Buy Our Book Here!


Wednesday, 22 October 2014

THE NEW YORK TIMES' RACIST EDITORIAL

Ken Berwitz

How desperate are Democrats - including the New York Times Editorial Board?

Desperate enough to pump out an editorial that, in no small part, is a thinly disguised racial appeal, begging Black voters, who vote almost monolithically Democrat, to come out and push their candidates over the top.

Think I'm kidding?  Here, let me show you.

Try this paragraph on for size:

The panicky Democratic flight away from President Obama - and from some of the party's most important positions - is not a surprise. Mr. Obama remains highly unpopular among white voters, particularly in Southern states where candidates like Ms. Nunn, Ms. Grimes and several others are struggling to establish leads. But one of the reasons for his unpopularity is that nervous members of his own party have done a poor job of defending his policies over the nearly six years of his presidency, allowing a Republican narrative of failure to take hold.

Why was it necessary to separate voters by race that way? 

The Times could as easily editorialized that "The only reason Mr. Obama is anywhere near even his currently low poll numbers is because Black voters, who have been hurt during the Obama years more than White voters, nonetheless continue their almost monolithic support of his presidency".   But that didn't happen, did it?

See, to the Times' editorial writers, the fact that almost all Black voters support Obama no matter what does not contribute to the racial divide.  That divide exists because White people, 43% of whom voted for Barack Obama in 2008 and a majority of whom supported him afterwards according to post-election polls, don't support him as much now.

What happened? Did President Obama become more Black since then?  Because, if he is no more or less Black now than he was when first elected, the reason a lot of White support has fallen off has exactly nothing to do with his race. 

Hey here's a thought:  maybe the falloff just might be related to the quality of his performance in office.  I guess that doesn't occur to Times editorialists.

Then we have the editorial's last paragraph:

Many of these candidates are running in difficult political environments and are being careful about what they say or don't say in hopes of preserving Democratic control of the Senate. They run the risk, though, of alienating important constituencies who prefer a party with a spine, especially black voters, who remain very supportive of Mr. Obama. By not standing firmly for their own policies, Democrats send a message to voters that the unending Republican criticism of the president is legitimate. There is much that is going right in this country, and there is still time for Democrats to say so.

There it is, flat-out.  If "many of these candidates" dare to distance themselves from Barack Obama, they run the risk of losing constituencies "who prefer a party with a spine, especially black voters...".   

Yep, Black people have lots more spine than White people do.  They must, because the editorial board of the New York Times says so. 

That racist enough for you?

I wonder if the Times' editorial board also thinks Black people mostly eat fried chicken and watermelon.  I mean, if they're going to stereotype, why go just half-way?

I also wonder if the Times is going to write an editorial condemning the overt racism of ads being put out in states like Georgia (which I blogged about today) and North Carolina.

I hope they do. It's fun watching people in glass houses throwing stones.

Hopelessly Partisan @ 15:21 PM   Add Comment

THE MOST RACIST POLITICAL MOVE OF THE YEAR

Ken Berwitz

I very rarely use terms "this is a new low....". 

But if what you are about to see is not a new low in racist politics for this year's midterm elections, I have not (and do not) want to see what beats it out.

From the Democratic Party of Georgia, we have this brochure, being aimed at Black families throughout the state:



Does it.....can it....get more low-down than that?

This 100% racist appeal to Black voters, which specifically implies that if Black Georgians do not vote Democrat this year their children are in danger of being shot down by White police officers in the street, is supposed to help elect Michelle Nunn to the Senate and Jason Carter - Jimmy Carter's grandson - as Governor.

Let me again emphasize that this is not from some splinter group.  This is directly from the Democratic Party Of Georgia. 

Right down to the capitalizing of "African-American" and lower-case spelling of "white".

It has all the quality, and all the racial tolerance of a KKK recruiting kit.

This will disgust any decent human being.  It should shame the Democrats of Georgia to their core.  Both Michelle Nunn and Jason Carter should immediately condemn it in the strongest of terms.  And it should also be a lead story in every one of the network news shows.

But, with more sadness than I can convey in words, the only part of that last paragraph I have any confidence in is the first sentence.

Hopelessly Partisan @ 12:29 PM   1 comment

THE CANADA SHOOTINGS

Ken Berwitz

The reports are still early, and sketchy, from Canada's capital city of Ottawa, where there have been several incidents of shootings - most notably in its Parliament building.

Does the fact that Prime Minister Stephen Harper - a strong supporter of the state of Israel - was going to be conferring honorary Canadian citizenship on Malala Yousafzai - the 17 year old Nobel Peace Prize winner who stood up to the Taliban - have anything to do with these shootings?

