Wednesday, 29 February 2012


Ken Berwitz

Mitt Romney, the Weeble candidate, again wobbled but did not fall down.

He won Michigan by 3% (41% - 38%) over a combination of Rick Santorum, and an intense effort by Democrats to cross over, vote for Santorum and throw the Republican nominating process back to square one.  I have no doubt this effort - which is perfectly legal (stupid as hell, but legal), made the win a good deal tighter than it otherwise would have been.  But Romney won in spite of it.

In Arizona, Romney more than won, he predominated, with 47% to Santorum's 27%. 

Newt Gingrich and ron paul, neither of whom spent time and money in these two states, were far behind.

How will Romney's sweep change the dynamics of  Saturday's Washington caucuses, then next week's "Super Tuesday", with primaries in Ohio, Virginia, Tennessee, Idaho, Vermont, Oklahoma, North Dakota, and caucuses in Georgia and Massachusetts? 

Well, Ohio is the big prize.  And until yesterday, Santorum appeared to be ahead by a pretty good-sized margin;  7% and 11% in the most recent polls, but down from his whopping 18% lead two weeks ago in the (more accurate than most) Rasmussen poll.

I don't predict elections.  But if I had to place a bet, I would be betting on Romney taking a big, immediate jump forward in Ohio (and the other states as well) at Santorum's expense, and winning most states handily next week - including Ohio.

Santorum, like Bachmann, Perry, Gingrich and Cain before him, had a quick upward surge, which already was starting to fade.  Add to that his talent for making self-destructive statements (Sending your child to college is an act of snobbery?  Attacking John F. Kennedy's position on church and state is good politics?).  Top it off with his double loss yesterday, and it should not surprise anyone to see Santorum fall as quickly as he rose. 

Interestingly, if that happens, Newt Gingrich (who is even more of a Weeble Candidate than Romney) re-emerges into second place:  a very weak second, but second, nonethless.

It looks more and more like Romney is the nominee.  Which, if you ask me, should give a lot of Republicans cause to wipe their brow and say "whew, we dodged the bullet".


Ken Berwitz

It is now a week since the Republican debate, in which Newt Gingrich told moderator John King:

You did not once during the 2008 campaign ask why Barack Obama voted in favor of legalizing infanticide. If were going to debate about who is the extremist on this issues, it is President Obama, who, as a state senator, voted to protect doctors who killed babies.

And it is also a week since virtually all of our wonderful "neutral" media, after hearing him say it, did nothing other than ridicule Gingrich and promptly bury his comment.

The problem?  Gingrich was 100% correct.

Newt Gingrich was talking about BAIPA (The Born Alive Infant Protection Act) which states that if a baby survives an abortion - and therefore is a live birth, outside the womb - the doctor is compelled to do everything he or she can to keep the baby alive.  His reference was to the fact that, when Barack Obama was in the Illinois state senate, he did everything he could to prevent that act from becoming law - then lied about it, was caught in his lie, and had to admit he did it afterwards.

Here, courtesy of BAIPA activist and nurse, Jill Stanek, is a chronology of Barack Obama's actions and statements regarding BAIPA:

Following are Obamas actions and votes on Born Alive. The bill number changed every year it was reintroduced.


Senate Bill 1095, Born Alive Infant Protection Act
Obamas no vote in the IL Senate Judiciary Committeehere, March 28, 2001
Transcript of Obamas verbal opposition to Born Alive on the IL Senate floor, March 30, 2001, pages 84-90
Obamas present vote on the IL Senate floor, March 30, 2001


Senate Bill 1662, Born Alive Infant Protection Act
Obamas no vote in the Senate Judiciary Committee, March 6, 2002
Transcript of Obamas verbal opposition to Born Alive on the IL Senate floor, April 4, 2002, pages 28-35
Obamas no vote on the IL Senate floor, April 4, 2002
Listen to audio from Obamas 2002 IL Senate floor debate wherein he argued that while babies might be aborted alive, it would be a burden to a mothers original decision to assess and treat them.
Meanwhile, the federal Born Alive Infants Protection Act with a neutrality clause added passed the U.S. Senate 98-0, the U.S. House overwhelmingly, and was signed into law August 5, 2002. The pro-abortion group NARAL expressed neutrality on the bill.


Senate Bill 1082, Born Alive Infant Protection Act
Democrats took control of the IL Senate with the 2002 elections. This year Born Alive was sent to the Health & Human Services Committee, chaired by Barack Obama.

