Monday, 01 November 2010


Ken Berwitz

Just in case you think our wonderful "neutral" media are restricting their craphouse tactics to Joe Miller in Alaska, we have the following excerpt from Guy Benson's blog at

The campaign did not purchase advance time on networks in the Philadelphia or Delaware markets, said a source close to the O'Donnell campaign, and the networks did not have time available to air the ad on such short notice.

So O'Donnell turned to a public access television station, Delaware Channel 28. She told supporters at a Tea Party Express rally on Sunday in Wilmington to watch that night at 11:30. "Tell everyone to tune in," she said at the rally.

"1 minute until the premiere of our 30 minute feature. Tune in to meet all the heart warming people I've met on the campaign trail. Ch. 28," O'Donnell tweeted Sunday night.

But the ad never aired.

A few minutes later, O'Donnell tweeted: "Okay... this is NOT our show! Must be a programming mix up. We will get back to you..."

The source, who spoke only on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive campaign operations, said the station "forgot to air it."

Then on Monday morning, O'Donnell's campaign issued a press release saying the ad would air on Channel 28 at 10 a.m. The candidate tweeted: "The Inspiring TV show about Delawareans will air at 10 aam and 3 pm today on Channel 28. Please watch this before you vote."

And again, it did not air.

"This isn't our show either! We are told channel 28 'forgot' to air it...both times... even though we paid for the time slot last week," O'Donnell tweeted shortly after 10 a.m.

Officials at the station could not immediately be reached for comment.

No time available on the networks.  And the public access station "forgot" to show it.  Twice. (FYI, now the station is denying that they forgot.  Maybe you know someone who will believe them).

But let's not stop at Alaska and Delaware.  We also have this the two-day hit piece on the Tea Party movement run by CNN over the weekend - just in time to affect the election without any chance for the movement to answer back.

Is it just me, or does this seem like a trend of some kind?

I'm trying to figure out a way that these "journalists" could be more blatant in their bias.  And, frankly, I'm coming up dry.


Ken Berwitz

As regular readers know, I don't make predictions about political races. 

But others do.  And Peter Wehner, a former Deputy Assistant to the President and Director of the White House Office of Strategic Initiatives is one of them.

Here, excerpted from Paul Mirengoff's blog at, is how he thinks things will go:

On Tuesday, Democrats will suffer an epic defeat -- worse even than in 1946, when Republicans gained 12 Senate seats and 55 House seats. The GOP will pick up at least 73 House seats, 10 Senate seats, and eight governorships. The GOP's turnout will be huge and independents will break massively for Republican candidates across the country. Among Democrats, this will trigger despair and bitter recriminations. President Obama will immediately be placed on probation by his own party and may well face a serious primary challenge, just as Jimmy Carter did in 1979.


As Democrats sort through the rubble caused by Tuesday's landslide -- even Wisconsin will become a red state -- they will realize what many of us have warned them of for quite some time: Barack Obama and his agenda are having a Kevorkian-like effect on the Democratic Party. If the economy doesn't noticeably improve by next fall -- and, at this stage, there are no signs that it will -- more and more Democrats will find it in their self-interest to detach themselves from Obama. And Team Obama's political strategy this cycle -- in which they never settled on a consistent narrative beyond attacking huge swaths of the American people as being ignorant, unappreciative, and tinged with racism -- will be judged as one of the most inept in American history.

Now that is truly grim and foreboding.  And if you read the entire blog (which I hope you do), it gets even worse.

Further, Mr. Wehner is far from alone in his doomsday assessment of Democratic prospects tomorrow.  For example, is talking about an epic disaster for Obama & Co.  The key paragraph:

It should be noted, however, that this year's 15-point gap in favor of the Republican candidates among likely voters is unprecedented in Gallup polling and could result in the largest Republican margin in House voting in several generations. This means that seat projections have moved into uncharted territory, in which past relationships between the national two-party vote and the number of seats won may not be maintained.

In a little more than 24 hours, these folks are going to have either beaming smiles or lots of egg on their faces.

It will be very interesting to see which of the two it is. 

Zeke ..... You can fool all of the people, Some of the Time. .... ... .... You can fool some of the people, All of the Time ..... .... But, you cannot fool All of the people, All of the Time. ...... ...... Should be a v.e.r.y. interesting news report tomorrow evening. ... .... and, an even more series of hearings, with the new Congress, next year. ......... ...... ..... (11/01/10)


Ken Berwitz

They say a picture is worth a thousand words.

Well, here is a picture of part of Cleveland's arena during President Obama's speech yesterday.

Please keep in mind that this is two days before the midterm elections, in a city that voted overwhelmingly for President Obama less than two years ago.

If that picture represents a thousand words, try to imagine how many thousands of votes it represents - votes that will not be cast for Mr. Obama's party tomorrow.

