Monday, 09 September 2013


Ken Berwitz

Four years ago, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg  - a former Democrat, who ran as a Republican and changed party affiliation to Independent - purchased a third term in office by outspending his Democrat opponent, City Comptroller Bill Thompson to the tune of something like $80 million dollars- mostly of his own money.  No one had ever seen anything like that kind of expenditure for a Mayoral race before...and, if we are very lucky, no one will ever see it again.

In any event, Mr. Bloomberg has decided not to try and purchase another term.  So, come next January, there will be a new Mayor.

And since the 2013 Mayoral primary is being held tomorrow, I thought I'd give you a very brief synopsis of where things stand among the major Democrat candidates*. 

NOTE:  You will find that a lot of what I have to say below is based on gender and race.  That is not - repeat, not - because I have personal feelings in this regard.  It is because that is the way New York politics works.

On the Democrat side, City Council President Christine Quinn started out as the favorite - partially, I suppose, based on her record (though, other than for her most avid supporters and a small cadre of genuine political junkies I doubt that anyone knows it), but mostly because she is a) female and b) a lesbian - two attributes which warm the cockles (maybe a different word would be more appropriate here) of leftward Democrats in this usually leftward Democrat city.

Then, Anthony The, Anthony Weiner surged ahead of the pack - until we found out that, even after his disgraceful resignation from the house of representatives, for sending penis pictures to a succession of women over the internet and lying about it, he broke his promise never to do it again and continued this distasteful little (well, not little; I've seen the pictures) habit anyway., poll-wise, Weiner's quick rise and just-as-quick fall probably is very reminiscent of those activities.

The next, and current, leader is Bill de Blasio, whom, I suspect, most voters never heard of until just weeks ago.  de Blasio leapfrogged everyone else by running several commercials featuring his interracial marriage, his Black teenage son Dante (who has an Afro that would make Artis Gilmore green with envy), a claim - hotly disputed by his opponents - that he was the only candidate committed to ending the "stop-and-frisk" police procedure (during which NYC's murder rate dropped dramatically, by the way) and a pledge to "tax the rich" to improve education (as if tossing more money into education would actually work).

Finally, we have former City Comptroller Bill Thompson, who gave Mayor Bloomberg a real run for his (unlimited) money in 2009.  Thompson is just as far left as de Blasio, and just as committed to ending stop-and-frisk (he, correctly, calls de Blasio a liar for claiming to be the only one).  Thompson is Black, but does not have the facial characteristics (i.e. thick lips, wide, flat nose) or a speaking accent generally associated with Black people - which, in a bizarre sort of way, may make him less "Black" to some voters than the White Bill de Blasio.

My guess (not a prediction, just a guess)?  de Blasio will win tomorrow, but won't hit that 40% mark.  Bill Thompson, who proved in 2009 that he is a surprisingly effective vote-getter, will finish second.  And the runoff is going to be damn close.

We'll see......


*I am not bothering with the Republicans because neither of them - John Catsimatidis or Joe Lhota, seems to have much of a chance -- something which could, of course, change in the future, given the craziness of New York Politics.

This is not meant to disrespect Catsimatidis or Lhota - both of whom rose from very modest beginnings to become highly educated and very successful men - it is just an honest political evaluation.


UPDATE:  Well, we have two new polls to look at.

The final Quinnipiac poll shows de Blasio falling back slightly to 39%, Bill Thompson moving forward to 25%, and Christine Quinn third at 18%.

The Marist poll has de Blasio at 36% with Thompson and Quinn knotted at 20%.

My guess - a runoff between de Blasio and Thompson which Thompson will win - remains as is.

Oh, one other thing:  In the race for City Comptroller, Quinnipiac indicates that Scott Stringer has jumped out to a 7% lead (50% - 43%) over Eliot "Client #9" Spitzer.

