Ken Berwitz

"I took a pleasure trip last week.  I drove my mother in law to the airport":  Henny Youngman

I took a pleasure listen this evening.  I listened to radio host and lawyer Mark Levin make mincemeat of Gloria Allred. 

If you want to hear the carnage, just click here .  Listen to Levin cut straight through Allred's unending ducking, deflecting and general BS.  He makes her sound like a babbling fool.

Bravo!

Ken Berwitz

Our pal West Coast Russ is at it again.

I don't know where gets these jokes, but here's his latest.  I hope you like it:

George Bush, Queen Elizabeth, and Vladimir Putin all die and go to hell. 

 

While there, they spot a red phone and ask what it is for. The devil tells them they can use it to call back to Earth. 

Putin asks how much a five minute call to Russia is.  The devil informs him that the cost is one million dollars.

Queen Elizabeth asks how much a half hour call to the UK is.  The devil informs her it is six million dollars.

George Bush asks him how much a four hour call to the USA is.  The devil informs him that it is $5.00.

 

Putin and Queen Elizabeth are outraged, and demand to know why Bush is getting off so cheap.

 

The  devil smiles and replies: "Since Obama took over, the country has gone to hell, so it's a local call."

Ken Berwitz

This is an easy blog, because there's nothing to write.

Please watch the following video, in which Meg Whitman answers the accusations regarding her former housekeeper. (if you have trouble seeing it below, just click here).  Then you can wonder along with me how many votes it will cost Jerry Brown. 

Ken Berwitz

On Tuesday, there was a debate between California's Gubernatorial candidates, Democrat Jerry Brown and Republican Meg Whitman. 

By most accounts, Ms. Whitman held her own quite nicely - some people (mostly her supporters, as you might expect) think she won it outright.

This presented a problem for Mr. Brown, because if she held her own in the debate a major issue for him - his extensive political experience versus her non-experience - pretty much disappeared.  

Since that seems to have happened, it was necessary for Mr. Brown to somehow steer California voters away from how well she did in the debate, and fast.

Their idea, apparently, was to quickly enlist the reliably Democrat-loyal celebrity lawyer, Gloria Allred, who trotted out Ms. Whitman's former housekeeper.  The housekeeper claimed that she was mistreated by Whitman, then fired - and oh, by the way, she's an illegal alien and Ms. Whitman knew it.

Helluva ploy. 

So how did it work out? 

Hugh Hewitt (disclosure:  a strong supporter of Meg Whitman) has written a very interesting answer, the first portion of which is excerpted below:

Meg Whitman easily bested Jerry Brown in a debate over the future of California on Tuesday night.

So California Democrats had to hope that one of their reliable warhorses would saddle up and do some damage to Whitman with some kind of smear that diverted attention from the knock-down that Brown suffered. Lawyer Gloria Allred turned up, right on schedule, with a headline grabbing, allegation-hurling press conference about the misdeeds of Whitman.

Turns out that Whitman had hired a housekeeper a few years back, after being provided all the necessary documents. Whitman was very serious about complying with the law as any CEO of a major public company ought to be, if only to protect the thousands and thousands of shareholders who cannot afford to have corporate leadership turn out to be law breakers.

Whitman was defrauded. The housekeeper lied. Many years later the housekeeper admitted her lies to Whitman, and Whitman dismissed her.

First the law. Don't believe me. Believe Erwin Chemerinsky, the very liberal dean of the University of California at Irvine Law School. After Allred's press conference I had Erwin on my radio program to state the law, which he did very quickly: Whitman had to fire the housekeeper or break the law.

Then I had Gloria on the program. The audio and transcript are posted at HughHewitt.com.

I have known Gloria for a number of years, and like her. But she's a lefty and publicity-hungry, so when she can combine both her political agenda and her ambitions for the spotlight, don't get between her and the camera. This is why she played herself in the movie Rat Race. Her publicity-seeking is so over the top that even she is willing to make fun of it on the big screen.

She last attacked a Republican candidate for governor when he was leading the polls shortly before a vote when she launched a broadside against Arnold in August of 2003. Her client, Rhonda Miller, alleged sexual harassment. Miller's suit was dismissed.

I began my interview with Allred by asking her how that case turned out. Allred objected to the line of questioning.

I played Erwin's answer to my straightforward question and asked Allred if Erwin had stated the law correctly.. Allred objected to the line of questioning.

I asked Allred if she could state the law. She objected to this line of questioning.

Allred hung up on me when it became obvious that I simply wasn't going to allow her to repeat her allegations without establishing first a theory of the law under which Whitman could be understood to have done anything wrong.

Now that sounds pretty bad for Allred and Brown.  But, again, Hugh Hewitt supports Meg Whitman so his comments are not neutral. 

However Dan Whitcomb, who writes for Reuters, presumably is a neutral source.  And the following is excerpted from his article , published today: 

The Whitman campaign released a U.S. Immigration and Naturalization employment eligibility verification form signed by Diaz when she was hired by Whitman in which she asserts under penalty of perjury that she is a lawful permanent resident.

 

The campaign also released copies of the Social Security Card and California driver's license supplied by Diaz at the time she was hired, and an employment questionnaire in which she checked a box saying that she could legally accept employment.

If you're Jerry Brown?  Not good.  Not good at all.

Look, this being politics, there may be more twists and turns to the story.  But as of now, it looks as if Ms. Whitman not only acquitted herself very capably in the debate, but blew away Mr. Brown's illegal housekeeper ploy in a way that could lose rather than gain him votes.

Just 34 more days to go.  Fun, fun, fun.

Ken Berwitz

In what has become something of a daily ritual, the Today show did another hit piece on Christine O'Donnell this morning.

In what has become something of another daily ritual, the Today show did not mention a thing about her opponent Chris Coons.

So Today show viewers (and viewers/readers of countless other media venues) keep getting dose after dose of what is wrong with Ms. O'Donnell, but no insight at all  regarding the man she is running against.

Why is that?

Well, maybe the following excerpts from Jeffrey Lord's blog at American Spectator (spectator.org) will give us a hint:

After making much in an interview with a publication for the Yale Divinity School about his desire to bring YDS values to Washington, Chris Coons has suddenly gone silent as a church mouse. Coons, of course, is the self-described "Bearded Marxist" (from a college article at Amherst) who is now the Delaware Democrat opposing the GOP's Christine O'Donnell for the U.S. Senate.

The liberal media pounced on O'Donnell after her surprise win over the Establishment-favored Congressman Mike Castle. They are ignoring Coons.

It is increasingly clear why. After looking into Coons' love affair with the Marxism-as-Christianity "liberation theology" and specifically his volunteering for the South African Council of Churches, the Coons Yale Divinity School interview surfaced. It is clear the "Bearded Marxist" article was not, as Coons and his liberal media friends have tried to portray it, any kind of a joke.

After a serious look here at The American Spectator at the courses, assigned reading, and teachers of Yale Divinity School -- Coons clammed up. Suddenly Coons has gone silent on the entire topic.

Five e-mails and a follow-up phone call from The American Spectator to the Coons campaign have been ignored. The request? Since Coons' liberal friends have made much of a high-school date by O'Donnell with a guy into witchcraft, did Chris Coons take the "Witchcraft" course the school offers? How about the "Queer Worship," "Feminist/Womanist/Gendered Theologies" or "Introduction to Christian Ethics II" courses? The latter featuring readings by Black Liberation theology guru James Cone and social justice evangelist Ronald Sider? If not, what specific courses did Coons take while getting his Master of Arts in Religion at YDS -- graduating in 1994. Who were his teachers? What was the assigned reading?

Sean Hannity has picked up the questioning now, raising the questions on both his radio and Fox News television shows. 

Where is the rest of the media? Is it any wonder Americans have come to rely on Hannity, his talk radio friends and Fox News to learn the real truth of what's going on? With little over a month to go, Coons is rapidly demonstrating that he has no intention if elected of serving in the U.S. Senate with the transparency and sunlight which Americans demand. So the questions keep piling up.

Meanwhile, the latest Rasmussen poll has O'Donnell gaining steam -- now only nine points behind Coons.

Maybe this explains the abrupt Coons stonewall -- and the silence of his liberal media friends?.

Fascinating.  Based on wall-to-wall media coverage, everyone and his brother knows that Christine O'Donnell "dabbled in witchcraft" in high school - only briefly, and only because she was seeing some boy who was fooling around with it, but we won't talk about that.

But Chris Coons, as a college senior, spoke of his political transformation to the hard left and his rejection of US values.  And apparently, as a divinity student at Yale, he may have taken courses - a lot of them, given the curriculum choices - which leave Christine O'Donnell's dabblings in the dust -- or is that in the pentagram, near the chicken's foot?

I can certainly understand why Mr. Coons is not talking about this.  But I am absolutely outraged that our wonderful "neutral" media, which torpedo Christine O'Donnell at will, are acting on Coon's behalf by doing the same.

Whose side are they on anyway?  (Yes, that question is rhetorical.)

Ken Berwitz

Don't count on Carl Paladino ever being nominated for a diplomatic post.

Here, via  Jillian Rayfield's blog at tpm.com, we have a furious Carl Paladino - raw, unleashed, uncontrolled and unconcerned (if he thought about it at all) over the fallout his actions would cause - confronting the New York Post's State Editor, Fred Dicker.  Paladino's anger was due to his belief that the Post had tried to get pictures of his out-of-wedlock 10 year old daughter:

Seems that Carl Paladino has lived up to his "mad as hell" campaign slogan.

Last night at a campaign event in Lake George, the New York Republican gubernatorial nominee and New York Post state editor Fred Dicker had to be seperated, after they nearly came to blows during a heated exchange over Paladino's out-of-wedlock daughter.

Paladino accused Dicker of sending Post photographers after the 10-year-old girl, who he had with a woman who is not his wife. "You send another goon to my daughter's house, and I'll take you out, buddy!" Paladino yelled, before his campaign manager Michael Caputo separated the two men.

Caputo also admonished Dicker, before telling him the Post is off of the campaign list: "If your photographers take pictures of his daughter again, that's it!"

Here's the must-watch video:

 

The incident follows Paladino's unsubstantiated accusation that his Democratic opponent Andrew Cuomo had an affair several years ago, making the point that the media should be focused on him instead.

The TPM Poll Average shows Cuomo leading Paladino 52.6%-36.6%.

I wonder how this will affect Paladino's campaign - and I mean that seriously, not sarcastically.

In 1976, there was a TV mini-series based on Irwin Shaw's book "Rich Man, Poor Man", starring Peter Strauss and then-newcomer Nick Nolte.  Strauss played Rudy Jordache, a calculating, deliberate character whose political career was successfully launched because he became so mad at a college newspaper for publishing embarrassing pictures of his wife that he went out of control and wrecked its office.  In the story line, people loved Jordache's blunt, from-the-gut reaction, and he gained enormous political capital from it.

