Sunday, 01 March 2015


Ken Berwitz

So tell me: As Benjamin Netanyahu flies in from Israel to address a joint session of congress - and as President Obama, his henchman John Kerry, and a number of Democrat congresspeople tell him he is unwelcome here... do the people feel?

Well, here is a chart from Gallup measuring support for Israel and Palestinian Arabs over the past 27 years. Read it and see for yourself:

That clear enough?

So go ahead and boycott, Democrats. Show us all that you are on board with Barack Obama's disdain for Israel and its Prime Minister. 

 But know that the country is not with you. Not even close.

And watch the erosion of Democrat support among Jews - which has fallen steadily during the Obama era - continue its downward momentum.

Nobody can say you aren't earning it..


Ken Berwitz

This is the second poll like this that I have seen:  intentionally worded in a way guaranteed to get a negative response, and then given a headline with a conclusion that cannot be made from that wording.

I am referring to the headline, and first paragraphs of Mark Murray's article for NBC News.

Let's start with the headline alone:

Poll: Nearly Half of Americans Take Issue With Netanyahu Speech

What does that tell you?  It tells you that almost half the country is against Netanyahu making this speech, doesn't it?  No need to read on, we now know that there is a ton of opposition to Mr. Netanyahu going before congress.


Here are the first two paragraphs of the article that headline is supposed to reflect:

Nearly half of American voters - 48 percent - say that congressional Republicans should not have invited Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to address Congress on Tuesday without first notifying President Barack Obama, according to a new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll.

By contrast, 30 percent of those polled believe the invitation was fine, and another 22 percent don't know enough to say either way.

Wait a minute. That doesn't American Voters are against Prime Minister Netanyahu being invited to make the speech, or the speech itself. It only says that 48% are against the invitation being made without notifying Barack Obama about it. An entirely different issue.

So why was the headline worded that way - other than to confuse and mislead readers?  Give me a hint.

And when you're through not being able to give me any other reason - because there isn't one - you can try convincing me that Mark Murray, who happens to be the Senior Political Editor of NBC News, did not know that headline was fraudulent. 

Don't count on making that case either.

I have an idea for Mr. Murray:   how about less BS polling analysis about Benjamin Netanyahu, and a little more news content about the millions and millions Hillary Clinton's foundation got from foreign nations while she was our Secretary of State.  Or maybe a few paragraphs on the newly-discovered IRS emails from lois "liar" lerner that were supposedly no longer in existence?  

And, finally, two questions:

-Question 1:  Why did you do it?  Why did you give us a fraudulent headline regarding Netanyahu's speech, while virtually blacking out real stories about Clinton and lerner?  

Is lying about Netanyahu's speech more fun than telling the truth about Clinton and lerner?  Or is it just the usual partisanship?  

-Question 2: Why didn't you directly ask the poll respondents whether or not they supported Prime Minister Netanyahu giving a speech before congress, about what he feels the dangers of making a deal with Iran are?   Were you afraid you would get overwhelming approval on that question, and it would embarrass your lord and savior Barack Obama?

I don't expect an answer to either.


Ken Berwitz

The New York Times, which has been a severe critic of Israel for as long as I can remember, is certainly holding true to form these days.

As you know Israel's Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, is coming to the United States and speaking before a joint session of congress on Tuesday, to remind us of something that President Obama apparently is incapable or unwilling to process - that you don't allow nuclear capability to the world's greatest exporter of terrorism, which has lied about its nuclear program from day one and will therefore have no problem lying about the way it will use any nuclear capability a deal" would allow it.

Mr. Netanyahu, of course, has a very special interest in this situation, since Iran has specifically told the world it intends to wipe Israel off the map.

That may not be enough to prevent Barack Obama and his hopelessly useless stooge John Kerry from cutting a "deal" anyway, but I can assure you it got Mr. Netanyahu's attention.

In any event, as the Netanyahu visit, and speech to congress (and to AIPAC) draws near, the New York Times has published two articles which make its sentiments perfectly clear.