Zeke ..... Regarding Mr. Oscar Mayer's internet photos : . . Are they FACE pictures ? . . Could he merely be changing his nick from Carlos Danger to Richard Cranium ? ...... .... ..... ..... (09/09/13)


Ken Berwitz

As we approach the anniversary (Wednesday) of the attack on our Benghazi facility, the death of four of our people including Ambassador Chris Stephens (who was apparently raped and tortured before being killed), the injuries suffered by others at that facility, the torrent of lies about why this happened by the Obama administration and its fart-catchers and the lack of even one person being arrested, let alone "brought to justice" by Obama & Co......

......we find out that one of the few people who dared to talk honestly about Benghazi is clearly being punished for doing so.

Excerpted from Andrew Johnson's piece at

Gregory Hicks, the former deputy chief of mission in Libya who testified before Congress about the 9/11 attacks on an American diplomatic facility earlier this year, believes he has been "punished" for speaking out about the Obama administration's response the night of the attack.

"I don't know why I was punished," Hicks said in an interview with ABC's This Week. "I don't know why I was shunted aside, put in a closet if you will."

While Hicks still remains on staff at the State Department, he has not been reassigned to a post since being called back from Libya. In a statement to This Week, the State Department said Hicks was not removed from Libya as a result of the statements he has made about the Benghazi attacks and it is working on reassigning him.

Yeah, sure.  The State Department is "working on reassigning him". 

They really do think we are idiots, don't they?

The bottom line here is that, a year after the attack on 9/11...

...which anyone with even a modest degree of common sense would know is a day when terrorists would most like to hit us...

...but during which the Hillary Clinton State Department did not put the facility on high alert...

...and the woefully inept, incompetent tangent of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama did not send any troops or airpower to save our people during the hours-long attack...

The one person who seems to have been punished in any way is the one guy who spoke out about what went wrong. 

Oh, yeah, and the guy who put up that video Obama and his people lied to our faces about, by claiming it was responsible for the attack.

Tell me I'm dreaming.  Tell me the voters did not put this disaster on legs back in the White House for four more years.  Please.  I'm begging.

Zeke ..... .... 1) What about all the Benghazi and Tripoli staff who were immediately hidden away, assigned overseas and told to shut up. Obama's Boyz-n-Gurlz sure kept them from testifying to congress and doing the talk shows. . . . . . . . 2) ... " Tell me the voters did not put this disaster on legs back in the White House" . . . .. .. . . Maybe it was the people who COUNTED the votes who put him back . . . . (09/09/13)


Ken Berwitz

Excerpted from Abby D. Phillip's article for ABC News (bold print is mine):

If Syrian President Bashar al-Assad gives up his chemical weapons, a military strike would "absolutely" be on pause, President Obama said today.

"I consider this a modestly positive development," Obama told ABC News' Diane Sawyer in an interview at the White House when asked whether Syria's apparent willingness to relinquish control of its chemical weapons would prevent a U.S. strike.

"Let's see if we can come up with language that avoids a strike but accomplishes our key goals to make sure that these chemical weapons are not used," the president said.

Obama's comments come after the Russian foreign minister suggested today that Syria could avoid a U.S. attack by turning over its chemical weapons stockpiles over to international control and destroying them, a proposal the Syrian government "welcomed."

bashar al-assad has, by most accounts, killed over 100,000 of his own people. 

I'm glad Barack Obama is concerned about the use of chemical weapons to kill 1,000 or more people, and that those weapons were probably (but not definitely) used by al-assad.  He should be.

But what about the other 99,000 victims of this mass murdering butcher?  If they didn't die in a chemical weapons attack they don't count?

Evidently not.  Evidently Mr. Obama is ok with al-assad killing his people, as many as he cares long as he does it the old-fashioned way, with guns and rockets and  bombs - you know, with stuff that is acceptable to the Obama administration. 

Look, I am against going into Syria for reasons which have been outlined in several blogs already.  But if I felt it were a good idea to do so on humanitarian grounds, it would be because of who and how many people are being killed, not which methods of killing are and are not okey-dokey with me.

Does this man think about what he says?  Or is he just lost without his teleprompter?


