Thursday, 07 April 2011


Ken Berwitz

This is the stuff they write books about.

Remember this morning, when Joanne Kloppenburg declared herself winner of the race for Wisconsin State Supreme Court over David Prosser ---based on a margin of 204 votes, and before anything was official? 

Remember her victory speech? 

Well, I hope you recorded it, because that speech may well be a collector's item someday.  Right up there with a grinning Harry Truman after election day, 1948, holding the Chicago Tribune with its banner headline "DEWEY WINS".

The reason?  Because, as of now, Ms. Kloppenburg apparently is losing by over 7,000 votes. 

Yes, you read that right.  Here is the story, excerpted from an article at the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel:

David Prosser gained 7,582 votes in Waukesha County, after a major counting error of Brookfield results was detected, County Clerk Kathy Nickolaus announced in a stunning development this afternoon.

Nickolaus says the reason for the big change is that data transmitted from the City of Brookfield was imported but that she failed to save those results to the database. Brookfield cast 14,315 votes on April 5 -- 10,859 of those votes went to Prosser and 3,456 went to JoAnne Kloppenburg.

"The purpose of the canvass is to catch these kind of mistakes," Nickolaus said. She called it human error that is "common in this process." "I apologize," Nickolaus said.

Canvassers around the state were updating their totals Thursday, with Prosser and JoAnne Kloppenburg each making gains.

Those changes pale in comparison to the stunning development in Waukesha County, where Prosser's total increased by 11,008 and Kloppenburg's rose 3,426.

Holy excrement.

And before anyone jumps in crying fraud, read this excerpt from the article (the bold print is mine):

When asked about accusations of voter fraud, Nickolaus, who is a Republican, cited the canvassing process:

Im thankful that the error was found early in the process, she said. Anyone who sat in on that canvass could see what we are doing.

Democratic canvass watcher Ramona Kitzinger was also at the press conference.

We went over everything & made sure the numbers jibed up and they did, Kitzinger said. Were satisfied that its correct.

Can Kloppenburg still win?  Yes she can.  There may have been mistakes - legitimate mistakes - that, when rectified will benefit her.  And do not underestimate the capacity for a Democratic urban county to "find" votes - not votes that just weren't entered, but votes that no one ever knew existed.  These things do happen, you know.

But as of now?  It's Prosser.

Stay tuned.


Ken Berwitz

With a hat tip to West Coast is what Israel is doing to address the tsunami victims of Japan:

It has set up a clinic, which includes:

●  Orthopedics, surgical and intensive care units as well as a delivery room and a pharmacy.

●  The delegation includes 50 doctors.

●  They brought with them: 

        1.   32 tons of equipment                                                                                                    
        2.   18 tons of humanitarian aid---10,000 coats, 6,000 gloves and 150 portable toilets


Question:  With all their billions of "petro-dollars", where is the humanitarian relief from the Arab countries?

That's what we lose if we lose Israel.


Ken Berwitz

Here's an interesting piece of news that could affect the Wisconsin State Supreme Court race between conservative David Prosser and liberal Joanne Kloppenburg.

Excerpted from, which got it from Jim Hoft of


This comes from a trusted source in Wisconsin:

Local precinct officials have reportedly found 500 votes in Waukesha County Wisconsin. Officials believe they have found 500 ballots in a county that voted 73% for Prosser.

Far left contender Joanne Kloppenbur­g currently leads the race by 204 votes over Justice David Prosser.

I have read at another site that the actual total of ballots found might number as many as 600.

Now there could be a very simple explanation for all this - e.g. that the ballots were actually counted and then put aside.  There could be a lot of other explanations as well - some of them very unpleasant to think about.

In this connection, we have the following story from

Wednesday, April 6, 2011

Wisconsin City Caught Destroying Ballots

Posted by Thomas Ferdousi


As if the situation in Wisconsin wasn't tense enough, it appears that one county in particular is going to a new extreme. This comes after word that there may have been voter fraud in the nonpartisan State Supreme Court election yesterday between incumbent David Prosser and JoAnne Kloppenburg.

For some reason one of the counties in the state is destroying ballots that 'were not counted' yesterday. Apparently this is a very bizarre and egregious move.


There is now a call for an injunction to preserve the 'discarded' ballots:

I have filed a Wisconsin Open records request with the City of Mequon demanding any ballot
submitted but not cast in yesterday's election, including any remnant of a shredded ballot.