As can be seen on the vote docket, Obama first voted to amend SB1082 to add the neutrality clause from the federal version of Born Alive to the IL version to make them absolutely identical. (DP#1 means Do Pass Amendment #1.)

Then Obama voted against the identical version. (DPA means, Do Pass as Amended.)

Additional corroboration of Obamas vote: IL State Senate Republican Staff Analysis of SB 1082, March 12-13, 2003, bottom of page 2

For 4 years following his 2003 vote Obama misrepresented it, stating the wording of the IL version of Born Alive was not the same as the federal version, and he would have voted for it if so. As recently as August 16, 2008, Obama made this false assertion.

But when evidence presented was irrefutable, Obamas campaign on August 18, 2008, admitted the truth to the New York Sun.

The nonpartison group has since corroborated Obama voted against identical legislation as passed overwhelmingly on the federal level and then misrepresented his vote.

Does this show that Barack Obama supported infanticide?  You're damn right it does.  How much clearer can it be?

Let me put this into plain and simple language:  If an abortion fails and there is a live baby outside the womb, a doctor who does not treat or care for that baby but just lets it die, is committing negligent homicide.  And negligent homicide perpetrated on an infant is infanticide.  All the too-clever-by-half wordsmithing by all the left wing Obama aplogists combined, times 1,000,000, does not change what it is.

But our media - the same media which have gone ballistic over whether women should be treated to free contraceptives from Catholic organizations, and over the "Transvaginal" ultrasound non-issue in Virginia - buried Mr. Gingrich's absolutely correct accusation, along with Barack Obama's support of infanticide, without batting an eyelash.

Just when you think this sorry bunch could not be further in the tank for Barack Obama, you find out there is a new, even lower, bottom to that tank.

How can they call themselves journalists?  How can they even face themselves in the mirror?

Steve If Ron Paul does not support sending US tax dollars to Isreal does that make him anti-semetic? I don't think so. Isreal is a rich country that should support itself without the aid of US tax dollars. Lets keep our tax dollars here in the US and not send them to Isreal or any other country until we've taken care of our deficit and other financial problems at home. This is not an anti-semetic statement! (03/26/12)


Ken Berwitz

Here is the latest news from Egypt, that bastion of triumph for President Obama's foreign policy, where he worked long and hard to push out Hosni Mubarak so freedom and democracy would take his place.

According to Hamza Hendawi's article for the Associated Press:

-Egypt's upper house, which is now run by Muslim brotherhood and Salafist fundamentalists, selected fundamentalist Islamis Ahmed Fahmy as its speaker;

-An additional 90 members of parliament are not elected, they are appointed - most likely by Egypt's next President.  And, unless a major miracle takes place (which it will not), Egypt's next President will be every bit as fundamentalist Islamic as the parliament for exactly the same reason the parliament is - namely that freedom and democracy are unknown to Egypt which has never had a day of either in its history, but even illiterate Egyptians (something like one third of the entire population) know all about the Koran.

-And the "freedom and democracy" activists who President Obama, with incredible naivete, thought would be running the show by now?  They got exactly nowhere in the latest elections - the same place they got in the previous ones.  Evidently, outside of Tahrir Square and a few Cairo internet cafes, speaking English and having active twitter and facebook accounts is not especially impressive to the Egyptian populace. 

I hope this is not a surprise to you.  I would think that anyone with a reasonable elementary school education could have seen this result coming.  Apparently it takes an Ivy League education and a political career of non-accomplishment to come up with the assumptions which were made at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

I hope President Obama and his administration are enjoying Egypt's "progress" over the past year.  Because it is what they worked so hard to replace Hosni Mubarak with.

On the other hand, Egypt is now far less disposed to have friendly relations with Israel than the previous administration.  So at least Mr. Obama can certainly find some common ground there.

Zeke .... .... Egypt, with 83.7 million people is the most populous country in the Middle East. .... .... Throw hostile Turkey, with 79.8 million into the equation .... ... and nuclear Iran (pop. 78.9 million). .... .... ..... Israel (pop. 7.6 million -- of whom a quarter --1.8 million -- are Arab) ... little Israel has its survival very much in peril. .... ..... (02/29/12)

(Anon) I would say Obama knows how to play hardball. Israel wouldn't agree to everything Obama wanted them to to do, so Obama has turned up the heat considerably on Israel and Jews worldwide. What a great man he is -- NOT! (02/29/12)

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!!