Buy Our Book Here!

Thursday, 02 October 2014


Ken Berwitz

I literally cannot believe what I just read. Take a look and see if you can:

From Elise Viebeck's article at

The White House said Wednesday it will not impose travel restrictions or introduce new airport screenings to prevent additional cases of Ebola from entering the United States. 

Spokesman Josh Earnest said that current anti-Ebola measures, which include screenings in West African airports and observation of passengers in the United States, will be sufficient to prevent the "wide spread" of the virus. 

Are these people out of their minds?

It's bad enough that, under this President, we have no borders - so anyone with any condition can essentially stroll into the country and spread it.

But this?  This is an intentional invitation for the ebola virus to infect our population.

If screenings in West African airports and observation of passengers stops ebola from coming in here, can President Obama, or his Press Secretary Josh Earnest, explain what that ebola-ridden patient who flew here from Liberia is doing in a Dallas hospital?  Do they think he was admitted for an effing tummy tuck?

And it will prevent the "wide spread' of the virus?  Ok, how much is that?  What constitutes a non-wide spread?  How many ebola victims is okay with Barack Obama?

That is no less than a welcome mat for ebola to come to the United States. 

Where does the stupidity, the incompetence, the ineptitude of this administration end?

Hopelessly Partisan @ 10:14 AM   Add Comment


Ken Berwitz

In several previous blogs, I have pointed out that, by putting off any unilateral amnesty (or whatever he is going to call it) for illegal aliens until after the election, President Obama is going to anger Latino voters who favor such amnesty, and risks the possibility that they, along with pro-amnesty activists, will react by punishing his party at the polls in November.

With this in mind, please read the beginning of Ed O'Keefe's article for the Washington Post.  See if it doesn't resonate just a bit:

Less than a month after President Obama announced he would delay using his executive authority to reform immigration laws, there is evidence that the decision is doing exactly what he hoped to avoid: hurting Democrats.

Activists in key states say it is increasingly difficult to register would-be Latino voters who would vote for Democrats because of unhappiness over the decision. Poll numbers for Obama and Democrats have also dropped farther among Hispanics than the population at large. One group has even launched a campaign against four Democratic senators who backed a GOP proposal to bar Obama from taking any executive action on immigration.

"The president has not helped us," said activist Leo Murietta, 28, who is working to register Latino voters in Colorado for Mi Familia Vota. "People are disappointed. They wanted action, they wanted activity, they wanted movement."

With so many congressional and gubernatorial candidates locked in close races this year, Democrats can't afford signs of complacency or sagging support. But Murietta and others believe that only action - not promises of action - will help spur increased turnout among Hispanics with just five weeks until Election Day.

To which I reply....."yep".

Politically this is an impossible situation.  A true "third rail".

-The reason Mr. Obama has not yet offered whatever form of amnesty he is considering, is that he knows it will anger voters - a large majority of whom will oppose it. 

-But, by putting it off until after the election, he is angering many Latino voters - a minority in the overall population but, based on their voting patterns, far more significant among Democrats.

- And if enough Latino voters sit out next month's elections, Republicans won't have a wave, they'll have a tidal wave.

What would you do if you were Barack Obama?  Lucky for you, it's not your decision.  Unluckily for Mr. Obama, he's going to have to come up with an answer to that question.

Hopelessly Partisan @ 10:02 AM   Add Comment


Ken Berwitz

Here is a factor that bears on the possibility of Republicans taking over the Senate this year, that I haven't seen from anyone else.

So, me being me, I'm jumping right in.

Currently, the state of West Virginia has two Democrat Senators:

One, a highly popular Senator who is retiring, is Jay Rockefeller.  The Democrat vying for this seat is Natalie Tennant, and her Republican challenger is Shelley Moore Capito.

West Virginia has, in recent years, turned appreciably more Republican.  There are reasons this has happened, but that is for another blog.  My point here is only that it is a fact - one which, I am sure, Ms. Tennant would ruefully concede, since Ms. Capito leads her by something like 20% in the polls.

When a popular West Virginia Democrat incumbent like Jay Rockefeller endorses the candidate to succeed him, and she still is down so far that it seems a near impossibility for her to even come close to winning, then politicians in that state are going to take notice.

Now let's talk about incumbent Joe Manchin. 

Manchin is what some people call a "blue dog" Democrat.  That means he is to the right of most Democrats.  In actuality, Manchin is a very blue dog Democrat.  On several key issues, he is a political conservative in a party that barely tolerates people who think the way he does. 

Specifically, Joe Manchin is pro-life.  He is pro-business.  He gets a "A" rating from the National Rifle Association.   Fiscally he is somewhere in between the two parties. Ditto for social issues.

In other words, Manchin, though not really a Republican, is not really a Democrat either.

But he is an intelligent man who sees where the state he represents is going.

What if Republicans win 5 seats in November....and approach Manchin, offering him, say, a committee chair of his choice (one he does not currently have as a Democrat) if he will do a "Jim Jeffords" and switch parties, thus throwing the senate to Republicans?