Is it possible that Paladino, who is anything but calculating and deliberate, can possibly gain from this ugly outburst?  

I doubt it.  But, to be perfectly honest, I wouldn't bet against it either.

I eagerly await the next round of polls.

Ken Berwitz

Let's start with an imaginary (or maybe not so imaginary) commentary from the last Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) strategy session:

We can't be running on Barack Obama's "accomplishments".  We certainly can't be mentioning them in the promotional letters we send to potential donors, that's for sure.

Trying to run against John Boehner fell flat on its face.

Sharron Angle and Christine O'Donnell aren't working.

What to do, what to do....

I got it!  Let's revert to our old standby, Karl Rove.  Yeah, that's the ticket.  He's the guy we can make into 2010's bogeyman.  Just like the old days!!

With that as an introduction, I would like to show you the latest DSCC email, received within the past half hour and supposedly written by John Kerry.  Take a look, and - here's a fun game to enhance your interest - see how many times you can find Karl Rove's name:

16 HOURS, $95,184 LEFT TO RAISE, FIGHT BACK NOW!

Dear XXXX:

 

We know Karl Rove's playbook. Lie. Smear. Win at any cost. We also know this: We've only got 16 hours to fight back.

The DSCC is up against a midnight deadline, and the money we raise now will determine if we can counter Rove's dirty tricks. Last week alone, Rove and his billionaire cronies spent $11 million to attack good people like Russ Feingold and Barbara Boxer. They're trying to buy a Senate majority for Tea Party radicals Sharron Angle, Rand Paul and Christine O'Donnell. 15 races are within 5 points.

But our grassroots network has the power to stop them. Already, half a million people have supported the DSCC, and hundreds of thousands more will before Election Day. Join the fight this minute. The DSCC needs $95,184 by midnight to head into this final month in a position of strength. Every dollar you give will be matched, doubling your impact.

Together, we can beat Karl Rove. Donate $5 or more to the DSCC before midnight, and every dollar you give will be matched. We're just $95,184 short of our goal. Your immediate gift  could be the one that puts us over the top, so act now.

In this tough climate, anything can happen - especially when Rove's shadowy groups are shelling out $11 million a week. That's why tonight's deadline is so important.

Voters are making up their minds, and early ballots are coming in. Every dollar you give means another knock on a voter's door or getting another Democrat to the polls. It means another voter we can persuade to support leaders like my friends Barbara Boxer and Russ Feingold.

Tomorrow morning, the DSCC staff will sit down, see how much we have raised, and make final, crucial decisions about where to put those dollars to protect our majority. The bigger the pot, the harder we can fight.  

Your decision to donate to the DSCC before midnight tonight will determine whether our candidates win and we keep the majority. Donate $5 or more to the DSCC right now. Every dollar you give will be matched and pooled with donations from thousands of other grassroots supporters - and together we'll fight back against Rove's smear campaign.

We knew it would take courage and hard work to repair the damage George W. Bush did to our country.  And we gave everything we had to elect Barack Obama and a Democratic Congress to get that job done.  

Now Republicans are desperate to get their power back - and they're pandering to the radical fringe in order to do it.

With Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck fanning the flames of right-wing anger, Tea Party extremists are purging the party of anyone who doesn't fit their radical ideology. Throw in $11 million a week from Karl Rove and his pals, and the Tea Party's next stop will be the U.S. Senate - unless our grassroots team stands together now to stop it.

Stop the Tea Party's radical plans and defend our Senate majority. Donate $5 or more to the DSCC right now. We're so close to our goal - don't miss this opportunity to have your donation matched.

We have 15 Senate races within 5 points. If Republicans win just 10, they win the Senate. Sharron Angle will be free to target Social Security. Our civil rights laws will be in Rand Paul's crosshairs. Everything we fought for will be at risk.

It's time for the thousands of people in our grassroots network to stand up against the Tea Party and Rove's millions. Fight back now.

Sincerely,

Senator John Kerry

How'd your Rove count go? 

I played too, and counted 8 mentions.  In one little email.

So who do you think they're trying to make into the bogeyman?  Uhhhh...gee.....that's a tough one.

Not that Rove is the only bogeyman, of course.  Sharron Angle, Rand Paul and Christine O'Donnell are also in there, along with Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, and - it wouldn't be a Democratic email without him - George Bush.

But even more interesting than what you see in this letter is what you don't see. 

You don't see even one accomplishment of the Obama administration.  You don't see one word about the so-called "stimulus package".  Or the automobile industry takeovers.  Or the "cash for clunkers" program.  Or the unemployment figures.  Or ObamaCare.  Or the attempts at cap and trade legislation.  Or the troop surge in Afghanistan.

What does it tell you when, after two years with a Democratic President, a hugely Democratic congress, and major pieces of legislation passed by that President and congress, the Democratic campaign literature avoids any mention of legislative accomplishments?

Maybe it is modesty.  Maybe it is inadvertent oversight. 

Or maybe it is because Democrats know that reminding voters of those "accomplishments" is likely to lose rather than gain support.

That, folks, is why the Democratic Party is poised to have its clock cleaned in November. 

Maybe they can try pinning the Obama agenda on Rove and Bush too......

Ken Berwitz

Poor Democrats.  Some of their biggest donors are holding back funds, thus making it more feasible for Republicans to win a greater number of seats in congress.

Why?

This excerpt from an article by Michael Luo and Jeff Zeleny of the New York Times, may shed some light on the reason:

Many wealthy Democratic patrons, who in the past have played major roles financing outside groups to help elect the party's candidates, are sitting out these crucial midterm elections.

 

Democratic donors like George Soros and fellow billionaire Peter Lewis, who each gave more than $20 million to Democratic-oriented groups in the 2004 election, appear to be holding back.

 

"Mr. Soros believes that he can be most effective by funding groups that promote progressive policy outcomes in areas such as health care, the environment and foreign policy," said an adviser, Michael Vachon. "So he has opted to fund those activities."

 

The absence of these Democratic megadonors is contributing to a huge disparity in spending between pro-Republican and pro-Democratic groups. The groups wield huge influence in many House and Senate races because they can take in contributions of unlimited size.

 

In the past week, Republican-leaning groups outspent their Democratic counterparts on TV by more than 7-1 on Senate races and nearly 4-1 on House races across the country, according to data from the Campaign Media Analysis Group, which tracks political advertising. The gap shows few signs of abating, even with the midterm election season in full swing.

 

The donors' reluctance stems from a variety of factors, including pessimism about the party's prospects in November but also President Barack Obama's strong condemnations of this kind of independent activity, both during the 2008 campaign and after he was elected.

 

Vachon said Soros, who was also a big donor in 2006 and to a lesser extent in 2008, had been more focused on pushing to get the policy outcomes he wants. He gave $5 million each last year to organizations advocating for the health care overhaul and the climate change bill, Vachon said. He also contributed $1.25 million this year to America Votes, an umbrella organization for a variety of liberal-leaning groups, which focuses on the voter mobilization that Soros has supported

In other words, the billionaire left wingers (and - earth to people who think only Republicans are rich - there are plenty more than just these two) are withholding their funds, in part, because the Obama administration has not been successful enough in moving the country leftward.

Bank takeovers, automobile takeovers, ObamaCare, the so-called "stimulus package", etc. etc.?  They're not impressed.  The money will go to independent advocacy groups instead.

Personally, I wonder if there is a different angle to this.  Maybe soros, Lewis and their pals are intentionally booming up Republican numbers in congress, so they can blame the economic disaster on them for the next two years and get an even more leftward government in 2012.  Maybe their idea is to claim "we were fixing these problems, until Republicans came along and took us right back to the disaster they left us with in 2008". 

From a purely political perspective, that's not a bad strategy at all.  We'll see if that's what they're up to and how it plays out soon enough.

By the way, I love Luo and Zeleny's description of "America Votes" as "liberal leaning".  That term suggests the organization is juuu-u-u-u-uuust a bit left of center.  That's like calling the Gobi desert juuu-u-u-u-uuust a bit dry. 

Ken Berwitz

Just how far in the tank is our economy?  Just how far along the road to ruin are we?

The answers to these two unsettling questions may be found in Steve McCann's essay at americanthinker.com. 

Here is a key except.  Believe me, you won't like what you're reading.

This is not a story with the same sex-appeal as analyzing what makes Obama tick or what is happening in the tea party movement or the chronicling of the loony acts of some on the Left but it is one that is much closer to home than we care to admit, and one happening to a country with whom this nation has so many emotional ties.

 

In the 1990's and early part of this decade, Ireland's growth rate had earned it the nickname of "the Celtic Tiger."  But much of the boom was financed with borrowed cash.  From 2003 to 2007, the Irish banking system imported funds equivalent to over 50% of the nation's Gross Domestic Product thus triggering a runaway real estate and construction bubble.

 

Cheap loans, with a tacit nudge by the government, were virtually forced upon the Irish people.  Mortgages amounting to 120% of the cost overpriced apartments were taken out, with the cash left over used to purchase new cars or other consumer items.  New hotels, offices and shopping centers (which were not needed) sprang up throughout much of the country.  There appeared no end in sight as the government and banking system worked hand in hand promoting policies that created a massive financial bubble.

 

The world financial crisis put an end to these excesses and the boom came to a halt practically overnight.  Today the unemployment rate is nearly 14% and defaults on mortgages have hit epidemic levels.  The banks have countless loans on their books that are no longer being serviced and the underlying collateral is virtually worthless.  The Irish government has had to bailout or nationalize numerous banks, the final cost of which is yet to be determined.

 

Tax revenues to the government between 2008 and 2009 dropped by 19% and the annual budget deficit as a percent of the GDP hit 15.4% vs. an average of 1.1% from 2003-2008.   In 2010 the deficit may well exceed 18-20% of GDP (worse than Greece).  In only two years 2008 to 2010 (est.) the general government debt will have gone from 44% of the GDP to nearly 80%. (A phenomenal 82% increase).

 

The Irish government has had to turn to the international market to sell bonds to finance this debt.  Last week, for example, the Irish state sold 1.5 billion euros of bonds on the market; however the interest rate was extremely high and the default insurance premiums on these same instruments hit a record high.  Total interest costs were 8% of all government revenue in 2009 (as compared to an average of 4.3% during 2003 to 2008).  It is estimated that interest costs will exceed12% of all revenue in 2010.

 

In an effort to continue receiving support from the European Union and to have the European Central Bank and the IMF buy their bonds, the Irish government has been forced to make severe cut backs in expenditures, particularly wages and salaries in the public sector and reductions in some social spending.  However these savings will not be enough, and in December 2010, when the government prepares the budget for next year, the steps that will have to be taken will have to be much more draconian if it expects to receive additional loans on the international capital markets.

 

The world financial markets have been forced to calculate the very real possibility of what would happen if Ireland went bankrupt.  There is a deep mistrust of the ability of Ireland to avoid a default (thus the high interest and premium rates).  If the austerity measures are not sufficient and the markets lose all confidence, then the only option will be the euro-zone bailout fund which will result in the tacit loss of Irish sovereignty and the further decline of property prices, wages and a near permanent high unemployment rate which may take decades to repair.