We don't know for sure yet.  But I will be surprised - make that amazed - if the answer is no.

Hopelessly Partisan @ 11:54 AM   Add Comment

A SURPRISE ABOUT MEDIA BIAS

Ken Berwitz

According to the Pew Research Center's Journalism Project report, of the 32 most used news sources, 25 lean left and 7 lean right - that is 78% to 22% in favor of the left.

What a surprise.

Who would ever have thought that the right was as high as 22%.

Hopelessly Partisan @ 10:59 AM   Add Comment

BREAKING REPUBLICAN?

Ken Berwitz

As we traverse the last two weeks before midterm elections, is the country breaking Republican?

Based on the just-released Associated Press/GfK poll, that answer is pretty easy to see.

From Jennifer Agiesta and Emily Swanson's article:

Among all adults, 38 percent say they'd like the Democrats to wind up in control of Congress, to 36 percent for the Republicans. But the GOP holds a significant lead among those most likely to cast ballots: 47 percent of these voters favor a Republican controlled-Congress, 39 percent a Democratic one. That's a shift in the GOP's favor since an AP-GfK poll in late September, when the two parties ran about evenly among likely voters.

Women have moved in the GOP's direction since September. In last month's AP-GfK poll, 47 percent of female likely voters said they favored a Democratic-controlled Congress while 40 percent wanted the Republicans to capture control. In the new poll, the two parties are about even among women, 44 percent prefer the Republicans, 42 percent the Democrats

Hooboy.

If these data are accurate, in just one month's time:

-Republicans have jumped from a virtual tie between the two parties among likely voters (which, in and of itself, would be good news for Republicans, who usually lag in this measure even during years when they do well) to an 8% lead;

-Among women - who, along with Black voters are absolutely critical to Democrat chances - a 7% lead for Democrats has not only disappeared, but been supplanted by a 2% lead for Republicans.  That's a 9% turnaround.

In reading these data it is important to note that, even if 100% accurate, they are from one poll at one point in time.  The next poll/polls might indicate that circumstances are far more salutary for Democrats; stranger things have certainly happened.

But if the findings of this poll are replicated in other polls as well, the possibility is very real that Democrats are going to be on the receiving end of an epic clock-cleaning next month.

Stay tuned.

Hopelessly Partisan @ 10:50 AM   Add Comment

JUSTICE: NOT "FOR MICHAEL BROWN" OR "FOR DARREN WILSON"

Ken Berwitz

Decent people want justice.

Decent people want the truth to come out and justice to be based on that truth.

This, it seems to me, has eluded the "justice for Michael Brown" crowd from day one - and still eludes that crowd today.

The more information that comes out, the more it is becoming clear that there is a great deal more credence to Officer Darren Wilson's version of what happened on August 9th than what several "witnesses" have been happy to tell anyone who will listen (and, among the Professionally Oppressed crowd, there are plenty of them),

From Christine Byers' article in today's Saint Louis Post-Dispatch:

The official autopsy on Michael Brown shows that he was shot in the hand at close range, according to an analysis of the findings by two experts not involved directly in the case.

The accompanying toxicology report shows he had been using marijuana.

Those documents, prepared by the St. Louis County medical examiner and obtained by the Post-Dispatch, provide the most detailed description to date of the wounds Brown sustained in a confrontation Aug. 9 with Ferguson police Officer Darren Wilson.

A source with knowledge of Wilson's statements said the officer had told investigators that Brown had struggled for Wilson's pistol inside a police SUV and that Wilson had fired the gun twice, hitting Brown once in the hand. Later, Wilson fired additional shots that killed Brown and ignited a national controversy.

The St. Louis medical examiner, Dr. Michael Graham, who is not part of the official investigation, reviewed the autopsy report for the newspaper. He said Tuesday that it "does support that there was a significant altercation at the car."

Look at that report.  Now tell me what "justice" is.

To decent people, interested in the truth coming out and being dealt with accordingly, it means:

-There is significant evidence that Officer Wilson's version of what happened is largely, maybe completely, true;

-Accordingly, there is significant evidence that the "eye-witnesses" who spun a tale of Michael Brown running away, and/or holding up his hands in surrender as he was shot, were either mistaken (very hard to believe) or lying.  Fabricating.  Telling fairy tales concocted either for self-serving reasons and/or as a way to ingratiate themselves to the protesters (everyone likes to be a hero).

-Michael Brown was under the influence of marijuana at the time of this incident, which may have affected the way he behaved.

