Friday, 24 February 2012


Ken Berwitz

Four days ago I wrote a blog titled "Anatomy Of An Issue, Created By The Accomplice Media".  In it, I detailed, in chronological order, how contraception/birth control, went from an issue virtually no one was talking about to an issue media cannot stop talking about. 

I also pointed out how this "issue" was nursed, rehearsed and pushed by pro-Obama media, presumably because they felt it would divert attention from the issues people actually are talking about, such as the economy, jobs, etc.* 

I would like to go a little further with this today. 

Gallup does a monthly tracking study in which respondents are asked what the most important issues are to them.  Here is every issue that generated 5% at least one time during the last four months.  The data are arranged in November, December, January, February order:

ECONOMIC PROBLEMS (NET):  76%, 64%, 66%, 71%

The economy in general:  30%, 26%, 31%, 31%

Unemployment/Jobs:  36%, 25%, 26%, 30%

Federal budget deficit:  6%, 12%, 8%, 8%

Lack of money :  6%, 4%, 3%, 5%


NON-ECONOMIC PROBLEMS (NET): 39%, 49%, 44%, 44%

Dissatisfaction with government:  13%, 16%, 15%, 16%

Health Care:  4%, 5%, 6%, 6%

Ethics/Moral/Religious Decline:  3%, 6%, 2%, 3%

Poverty/Hunger/Homelessness:  2%, 5%, 1%, 2%

Do you see anything about abortion or contraception there?  Neither do I.  So let's see how those two issues made out:

Abortion:  *, *, 1%, 1%  (NOTE:  in research, an asterisk denotes less than one-half of 1%)

Contraception:  No responses

 These data clearly show that, before the Accomplice Media went to work on Barack Obama's behalf, virtually no one was talking about either abortion or contraception at all.  It wasn't even close to being on the radar.

Now let me show a transcript of NBC Nightly News's report on this "isssue" from just last night.  The bold print is mine:

WILLIAMS: The price of gas isn't the only contentious campaign issue tonight. Birth control seems to have become, as one headline writer put it today, "The Third Rail of American Politics Right Now," and this happened really out of nowhere. In fact, it was a question about birth control that got the biggest audience response at last night's GOP debate in Arizona. NBC's Kelly O'Donnell has more on the politics of birth control and women's health.

KELLY O'DONNELL: Protests today in Richmond, Virginia.

PROTESTERS: Our bodies! Our lives!

O'DONNELL: A flashpoint in the political fight over government's place in women's health and reproduction. So provocative, the mere mention of birth control prompted boos...

RICK SANTORUM: I don't support that.

O'DONNELL: the Republican debate.

SANTORUM: Just because I'm talking about it doesn't mean I want a government program to fix it.

O'DONNELL: And rare applause at a Democrats-only staged hearing today. Set off by the outrage Democrats vented when Republicans called only men to testify last week on religious institutions and birth control.

NANCY PELOSI: We've heard from over 300,000 people saying we want women's voices to be heard.

O'DONNELL: Democrats invited one woman, a Georgetown law student, to talk about hardships for some women who don't have insurance that covers birth control.

SANDRA FLUKE [GEORGETOWN LAW STUDENT]**: Without her taking the birth control, a massive cyst the side of a tennis ball had grown on her ovary.

O'DONNELL: Nearly 11 million women use birth control pills, the most common method of contraception, the political fire is broader, with some states looking to restrict abortion and funding for women's health programs. In Virginia late today, after protests and a national spotlight, legislators changed a controversial bill that would have required an invasive procedure before a woman could have an abortion. Some Republican voters want this debate.

UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: Social issues should play a very high priority in the campaign.

O'DONNELL: Analysts say these social issues are more likely to help Democrats.

JENNIFER DUFFY [THE COOK POLITICAL REPORT]: This issue has given Democrats at every level an issue to talk to women voters about and particularly independent women.

O'DONNELL: Making women without party ties the most sought-after voters this year. Kelly O'Donnell, NBC News, Washington.

An issue that "happened really out of nowhere", Brian?  What an unbelievable lie you are telling.

At least Kelly O'Donnell admitted that this "out of nowhere" issue is expected to benefit the Democrat Party:  i.e. Barack Obama's re-election prospects and the chance that Democrats might hold onto their senate majority.

If anyone can explain to me how this qualifies as journalism, and not intentionally-created propaganda for Barack Obama and his fellow Democrats, I would love to see it.  