 

How does this sad tale compare to what is happening in the United States?  First on a comparative statistical basis:

 

National Debt as a Percent of GDP:  Ireland in 2010: 75%   USA est. in 2012:   74%

 

Deficit as a Percent of GDP:  Ireland in 2010: 18%    USA 2009: 10%

 

Interest Cost as a Percent of Govt. Revenue:  Ireland 2010: 12%   USA 2010: 19%

 

Current Unemployment Rate (comparative basis)    Ireland:  13%    USA:  10.6%*

 

As matters stand today, two factors are different between the two countries: first, while Ireland has begun, albeit through coercion, a major cost cutting program, the United States is continuing its profligate ways, and second, unlike Ireland, the United States has nowhere to turn for a bailout.

What a dismal, scary picture. 

The truth is, we are well along the road Ireland has taken.  Even if we act quickly and significantly to reverse this looming catastrophe, who knows if it is already too late?

One thing seems sure, however.  If we keep pouring tax money down a bottomless pit, and putting the wood to job creators - the only ones who can get us out of the mess we're in - the journey down this road is not only going to continue, it is going to accelerate.

The first, and most important, thing we can do is change the thinking in Washington DC.

November 2 is election day.   That gives us a month to decide which path we want to take.  Let's hope voters choose the right one.

Ken Berwitz

I don't mean to sully the deceased.  But if this man, dead or alive, is not a Darwin Award finalist, no one is.

From BBC News:

Teesside man dies after downing pint of vodka

A man died after downing a pint of vodka in four seconds, an inquest heard.

 

Richard Davies, 29, from Thornaby, near Stockton, had been drinking with friends before the alcohol knocked him unconscious in January.

 

Mr Davies was found not breathing in a pool of his own blood, and died hours later.

 

Recording a verdict of misadventure, Teesside coroner Tony Eastwood said the alcohol in his system had killed him.

 

The hearing on Tuesday at Teesside Coroner's Court was told how the electrician's mate was five-and-a-half times the legal drink-drive limit and his body contained traces of the then-legal high mephedrone, which has since been banned.

 

However, Mr Eastwood said the alcohol in his system had killed him and that the mephedrone was not a contributing factor.

 

'Pushed Me Away'

 

Mr Davies' best friend Christopher Crooks told the inquest how he tried to save his life after he was found unconscious in the early hours of 16 January.

 

In a statement read out by deputy Teesside coroner Tony Eastwood, he said: "Richard drank a pint of vodka in four seconds or so.

 

"I did try to take the glass off him, but he turned his back on me, pushed me away, and drank it all."

 

Paramedics were later called, but by the time they arrived Mr Davies was dead.

 

Pathologist Jan Lowe said Mr Davies had an alcohol level enough to have caused acute alcohol poisoning.

A pint of vodka in 4 seconds?

Well, look at the bright side.  This is the only Darwin Award contestant I've found who can chat with the guy the award is named for....

Ken Berwitz

Alan Grayson certainly has talents.  But telling the truth is not one of them. Nor is convincingly lying.

As noted in earlier blogs, Grayson has put out two blatantly untrue and disgustingly offensive ads about his opponent, Daniel Webster. 

The first of them claims that Webster is a draft dodger who does not love his country.  In point of fact, Webster got student deferments through college and then willingly went for his army physical.  He was rejected for medical reasons which, he describes as related to problems he had with his feet as a child. You can read factcheck.org's debunking of this ad by clicking here. 

Simply stated, Grayson lied.

But his more recent ad, "Taliban Dan", leaves the first one in the dust.  Here, pulled from factcheck.org's analysis, is what Grayson claimed in the ad, and what Webster actually said.

What the ad claims: 

VOICEOVER:  "Religious fanatics tried to take away our freedom in Afghanistan, in Iran and right here in Central Florida". 

 

WEBSTER:  "Wives submit yourself to your own husband"  "She should submit to me. That’s in the Bible."

What Webster actually said, during a speech to the Institute of Basic Life Principles (the bold print is mine):

WEBSTER: So, write a journal. Second, find a verse. I have a verse for my wife, I have verses for my wife. Don’t pick the ones that say, ‘She should submit to me.’ That’s in the Bible, but pick the ones that you’re supposed to do. So instead, ‘love your wife, even as Christ loved the Church and gave himself for it’ as opposed to ‘wives submit to your own husbands.’ She can pray that, if she wants to, but don’t you pray it.

A little different, wouldn't you say?  Like 100%.

Grayson, weasel that he is, now is trying to deflect the outrage over this ad by bloviating that "we can argue endlessly over context, but..." and then going on to clumsily defend his lie. 

Yes, we can argue over context from today to doomsday.  But however much we argue about it, Webster still said the exact polar opposite of what Grayson's ad claims.   And Grayson is still a weaselly liar.

Look I can't say I'm much of a Dan Webster fan.  He is far to my right, and I disagree with his views on abortion (as well as, I am sure, other issues).  But I'll take just about anyone - right, center or left - over a weaselly liar.  So I'm rooting for him to win.

At the very least, the house chamber will smell a lot better.

Ken Berwitz

Frankly, Ed Schultz does not draw enough of an audience to merit too much blogging time.  But this is sort of interesting.

According to Chris Ariens of www.mediabistro.com, Schultz was reamed by MSNBC President Phil Griffin for calling New Jersey Governor Chris Christie a "cold-hearted fat slob" 

And, also according to Ariens, Schultz was reprimanded by both Griffin and NBC News President Steve Capus, for pitching a fit last month over not being included in MSNBC promos for primary coverage.  He was quoted as screaming "I'm going to torch this fucking place" 

In the still-funny-after-all-these-years movie "Animal House", Dean Wormer tells Flounder that "Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life, son".  My guess is that if it had been Ed Schultz instead of Flounder, Dean Wormer would have substituted "obnoxious, unbalanced and unwatched".

Ken Berwitz

When the Tea Party movement started burgeoning, Democrats and many of their all-too-willing stooges in mainstream media were fond of calling it an "astroturf" (i.e. artificial) movement.

Given the success of Tea Party candidates at being nominated this year, I'd say the movement has proven itself to be anything but artificial.  But that doesn't mean  "astroturf" movements don't exist.

Take, for example, the "One Nation" march on Washington planned for this weekend .  Is that an example of astroturfing? 

Michelle Malkin has the goods on this question, and here is your answer, along with a lot more about this dirty, corrupt union, excerpted from her latest column.  Please take special note of the first sentence, which I have put in bold print:

Big Labor, not Tea Party, is workers’ worst enemy
by Michelle Malkin

 

The Service Employees International Union plans to send 25,000 rank-and-file workers on 500 buses to Washington this weekend to protest the tea party movement, Republicans and Fox News. If SEIU members had any sense, they’d be demonstrating at their own bosses’ D.C. headquarters. It’s the Big Labor Left, not the Tea Party Right, that is flushing rank-and-file union workers’ hard-earned dues down the collective toilet in these hard times.

 

The co-organizer of the so-called “One Nation” protest by a coalition of progressive groups is George Gresham, president of the behemoth SEIU Local 1199 based in New York.

 

SEIU Local 1199′s Upstate Pension Fund has plunged from 115 percent funded in 1999 to 75 percent funded, and its Greater New York Pension Fund was funded at only 58 percent of its future obligations as of 2007, according to Hudson Institute analyst Diana Furchtgott-Roth. The union fat cats blame Wall Street. But while the pensions of SEIU workers nationwide are in “endangered status,” the pensions of SEIU top brass have been protected and remain fully funded.

 

SEIU leaders have shown a special talent for squandering their workers’ dues. They poured $10 million down the drain in Arkansas on a failed bid to unseat Democratic Sen. Blanche Lincoln. They spent $10 million on a nasty lawsuit against a competing union in California. They’ve burned through union dues to transport SEIU radicals to bully bank execs and their families at their private homes and to bus workers to Arizona to protest crackdowns on illegal aliens, who depress the wages of law-abiding working-class Americans.

 

Under former Purple Army Chief Andy Stern, the union’s liabilities skyrocketed from $7.6 million to nearly $121 million. Stern burned through $61 million to put Barack Obama and the Democratic ruling majority in place. And before abruptly stepping down in April, he installed a cadre of labor management stooges embroiled in financial scandals across the country.

 

One of them, Stern protege and former SEIU national Vice President Tyrone Freeman, remains under FBI investigation for siphoning off hundreds of thousands of dollars in dues money for his personal enrichment and pleasure.

 

Another Stern underling, former SEIU leader Alejandro Stephens, is under FBI investigation, the LA Times reported this week, for $150,000 in consulting fees paid “under a confidential agreement” signed by Stern. The feds allege the money funded a no-show job for Stephens. While probing the smelly deal, the feds also stumbled upon a cozy agreement by SEIU executives to shell out $80,000 to promote a book Stern wrote in 2006. The SEIU may not have been looking after rank-and-file workers, but Stern made sure the SEIU was looking after him.

 

Now, Stern’s profligate successors will steer an estimated $44 million in union worker dues into Democratic coffers this November — all in the name of defeating right-wing enemies of the working people. Perhaps it’s time for rank-and-file workers to stage a tea party of their own.

 Let's see how our wonderful "neutral" media report this astroturf spectacular, and the union behind it. 

And let's see how many people there are compared to the Tea Party event, even after taking into account the tens of thousands of astroturfers.

Oh, one other thing:  AERIAL VIEWS, PLEASE.  Not BS estimates from people with a stake in what the public believes.

Ken Berwitz

Remember when President Obama hailed Caterpillar as a company that would benefit mightily from the so-called "stimulus package";  one that would be able to create umpteen jobs for our country's unemployed?

Well, it is a year and a half later.  And here, excerpted from an Agence France Presse article, is a result you won't see on any promotional literature for Mr. Obama or his congressional Democratic colleagues:

NEW YORK (AFP) – Caterpillar, the world's largest manufacturer of construction equipment, will build a factory in China to produce mini hydraulic excavators, the company said in a statement.

Construction will begin in Wujiang, near Shanghai, at the end of 2010 and the facility should be ready in 2012 to begin production of mini excavators of less than eight tons, the company said Tuesday.

Caterpillar did not say how much the project will cost.

It is part of a long-term plan for investments in China that will make Caterpillar one of the leading manufacturers of construction equipment in the country.

It is hard to find Democrats who will come right out and say what an abysmal failure the "stimulus package" has been.  But it is even harder to find any Democrat in a competitive district featuring the "stimulus package" as a legislative accomplishment.

Now why do you suppose?

Hey, I have a great idea.  Maybe they can claim that Bush was the one who pushed it through congress.....

Ken Berwitz

Excerpted from an article published by the McClatchey Newspapers:

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama is getting more public about his Christianity.