But do you now expect the protesters to issue a statement to the effect that "based on this evidence we are reconsidering our position regarding the Michael Brown shooting"?  Do you expect that looters will start returning merchandise to Ferguson's business establishments?  Do you expect the protests to diminish or end?

I assure you none of that will happen.  Because, to a many (not all) of these people, neither justice, or Michael Brown, or Darren Wilson, mean a damn thing.

Virtually from the start, it has been clear that most of the protesters see the Michael Brown shooting as nothing more or less than an opportunity:

-For some, an opportunity to riot and loot. 

-For some, an opportunity to demand furtherance of their social agenda, which some politicians- deathly afraid of being called racist for daring suggest all parties wait for the investigation to play out - would be scared into going along with. 

-For some, an opportunity to get face time on news media (which media have been more than happy to provide).

In such an atmosphere ,"justice" - real justice, which means dealing with facts as they are - doesn't have a chance.

 In Ferguson, it never did.

======================================================

UPDATE:  If what you just read were not enough, we have this, from an article in today's Washington Post:

Ferguson, Mo., police officer Darren Wilson and Michael Brown fought for control of the officer's gun, and Wilson fatally shot the unarmed teenager after he moved toward the officer as they faced off in the street, according to interviews, news accounts and the full report of the St. Louis County autopsy of Brown’s body.

Because Wilson is white and Brown was black, the case has ignited intense debate over how police interact with African American men. But more than a half-dozen unnamed black witnesses have provided testimony to a St. Louis County grand jury that largely supports Wilson's account of events of Aug. 9, according to several people familiar with the investigation who spoke with The Washington Post.

Some of the physical evidence - including blood spatter analysis, shell casings and ballistics tests - also supports Wilson’s account of the shooting, The Post's sources said, which cast Brown as an aggressor who threatened the officer's life. The sources spoke on condition of anonymity because they are prohibited from publicly discussing the case.

The grand jury is expected to complete its deliberations next month over whether Wilson broke the law in confronting Brown, and the pending decision appears to be prompting the unofficial release of information about the case and what the jurors have been told.

Now why do you suppose Black witnesses who were at the scene of the encounter between Brown and Wilson are staying anonymous? 

Because they assume that the people who have spent the past two and a half months protesting (not to mention rioting and looting) and demanding "Justice For Michael Brown", will congratulate them for coming forth and testifying about what they saw and heard?

As I said earlier...justice - actual, real justice -  is the last thing that crowd wants.

Hopelessly Partisan @ 10:22 AM   Add Comment

Tuesday, 21 October 2014

KAY HAGAN SKIPS HER DEBATE

Ken Berwitz

If North Carolina's Democrat Senator Kay Hagan had shown up at tonight's scheduled debate with Republican opponent Thom Tillis, she would, no doubt, have been asked some hard questions about her families' businesses getting fat on government energy subsidies. 

You can read all about this issue (or scandal, if that is your opinion) by clicking here

But you won't be able to hear Ms. Hagan answer those hard questions.  Because she decided it would be smarter to just duck the debate altogether.

That's right.  Two weeks before the election, Kay Hagan ducked her debate with Thom Tillis rather than be there to attempt a defense of her husband's and son's business dealings. 

How badly did Kay Hagan think she would have fared in this debate, for her to hand what amounted to an hour-long campaign speech to Mr. Tillis at this critical juncture in the campaign?  The answer to that question very well may win or lose this senate race.

Let's keep an eye on a) how media cover Hagan's remarkable no-show, and b) where the polls move because of it.

Hopelessly Partisan @ 21:48 PM   Add Comment

THE DEFINITION OF "JUSTICE FOR MICHAEL BROWN"

Ken Berwitz

If the reports are true that Michael Brown's blood was in Officer Darren Wilson's police car - and they come from the New York Times and other credible sources - it coincides with Wilson's claim that the scuffle between them was partially in that car.

A demand for justice would take that into account.

But the endlessly-changed demand that there be "Justice For Michael Brown" evidently would not. 

Article after article, news report after news report, continue to quote agitator after agitator telling us that if Wilson is not charged there will be, in the words of one, "hell to pay".  In the words of the execrable Missouri State Senator jamilah nasheed - which she has never backtracked from - "If you should decide not to indict this police officer, the rioting we witnessed this past week will seem like a picnic compared to the havoc that will likely occur."  And so on and so on and so on.

It seems clear that "Justice For Michael Brown", in reality, has nothing to do with justice at all.  It means "If you don't fry that cop we're going to take this place apart again, and then some". 

People who want true justice wait until they know what they're talking about before demanding it for one side over the other.