How do Brian Williams and his fellow propagandists call themselves journalists?  How do they even face themselves in the mirror?


* Energy got very few mentions, because the most recent tracking study was conducted from February 2 to 5 - still before the major spike in gas prices.  It is a sure bet that energy will jump higher when March's tracking is done -- as will abortion/contraception because of the media blitz detailed in this blog.

**Incidentally, as noted by Kyle Drennan of, Sandra Fluke is just a bit more than a "Georgetown law student").  She is the former President of the Georgetown Law School's chapter of "Law Students For Reproductive Justice".   Nice of Brian Williams, and NBC News, to omit that little tidbit.

Janet Montgomery George Stephanopolous went from his job as janitor in the Clinton White House, cleaning Bill's sperm off the floor of the Oval Office, to his job at ABC, setting the Democrat agenda by introducing a non issue (contraception) at a Republican debate. (02/24/12)

Wisoldman It was a fabricated story that, according to a WashPost poll, helps Santorum. Everything these folks attempt to do, fails. (02/24/12)


Ken Berwitz

Shades of Inspector Renault!

The New York Times is shocked - shocked - that there are rich Republican benefactors giving millions of dollars to Republican candidates.  I know this because the Times' lead editorial this morning cries about it.

First, a few key excerpts (the bold print is mine):

The presidential primary season is being brought to you by a handful of multimillionaires and companies who have propped up the candidates with enormous donations to their super PACs.

The $10 million from Sheldon and Miriam Adelson to Winning Our Future, which has sustained Newt Gingrichs trailing campaign, is the biggest single donation to a candidate. But every candidate now has his own millionaire supporter, and the concentration of wealth in the campaign is growing.

The people writing these outsize checks are committed to defeating President Obama, but their interests dont stop there. 

President Obamas super PAC, Priorities USA Action, received only two seven-figure checks last year, one from the Service Employees International Union for $1 million, and one from the movie executive Jeffrey Katzenberg for $2 million. (Mr. Katzenberg said last month that he was disappointed with Mr. Obamas opposition to antipiracy legislation but would continue to raise money for him.)

Until a few weeks ago, the president might have credibly campaigned against the undue influence of special interests on his Republican rivals. He can no longer make the case because, after his PAC received only $58,816 last month, Mr. Obama invited donors to give without limits. And all but the most privileged Americans will pay the price if the nations wealthiest can buy elections.

Interesting structure to this editorial.  It does not mention President Obama until the last two paragraphs (remember, these are excerpts - the actual editorial is a lot longer).  And even there, its tone suggests Mr. Obama is only creating his own Super-Pac as a reaction to Republican fatcats trying to buy the election. 

The Times does not comment on the obvious hypocrisy of Mr. Obama having his own Super-Pac last year, then pretending this year that it is something new to him.  Nor does the Times speculate that this year's Obama Super-Pac was going to be created anyway, and is being presented as a "reaction" to the Republican Super-Pac only as a political strategy (which is almost certainly what happened). 

It's not like Barack Obama hasn't pulled a $$$ switcheroonie in the past.

Let me remind you that in 2008 candidate Obama pledged to run his campaign entirely on public financing - but when he saw how much more money he could get through public funding, he went back on his word without missing a beat. 

Then there is this question:  If "the people writing these outsize checks are committed to defeating President Obama", then who the $&#%^ does the Times think big donors to President Obama are commited to defeating?   Will they be writing condemnatory editorials about those big donors too?  Don't bet on it.

But since we're talking about big donors:  as of January 31, President Obama's own campaign web site listed 61 people/groups who had raised $500,000 or more for Mr. Obama so far this year.  Do you doubt that the list growing, and will continue to do so?  What about them?  Do they count in the world of the New York Times? 

In fact, here is the latest addition to that list.  Last night, far leftist bill maher announced he was personally contributing $1 million to the Obama campaign.  And you can count on his similarly left wing entertainment-industry buddies to cough up plenty more on top of it. 

All this, of course, is before we get to george soros who, through direct contributions and funding of numerous left wing organizations, probably dwarfs everyone else in his contributions.  Isn't he the guy who gave something like $20 - 30 million to John Kerry's 2004 campaign?  How much do you figure he will be giving, one way or another, to President Obama this year?

I would say that the New York Times discredits itself by pumping out an editorial as biased and hypocritical as this one...but I can't.  The New York Times has discredited itself so often in so many ways over recent years that it is like that massive pile of old phone bills in the Vonage commercials.  Just toss it in there with the other ones.

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!!