First he raised his Christian faith at a White House news conference this month. Then he went church for the first time in five months. And on Tuesday he responded to a question with an expansive talk about how he chose Christianity, how Jesus Christ influences his life and how he prays every day.

These public displays of his religion mark a change from the first year and a half of his presidency, when he kept his faith a largely private matter — and they come after a poll found a growing number of Americans mistakenly think he's a Muslim, or don't know his religion.

Translation:  President Obama - pretty obviously for political purposes - is going public with what a devout Christian he claims to be.  If you believe Mr. Obama, Jesus influences his life and he prays to Jesus every day.

Now:  Remember when President Bush told us how strongly he was influenced by the philosophy of Jesus Christ?  Remember what the newspapers and broadcast media did to him over that comment? 

Do you expect to see a similar eruption from those same media over President Obama's assertion that he is a devout Christian who prays every day?  Me neither.

But listen to them squeal like stuck pigs if you call them biased.

Ken Berwitz

How do we view media these days?

Well, here's an indication, excerpted from a just-released Gallup poll:

September 29, 2010

Distrust in U.S. Media Edges Up to Record High

Perceptions of liberal bias still far outnumber perceptions of conservative bias

by Lymari Morales

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- For the fourth straight year, the majority of Americans say they have little or no trust in the mass media to report the news fully, accurately, and fairly. The 57% now saying this is a record high by one percentage point.

The 43% of Americans who, in Gallup's annual Governance poll, conducted Sept. 13-16, 2010, express a great deal or fair amount of trust ties the record low, and is far worse than three prior Gallup readings on this measure from the 1970s.

Trust in the media is now slightly higher than the record-low trust in the legislative branch but lower than trust in the executive and judicial branches of government, even though trust in all three branches is down sharply this year. These findings also further confirm a separate Gallup poll that found little confidence in newspapers and television specifically.

Nearly half of Americans (48%) say the media are too liberal, tying the high end of the narrow 44% to 48% range recorded over the past decade. One-third say the media are just about right while 15% say they are too conservative. Overall, perceptions of bias have remained quite steady over this tumultuous period of change for the media, marked by the growth of cable and Internet news sources. Americans' views now are in fact identical to those in 2004, despite the many changes in the industry since then.

Lower-income Americans and those with less education are generally more likely to trust the media than are those with higher incomes and more education. A subgroup analysis of these data suggests that three demographic groups key to advertisers -- adults aged 18 to 29, Americans making at least $75,000 per year, and college graduates -- lost more trust in the media in the past year than other groups, but the sample sizes in this survey are too small to say so definitively.

Democrats and liberals remain far more likely than other political and ideological groups to trust the media and to perceive no bias.

Ken Berwitz

As you know, Christine O'Donnell is the Republican candidate for senate from Delaware.  She is running against Democrat Chris Coons.

A video has been put out on behalf of Ms. O'Donnell.  (NOTE:  my original blog said Ms. O'Donnell herself put out the video.  That was incorrect.  Thank you to commenter "free" for pointing this out).  

I don't know how to describe it, because I've never seen anything exactly like it before.

You can view the video by clicking here.  See what you think.

Ken Berwitz

Here is a short excerpt from the article posted at Cincinnati, Ohio's WLWT-TV web site.  See how many things you can find that will appall you.  I guarantee they won't be hard to find:

ELMWOOD PLACE, Ohio-- A birthday party for a 3-year-old turned into a brawl at a hall in Elmwood Place overnight Tuesday.

 

Police said the mother and step-father threw the party for the child and invited the child's biological father. At some point during the party the biological father, Ramon Marcela-Hernandez, 26, made a move on the mother, which angered the step-father, police said.

 

Marcela-Hernandez left, but returned with a few more people, police said.

 

Police said a fight broke out just after 1 a.m. between the two men and beer bottles and chairs were thrown. Reports said that at one point, 75 people were involved in the brawl.

Let's see:

-It is a child's birthday party that turned into a brawl;

-The mother invited both the child's biological father and his stepfather (other reports indicate the "stepfather" is not married to the mother, only her current boyfriend), which is guaranteed to create tension in the room;

-What "move" did the biological father make on the child's mother?  It doesn't say, but it was enough to create "anger" (apparently enough anger so that he was asked  or forced to leave);

-The biological father now comes back with backup forces and a fight breaks out.

-It is 1AM IN THE MORNING.  This is a 3 YEAR OLD GIRL'S BIRTHDAY PARTY?  Do you have children?  How many 3rd birthday parties did you throw, or go to, after midnight?

-Instead of a few troublemakers being held or stopped, 75 people join the fun.

-Also not mentioned by WLWT, but in the TV account I saw on Today this morning, there were a total of 30 children present.  At one in the morning.  On a weekday, which presumably means however many of the adults who work were in the middle of their work week.

-The article goes on to say that the investigation is being impeded by a lack of cooperation on the part of the combatants, and a language barrier (on TV I learned that most or all are Mexican and, evidently, do not speak English).

I mentioned to my wife that there certainly were illegals at that party - maybe some, maybe most, maybe all.  She answered back, correctly, that I don't know so I can't say for sure.

Does anyone out there want to bet money on this?

Ken Berwitz

Lou Pritchett is a former executive at Procter & Gamble, a successful author and a recognized business innovator. 

Mr. Pritchett wrote the following letter to President Obama almost a year and a half ago.  I've seen it before, and it is possible that I once posted it (I don't remember offhand).

But it was just sent to me by cousin today.  And, as I read it again, I realized just how well it describes Mr. Obama even now.

So I'm posting it - either for the first or second time - below.  See if you agree with Mr. Pritchett's assessment:

AN OPEN LETTER TO
PRESIDENT OBAMA

Dear President Obama:

You are the thirteenth President under whom I have lived and unlike
any of the others, you truly scare me.

You scare me because after months of exposure, I know nothing about you.


You scare me because I do not know how you paid for your expensive
Ivy League education and your upscale lifestyle and housing with no
visible signs of support.

You scare me because you did not spend the formative years of youth
growing up in America and culturally you are not an American.

You scare me because you have never run a company or met a payroll.

You scare me because you have never had military experience, thus
don't understand it at its core.

You scare me because you lack humility and 'class', always blaming others.

You scare me because for over half your life you have aligned
yourself with radical extremists who hate America and you refuse to
publicly denounce these radicals who wish to see America fail..

You scare me because you are a cheerleader for the 'blame America '
crowd and deliver this message abroad.

You scare me because you want to change America to a European style
country where the government sector dominates instead of the private sector.

You scare me because you want to replace our health care system
with a government controlled one.

You scare me because you prefer 'wind mills' to responsibly
capitalizing on our own vast oil, coal and shale reserves.

You scare me because you want to kill the American capitalist goose
that lays the golden egg which provides the highest standard of
living in the world.

You scare me because you have begun to use 'extortion' tactics
against certain banks and corporations.

You scare me because your own political party shrinks from
challenging you on your wild and irresponsible spending proposals.

You scare me because you will not openly listen to or even consider
opposing points of view from intelligent people.

You scare me because you falsely believe that you are both
omnipotent and omniscient.

You scare me because the media gives you a free pass on everything
you do.

You scare me because you demonize and want to silence the
Limbaugh's, Hannity's, O'Reillys and Becks who offer opposing,
conservative points of view.

You scare me because you prefer controlling over governing.

Finally, you scare me because if you serve a second term I will
probably not feel safe in writing a similar letter in 8 years.

Lou Pritchett

And in case you doubt the letter's authenticity, please click here.  You will find that snopes.com contacted Mr. Pritchett and he acknowledged writing it.

Ken Berwitz

There is a lot I disagree with in syndicated columnist Richard Cohen's latest commentary.

Even the excerpt I am about to show you has a couple of them.

But the general point Mr. Cohen is making, about how Barack Obama has hopelessly misplayed his hand in the Middle East, is so worth reading that I'm putting it up anyway:

Every so often, the sayings of Casey Stengel come to mind. The longtime manager of the New York Yankees, accustomed to a Prussian professionalism, moved over to the astonishingly hapless New York Mets in 1962 and, surveying his new team, uttered an exasperated question: "Can't anybody here play this game?" What applied to those Mets applies now to the Obama administration. In the Middle East, it's no hits and plenty of errors.

From the start, the President has taken a hard line against settlements, refusing to distinguish between an apartment in Jerusalem and a hilltop encampment in the West Bank. He seems not to understand their importance to some Jews. Certain right-wing Israelis have reacted with the same lack of empathy. One settlement leader, Gershon Mesika, called Obama by his middle name, Hussein - a juvenile attempt at insult.

The Obama approach to the Israeli-Palestinian problem has been counterproductive. Either the Palestinians have to back down from their insistence that all settlements be frozen in place or Netanyahu has to back down from his pledge that any moratorium would be temporary. Either Abbas or Netanyahu has to lose credibility, and neither man can afford to.

Obama, too, has to husband his credibility. He foolishly demanded something Israel could not yet give. It was bad diplomacy, recalling neither Metternich nor Kissinger but the Ol' Perfessor and his question about the inept Mets. The answer, so far, is no.

What did we expect?  What should we have expected?

This is our fault.  We elected a Chicago machine politician, with no qualifications for the presidency and no foreign policy experience, whose life has been rooted almost entirely in academia and politics. 

Further, the man we elected spent almost two decades in a church whose spiritual leader was a virulently anti Israel hater;  a church that named career anti-Semite louis farrakhan its "man of the year" in 2007.

Let's be honest.  We got what we paid for.  And in my opinion - maybe yours too - the price is way, way too high.

Can we move up the 2012 election?  Please?

Ken Berwitz

I often write about the leftward slant on network news, morning shows and some of the major daily newspapers. 

But let's not forget the incessant and pervasive tilt on the network "entertainment" shows.

Here, excerpted from Lachlan Markay's blog at newsbusters.org, is the latest example:

A terrorist group bombs a police funeral? It must be some "patriots" upset about health care reform and our black president, or something.

 

That, at least, is what some viewers took away from the season premiere of CBS's hit show "CSI". The episode starred teen pop star Justin Bieber as "a domestic terrorist with Tea Party leanings," in the words of the New York Times, implicated in the bombing of a Las Vegas police officer's funeral.

 

In the show, a cell phone used to trigger the bomb is traced back to a group of "patriots" - those government-hating extremists the Southern Poverty Law Center keeps warning us are on the verge of waging violent revolution - that are, according to some viewers (including the Times, apparently), crude portrayals of Tea Party protesters.

Yep.  That's who we have to fear.  Those loathsome, violent Tea Partiers.  They're the terrorists all right.

How pathetic is this?  Could it be more pathetic if it tried? 

Tell you what:  The next time you're walking down the street near a Tea Party rally and see a couple of people coming toward you with signs that demand fiscal responsibility, duck for cover as fast as you can and call the bomb squad.

And these geniuses wonder why people call them biased......