Is November 2 going to be a bad day for Democrats?  That's like asking if Thanksgiving is going to be a bad day for turkeys.


Ken Berwitz

Let's see.  President Obama and his disgraceful toady sock-puppet of an Attorney General, eric holder, first ignored our immigration laws by doing nothing to prevent the breaching of our borders.

Then, when Arizona, in exasperation, passed state laws virtually identical to federal immigration law so it could protect the borders that Mr Obama and holder would not, it was sued by the Obama and holder's people at the Department of Justice

Then the Obama administration literally filed a condemnatory report to the United Nations about Arizona's attempt to secure its (therefore our) border with Mexico. 

That's right.  I am not being sarcastic.  It is a fact.  Not content with suing Arizlona over its attempt to protect the USA border, the Obama administration went to the UN, that great paradigm of human rights, to complain that Arizona was trying to prevent illegal immigration.

How much of this does the average person know?  Well, because of our wonderful "neutral" media's studied intention to withhold coverage of these facts, the answer is damn near nothing.  It is much more important use of time, you see, to attack Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin and Christine O'Donnell -- but not Alvin Greene, of course.  I'll leave you to figure out why.

Now we have this, which is excerpted from an article at (Cyber News Service) - certainly not mainstream media:

( The United States this week will undergo its first appraisal by the U.N. Human Rights Council, and one of the issues likely to be raised thanks to the Obama administration is Arizonas new immigration law.


On Friday, representatives of HRC member states, observer countries and non-governmental organizations will evaluate the U.S. human rights record in a three-hour interactive dialogue at HRC headquarters in Geneva.


Known as the universal periodic review (UPR), the process is one every U.N. member state is expected to go through every four years.


Among the documents on the table during the evaluation will be a report by the government, presenting its assessment of the human rights situation in the U.S.


Ahead of its Nov. 5 review, the State Department submitted the report to the HRC in August, and sparked a storm of controversy by including in it a reference to the Arizona legislation.


A recent Arizona law, S.B. 1070, has generated significant attention and debate at home and around the world, the report stated. The issue is being addressed in a court action that argues that the federal government has the authority to set and enforce immigration law. That action is ongoing; parts of the law are currently enjoined.


The document went on to pledge that President Obama remains firmly committed to fixing our broken immigration system  

Let's get something straight.  President Obama's commitment to "fixing our broken immigration system" begins and ends at getting illegals the vote, on the theory that they will vote Democratic and hand numbers of states to the Democratic Party.  If you don't understand this, stop wasting your time reading my blog.  You're too far gone already.

Regarding the United Nations Human Rights Council, here is part of its membership.  See if you consider these countries worthy of judging the USA on human rights:

-Cuba (Castro)

-Libya (qaddafi)

-Mauritania (with its active slave trade)

-Mexico (yep, the country we are trying to protect the border from)

-Pakistan (Sure, why not)

-Saudi Arabia (where women are banned from wearing western clothes, and from driving cars, and from shopping alone in a supermarket - and you can go to jail for wearing a visible religious symbol that is not Muslim).

These are our inquisitors.  Our torquemadas.  Those wonderful examples of elevated human rights who will judge whether the USA should have secure borders.

Congratulations to President Obama, for providing us with such a fair test of our immigration laws. 

But I have a suggestion:  Why not avoid the issue and just duplicate the border laws that those countries have?  Then we will surely be very pleasing to them, and our borders will be safe too.  The cemeteries necessary to, er, house the illegals subjected to their border laws can be built within sight of the border itself, so that illegals can get a look at how human rights is pursued in the countries now judging us.

No need to thank me, sir.  I'm just trying to be a humanitarian.  Like you.


Ken Berwitz

I hereby nominate ABC News for the Katy Couric What Were We Thinking Award.

Just like Katie, Couric's stint as CBS News anchor, ever since Christiane Amanpour took over Sunday Morning's "This Week" show from George Stephanopoulos, the ratings have tanked.

Maybe it is because of imbecilic mouthings like this - as described by Brent Backer in his blog at

ABCs Christiane Amanpour spent her last show before the election mimicking Democratic talking points.  She also fretted that its been a very specific-free, substance-free, content-free election before she scolded Cornyn for a racist ad.

Though ABCs Jonathan Karl on Friday night noted how a new study of campaign ads finds that more than half of negative Democratic ads [51%] are personal attacks, whereas the overwhelming majority of Republican ads attack Democratic policies [69%], Amanpour relayed strong complaints from the Democrats about a lot of the anonymous money that's going on ads. She then ran a clip of an ad from Republican Senator David Vitter which contended his opponent favors illegal aliens, demanding of Cornyn: So some people have called that racist. I want to know do you think it's appropriate to finger Hispanics in that way? Do you think it is appropriate?

I would call what you just read unbelievable --- but, since it is Christiane Amanpour, I can't.  Because, with her, it perfectly believable.  Ms. Amanpour is to media bias what glaze is to ham.