Who would we help if we bomb Syria?  Read this short blog from an article at and see:

The village of Maaloula has been taken over by Syrian rebels associated with al Qaeda, who have stormed the Christian center and offered local Christians a choice: conversion or death. A resident of the town said the rebels shouted "Allahu Akhbar" as they moved through the village, and proceeded to assault Christian homes and churches.

"They shot and killed people," he said. "I heard gunshots and then I saw three bodies lying in the middle of a street in the old quarters of the village. Where is President Obama to see what has befallen us?" Another witness stated, "I saw the militants grabbing five villagers and threatening them and saying, 'Either you convert to Islam, or you will be beheaded.'"

The village is located just 25 miles from Damascus, and sites within the village are dedicated as United Nations world heritage sites. Residents still speak Aramaic, the language of Jesus. The rebels who took over the city are associated with the al Nusra Front, an al Qaeda-associated Islamist group. Villagers reported foreign dialects ranging from Tunisian to Libyan, from Moroccan to Chechen.  

What a great choice of outcomes:

-Either bomb Syria to "warn" bashar al-assad - which means it is a pointless exercise in nothingness which accomplishes nothing for anyone and leaves al-assad to continue the killing,

-or bomb Syria to remove al-assad - which means that, if we are successful, he will be replaced, at least in part, by the terrorist islamic lunatics you just read about.

How ironic that tomorrow, September 10th, one day before the anniversary of al qaeda's attack that killed something like 3,000 of us, President Obama will address the nation to explain why he wants to bomb Syria...and help al-qaeda and its kindred pals in al nusra.

Did we really elect this man to four more years as President?  Please tell me this is some bad liquor I'm reacting to, or a nightmare I can wake up from.

steve schneider its not going to be an issue. there likely will not be any bombing. the blunders continue, today john kerry said that if assad gives up the wmds then he can avoid any consequences. this is the first time this was ever said, and the administration quickly backtracked. but, it wasnt fast enough as putin now said he will get assad to comply with that. so basically, its ok to cross the red line as long as you give up the weapons afterward. i have never witnessed such an incredible level of incompetence at all levels. this is frightening. steve (09/09/13)

Zeke .... .... It's really quite simple : .. World War I was fought to make the world safe for Democracy. . . . . World War II was fought to save the world from Fascism. . . . . . . . . World War III will be fought to make the safe for Feudalism. . . . . (09/10/13)


Ken Berwitz

Is it any wonder that Vladimir Putin, the KGB operative who now runs Russia, would be able to twist Barack Obama into a pretzel? 

I mean, let's be brutally honest here:  Mr. Obama is a community organizer who never ran anything or made an executive decision or created a job in his life until the voters inexplicably elected him President.  Why in the world would a reasonable person expect him to be any match for someone like Putin?

According to Vladimir Isachenkov's article at the Associated Press, on the same day that Obama trotted out John Kerry to tell Syrian President bashar al-assad we would not bomb if he turned over all of his chemical weapons to the international community, then assuring us he would not do so, Putin informs the world that he is pressing Syrian President bashar al-assad to do just that.

If al-assad should accede to Putin and "agree" to turn over his chemical weapons to some as yet unnamed international body (which would mean the USA will make no inspection of what he has or does not have), Obama is left looking like little more than a mindless warmonger who couldn't get it done, and Putin is an international diplomat; the envy of the world - not to mention the lead guy in attempting to resolve Syria's civil war, with Obama far to the rear.

This is what happens when a machine politician with no qualifications for the Presidency, and a pontificating blowhard of a Secretary of State, come up against someone - even a very evil someone - with experience, capability and substance.

That is what we elected for four more years, and that is exactly what we are getting.  

free' Ken, this is what you get when you elect an America hating left winger to POTUS and he transforms the country just as he promised to do. The left has argued for a long time that The USA is a superpower and a bully and Obama promised to change all that. Even though the left belived we were a bad nation, to my knowledge we are the only country to go and fight for other countries and not keep some of the booty after victory. Except for maybe 6 feet of earth to bury our fallen soldiers. I could go on but in the words of SoS Hillary Clinton, what does it matter! (09/09/13)

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!!