Saturday, 11 May 2013

THE QUOTE OF THE DAY

Ken Berwitz

Today's quote - and it is an astonishing one - comes to us from former Republican/conservative, currently MSNBC host (the two do not go well together) Joe Scarborough on his "Morning Joe" show.

Here is Mr. Scarborough's explanation of why the Benghazi scandal took so long to blow open and why, even now, some media people are trying to downplay it:

"You talk about overplaying your hand. If a lot of people on the far right hadn't overplayed their hand on Benghazi and were screaming, before they knew what they were screaming about, I think we would all be much harder on the administration right now."

Huh?  Wha?

The reason four people are dead is that the State Department, under Hillary Clinton, lowered the amount of security in Benghazi, Libya - during a period of utter chaos in which we knew for a fact terrorists were all over the place, then did not heighten security on September 11th, the single most important symbolic day for terrorists, thus the single most desirable day to hit USA assets.  (And despite the BS from Obama supporters about Republicans lowering the security budget, she did so with a budget that was greater in 2012 than it was in 2011).

Then, when the terrorist operation went into high gear, orders were given that our military should "stand down' and not do anything about it (almost certainly given by the President/commander in chief - before he went to bed, got a good night's sleep, then headed off to Vegas for a big, glitzy campaign stop).

And, in the current funhouse-mirror world of Joe Scarborough, the reason media have not been harder on the administration for this is....that "the far right" "overplayed their hand" and started "screaming" about it when it happened???  

Why shouldn't they have been screaming?  Everyone who saw what happened in Benghazi, from right to center to left, should have been screaming about it.  Including what is left of Joe Scarborough.

What were they supposed to do?  Wait for Obama's Accomplice Media to pick up the ball and take their lord and savior down during an election campaign, as if that were going to happen?

And why is there any reference to "the far right"?  Has Scarborough gone so far to the other side that his instinctive reaction is to marginalize even people who are appalled by the incompetence and ineptitude that got four of our citizens killed as "the far right"?  Where the hell was he on Benghazi?

Maybe his answer to those questions will score Joe Scarborough another "Quote Of The Day" win at a future date.  But, based on its sheer stupidity level, the one he is getting today is richly deserved.

Zeke .... .... .... News for Little Joey --- The critics weren't screaming about malfeasance and incompetence --- they merely mentioned it. .... .... Because of the complete silence of the Fourth Estate, the critical voices were the only ones heard. .... .... The contrast was thundering. .... .... .... ..... Personally, I wonder if all this news management is a plot to make us realize how accurate George Orwell was in predicting the workings of Totalitarianism. .... ..... .... ..... (05/11/13)


FAMILY TIES, & MEDIA COVERAGE OF THE BENGHAZI MASSACRE

Ken Berwitz

Why have media - at least until now - worked so hard to look the other way about the Benghazi massacre, then lie-filled coverup? 

Well Noel Sheppard of newsbusters.org has done some digging.  And the information he has unearthed just might shed a little - make that a great deal of - light on the subject:

-Ben Sherwood is the President of ABC News.  Mr. Sherwood's sister, Dr. Elizabeth Sherwood-Randall, is a Special Assistant to Barack Obama.

-David Rhodes is the President of CBS News.  Mr. Rhodes' brother, David Rhodes, is President Obama's Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategic Communications - and is generally thought to be the Obama operative who revised the Benghazi talking points.

-Virginia Moseley is CNN's Deputy Bureau Chief.  Her husband, Tom Nides was Hillary Clnton's Deputy Secretary of State for Management and Resources.

What an amazing coincidence:  The Obama administration hired people at ABC, CBS and CNN with family members who hold executive media positions - positions in which they could protect said family members by protecting the administration. 

If this stinks half as much to you as it does to me, I suggest heavy-duty nose plugs. 

Still wonder why these networks have treaded so lightly on Benghazi for over a half year - and are only grudgingy half-covering it now?

Still wonder why I call them Obama's Accomplice Media?


THE QUOTE OF THE DAY

Ken Berwitz

Today's quote - and it is an astonishing one - comes to us from former Republican/conservative, currently MSNBC host (the two do not go well together) Joe Scarborough on his "Morning Joe" show.

Here is Mr. Scarborough's explanation of why the Benghazi scandal took so long to blow open and why, even now, some media people are trying to downplay it:

"You talk about overplaying your hand. If a lot of people on the far right hadn't overplayed their hand on Benghazi and were screaming, before they knew what they were screaming about, I think we would all be much harder on the administration right now."

Huh?  Wha?

The reason four people are dead is that the State Department, under Hillary Clinton, lowered the amount of security in Benghazi, Libya - during a period of utter chaos in which we knew for a fact terrorists were all over the place, then did not heighten security on September 11th, the single most important symbolic day for terrorists, thus the single most desirable day to hit USA assets.  (And despite the BS from Obama supporters about Republicans lowering the security budget, she did so with a budget that was greater in 2012 than it was in 2011).

Then, when the terrorist operation went into high gear, orders were given that our military should "stand down' and not do anything about it (almost certainly given by the President/commander in chief - before he went to bed, got a good night's sleep, then headed off to Vegas for a big, glitzy campaign stop).

And, in the current funhouse-mirror world of Joe Scarborough, the reason media have not been harder on the administration for this is....that "the far right" "overplayed their hand" and started "screaming" about it when it happened???  

Why shouldn't they have been screaming?  Everyone who saw what happened in Benghazi, from right to center to left, should have been screaming about it.  Including what is left of Joe Scarborough.