Looking at the racism accusation in particular, let's see if we can wade through (gasp!) reality and see where it takes us:

-Depending on who is doing the estimating, somewhere between 11 and 15 million illegal aliens have come across the border from Mexico to the USA. 

-The majority of them are Mexican nationals.

-The majority of Mexican nationals are of Hispanic origin and are darker-skinned than Caucasians. 

-Therefore, to say anything negative about illegal aliens from Mexico is inherently to say something negative about Hispanic people and darker-skinned people. 

So when Mr. Vitter, or Mr. Cornyn, or Mr. Berwitz, demands more serious border security, are we racists?  Or is it simply that the racial and ethnic makeup of most illegals an inherent fact, and has nothing to do with anyone's attitude about race and ethnicity?  You tell me. 

But, just for fun, let's take Ms. Amanpour's "logic" a bit further:

-If most of the illegals are men, does that make critics of our current immigration policy anti-penis? 

-If their average age is younger than the average age of USA citizens does that critics of our current immigration policy ageist? 

-If, on average, they have more hair than the average USA citizen, does that mean critics of current immigration policy favor bald people?

See my point?

It is hard not to conclude that this, er, "quality" of commentary has a lot to do with why so many viewers have abandoned This Week since Christiane Amanpour became its host.


Ken Berwitz

Yesterday Barack Obama spoke at an indoor arena in Cleveland, and thousands of seats were unoccupied.


This excerpt from Mark Hemingway's blog at the Washington Examiner give us the spin from both parties:

Yesterday, Obama staged a rally at Cleveland State University. Unlike the 2008 era of hopenchange, Obama spoke to an auditorium that had thousands of empty seats. The New York Post notes that event organizers are making excuses for the poor attendance:


Shortly before his election two years ago, Obama drew a crowd of 80,000 in Cleveland.


Organizers of yesterdays event tried to explain away the row after row of unoccupied seats by saying the president was competing with football, church and Halloween parties.


The RNC retorts So were clear, the event started at 3pm. Most church services were over, trick-or-treating hadnt yet started and the Cleveland Browns had a bye week. Theres a simple truth, one the Democrats will do anything not to admit: voters just dont like President Obama and his job-killing agenda.

Which side (if either) is making sense here?

Your call.

Zeke .... ..... No, No, No. .... You are wrong ! .... There were Obama voters for each and every seat there. .... ..... The empty seats are for loyal Obama supporters who are still in the Cemetery. .... ..... They will be dug up and brought to the polls to vote. .... ..... (11/02/10)


Ken Berwitz

By now you certainly know that Alaska's Republican senatorial candidate, Joe Miller, was the subject of  an intended smear campaign by CBS News.  To refresh your memory (or if you just came out of a coma), CLICK HERE to see and hear what the news director, assignment editor and various reporters at CBS were yukking it up about.

Pretty appalling, right?

Well, forget right.  Let's talk left.  Which brings us straight to Washington Post "journalist" Ezra Klein.

Here is what Mr. Klein blogged about this incident.  I am posting every word, so no one can accuse me of leaving out anything that exonerates him:

The media's pro-Palin corruption

"Corrupt bastards," tweeted Sarah Palin. "CBS/media plot against Joe Miller before our Anchorage rally Thurs Kinda'what I've put up w for 2 yrs."

That's a bit hard to parse, but it's safe to say Palin doesn't like the media much. That, we're often told, is why she's always tweeting. She's going around the media. Talking directly to her fans. The only problem is, well, Palin's Twitter account isn't very popular:

image (2).png

With 286,000 people subscribed to her Twitter feed, Palin has a lot more followers than, say, me (though you can help change that!). But she only has a fifth of the followers that Ana Marie Cox has. And as you can see in the graph above, it's not just Cox's freakishly popular Twitter account: Palin trails "Parks and Recreation" star Aziz Ansari, Hasidic reggae artist Matisyahu, neurotic comedian Ben Stiller, heiress Ivanka Trump, mustachioed-advice giver Dr. Phil, Haitian-president-in-waiting Wyclef Jean, and a wide range of others.

This point has been made before, of course, but the reason Palin's Twitter account matters is that the media loves Sarah Palin and reports on everything she says, does, or tweets. There's corruption there, to be sure, but it's of the sensationalistic sort, and Palin's making a career -- not to mention fat speaking and book fees -- off of it.

Can you even figure out what Klein is trying to say?  The story is that KTVA (CBS News) in Anchorage, Alaska was concocting a phony smear attempt days before the election.  What Klein immediately diverts it to is a juvenile attempt to prove that some people have more twitter followers than Sarah Palin - followed by the requisite attack on her (which, ironically, proves exactly what she says about media).

That, folks is what a putz would do.  Dead-on, exactly.

I therefore conclude that Ezra Klein is a putz.

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!!