This is not justice, it is lawless anarchy.

Time to call things as they are.

Hopelessly Partisan @ 15:39 PM   1 comment

TREATING BLACK PEOPLE LIKE CHILDREN

Ken Berwitz

Most people do not like being treated like simpleminded children. 

I assume this applies to the members of the Kingdom Impact Global Ministries church, who were treated exactly that way by supporters of Senator Kay Hagan.

From Derek Hunter's article at dailycaller.com:

The contest between incumbent Democrat Kay Hagan and Republican challenger Thom Tillis is...turning incredibly ugly.

Churchgoers in Fayetteville returned to their cars Sunday to find a political flyer on their windshield - which is to be expected 16 days before an election.

Dawn McNair's daughter found one of the fliers on her mother's car and noticed the picture. "My daughter said, 'Mom, look in the background. They're lynching somebody.' It's the lynching of an African-American man," Dawn told the Fayetteville Observer.

The message to the black parishioners was clear: Vote for the Democrat to protect the black president.

The local chapter of the NAACP doesn't see a problem with the flier. President of the Fayetteville chapter, James Buxton, told the Observer, "That's what the community feels. That if the Senate is taken over by the Republicans, and it remains the Republicans (in the majority) in the House of Representatives, they're going to impeach him."

The authority line on the flier reads "Not endorsed by any candidate. Paid for by Concerned Citizens of Cumberland County." It listed no address, and a search of the Internet turns up no results for the groups.

A spokesman for Hagan's campaign was quick to distance the candidate from the lynching flier, telling the Observer, "I don't know anything about the group or flier. We don't coordinate with outside groups."

The problem here is not that an anonymous individual or group put out hate material on behalf of one of the candidates.  Unless it can be shown that there was a direct tie between the candidate and the source of this ugly garbage, that would be entirely unfair.

The problem, in part, is that it insults the intelligence of every person it targets...which is to say Black parishioners at that church.

Another part of the problem is that the NAACP - at least the President of its Fayetteville chapter - thinks it is just fine.

On the other hand, since the NAACP, through its Americans for Equality offshoot, was responsible for the "James Byrd" ad in 2000 - one of the most disgusting, dishonest ads I have ever seen - maybe this also goes a little deeper than the Fayetteville chapter.

And a third part of the problem - arguably the most significant of the three because of its implications for the upcoming elections - is how Senator Kay Hagan supposedly "distances" herself from the flyer. 

Read Ms. Hagan's statement closely, and you will see that she does not in any way criticize the flyer's message, she only says she doesn't know where it came from.

In other words, she says she hasn't got a thing to do with it, but is perfectly happy to derive its full "benefit".

If you're asking me (and you sort of are if you're reading this blog), weaselly crap like that is a reason to vote for her opponent, Thom Tillis.  A big one.

Hopelessly Partisan @ 12:09 PM   Add Comment

THE QUOTE OF THE DAY

Ken Berwitz

Today's quote, and it is a beaut, comes to us from President  Barack Obama.  Speaking on al sharpton's radio show, he said this:

"And so some of the candidates there - it is difficult for them to have me in the state because the Republicans will use that to try to fan Republican turnout.  The bottom line is though, these are all folks who vote with me, they have supported my agenda in congress, they are on the right side of minimum wage, they are on the right side of fair pay, they are on the right side of rebuilding our infrastructure, they're on the right side of early childhood education."

Holy excrement.

We have Democrats all over the country desperately trying to run away from President Obama; desperately trying to convince voters that they differ with his policies.  And there he is - on the radio show of a career racist/Black supremacist, no less (come to think of it, how could anyone be less) - essentially telling those same voters that they are lying in their teeth.

Yes, he cited legislation that, if it were all they supported Mr. Obama on, might be ok with most voters.  But you can bet the house, car and first-born that Republicans will be reminding those voters that the support also extended to ObamaCare, amnesty, his foreign policy, etc. etc. etc.

I award Barack Obama Quote Of The Day honors for - again, since this is the second time in about a week - assuring the voters that Democrat Senators and House members can try to run from his agenda, but they are part and parcel of it.

If I were Republican National Committee head Reince Priebus, I would send him a gift basket.

Hopelessly Partisan @ 09:19 AM   Add Comment

Multi-Year Archive
We're Hopelessly Partisan

hopelesslypartisan.com, 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!!

TO THE LEFT

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


   IN THE MIDDLE

  Drudge Report
  Politico
  Real Clear Politics
  The Hill


   TO THE RIGHT

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


About Us  
Resources
Blog Posts
Archives