Ken Berwitz

You can't say that the race for New York Governor between Carl Paladino and Andrew Cuomo is boring.

Here's what's new:

On the Paladino front, we have him accused of (and apparently admitting to) getting, then passing along, overtly racist and misogynistic emails. 

I get these things all the time, so I don't blame Paladino for that at all.  But, unlike what I've read about Mr. Paladino, I don't send them on because, frankly, they disgust me.  Evidently Mr. Paladino does send them on - which disgusts me even more. 

You have to question the judgment of a man heading a major corporation, and running for Governor, who would do such a thing. 

The absolute best you can say about Carl Paladino is that he has displayed unbelievably bad judgment and bad taste.  The worst you can say is that he either hates Blacks and women or thinks that "humor" about hatred of Blacks and women is funny - which isn't a whole lot better. 

It seems to me that Mr. Paladino owes us more of an explanation then we are being given.  A lot more.  And fast.

On the other side, we have Paladino's latest salvo against Andrew Cuomo, which concerns his promises to create new jobs and to not raise taxes.  Mr. Paladino hits Mr. Cuomo with both barrels:

PALADINO BLASTS CUOMO JOBS PLAN AS "MORE EMPTY PROMISES"

"Hiring Cuomo to create jobs is like asking a ballet dancer to do brain surgery"
SEPTEMBER 28, 2010

(NEW YORK, NY) - New York Republican candidate for Governor Carl Paladino today criticized his opponent Andrew Cuomo's newest jobs plan as "more empty promises from another career politician who has never created a job in his life."

"Andrew Cuomo's newest plan to create jobs is more of the same big talk, big money and big failures New Yorkers have come to expect from career politicians," Paladino said. "New York businesses will grow and hire more employees only if we cut taxes - not slow the rate of tax growth - and cut spending - not slow the rate of spending growth."

"Andrew Cuomo won't make the tough cuts our State desperately needs to spur job creation," Paladino said. "Instead, he just wants to raise taxes and spending a little slower than his daddy did and create more regional development bureaucracies for political appointees."

As Secretary of Housing and Urban Development under President Bill Clinton, Cuomo's last jobs program for New York – the Canal Corridor Initiative - cost the taxpayers $237 million. Projected to create 27,000 jobs, the plan failed miserably and earned the derision of the New York Daily news for a laughable result in Orleans County. There, Cuomo gave $9 million in grants and loans and created just two jobs in a beauty salon. (Daily News, 6/24/2001 http://bit.ly/dm6Mfx)

The last time Andrew Cuomo ran for governor and collapsed, his big idea to create upstate jobs was to rebuild Manhattan, a plan as comical as the plan announced today. "I have a detailed plan to create 325,000 new jobs. Twenty billion dollars is going into downtown Manhattan to rebuild - let's get some of those jobs for upstate companies." (AP 5/23/02)

Carl Paladino, a successful Buffalo businessman and attorney, has created thousands of jobs across New York and employs 450 people in urban Buffalo.

"I will cut taxes by ten percent by July 2011, cut State spending by 20 percent by December 2011 and cut taxes on New York businesses that reinvest their profits to retain or create new jobs," Paladino said. "Hiring Andrew Cuomo to create jobs is like asking a ballet dancer to do brain surgery. He has no experience creating jobs. He has only experimented and failed at the cost of millions to the taxpayers."

"Andrew Cuomo's jobs plan is just more empty promises from another career politician who has never created a job in his life," Paladino said.


Is this issue important to New York voters?  The answer, of course, is yes. 

For that reason, Mr. Cuomo must immediately rebut Mr. Paladino's claims about $237 million spent and results that "failed miserably" - if he can.  Because if he cannot, it is pretty obvious that Paladino will hammer him over and over again on job creation and probably gain votes every time he does.  

As I said at the beginning, you can't say this race is boring.  And it shows no sign of getting that way any time soon.

Ken Berwitz

Jay Cost, of the Weekly Standard, has written a very interesting, insightful analysis of how the vote is moving this year, and how to read the myriad number of polls which we have been inundated with. 

In my opinion, the single most telling part of his piece is where he puts up a chart showing how the midwest races are going, compared to voting patterns in 2008.

Here is an excerpt which shows and discusses that chart:

One thing about electoral politics has not changed: the Midwest swings the balance of power in the United States government.  And this year, it is looking brutal for Democrats.  To quantify this, I’ve put together the following chart.  It tracks the change in the D-R spread from the 2008 presidential election to current polling averages in 2010 for gubernatorial and senatorial races in the Midwest (excluding those where a Republican incumbent is running for reelection).  So, for instance, Obama won Ohio by 4.6 percent in 2008.  This year, the Democrats are behind in the two main statewide races by an average of 11.4 percent.  That makes for a total swing to the GOP of 16 points. 

 

I'm not really sure how to respond to this chart.  The swings it shows are just extraordinary.  My guess is that the Democrats will close the gaps in many of these contests, but still.  Obama's political coalition stands a real chance of getting swept in all of the Midwest battles for senator and governor.  That didn’t even happen in 1994, when the Democrats won the Nebraska governor’s race, and as well as Senate seats in North Dakota, Nebraska, and Wisconsin. 

If you believe the national data (and I always urge maximum skepticism when it comes to polls), Democrats are poised to take a major-league drubbing in November.  But if these midwest data are accurate, it could be even worse than most people think.

We'll certainly find out soon enough, won't we?

Ken Berwitz

This one doesn't need much explanation, so I'll just put up the relevant excerpt from Ben Muessig's blog at aol news:

(Sept. 27) -- They say politics is a dirty business, and when politicians talk about oral sex on national TV -- even accidentally -- it's easy to see why.

In what sounds like a setup for a Bill Clinton joke, French politician Rachida Dati mixed up the word for "inflation" with the word for "fellatio" during an interview with Canal Plus television Sunday.

According to the Time Newsfeed, Dati -- the mayor of Paris' seventh arrondissement -- jumbled her words when asked about foreign investment during a time of economic instability.

"I see some of them looking for returns of 20 or 25 percent, at a time when fellatio is almost nonexistent," she reportedly stated.

Though the French words fellation and inflation have distinctly different meanings, they sound alike -- leading to Dati's slip of the tongue.

"Slip of the tongue"?  Is that a great example of inadvertent rhetoric or a very cute intentional toss-in?

I guess it must be intentional.  Mr. Muessig could claim it wasn't meant that way, he just blew it.  But that would be a little hard to swallow.

Ken Berwitz

Why does Chris Matthews say the things he says?

Is he missing a chip?  Did he lose a bet?  It's got to be something.  Matthews can't possibly believe some of what comes out of his mouth.  Can he?

Here is the latest example, along with a beautifully sarcasm-driven reaction to it, from Noel Sheppard's (typically excellent) blog at newsbusters.org.  You tell me:

CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: You know, a great question, Charles, that wasn't on my list to ask but I'm going to ask you because you seem like a sophisticated guy of many parts. You think business can sit on those billions and trillions of dollars for two more years after they screw Obama this time? Are they going to keep sitting on their money so they don't invest and help the economy for two long years to get Mr. Excitement Mitt Romney elected president? Will they do that to the country?

Yeah, Chris, business owners and corporate executives across the fruited plain are intentionally undermining their companies and their personal fortunes in order to impact an election that is 25 months away.

 

Certainly, they're not keeping stockpiles of cash out of fear of: rising taxes, increased healthcare costs, the creation of carbon emissions targets, a double-dip recession, or the next regulatory shoe to drop from the current administration.

 

No.

 

They're just remaining uncharacteristically liquid to harm the man that gives you a thrill up your leg. 

How proud MSNBC must be that it has Chris Matthews to provide this kind of , er, "insight" to his audience.

But why stop there?  If this is the kind of ridiculous commentary MSNBC wants to shovel out to its viewers, why not put on a whole night's worth.  Heck, they can get similarly "insightful" show hosts like, say, keith olbermann, Rachel Maddow, Ed Schultz, Lawrence O'Donn.....uhhh, wait a minute.

Oh, that's right.  Never mind.

Ken Berwitz

How is incumbent house member Russ Carnahan, from the Missouri Carnahan dynasty, making out these days?

Well, here, during a debate with his opponent, Ed Martin, the subject of Social Security comes up.  The video is less than 2 1/2 minutes long, but tells you plenty about how this race is going - and how Missourians feel about it:

Is Russ Carnahan - name notwithstanding - in trouble?

I haven't seen the polls, but if that's what he has been reduced to running on, the answer is almost surely yes.

And so is his senate candidate sister.

This could be some fascinating midterm election - in Missouri and lots of other places as well.

Ken Berwitz

Gloria Stuart, the long-time Hollywood actress best known to today's moviegoers as the 101 year old survivor from "Titanic", died in Los Angeles last night.  The cause of death was described as "respiratory problems"

Ironically Ms. Stuart, a breast cancer survivor for the past 20 years, reached the 100 year mark in her real life as well, just two months ago. .

Gloria Stuart's accomplishments were many and varied (illustratively, she was a founder of the Screen Actors Guild, and the oldest person ever nominated for an Oscar).  She even retired from acting for 30 years before taking it up again much later in life.  You can read all about Ms. Stuart's life in the Associated Press' excellent obituary.

Personally, my favorite role of hers was a minuscule non-speaking one.  In "My Favorite Year"(which is an absolutely wonderful movie about Alan Swann, a former Errol Flynn-like movie star, now a washed up drunk, who has been booked on a live TV show), she played a long-time fan who Swann (played to the hilt by Peter O'Toole) dances with at the Stork Club.  Stuart, ever the professional, said more with her eyes and body language in that tiny little scene than most actresses say in starring roles.

What an exciting, interesting life Gloria Stuart had!  May she rest in peace.

Ken Berwitz

Last week Iran's illegitimately "elected" President, mahmoud ahmadinejad, spent 6 days in New York.

On one of those days he made a speech to the United Nations - an organization whose resolutions he not only ignores but sneers at.  This being the morally, spiritually and ethically dead UN, however, it gave him a podium and allowed the world's media to record his lunatic-quality ravings to the people he so completely disrespects.

Happily, 33 nations, including the USA and the entire European Union, walked out.  Unhappily, 159 stayed, and gave him a round of applause at the end.  This, to me, is living proof that anuses can grow hands - not necessarily working heads, but hands - and clap.

But that wasn't all ahmadninejad did.  Please read the following excerpt from an article in today's New York Post and see who he met with:

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's six nights in New York featured a secret sit-down with militant minister Louis Farrakhan, heckling in a hotel bar, and a fear of being rubbed out that bordered on paranoia.

The president shared a hush-hush meal with Farrakhan and members of the New Black Panther Party Tuesday at the Warwick Hotel on West 54th Street.

The meeting of the podium smackers took place in a banquet room, where the fiery leaders presumably exchanged theories on what's wrong with the world. 