I have no inside information on this.  I have no idea if Manchin would be approached, if he already has been approached (this appeal could be made even if Republicans turn out not to need him for a majority) or whether he would be receptive to the idea.

But I do know that, if I were a Republican, I would be speaking to Manchin about switching over.  And if I were Democrat, I would be damn worried about it.

Hopelessly Partisan @ 09:34 AM   Add Comment

Wednesday, 01 October 2014


Ken Berwitz

For readers who need a superb qualitative research facility in Chicago....

....from now through the end of the year, my company, National Qualitative Centers, Inc. (NQC), located at 625 North Michigan Avenue - the heart of the Magnificent Mile - is offering:

- a 25% discount on room rentals for projects that we do the recruiting on, and

-a 15% discount for rental-only projects

NQC has been a top-rated facility in the Impulse guide, since the ratings began.

It is also the single largest qualitative facility in Chicago - or, for that matter, anywhere else. 

We have 8 suites, including two oversized conference rooms which can accommodate 50 - 60 respondents in a theater-seating configuration.  They are ideal for simulated jury studies, as well as multi-station usability studies, big-item studies, and simulated supermarket work (we also have the gondolas on-site).

Call our Director, Pam Kowalewski, at (800) 335-1222, and book your work.  You will not be sorry.

And you always know where to find the owner of the company.....

Hopelessly Partisan @ 17:34 PM   Add Comment


Ken Berwitz

Today's quote comes to us from Mr. Raynard Jackson, President & CEO of his own Washington DC-based public relations/government affairs firm.

Here, from Mr. Jackson's latest article for the New Pittsburgh Courier, is his very interesting comparison between President Obama and former President Bush, on the use of deadly military force:

"According to the London based Bureau of Investigative Journalism (BIJ), 'Since becoming president in 2009, Obama has launched over 330 drone attacks in Pakistan alone; Bush only launched 51 in four years.' When you add in Yemen and Somalia, according to this same report, the total jumps to 390 drone attacks and have killed more than 2,400 people (273 of whom were innocent civilians).

"Many Democrats called for Bush to be tried as a murderer and a war criminal. So what does that make Obama?"

I grant you that the drone comparison is not a great one, because drone technology during the Bush years was dramatically less advanced than it is now. 

But that does not change the fact that President Obama, with all his braggadocio about removing our troops, has ordered the killing of thousands of people, including hundreds of civilians.  And he has done so entirely on his own, without authorization from the congress - which Bush never did.

Raynard Jackson asks why, then, Bush was a horrific war criminal to the same people who are giving Obama a free pass. 

It is one hell of a good question.  Good enough to garner Mr. Jackson Quote Of The Day honors.

I think I will be reading his commentaries more often.

Hopelessly Partisan @ 17:10 PM   Add Comment


Ken Berwitz

Julia Pierson is now the former Director of the Secret Service.

On paper, she has resigned.

My guess (and it's only a guess)?  She was told she had resigned.  Actual resignation unnecessary.


NOTE:  I mentioned to my wife that this "resignation" probably was like that scene in The Godfather when Michael explains how his father got a famous bandleader to sign a release contract for Johnny Fontane (the Frank Sinatra-like character played by Al Martino):  "Luca Brasi held a gun to his head and my father assured him that either his brains, or his signature, would be on the contract."  

My wife said "It must have been the signature. She didn't have the brains".

I love that woman.  But I don't think I ever will cross her.

Hopelessly Partisan @ 16:01 PM   2 comments


Ken Berwitz

Laurie Garrett, the Pulitzer-prize winning ebola expert, told the dwindling but still existent viewers of Ronan Farrow's show on (where else?) MSNBC the steps that must be taken to prevent ebola from spreading in the United States.

Here is part of what she had to say about ebola on Melissa Harris-Perry's MSNBC show just two months ago (but use the link I've provided to see the rest):

"I think the last thing we need to be concerned about is 'oh, will ebola come to America'. So let's just take that off the table for now and get real.

It would have been nice to hear Ms. Garrett acknowledge how wrong she was, and maybe explain what happened that changed things.

But when ego and reality clash, ego all too often wins.

Tell you what, though, Ms. Garrett:  it doesn't make you any less wrong about what you said then.

Hopelessly Partisan @ 13:29 PM   2 comments


Ken Berwitz

Greg Orman is the "independent" candidate to unseat Republican Pat Roberts and become Kansas's new U. S. Senator.

He has just launched a new TV ad, which you can see by clicking here.  Part of its dialogue is as follows: 

"If you listen to Pat Roberts and his Washington buddies, they'll tell you that President Obama and Harry Reid are the reason Washington is such a mess.  And you know what, they're half-right, but the other half of the mess: Mitch McConnell and Pat Roberts. The truth is both parties are more interested in political games than problem solving, and both parties are failing Kansas."

Very impressive.  This Greg Orman guy must be a true independent...