One was a Page 1 piece on Jeremy Bird, President Obama's Field Director for his 2012 campaign, who has gone to Israel to work at unseating Netanyahu in the coming Israeli elections.

That's a fascinating undertaking, given that the "reason" tossed out by Mr. Obama for opposing his speech and not meeting with him personally is that he does not want to get involved in another country's election process.

But read the Times article and you will find out that it's ok for his own field director to roost in Israel and work at getting rid of Netanyahu. Because, you see, Barack Obama did not specifically send Jeremy Bird there, he went on his own. It was just a coincidence, folks, nothing to see here, move along, move along.

And, not content with that pile of mung, The Times has also published an article which provides a White House "rebuttal" to the Netanyahu speech - before he makes it - and assures us that facilitating Iran's nuclear capability makes things safer, not less safe.

Just like it did in North Korea, guys?

Look, I get it. The Times is owned by self-hating Jews who find Israel an embarrassment. But - here's a news flash for them - some of us are foolish enough to believe that, for people whose existence has ongoingly been threatened for millennia - including right now, by the people Obama and Kerry are dealing with - there should be at least one viable homeland with defensible borders. And since that one Jewish homeland also is the one and only outpost of western civilization in the entire region, and has been a staunch ally of the USA since its creation, we should worry at least somewhat about Iran's overt commitment to vaporizing it - enough to stop them every way we can from going nuclear.

Anyway, that's my opinion:  certainly not the Times' opinion, but mine nonetheless. What's yours?


Ken Berwitz

Evidently they ran out of things to dredge up from his pre-high school they had to start making them up.

The Daily Beast put out a story that Scott Walker, that neanderthal mouth-breathing imbecile from Wisconsin (aka: a possible Republican presidential candidate) had  - can you believe this guy - cut the ability of state colleges and universities to report rapes which occur on campus.

Now THAT is a war on women. This woman-hating sicko should be summarily impeached, removed from office, tarred, feathered and run out of the state.......

..except... turns out he didn't do any such thing.

As reported in Nick Gass's article at (which, itself, is no stranger to Republican-bashing), actually Governor Walker did not do any such thing:

Another major media outlet has apologized after getting a story about Scott Walker wrong. Last week, it was the New York Times; now, it's The Daily Beast.

The Daily Beast has retracted an article from one of its college columnists that claimed that the Wisconsin governor's budget would cut sexual assault reporting from the state's universities.

The post, published Friday, cited a report from Jezebel that wrongly interpreted a section of the state budget to mean that all assault reporting requirements were to get cut altogether.

In fact, the University of Wisconsin system requested the deletion of the requirements to get rid of redundancy, as it already provides similar information to the federal government, UW System spokesman Alex Hummel told The Associated Press on Friday.


So what do you figure they'll try next?

 Maybe there's an old polarioid, somewhere, of Walker picking his nose in gym class? Or at the local newsstand leering at a cover of Playboy?

If there is a correlation between how worrisome a potential Republican candidate might be, and how hard some media will work to take that potential candidate down, then Scott Walker must be keeping these people up nights.

Oh, one other thing: how much coverage have you seen or heard about the fact that, while Secretary Of State, Hillary Clinton accumulated millions upon millions upon millions of dollars in her personal foundation from foreign governments - a true scandal that would be the death knell for most presidential hopefuls regardless of party?

I guess the prospect of a Clinton candidacy doesn't bother them a bit.


Ken Berwitz

As you probably know, Debbie Wasserman Schultz (DWS) is a member of the House of Representatives, who represents an eminently safe Democrat seat in Florida. For several years, she has also Chaired the Democratic National Committee (DNC).

What you may not know, however, is that DWS appears to be interested in replacing Marco Rubio as U. S. Senator, in next year's election.

Does she have a chance? Sure she does.