On Thursday night, Sudanese diplomats trying to get in to see Ahmadinejad at the Hilton Manhattan East, on 42nd Street, squared off with security and a pushing match ensued. Two well-dressed women in their 40s came in, sat at the hotel bar and ordered drinks.

One of them caught the attention of the president's security detail, which had set up a station in the hotel lobby. She was soon surrounded by eight angry Iranians, who ordered her to leave. She refused.

A manager tried to calm things down. Suddenly, the woman stood up and pointed at the Iranians, yelling, "You stoned my sister! You're murderers!"

Paranoia was on parade at the Hilton the moment the president checked in on Saturday, Sept. 18. His team took six floors to themselves in the hotel's south tower, overlooking Tudor City, about 90 rooms in all. More than 20 were just for security.

Still, Ahmadinejad, who wore the same tacky suit and shirt all week, took every precaution. He never set foot in the lobby. Bulletproof glass was installed over room windows. When he left for meetings at the Iranian Mission, on Third Avenue, or the United Nations, he departed by an employee entrance, the path covered in a white tent -- a veritable tunnel to his vehicle. His head was covered with a white cloth. No one saw him on the street.

Are you surprised that the USA hating, Israel hating Jew hating farrakhan and new black panther party would pal up to ahmadinejad?  If so, why? 

You know that birds of a feather flock together, don't you?  So why not putrefying sacks of excrement?

Just one other thing:  Please remember that, in 2007,  louis farrakhan was named "man of the year:" by Barack Obama's church, the Trinity United Church of Christ.  And its leader, jeremiah wright, declared that "he epitomizes greatness".

Given wright's beliefs about Israel and Jews, I certainly can understand the praise.  Now explain to me why the fact that congregant Obama did not put up so much as a peep of protest over that honor to farrakhan did not raise the reddest of red flags among almost 4 of 5 Jewish voters on election day?

Don't feel bad.  I'm Jewish and I can't explain it either.

Ken Berwitz

It's been said that war is hell.  War can transform an otherwise decent human being into someone who will, as a matter of course, perform violent, murderous acts.

But what if the person starts with that inclination?  How far can he descend then?

Unfortunately, there appears to be a real-world answer to this question.

Excerpted from an article at msnbc.com:

Body parts, photos part of charges against soldiers

First of 12 charged in 3 Afghan killings faces military tribunal

SEATTLE — The first of 12 soldiers charged with crimes in Afghanistan that range from killing civilians to keeping body parts as war trophies faces a military tribunal on Monday that will decide whether his case proceeds to court-martial.

Army Spc. Jeremy Morlock, 22, from Wasilla, Alaska, is charged with premeditated murder in the deaths of three Afghan civilians, assaulting a fellow soldier and "wrongfully photographing and possessing visual images of human casualties."

The case of Morlock and his co-defendants could become the grimmest investigation of alleged atrocities by U.S. military personnel during almost nine years of war in Afghanistan.

Reports of grisly photos of Afghan bodies being posed for photos by American troops could be among the more inflammatory revelations to emerge from the case, echoing worldwide outrage stirred by pictures of nude Iraqi prisoners of war taken by U.S. military personnel at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.

The photos referred to in the charging documents "have not been released ... as yet to the public," Army spokeswoman Maj. Kathleen Turner said Sunday.

The troops, from the 5th Stryker Brigade based in Washington state, deployed to Kandahar province a year ago, and the murders occurred between January and March, according to charges by Army prosecutors made public this month.

The highest-ranking man who faces charges is Staff Sgt. Calvin Gibbs. He, along with Morlock, is accused of taking part in all three killings.

 

Gibbs collected fingers and other body parts from Afghan corpses, slaughtered animals indiscriminately and hoarded illicitly obtained weapons he could drop near civilian bodies to make them appear to be combatants, according to charges filed by Army prosecutors and statements soldiers in the platoon made to investigators.

When I read this, my heart sunk.  There is no way to rationalize any excuse for what happened and no way to explain it to, or console, the families and friends of the victims.

But there are two things that can, and must be said.

One is that, as sick and depraved as these act were, they do not define our country, our mission or our troops.  Thankfully, the guilty parties (and we don't know if all 12 qualify) are the exceptions, not the rule.

The other is that, although these men were deployed, and the atrocities committed, during the Obama presidency, there is no connection with, or blame to be ascribed to President Barack Obama. 

Mr. Obama may be the Commander In Chief.  But he did not select, train, deploy or oversee these individuals. 

In any war, there is always the potential for ugliness of this kind.  And, yes, it is true that some people were quick, even gleeful, to blame former President Bush when atrocities were committed during his administration. 

But, for the reasons outlined above, I do not blame President Obama any more than I blamed President Bush.  

Let's all hope (against hope) that the guilty pay, and that nothing like this ever happens again.

Ken Berwitz

In my previous blog I tried to be charitable and refer to alan grayson, the looney-tune house member from Florida, as "a piece of work".

But, as this excerpt from an article by Alex Isenstadt of politico.com shows, I was far too kind:

Florida Rep. Alan Grayson is taking his scorched-earth reelection campaign against GOP foe Dan Webster to new heights. 

 

Two weeks after hammering Webster as a military draft dodger, Grayson is portraying his challenger in a new ad as “Taliban Dan Webster” – a religious fundamentalist opposed to women's rights who, over the span of his nearly three-decade career in the Florida state Senate and state House, opposed abortion even in cases of rape and incest. The spot even goes so far as to suggest that Webster believes women should be submissive to their husbands.

 

“Daniel Webster wants to impose his radical fundamentalism on us,” says an announcer in the 30-second ad, which says that Webster “wants to make divorce illegal,” that he “voted to deny abused women health care.”

I won't comment on the honesty or dishonesty of grayson's newest charges, because Mr. Webster has not yet responded to them.  I would assume his response is being prepared, and will be coming very shortly. 

However, I have already read his responses to lies grayson previously told about him and, based on how dishonest grayson's charges were, assume these to be more of the same.

alan grayson is not a piece of work.  He is a piece of excrement.

He is a disgrace to the people he represents in congress, and they would shame themselves to re-elect him.

Ken Berwitz

Is Rep. Alan Grayson, the looney-tunes Democrat from Florida, lying about his opponent, Republican Daniel Webster?

Read this excerpt from an analysis as factcheck.org, and you decide:

Summary

Democratic Rep. Alan Grayson of Florida is falsely accusing his opponent of evading the Vietnam War draft, claiming "he doesn’t love this country."

Republican candidate Daniel Webster didn’t "refuse the call to service," as claimed in a vicious TV ad featuring pictures of military graves and the sound of "Taps" being played on a bugle. In fact, the former Florida Senate majority leader was given routine student deferments until he completed his undergraduate degree. He then reported for a military physical and was disqualified for medical reasons.

Analysis

Rep. Grayson’s ad — entitled "Draft Dodger" — appeared in his Florida district on Fox News last week. It is one of the nastiest we have seen so far this year, and it’s false.

What a piece of work this guy is.  Shame on his constituents if they re-elect him.

Ken Berwitz

Laurie B. Regan, of americanthinker.com, has written a compelling, factual, and extremely unsettling analysis of how Jews who march blindly to the left are endangering Israel.

I urge you to read Ms. Regain's entire commentary.  The excerpts I am showing below do not do it full justice:

September 26, 2010

The Complacency and Complicity of America's Jews

By Lauri B. Regan

Last year, Obama hosted a conference call with nine hundred American rabbis during which he stated, "We are God's partners in matters of life and death," and then gave them marching orders to sell Obamacare to their congregants. After my rabbi followed the president's orders and pronounced in his Yom Kippur sermon that it was God's commandment to support universal health care, I contacted him to discuss his sermon and its rationale. My rabbi suggested that perhaps I should find another shul -- so I did. But the very disturbing aspect of this incident is that the reformed Jewish movement is supposed to be the most welcoming -- the sect of the Jewish faith passing the least amount of judgment and having the widest open arms.

So, it was somewhat comforting to hear that this year, Obama only had six hundred rabbis who participated in his High Holiday call. I was hopeful that this decrease of 33% was due to his abysmal record with regard to Israel and that the majority of the participating rabbis were simply showing respect and would not act the part of the sheeple they had in the previous year. Apparently I was wrong.

At a conservative shul in Baltimore, the same rabbi that earlier in the year used his sermon as an occasion to call Israel an "occupying entity" and later question Israel's biblical right to the land of Canaan used his Yom Kippur sermon to explain to the congregants why they should support the Ground Zero Mosque -- just as Obama instructed. And if one political issue were not enough, this rabbi also told the thousand or so seated in the audience that they must support the administration's opposition to the Arizona immigration law.

Liberal American Jews have blurred the line between complacency and complicity, which will have devastating consequences on Israel's future. They are complacent because they blindly voted for the most anti-Israel president in history, ignoring the very clear warning signs prior to his election [i].

These same people are becoming complicit with Obama's Mideast policies. These policies have been harmful to Israel and its Jewish population since Obama's first day in office, when he phoned Mahmoud Abbas. Obama attempted to force a peace process when one is not possible. America's Jews quietly sit by when Time Magazine publishes a cover story entitled "Why Israel Doesn't Care About Peace" that follows the same old "blame Israel" mantra. Jews continue to read The New York Times and The Washington Post despite the anti-Israel bias so clearly evident in the reporting. American Jews sit in shuls with sheeple rabbis who obey the marching orders of an anti-Israeli president -- all without uttering a word.

And there is simply no excuse for this. This is not 1938. We live in a day and age where information is at our fingertips, the news cycle goes on 24/7, and our responsibility is huge. Our children are indoctrinated in liberal classrooms, but that does not mean that we must allow our liberal rabbis to indoctrinate us as well. American Jews have a choice to make -- each and every one of them. Perhaps in the coming months, they will realize that Israel's very survival is at stake and that Israel needs their support.

 

There is a war being waged -- a war for the hearts and minds of the American Jewish people. Will the Sharia-supporting rabbis and Obama government win, or will the Jewish people survive the onslaught of liberal indoctrination that may lead to their demise? I fear we will soon find out.

Growing up in a Jewish family, and constantly being among Jewish people, I know all too well what Ms. Regan is talking about.

What does it take to wake them up?  Can anything do it?  Or are they so far gone that nothing ever will? 

Sadly, for a great many, the answer is, in fact, that nothing ever will.

What's wrong with them?

Ken Berwitz

Maybe West Virginia Governor Joe Manchin's decision to declare a election and run for the senate in 2010 wasn't such a good idea.

Read this excerpt from Paul Mirengoff's piece at powerlineblog.com and see if you agree:

The plot thickens in West Virginia

September 25, 2010 Posted by Paul at 9:58 PM

The Senate vacancy resulting from Robert Byrd's death produced what initially seemed like a decent opportunity for the Republicans to pick up that Senate seat. After all, West Virginia is no longer a solidly Democratic state. In addition, President Obama, who never quite connected with the state's voters (both Hillary Clinton and John McCain defeated him handily in 2008), has become increasingly unpopular there.