We have received reports Mequon poll workers destroyed submitted ballots before poll closing time, demanding a drivers license number from the absentee voter. This request is unusual and the destruction of ballots is of grave concern, given the closeness of the state Supreme Court election.

Do you need me to tell you that David Prosser was a heavy favorite in Mequon -- winning the ballots that were counted by 72% - 28%?  I didn't think so.


Funny how the ballots that somehow didn't get counted would have almost certainly been beneficial to David Prosser.  Just a coincidence I guess.


There is more that I am reading regarding this election - some of relating to the involvement of "students" in the count.  But I'll hold off until I know more.


One other thing:  Incredibly, with a 204 vote "win" (out of almost 1.5 million votes cast) and the certainty of a recount, Ms. Kloppenburg has already declared victory and done a retrospective about what a fine, but losing, race Mr. Prosser ran. 


Nice try, Joanne.


Ken Berwitz

Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY) speaking of legislation proposed by house Republicans....

Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.) said today that the new Republicans elected to the House of Representatives last November came to Congress "to kill women." She also likened Republican efforts to prohibit federal funding of abortion except in cases of rape, incest or where the life of the mother is endangered to actions taken by Nazis.


This is probably one of the worst times weve seen because the numbers of people elected to Congress. I went through this as co-chair of the arts caucus," Slaughter said. "In 94 people were elected simply to come here to kill the National Endowment for the Arts. Now theyre here to kill women.

Count on the Democrats who demanded an end to "heated political rhetoric" to join our wonderful "neutral" media in denouncing Ms. Slaughter for her disgusting comments.

That will happen roughly the same time that Donald Trump shaves his head, takes a vow of poverty and becomes an aide to the Dalai Lama


Zeke .... .... about as civil as Mr. Mahr's comments. ..... .... (04/07/11)


Ken Berwitz

Did you notice that, once Hosni Mubarak stepped down, Egypt suddenly disappeared as lead-story news - moving quickly through the second tier and, today, barely being reported about at all? 

Well, that's what appears to be happening with Libya as well. 

Let's think about why.

For weeks, media assured us every day that the protesters in Egypt were demanding freedom and democracy.  Presumably, this would mean that post-Mubarak Egypt could be a shining light of the best western values that we all cherish. 

Except the reality is that Egypt - with its mostly backward, uneducated population - is much more likely to slip into the regressive status of a fundamentalist Islamic state - and much more willing to spoil for a battle with Israel (which Mubarak, warts and all, prevented for 30 years).   

The Muslim Brotherhood, banned under Mubarak, is suddenly a major player there.  The students, with their lofty ideals and twitter accounts, have sunk back to relative obscurity.  One of the major presidential candidates, mohamad elbaradei, is threatening "the Zionist regime" with war. 

Is that what you thought would be happening?  Apparently you should have, because that is what is happening.

Would it be fair to suspect that the disconnect between what media set us up to expect in Egypt, and what has actually happened since Mubarak resigned, is why media are not so hot to report from Tahrir Square these days?

Well, now let's look at Libya.  The USA bombed qaddafi's forces - and occasionally "the rebels" and civilians as well (whoops).  But now we have stopped bombing - even though qaddafi is still in power, and even though, "the rebels" - who may well be even worse than qaddafi is - are at best stopped in their tracks and at worst being beaten back.  And, as an extra-added attraction, we still have no specific stated objective for why we bombed there.

And our media, which were so happy to report about Libya when it looked like we were taking down qaddafi, have moved on to the budget battle, the possible hurricane season, human interest stories, or anything else that would lower coverage of the Obama administration's performance there.

I saw a new NBC/Wall St. Journal poll yesterday - I think on "Hardball" - in which President Obama got a 54% - 40% approval rating on how he is handling Libya.  This was presented in a way that suggested it was a positive assessment. 

For anyone seriously interested in reality, however, I strongly urge you to check approval ratings after the advent of other recent military actions by the USA, and see how much higher it is than 54% - 40%.  Even the Iraq war, with enormous media opposition and most Democrats against it, had a 79% approval rate two months after we invaded.

The truth?  That 54% - 40% "favorability" rating is terrible.

In the election of 1844, one of candidate James Polk's main slogans (relating to the latitude measurements of a negotiated border between the Oregon Territory and British Canada) was "54 - 40 or fight".  