What were they supposed to do?  Wait for Obama's Accomplice Media to pick up the ball and take their lord and savior down during an election campaign, as if that were going to happen?

And why is there any reference to "the far right"?  Has Scarborough gone so far to the other side that his instinctive reaction is to marginalize even people who are appalled by the incompetence and ineptitude that got four of our citizens killed as "the far right"?  Where the hell was he on Benghazi?

Maybe his answer to those questions will score Joe Scarborough another "Quote Of The Day" win at a future date.  But, based on its sheer stupidity level, the one he is getting today is richly deserved.

Zeke .... .... .... News for Little Joey --- The critics weren't screaming about malfeasance and incompetence --- they merely mentioned it. .... .... Because of the complete silence of the Fourth Estate, the critical voices were the only ones heard. .... .... The contrast was thundering. .... .... .... ..... Personally, I wonder if all this news management is a plot to make us realize how accurate George Orwell was in predicting the workings of Totalitarianism. .... ..... .... ..... (05/11/13)


NANCY PELINGRICH?

Ken Berwitz

In 1994, then-Speaker Of the House, Newt Gingrich (R-GA) engineered a political strategy ("The Contract With America") that turned politics in this country on its ear.  That year, with a huge gain of 54 seats, Republicans gained control of the House Of Representatives for the first time in 40 years (and held control for the next 12 years.)

Democrats understood that if there was one man they needed to take down it was Newt Gingirch.  And, hooboy, did they ever.  A concerted anti-Gingrich campaign ensued, in which they attacked his personal baggage (of which there was plenty), his politics, and every other thing about him they could find.   He was charged with 84 different ethics violations, encompassing over 400 individual charges......(eventually cleared of all but one minor charge - a little something most media conveniently seem to forget).  Democrats' willing allies in the media were happy to join in the fun, and Gingrich became one of the most negatively-viewed politicians in the United States - maybe the single most negatively viewed of all.

For years thereafter, until he left elective politics, Democrats seized on the negative perceptions of Gingrich, using him as a campaign issue in races all around the country - and won lots and lots of those races.

Fast forward to the present.  Mark Sanford, , a former congressperson and Governor of North Carolina with a wife and children, who had to leave politics based on a truly sordid, disgraceful escapade with with a mistress, was attempting to make a political comeback by running for his old congressional seat in a special election.  Despite the strongly Republican demographics of the district, his home-wrecking affair - and the fact that his former "mistress" is now his fiance - left him well behind in the polls.

So how did Sanford win?  In large part, because he ran not against his actual opponent, Elizabeth Colbert Busch, but against former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi - who is absolutely despised by Republicans (and plenty of swing voters as well).   His key point?  That if Busch, and other Democrats, won enough house seats, Nancy Ms. Pelosi would return as Speaker Of The House.  Sanford relied on this strategy so completely, that, at one point, he actually stood in front of an audience and debated a life-size cutout of Pelosi.

By election day, Sanford's fortunes had changed so dramatically that he won by a near-landslide.

This phenomenon was not lost on others.  Illustratively, here are excerpts from Alex Roarty's article for National Public Radio (NPR):

Democrats were poised for an unlikely upset in South Carolina. The Republican candidate in the special House election, former Gov. Mark Sanford, had been abandoned by the National Republican Congressional Committee...Democrats, meanwhile, were spending more than $1 million backing their nominee, Elizabeth Colbert Busch, a local businesswoman who looked tailored to take advantage of Sanfords shortcomings.

But when the votes were counted on Tuesday, Colbert Busch and her well-funded backers were shocked. Not only had she lost, she had lost big, receiving only 45 percent of the Low Countrys vote. The disgraced ex-governor had romped to a nearly double-digit victory.

The reason, Republicans say and some Democrats acknowledge, is straightforward. Whatever other circumstances might cloud a race, Republicans can still argue that Democratic candidates will be nothing more than stooges for House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi. Sanford made the point frequently in his own campaign, particularly during the races final weeks.

Now the big question:  with the 2014 mid-term elections looming (yes, I know they're a year and a half away, but the wheels are already in motion), will Republicans use Mark Sanford's remarkable reversal of fortune as a blueprint, and run a national campaign against the prospect of Nancy Pelosi becoming the Speaker again?

In other words, will they use Nancy Pelosi the way Democrats used Newt Gingrich? 

As things now stand - especially after the Sanford race -I'd say that is a pretty good bet.

Zeke .... ..... 2010 was a rejection of the Democrats socialist agenda. .... 2012 was a rejection of Republican elitism ..... 2014 ? ? ? ? ---- Sweet Nancy is slightly less engaging than Attila the Hun. - - - - That "You have to PASS the Bill (ObamieKare) to find out what is in it" will never fade away -- (05/11/13)


THE CARTOON OF THE DAY

Ken Berwitz

Here it is, from the mind - and pen - of the San Diego Union-Tribune's Pulitzer Prize-winning cartoonist Steve Breen.....with no explanation needed.


WHY DID THE IRS WANT DONOR LISTS?

Ken Berwitz

Consider this a short addendum to yesterday's post about the IRS targeting something like 75 political actions groups with names suggesting they were conservative, thus anti-Obama.

A simple question is in order, which I neglected to ask at that time:  why did they ask for the groups' donor lists?

Was it so they could go after them too?  How could you possibly think otherwise?

Another example of Chicago machine politics at its finest.  And we're "lucky" enough to be in line for four more years of it.


Buy Our Book Here!


Return to Current Blog
We're Hopelessly Partisan

hopelesslypartisan.com, 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!!