Does she have a realistic chance? Well, read this excerpt from Edward-Isaac Dovere's article at before you answer:

The Democratic Senate Campaign Committee is far from enthusiastic, according to sources close to the committee. Asked about Wasserman Schultz specifically, DSCC spokesman Justin Barasky said only: "It seems like there's no one in the United States Senate who wants to be a senator less than Marco Rubio, and there are numerous potential candidates who could beat him."

The National Republican Senatorial Committee, meanwhile, seems exuberant at the chance to run against someone who's run into so much baggage on the national level.

"It's rare in Washington for President Obama and Senate Republicans to agree, but we are all in agreement that Debbie Wasserman Schultz has been a terrible DNC chair and would make an even worse Senate candidate," said NRSC spokeswoman Andrea Bozek.

Throughout her time as chair, Wasserman Schultz has turned off colleagues, other top Democrats and current and former staff for a management style that strikes many as self-centered - even for a politician - and often at the expense of the DNC or individual candidates or campaigns. Many top Democrats, including some she counts as supporters and friends, privately complain about her trying to use the DNC as a vehicle for her own personal promotion, and letting her own ambition get in the way of larger goals.

Does that look like Ms. Wasserman Schultz is a desirable candidate to you?  To members of either party?

It remains to be seen if DWS will decide to run anyway - i.e. her ego and self-importance will overwhelm her logic and common sense.  It certainly wouldn't be the first time that happened.

As a politcal blogger, I have to admit that I'm hoping she does - because, just this once, I would be fascinated to see DWS turn her tender mercies against Democrat primary opponents instead of Republicans. Let's see how they like her, er, style and substance.

Stay tuned.


Ken Berwitz

Apropos of nothing political, but many things culinary....

I have to say that food was one of the highlights of this weekend. 

On Friday night we were with dear friends at the State Theater in New Brunswick, NJ, to see A Midsummer Night's Deam - as a ballet (though, improbable though it might seem, there was singing as well).  Wonderful production, excellent throughout. And what a pair of legs on the prima ballerina (predictable, I suppose.  would you expect to see Rosie O'Donnell's twin sister out there?)

For dinner, we went to Tumulty's Pub - an old-timer (it originally opened in 1963, though in a different location).  We all had burgers - and you can't beat the deal.  For $9.95 you get a huge, delicious burger (mine was turkey, everyone else had beef) with lettuce, tomato, and additional topping of your choice included.  But that's not all.  The price also includes a quarter-wedge of lettuce with your choice of dressings as an appetizer of sorts, and an order of French fries that I could not finish.  Not only that, but since happy hour goes to 7PM and we got in under the wire, the wine was less expensive too I take a sip of mine and hand it over to my wife, who happily imbibes both glasses...and is none the worse for wear (too bad, there are times I'd love to get her roaring drunk, and then we could.....uh, never mind). 

Saturday night we were with the family - our sons, and beautiful daughter in law.  We ate at Fascino, a sort of Italian restaurant on Bloomfield Avenue in Montclair (I say "sort of", because the menu is only partially Italian).

The food is just terrific.  If Fascino is not the single best restaurant I have been to in New Jersey, it is one of the top three.  I had the peekytoe crab appetizer and the duck.  Other orders included pork chops (delicious, and moist/not dry as I was told) and scallops - one more delicious than the next.  We also ordered a pasta dish for the table - very simple with a sauce and mushrooms - that was, as my wife would say, to die for.

Tonight was pretty basic - a chicken from Costco (great deal:  for five bucks you get a bird that outweighs you).  We ate less than half of it, and I made chicken salad out of the rest, using this recipe - which includes pepper, onion, corn and not a lot of mayonnaise (we skipped the celery because my bride doesn't like it).  It tastes great. and there's enough for a couple of days.

Ok, for whatever it is worth to you, there was the food portion of our weekend.  Now back to politics, where gastronomy is usually superseded by gastritis, the pork is in legislation rather than chops, and there is no shortage of chickens...or bird-brains.

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!!