...provided you are ignorant of the fact that he has previously run for office as a Democrat, that the Democrat candidate, Chad Taylor, was forced out by his party to clear the field for Orman, and that the ad was produced by Adelstein Liston, a Democrat firm.

In other words, Democrats are not just conducting a senate race in Kansas, they are conducting a test.

The test is to see how dumb Kansas voters are.

Democrats are counting on Kansas voters being dumber than dirt, and not seeing through this obvious sham.

I think they're wrong. 

But none of us will know for sure until next month. 

Hopelessly Partisan @ 12:44 PM   Add Comment


Ken Berwitz

Apropos of nothing political....

....this picture might even be real.  Regardless of whether it is or it isn't, I have to admit I laughed when I saw it.  As black humor goes, it's right up at the top of the food chain:

Comedy 103.1's photo.

Uh, Jerry...about those Halloween decorations you got that great sale price on....

Ok, back to politics.  Where good legislation and integrity would need a cemetery far larger than the one in this picture.

Hopelessly Partisan @ 12:02 PM   Add Comment


Ken Berwitz

You can't say the bombing of ISIS targets has had no success. 

It has proven two facts, beyond the shadow of a doubt, to anyone who did not know them already:

1) when you bomb an enemy with no air force you can hit anything you want at any time you want to hit it, but 

2) when an enemy has boots on the ground and you don't, all the bombing in the world will not stop that enemy from advancing and taking territory. 

Excerpted from Howard Koplowitz's article for International Business Times:

The Islamic State group is allegedly closing in on Baghdad, according to a report from a vicar at Iraq's only Anglican church that claims the jihadists formerly known as ISIS are roughly one mile away from the Iraqi capital. Airstrikes against ISIS targets were supposed to stop the group from taking Baghdad.

"The Islamic State are now less than 2km (1.2 miles) away from entering Baghdad. They said it could never happen and now it almost has,”" Canon Andrew White of the Foundation for Relief and Reconciliation in the Middle East, a British-based charity that supports Iraq's only Anglican church in Baghdad, said on his Facebook page early Monday morning. "Obama says he overestimated what the Iraqi Army could do. Well, you only need to be here a very short while to know they can do very, very little."

The Christian aid group was referring to the U.S. president's interview Sunday night on "60 Minutes," the CBS news magazine show, where Obama conceded that his administration underestimated the ascendancy of ISIS. More than 1,000 Iraqi troops were reportedly killed Sunday in clashes with ISIS about 10 miles outside of Baghdad.

The advance by ISIS toward Baghdad shows that the group isn't weakening despite U.S.-led airstrikes in Iraq. ISIS executed 300 Iraqi soldiers last week during their march toward the Iraqi capital and attempted to break into a prison in northern Baghdad.

My only dispute with the above commentary is Mr. Koplowitz's claim that "Obama conceded that his administration underestimated the ascendancy of ISIS".

Mr. Obama did not concede that his administration did anything wrong.  It was them - meaning the intelligence people - not him, who he blamed, for the underestimation.

 Which has turned out to be a 100% lie.  Add it to the pile.

In foreign policy generally, and military actions in particular, Barack Obama has managed to destroy our power, influence and credibility to the point that I seriously wonder if it can ever be regained - all the while, blaming anyone and everyone but himself for the unbroken string of failures - up to and including this latest exercise in target practice, which has accomplished nothing except to prove the two facts I started this blog with.

Memo to Father Time, in the form of a fervent request:  is there any way of moving January 20, 2017 up, so that it comes faster?  PLEASE?

Hopelessly Partisan @ 11:22 AM   Add Comment

Multi-Year Archive
We're Hopelessly Partisan, is a web site which is dedicated to honest, blunt, debate on the issues of our time.

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. Such as:

-Which is worse: not having a strategy to fight ISIS or having one that is a failure from the starting gate?

-Now that 5 more people's emails are "lost", will maintstream media finally be shamed into covering this scandal?

-Does President Obama help or hinder his party in the midterm elections?

-If Hillary Clinton drops out of the Presidential sweepstakes - either due to health reasons or lower favorability ratings - who would Democrats run instead?

-When will President Obama stop pretending he cares about the constitution and just declare himself king?

Right down to:

-Is Ray Rice just the tip of the NFL iceberg?

-What is causing viewership of MSNBC's prime time shows, poor to begin with, to drop even further?

-Why does the lightpost at 59th St. and Amsterdam Avenue have two one-way traffic signs, one directly over the other, pointing in opposite directions?BR>
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!!


Crooks and Liars
Daily Kos
Democracy Now
Democratic Underground
Media Matters
Talk Left
The Huffington Post
Think Progress


  Drudge Report
  Real Clear Politics
  The Hill


   American Spectator
   Daily Caller
   Free Republic
   Front Page Magazine
   Hot Air
   National Review
   Power Line
   Sweetness & Light
   Town Hall

About Us  
Blog Posts