Ironic, isn't it, that the current "54%  - 40%" probably means that voters think we shouldn't fight.


Ken Berwitz

What is the Democratic strategy?

The Democratic strategy is to shut government down, and rely on a compliantly partisan media to present it as the Republicans' doing.

That is what they have worked towards.  It is even why they have trotted out a couple of their hacks to say "progress is being made", to make it look like they're trying their best but can't overcome Republican intransigence.

That is why Chuck Schumer was caught giving marching orders to his fellow senators about invoking "the Tea Party" and calling Republicans "extreme" - both of which are being used copiously even after Schumer was busted.  As if trying to lower an out of control  $3.7 trillion dollar budget - including over $1 trillion dollars in deficit alone, by less that 1%  is extreme.

It is all predetermined and premeditated, so the show must go on.

This could not be clearer if it was treated with Glass Wax.

The idea is that, just like during the Clinton years, the shutdown can be blamed on Republicans.  Never mind the trifling little fact that, for there to be a budget impasse, both sides must disagree.  That's irrelevant'n'immaterial. 

The strategy can only work if a) our wonderful "neutral" media play ball, and b) enough people are so gullible that they buy this transparent BS.

Sadly, a) is a pretty good bet to happen.  Let's hope that most people see b) for what it is.


Ken Berwitz

Read these articles, listed and linked at, and you will know exactly what this is all about, and exactly how cynically the impending government shutdown is being manipulated by President Obama and the Democrat Party:

GOP Approves 1-Week Extension...
Includes $12b in cuts, pay for troops...
Obama calls it 'a distraction'...
Threatens veto, no pay for military...
CANTOR: Veto means shutdown...
But Congress, president still get paid?

As I said earlier today, this could not be clearer if it was treated with Glass Wax.

Put plainly, the threatened shutdown is a contrived, orchestrated event - that will end the minute Democrats perceive it is not working against Republicans.

End of story.


Ken Berwitz

Here's the idea. 

It is that if someone dares to bring up the issue of Barack Obama's birth status - regardless of who he/she is and regardless of what points he/she makes - that person is a crazed, rightwing, unhinged, idiotic, religious-right, zealot with no brain who is being led around by the devilish forces of evil in the deep recesses of the Tea Party to.............

Get the idea?  I thought so.

This is supposed to put a stranglehold on any discussion of why President Obama, given the choice of spending maybe $10 to get, then show us, the long form version of his birth certificate, or spending maybe millions to prevent anyone from ever seeing it, spends the millions to prevent anyone from ever seeing it.

A serious news media would be on this like green husks on corn.  But, when it comes to Barack Obama, we do not have much in the way of serious news media.  We have a news media enthralled by the man, who made sure that skeptics were characterized as wild-eyed nutbags - and who now are stuck with that characterization because, to finally take an honest, dispassionate look at the question of Barack Obama's eligibility, would be to admit being dead-wrong in dismissing the issue all this time.

But now, Donald Trump - admittedly an arrogant, elitist with a superturbocharged ego and a television show to promote - has gone very public with his doubts.  And, predictably, a great many of our wonderful "neutral" media are out of their minds over it. 

Illustratively, read the first paragraph of Justin Elliott's piece at

For the past few weeks, fake presidential candidate Donald Trump has been spreading Birther nonsense on a media tour that is clearly designed to increase the ratings on his "Celebrity Apprentice" show and to garner free press.

 Ba-boom.  In one sentence, Trump is dismissed as a fake, a spreader of "birther nonsense" who is doing this for no reason other than to boom up his (already high) TV ratings.  Elliott goes on, but you get the gist.


Do you notice anything from Mr. Elliott about the key point Mr. Trump makes - i.e. why Mr. Obama doesn't just pay a minuscule processing fee, get the birth certificate, show it and - assuming it says what he claims it does - end the issue?  Me neither.


And, while we're on the subject, let's remember that it isn't just the birth certificate.  What about Mr. Obama's refusal to provide any passport information, or any college transcripts which might show he was a recipient of foreign student aid, or any other document that could shed light on his birth?


Look, I do not claim to know the exact circumstances of Barack Obama's birth, or whether he is constitutionally eligible for the Presidency.