And now, according to Politico, new information about an ongoing federal investigation into Manchin's administration is casting a cloud over his campaign. Previously, the governor's office confirmed that the administration has received two federal subpoenas. And this week, came word, via a special assistant attorney general assigned to the case, that the investigation is focused on a multimillion- dollar highway project in Manchin's hometown of Fairmont. Moreover, "anonymous sources" are telling news outlets that Manchin's former chief of staff, state Democratic Party Chairman Larry Puccio, is involved in the probe. Puccio, a real estate agent and appraiser, is also from Fairmont.

It's impossible reliably to assess the impact of this brewing scandal on Machin's prospects, especially since we don't know what additional information, if any, will leak out. But even if no new information surfaces, the Dems have reason for concern about this race.

Oops.

Simply stated, there is no good result for Joe Manchin.  If these accusations turn out to be nothing, it will cast a pall over his campaign anyway.  If they turn out to have substance, it could scuttle the campaign altogether - especially given that West Virginia is trending Republican, and how well Republicans in general are expected to do this year.

Paraphrasing Lloyd Bridge's funny line from Airplane!, "Looks like I picked the wrong week to get nailed with a couple of subpoenas"

Ken Berwitz

How do you run for re-election if your party owns the Presidency and both houses of congress, has passed an agenda the other party had nothing to do with, it has failed, and you can't blame the previous administration anymore because voters are laughing at your attempts to do so?

Jeff Zeleny of the New York Times has the answer for you (to his, and the Times' credit).  This excerpt lays out the particulars:

Democrats' strategy: Start slinging

Negative advertisements have hit the airwaves early as Democratic candidates fight to preserve the party's congressional majority.

By JEFF ZELENY, New York Times

Last update: September 25, 2010 - 6:31 PM

WASHINGTON -- Democratic candidates across the country are opening a fierce offensive of negative advertisements against Republicans, using lawsuits, tax filings, reports from the Better Business Bureau and even divorce proceedings to try to discredit their opponents and save their congressional majority.

Opposition research and attack advertising are deployed in almost every election, but these biting ads are coming far earlier than ever before, according to party strategists. The campaign has intensified in the past two weeks as early voting begins in several states and as vulnerable incumbents try to fight off an onslaught of influences by outside groups.

As they struggle to break through with economic messages, many Democrats are deploying the fruits of a yearlong investigation into the business and personal histories of Republican candidates in an effort to plant doubts about them and avoid having races become a national referendum on the performance of President Obama and his party.

In Ohio, Rep. Betty Sutton calls her Republican rival, Tom Ganley, a "dishonest used-car salesman" who has been sued more than 400 times for fraud, discrimination, lying to customers about repairs, overcharging them and endangering their safety. She warns voters, "You've heard the old saying, buyer beware!"

In Arizona, Rep. Harry Mitchell accused his opponent David Schweikert of being "a predatory real estate speculator who snatched up nearly 300 foreclosed homes, been cited for neglect and evicted a homeowner on the verge of saving his house, just to make a buck."

In New York, Rep. Michael Arcuri introduces his Republican challenger, Richard Hanna, as a millionaire who "got rich while his construction company overcharged taxpayers thousands, was sued three times for injuries caused by faulty construction and was cited 12 times for health and safety violations."

 As my mother is fond of saying, "any port in a storm".  Nothing else is working, so go for the jugular any way you can.

Me?  I'm fascinated by this strategy.  The party of Charles Rangel, Alan Mollohan, Rod Blagojevich, John Murtha, Maxine Waters, James Traficant, John Conyers - and let's not forget his newly incarcerated wife Monica, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. is going to try diverting attention from the Obama economic meltdown by talking dishonesty?

I can just hear the voters now:  "Yeah, we're trillions more in debt, unemployment is in the mid to late 9's, we've lost millions of jobs and ObamaCare is about to end US health care as we know it.  But, dammit, Tom Ganley sells used cares and David Schweikert is a predatory real estate speculator.  So it's Democrat all the way!!!"

They've got to be kidding.

It is a measure of just how unsalable the Obama agenda is to the electorate that, less than a month and a half from election day, this is where Democrats are reduced to going.

Well, at least it explains why most of them are no longer attacking Republicans who voted against their agenda as The Party Of "No". 

After all, why campaign for your opponents?

Ken Berwitz

Here is a truly eloquent description of what the New York Times, and the Obama administration, consider to be effective job creation.  It is the first paragaph of yesterday's article by Michael Cooper, titled "Thousands face job loss when part of stimulus expires":

Tens of thousands of people will lose their jobs within weeks unless Congress extends one of the more effective job-creating programs in the $787 billion stimulus act: a $1 billion New Deal-style program that directly paid the salaries of unemployed people so they could get jobs in government, at nonprofit organizations and at many small businesses.

In other words, the New York Times defines effective job creation as the government taking unemployed people, paying their full salaries, and giving them to government, non-profits and "many small businesses" for free.

Wow. What a game change that is.  The Obama administration and its lopsidedly Democratic congress uses our tax dollars to foot the entire cost of an employee.  And the governmental agencies, non-profits and "many small businesses" are, to graciously accept the free labor that they would not have hired if they had to pay the salaries.  Princes on earth, all of them.

Ok, let's be fair.  Further on in the article it is pointed out that some jobs are being paid for by the Obama administration on a sliding scale and, over a six month period, employers pay more and more until the salary is entirely their responsibility.

So what happens when the 6 months are up and employers are then faced with paying for employees they would not have hired in the first place? 

Here's a bit more of the article, which should give you the answer:

If the program is allowed to lapse, up to 26,000 workers in Illinois will lose their jobs in the coming weeks, along with 12,000 workers in Pennsylvania and thousands more in other states, according to LaDonna Pavetti, the director of the center’s welfare reform and income support division.

Translation:  if tax dollars pay for the employees, they stay.  If employers pay for the employees, they're gone.

That is what the New York Times and Obama administration define as effective job creation.

No wonder Democrats are expected to do so well in November.

Ken Berwitz

Which group, generally speaking, is more charitable?  Liberals or Conservatives?

Well, here are a few insights, via an excerpt from Billy Hallowell's article at The Daily Caller, that might surprise you (or confirm what you thought all along):

If you talk to most liberals, they’ll tell you that conservatives are insensitive, callous and selfish.  To their own detriment, leftists tend to believe that those on the right simply don’t care about the less fortunate.  While this doctrine has been embedded in left-leaning gospel for decades, research and reality paint a very different picture — one that has perplexed many of the left’s self-proclaimed “compassionates.”  With one of the worst economic downturns in American history still impacting the lives of millions of Americans, understanding this subject is paramount.

 

Out of all of the left’s discombobulated theoretical constructs, the ludicrous assertion that conservatives simply do not care about society’s downtrodden is particularly frustrating, as it vehemently denies both reality and logic.  On the surface, the notion that liberals are the world’s most charitable individuals could easily be accepted.  After all, many on the left talk quite a bit about helping the poor and providing social safety nets.  However, the left rarely explores the negative consequences of its policies.  Furthermore, liberals fail to analyze and comprehend their own deficient charitable giving patterns.

 

Thomas Sowell captured this overall sentiment in a Nov. 2006 Human Events piece when he wrote, “One of the most pervasive political visions of our time is the vision of liberals as compassionate and conservatives as less caring.”  While myths surrounding leftist giving and volunteerism continue to be perpetuated, American researchers have taken a pretty clear and concise look at this issue and the case is closed: Conservatives out-give and out-volunteer the opposition.  Don’t believe me?  Examine the facts.

 

In 2006, independently-registered researcher and author Arthur Brooks tackled the issue of political ideology as it pertains to giving.  According to a 2006 ABC News piece by John Stossel and Kristina Kendall, Brooks’ research has shown that conservatives donate about 30 percent more than do liberals.  Interestingly, on average, conservatives earn less than liberals.

 

Brooks also claims that financial donations aren’t the only difference at hand.  When it comes to an issue as random as blood donations, conservatives are about 17 percent more likely than their liberal counterparts to donate blood!  But, that’s not all.  In 2008, George Will covered some of Brooks’ other findings.  As it turns out, in 2004, George W. Bush carried 24 out of 25 of the states in which charitable giving exceeded the national average.  According to Will,

 

“In the 10 reddest states, in which Bush got more than 60 percent majorities, the average percentage of personal income donated to charity was 3.5. Residents of the bluest states, which gave Bush less than 40 percent, donated just 1.9 percent.”

Hello. Reality calling.

Look, we all know (or, at any rate should know) that there are plenty of liberal-thinking people who generously give to charitable causes and plenty of conservatives who squeeze a buck tighter than a shop vise. 

But the idea that conservatives, as a group, are more likely to be tightwads and liberals as a group can't wait to hand it over? 

In the immortal words of this native Brooklynite, "fuggedaboudit".

Ken Berwitz

What does that title refer to?  Please read the following excerpt from a story at National Review Online and you won't need any further explanation:

Nevada Senate Forum Turns Raucous, Ends in Fist Fight

September 24, 2010 1:05 A.M.

By Elizabeth Crum

 

Incredible but true: Nevada’s Senate candidate forum ended in a loud shouting match and fist fight between supporters of Harry Reid and Sharron Angle.

The unruly affair went down at the unlikely venue of Faith Lutheran high school in Summerlin, a master-planned community just west of the Las Vegas city limits.

As the forum opened, attendees were asked not to applaud or shout out questions or comments during the event. Harry Reid answered questions via a pre-taped 30-minute interview, and then Sharron Angle answered a moderator’s questions live on stage. 

A few in the 800-member audience snickered and murmured during portions of Reid’s video segment. For the most part, though, the crowd was respectful and fairly reserved during the Reid portion of the forum.

That changed once Angle appeared. Most of the 800-member audience jumped to their feet, half of them cheering, half loudly booing as she and the moderator took the stage.

Angle was repeatedly shouted at as she tried to answer questions. Scornful remarks, sarcastic questions, and accusations including “Liar!” were shouted by Reid partisans. The moderator politely asked for order, twice, but it had little effect on the more raucous members of the crowd.

At one point, the moderator admonished the audience and said shouting and applause cut into Angle’s speaking time. A few people then deliberately continued clapping and making comments to prevent Angle from saying anything.

As Angle was giving her closing statements, some Reid supporters stood up and began to leave. An Angle and Reid supporter exchanged angry remarks which drew in others and led to a punch being thrown.

Did you read or hear about this in any mainstream media?  What?  You didn't? 

I have two more questions:

-Are you at all surprised? 

-Do you think this story would have been buried as completely if a Republican candidate didn't show up, and the Republican's supporters then did everything they could to shout down the Democratic candidate when he/she tried to speak?

Not what you'd call a major brainbuster....

Ken Berwitz

Republican ineptitude.  That is not just a description, it's a redundancy.

But maybe not this year.

