Monday, 14 January 2013


Ken Berwitz

I know it is still early - just mid-January - but this has to be a contender for the most ridiculous quote of the year.

Here is Steven Rattner - hardline Democrat and Obama appointee, and more or less of a regular on Joe Scarborough's "Morning Joe" show - telling us why he believes Republicans are less than taken with Colin Powell these days (HINT:  think "racism"):

"...he also has this particular ability to look at the situation as somebody who is a member of a minority, and is trying to be Republican, and feels this hostility towards him from the rest of the party, in part because he is a minority..."

That so, Steve? 

Help me out here.  Is this the same Colin Powell who Republicans were begging to be their Presidential nominee in 1996 (he declined to run)?  The same Colin Powell who President Bush named the first Black Secretary of State in USA history -- to the cheers of Republicans?

Maybe it's just me, but I can't help thinking that Mr. Powell was just as Black when Republicans loved him as he is now.

Could it possibly be that Republican hostility is due, instead, to Mr. Powell supporting Barack Obama over the party's candidate for each of the last two elections, and constantly criticizing the Republican party for most of the last decade?

Look, I doubt that I will bump into Steven Rattner any time soon.  But if you happen to, would you do me a favor and ask him about this?  I'd love to know his answer.  Because, given that Joe Scarborough is about as much a Republican these days as Colin Powell is, I'm not counting on him asking that question any time soon.


Ken Berwitz

Bill Clinton is living proof that if you want to spend your days lying, you should make sure to be a Democrat....because, for the most part, your lies will be ignored by our hopelessly compromised mainstream media.

And, for the most part, this Clinton lie, is an excellent example (not that there aren't a great many others to choose from).

Last Wednesday, speaking at the Consumer Electronics Show (CES) in Las Vegas, Mr. Clinton spoke in favor of a ban on assault weapons by citing this bstatistic:

"Half of all mass killings in the United States have occurred since the assault weapons ban expired in 2005, half of all of them in the history of the country."

Before continuing, let me assure you that "bstatistic" is not a typo.  It is a word I invented to describe statistics that are made up out of thin air - in other words, BS.

Clinton's lie was so egregious that even Glenn Kessler, the lifelong liberal Democrat who fact-checks for the Washington Post (did you expect a non-liberal Democrat to get that job at the Post?) could not abide it. 

Kessler's fact-check cites two sources:

-One of them puts it at 20% over just the past 100 years - obviously far less than 50%. But since the "history of the country" started in 1776, and therefore ignores the first 137 years when there just might have been a few mass killings here and there, the actual percent is unquestionably much lower;

-The other - based on calculations by the hard-left Mother Jones magazine, which certainly agrees with Mr. Clinton's desire for an assault weapons ban - has it at 40%...of the last 18 years.  The mass killings which occurred over the other 217 years?  Er...we'll just forget about them, ok?

Look, I don't care whether you are or are not in favor of an assault weapons ban:  can we agree that Bill Clinton was lying when he made that statement?  I thought so.

But, believe it or not, there is a humorous angle to this story.  After thoroughly exposing Clinton as a liar, Glenn Kessler gives his comment a rating of 3 "Pinocchios" (i.e. "significant factual error") instead of 4 (i.e. "whopper"). 

Why does he do this?

In the highly charged debate over guns, it is important for politicians on both sides to get their facts straight. In this case, the available data show that Clinton was way off base in his assertion, making an exaggerated claim - which his office would not even defend.

 Ordinarily, this might have been a Four Pinocchio claim. Given the fuzziness of the data and questions about definitions, we are going to cut Clinton a bit of slack in the final ruling. But such uncertainty in the data means politicians need to be very careful in making claims about gun violence.  

Like I said, Glenn Kessler is a lifelong liberal Democrat.  So, despite outing Clinton as an obvious liar, Kessler could not resist backing off, and presenting us with a bstatistic of his own.

Zeke .... ....... William "B.J." Clinton ? ? ? .... Oh, the guy who recounted heartfelt remembrances of Black Churches burned during his boyhood in Arkansas. .... .... .... Except for the FACT that there were NO church burnings then. .... ..... ..... But, if there HAD been, then BJ would have felt their pain. .... ..... ...... (01/14/13)


Ken Berwitz

Last night, Julianne Moore won a Golden Globe for her role in "Game Change" - an unflattering, insulting portrayal of Sarah Palin, the former Mayor, then Alaska Energy Secretary, then Alaska Governor, then Vice presidential candidate whom the entertainment industry has despised with gleeful viciousness for the past five years.

And the Director of Game Change, Jay Roach - also a Golden Globe winner - told the audience that Moore was "brave" to play the role of Ms. Palin.

That's right:  this intellectual and philosophical giant has determined that it requires bravery for an actress to insultingly portray someone the entertainment industry has done nothing but insult for five years.

My question:  Was Jay Roach drunk, on drugs, or did he lose a bet?  Because no rational person with an IQ above 46 would ever in a million years call doing that "brave". 

Which do you think it was?  I'll, er, "entertain" all responses.


Ken Berwitz

They say a picture is worth 1,000 words.

Well here is a picture with just 6 words...which speaks volumes about our once and future President.

Can he really need a teleprompter for that?

Evidently the answer is yes. 

In the immortal words of my sainted grandmother...."Oy gevalt"

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!!