But I resent other people claiming they do know.  Based on what?  A Certification of Life Birth, with no serial number, no doctor, and no hospital listed, that could have relied on nothing other than what his mother or grandparents told officials at the time?  Birth announcements that emanated from the same source?   That is not proof, and that is not anything near it.


And I resent their sneering dismissal of people who are skeptical about Barack Obama's obviously intentional withholding of information.  They SHOULD be skeptical.


And I resent most that our wonderful "neutral" media - which spent years trying to prove that then-President Bush missed a few National Guard meetings in the early 1970's, have worked so desperately hard not to uncover a thing about President Obama's birth status.


Donald Trump claims to have investigators looking into this in Hawaii, and says "they can't believe what they are finding".  I look forward - with both anticipation and concern - to hearing what they've come up with. 

free` Don't forget obama saying a lot of it is do to his race. (04/07/11)

steve schneider obama doesn't want to release the certificate because anyone who questions his birth is perceived as crazy. the anyone who is against obama is crazy strategy works. why would he put an end to that? (04/07/11)

Zeke .... I ask again: .... HOW do we know that Mr. Obama meets the Constitutional requirement that he "have attained to the Age of thirty five Years". Hey, the dude could still be in his 20's. ... .... There is absolutely no fathomable explanation for withholding his birth certificate, unless it contains damaging information. ..... IIRC, two Hawaii officials in charge of birth records said last year that they had examined the actual birth certificate ..... Where is the reporting and interviews on that ? (04/07/11)


Ken Berwitz

Alec Baldwin is a very talented actor, and a left wing ideologue who thinks he knows a lot about politics. 

I realize this doesn't exactly make Mr. Baldwin unique.....but let me continue.

Baldwin was interviewed by, and had a fascinating explanation of why President Obama is not sparkling quite as brightly as he otherwise might have.  Here is an excerpt from the article:

Emmy award-winning actor Alec Baldwin told on Capitol Hill that he believes the financial crisis has "crippled" President Barack Obama, preventing him from doing any "new spending." Baldwin also said Obama has been doing "a lot" of "back-peddling" because hes had to spend his whole first term "trying" to correct Americas course financially.


"Well, I mean, I think so because I think that when you come into office and you want to put your mark on things -- this is just my opinion, when you want to put your mark on things, you want to be able to spend. And whats crippled Obama's administration, as far as Im concerned, is the financial crisis and its prevented him from doing any new spending," said Baldwin, who publicly supported Obama in the 2008 Presidential election.


"Hes not able if the country was as flush as it was under Bill Clinton and he had money -- these things cost money -- he could have made more of a mark," said Baldwin. "I think right now hes had to do a lot of counter-punching; a lot of back peddling. He inherited this crisis from Bush and Paulson. He had to extend the TARP. I think its been very difficult for him to spend his whole first term trying to, you know, correct our course financially. I think a second term of Obama, well see a lot more of what we want to see from him."

Got that?  Because of those dirty so-and-so's, Bush and Paulson, President Obama could not spend money to put his mark on things.

I wonder if any kind soul might point out to Mr. Baldwin that President Obama is in the process of giving us our third trillion dollar plus deficit - dramatically more of a deficit than President Bush (and his Secretary of the Treasury, Hank Paulson) ever did. 

And, while doing so, that kind soul might also point out that the so-called "stimulus package" and "ObamaCare" are most assuredly making a mark.  Of course a lot of people consider it an especially black mark, but I will be nice and not delve into that. 

These are the things, Mr. Baldwin, that happen when you spend money.  When you spend lots of money that you don't have

And spending money we don't have is what President Obama has relentlessly done since taking office. 

My advice?  Stick to acting.  Stay with what you're good at.

Zeke .... .... Wasn't it Baldwin who said he'd leave the country if Dems lost a previous election .... ... might have been to GWB or GHWB. .... ... Anyway, he never followed up on his promise. ..... .... Stick to reciting words written by others, Alec .... your own thoughts are claptrap. .... ..... (04/07/11)

free` Uhmmmm you said black mark, shame on you. ;) (04/07/11)


Ken Berwitz

On "Morning Joe" today, donnie deutsch, a frequent "contributor" (if you can call him that) to the show, referred to Glenn Beck as a "despicable putz" and a "disgusting human being". 

Both personal insults went unchallenged by every other person on the show.

"Civility", anyone?

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!!