global AIDS, and the other side is not. So I don't know why you think this is a useful strategy to take. I think it would make a lot more sense for you guys to go to the folks who aren't interested in funding global AIDS, and go to that rally. We're trying to figure out how to finance the things that you want financed. You guys have made your point. Let's go.

Aside from being more of a hissy-fit than a response, it is an absolute lie.  100%

The man who put massive US funding against Global AIDS - and it is one of the few things he did that got him universal accolades - was President George Bush.  You can read one of the many many accounts of Bush's initiative against Global AIDS by clicking here..

Barack Obama inherited  the Bush administration's commitment to fighting Global AIDS, the life-saving programs it funded and the good will it created. 

During the 2008 campaign Mr. Obama promised to increase that commitment by a billion dollars.  But, like much of what Barack Obama says, he had no serious commitment to his promise at all.

Excerpted from an editorial in the August 25th Dallas Morning News:

During his 2008 presidential campaign, Barack Obama vowed to add $1 billion annually to the U.S. fund that George W. Bush and Congress created to fight AIDS in Africa and other developing nations.


Instead, as president, Obama proposed only a $366 million increase for the coming fiscal year which comes on top of another broken promise from last year. In 2009, he proposed spending only $165 million for PEPFAR, the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief.


Obama also wants to decrease America's commitment to a global fund run by Western industrialized nations to fight AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis in Africa and other developing nations. He would lower the U.S. contribution to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, TB and Malaria by $50 million.

That, folks, is the real Barack Obama.  A ton of blow and an ounce of show.

And that is why so many Democrats have spent the campaign trying to convince voters that they never heard of the guy, don't know who he is, and certainly don't support his agenda -- even though they voted for it.

Will it work?  We'll find out in two days.


Ken Berwitz

Here is a little more about just how neutral yesterday's Jon Stewart/Steve Colbert farce in Washington DC was.

Read the following excerpt from an article at and see for yourself:

A straw poll conducted on attendees at the rally hosted by comedians Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert on the National Mall Saturday found an overwhelming majority of Democratic voters, but sapped enthusiasm as compared to 2008.

According to the poll conducted by Lake Research Partners & Revolution Messaging at the "Rally to Restore Sanity," 86 percent of participants surveyed said they planned to vote Democratic this week, with eight percent undecided and just one percent voting Republican.

Only one in four surveyed said they more excited about this election than 2008. Thirty-nine percent said their enthusiasm had diminished.

A full 90 percent of rally attendees approved of President Obama, with 56 percent approving of him strongly. Only 10 percent disapproved of the president, just 2 percent strongly.

Truthfully, does this surprise you in the least?

Now read the Associated Press account  and see if you can any indication of its true nature -- other than noting, in the body of the text, that "left-leaning advocacy groups hoped it would rekindle some of the voting enthusiasm for Democrats seen in 2008..." 

In other words, no inkling at all of the the event's almost monolithically Democratic/left wing demography; only a passing reference to a wistful hope of left-leaning advocacy groups.

Then they wonder why people call them biased


Ken Berwitz

Can someone answer any or all of these questions for me?

1) Why would it be voter intimidation to put up warnings that illegal voters are committing a crime and may be prosecuted?  The warning is irrelevant to legal voters and only can intimidate people who should not be voting;

2) Why shouldn't a valid ID be required of every voter?  We need a valid ID for countless minor activities, including going to an R rated movie, proving eligibility for a senior citizen discount and paying by check for $10 worth of groceries at the supermarket.  Why would proving eligibility to vote in an election be any kind of a problem at all?  It seems to me that not being required to provide identification is the problem.

3) How can you trust any of the voting machines that are being handled/administered/maintained by members of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU)?  SEIU is one of the most avid, aggressive supporters of Democrats in the country, and has contributed tens of millions of dollars to Democrats during this campaign.  How come our wonderful "neutral" media, which had no problem at all demonizing Diebold voting machines for years, are not even talking about SEIU's involvement, let alone speculating on what might happen to the vote count when SEIU has this kind of access to the machines?

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!!