Excerpted from William Kristol's editorial at The Daily Standard:

The Democrats Melt Down

And the Republicans aren't blowing it for once.

BY William Kristol

October 4, 2010, Vol. 16, No. 03

It would be unbecoming for us at The Weekly -Standard​—we do have to uphold standards, after all!—to chortle with glee as the Democratic party melts down. It would be unkind to whoop at the top of our lungs as Obama White House big shots quit or get fired, and to cheer with gusto as the GOP leadership behaves sensibly, the Tea Party goes from strength to strength, and momentum builds towards a huge Election Day repudiation of big government liberalism.

So, instead, we’ll simply point out, calmly and quietly, that the Democratic party is in meltdown, the Obama White House is in disarray, and the voters are in rebellion against both of them.

...the Democrats seem ready to let Congress adjourn without ever voting on next year’s tax increases. And as the Democratic Congress has dithered, the Obama White House has crumbled. This White House will have lost, by the end of this year, a remarkably high percentage of its original senior staff members. The White House counsel, communications director, budget director, and chair of the council of economic advisers are already gone—to say nothing of the estimable Van Jones, special adviser for green jobs, enterprise, and innovation. The chief of staff, national security adviser, and top economic policy director will follow shortly. Almost all of them were oh-so-convinced they were the best and brightest, oh-so-contemptuous of others who had labored in those jobs, and oh-so-disdainful of the American people. If we were less good-hearted and generous in spirit, we would be tempted to say: Goodbye and good riddance.

Meanwhile, much to the amazement of experienced laborers in conservative and Republican causes, the Republicans aren’t blowing it.

Last week, for example, House Republicans unveiled their Pledge to America. Yes, it was a little overhyped in advance, and a bit pompous in presentation. But it actually does consist of a sensible series of first steps for a GOP Congress.

It looks as if 2010 will be a bigger electoral landslide than 1994, and more significant as well. But the true significance of 2010 will be to lay the groundwork for an even bigger victory in 2012—a victory that would allow President Obama to follow the example of so many of his senior staff, and depart the White House sooner than he once expected.

As of now, Democrats are self-destructing and - uncharacteristically, even amazingly - Republicans are not inadvertently helping them undo the damage.

But will this hold?  In the immortal words of Yogi Berra, "It ain't over 'til it's over".  And, to paraprhase that great song standard:  "Oh it's a long long time, from now to November, still time for gaffes, voters sure will remember...".

Stay tuned...

Ken Berwitz

I regularly write about our wonderful "neutral" media's propensity for ignoring news that does not fit its prevailing political views.

A classic case in point is yesterday's testimony by Christoper Coates, before the US Commission on Civil Rights.

Mr. Coates, who is the former voting chief for the Department of Justice Civil Rights division, testified under oath that the Justice Department is only pursuing civil rights cases brought on behalf of Blacks, ignoring cases brought by Whites, and acted improperly in abandoning the default judgment from 2008's infamous black panther party intimidation in Philadelphia on election day, 2008.

Coates called the department's conduct a "travesty of justice".

And, as icing on the cake, the Justice Department actively tried to suppress Mr. Coates' testimony for a year.

Is this news?  You're damn straight it's news.  Big news.  And ugly news for President Obama and his disgraceful toad sock-puppet of an Attorney General, eric holder.

So how was it covered? 

Well,

-NBC News' web site doesn't have it at all.

-And ABC News' web site doesn't have it at all.

-And CBS News' web site doesn't have it at all.

The one and only web site that has this story is Fox News.

That tells us volumes about our media, and about who is and is not interested in reporting the whole story.

How I wish more people had an opportunity to listen.

Ken Berwitz

Quite by accident, I came across a web site, beyondthecusp.wordpress.com, which has an excellent piece on how the term "Islamaphobia" has come into vogue, how it is used and what it actually means.  You can read it all by clicking here.  But I thought I would post what, to me, is the most important part (which was written as one paragraph, but I have split up for ease of reading):

Islamophobia is now the rallying call of the secular humanists. It boggles the mind how people who have, for as long as I can remember, cast aspersions upon all things and people showing signs of religiosity have now been swept away by this catchall phrase, Islamophobia.

 

They play it as their ace in the hole, the final point beyond which no more discussion is necessary, the be-all and end-all of political arguments. Yet, they appear mindless of the fact that Islam is the opposite of virtually everything the secular liberals hold dear.

 

Should Islam replace the basis of our society, replacing Common Law with Sharia, the secular liberals will be the first group finding their precious ideas being crushed and outlawed. There will be no equality for women or non-Muslims. Atheists will be some of the first victims of Islamic Sharia with gays and lesbians close behind. Hollywood will be shuttered, as will Los Vegas and Atlantic City. Radio and television programming will be drastically altered to accommodate Muslim sensibilities. Our lives will become extremely limited with nothing left that will be familiar.

 

We will literally become slaves to Sharia and Muslim oppressions in our own country.

Yep.  Exactly right.

Being a realist, I accept the fact that some people will never wake up to these facts. 

What dupes they are.  For their sake (thus for my own), I hope they don't, someday, get a first-hand lesson in the consequences.

Ken Berwitz

Do you know the name Christopher Coates?  Most of you probably do not and, given our wonderful "neutral" media's determined effort to downplay the reason you should know his name, that probably will still be true after this evening's network news (how I hope I will be proven wrong!).

So who is he?  Read these excerpts from the exasperating, dispiriting article at foxnews.com, and find out.  The bold print is mine:

Voting Rights Official Calls Dismissal of Black Panther Case a 'Travesty of Justice'

Published September 24, 2010

The Justice Department is ignoring civil rights cases that involve white victims and wrongly abandoned a voter intimidation case against the New Black Panther Party last year, a top department official testified Friday. He called the department's conduct a "travesty of justice." 

Christopher Coates, former voting chief for the department's Civil Rights Division, spoke under oath Friday morning before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, in a long-awaited appearance that had been stonewalled by the Justice Department for nearly a year. 

 

Coates discussed in depth the DOJ's decision to dismiss intimidation charges against New Black Panther members who were videotaped outside a Philadelphia polling place in 2008 dressed in military-style uniforms -- one was brandishing a nightstick -- and allegedly hurling racial slurs. 

 

The case has drifted in and out of the limelight over the past year as the commission has struggled to investigate it. Former Justice official J. Christian Adams fueled the controversy when he testified in July and accused his former employer of showing "hostility" toward cases that involved white victims and black defendants. 

 

Nearly three months later, Coates backed up Adams' claims. In lengthy and detailed testimony, he said the department cultivates a "hostile atmosphere" against "race-neutral enforcement" of the Voting Rights Act. 

 

He said civil rights attorneys stick to cases that involve minority victims, and he said the Black Panther case was dismissed following "pressure" by the NAACP and "anger" at the case within the Justice Department itself. 

 

"That anger was the result of their deep-seated opposition to the equal enforcement of the Voting Rights Act against racial minorities and for the protection of white voters who have been discriminated against," he said. 

 

The Bush Justice Department first brought the case against three members of the group, accusing them in a civil complaint of violating the Voting Rights Act. The Obama administration initially pursued the case and at one point won a default judgment, but the administration last year moved to dismiss the charges after getting one of the New Black Panther members to agree not to carry a "deadly weapon" near a polling place until 2012. 

 

Since last year, Coates has been transferred to the U.S. attorney's office in South Carolina. He said Friday that the Justice Department told him not to testify before the commission after he was first subpoenaed in December 2009; in testifying Friday, he claimed protection from retaliation under "whistleblower" laws. 

 

Rep. Frank Wolf, R-Va., also wrote a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder warning the Justice Department not to punish Coates in any way for testifying. 

 

The Justice Department has denied the allegations over its handling of the New Black Panther case. The department said in July that the case was dismissed "based on the merits, not the race, gender or ethnicity of any party involved."

The DOJ, under the disgraceful, kiss-ass Obama toady eric holder, has become a travesty.   And a racist travesty at that. 

Little wonder that it tried so hard/pressured Christopher Coates so heavily not to testify. 

Simply stated, you cannot redress racism by creating more of it.  And this DOJ seems hell-bent to create more of it.

But don't worry, Attorney General holder;  our media largely belong to your boss and you.  If there is serious coverage of this devastating exposé, it will be a remarkable turn of events.

For that reason, I propose a toast.  Here's to remarkable turns of events;  may we have one tonight.

Ken Berwitz

We just received an email, supposedly sent by Barack Obama.

Do I have opinions about it?  Yes I do.  Lots of them.

But I am going to subordinate those opinions and, in the interest of having both sides heard, post his email message verbatim - including its use of bold print - without comment.  If you have a comment,however, whether positive or negative, it is more than welcome.

Here is what we received:

Dear XXXXX,

 

 If I said the sky was blue, these Republicans would say no way.

They said no to fixing health care, regulating Wall Street greed, tax cuts, and even job creation. If this election swings on who's actually fixing things, we'll win.

The problem is that all these special interest groups are going to spend $400 million to scare people and confuse the truth. There's no bold new vision. They just want to tell America what we can't do.

Don't tell me that we can't change history. Don't tell me we can't rescue our economy, win global conflicts, and make America more equal and more free.

Don't tell me we can't. I've seen you do it.

This is a pivotal moment, and we can do it again.  Give to the DSCC right now so we can tell the truth and show America why we have to keep the Senate in Democratic hands.

Give to the DSCC today and be a part of our fight to keep control of the Senate. If we can raise $265,941 by midnight tonight, we can answer Karl Rove's lies and attacks. Every dollar you give will be matched, doubling your impact.

If you go online or turn on the news, you'd think Democrats have already lost this election. Now, I'm sure it will be close. Midterms always are, and this year, we already have 15 Senate races within five percentage points.

But the truth is, no one has put these races away. The American people are rightfully leery of giving the keys back to the Republicans after they drove us into the ditch.

And with the powerful grassroots army the Democrats have built over the last few years - built with your help, I might add - I think I like our chances.

So I'm asking you to channel that power today and give to the DSCC, the one organization that's dedicated to defending Democratic senators from Republican attacks and protecting our majority in the Senate. With your help, we can gather the resources we need to tip these tight races in our favor.

Click here to make a donation to the DSCC and help us reach our goal of raising $265,941 by midnight tonight. Every dollar you give will be matched, doubling your impact. You have the power to decide what happens on November 2.

We've worked too hard to get to this point to just sit back and watch it slip away. Some might say we have a tough hill to climb, but it can't be any tougher than the ones we've climbed before. So please, join me and contribute today.

Sincerely,
Barack Obama

Ken Berwitz

From today's Wall Street Journal:

Stephen Colbert to Testify in Washington: Comedy Central humorist Stephen Colbert is set to testify before a House subcommittee on immigration at 9:30 a.m. today. Yes, you heard that right. Colbert is scheduled to appear alongside United Farm Workers President Arturo Rodriguez, whose group initiated a campaign called “Take Our Jobs” that challenged U.S. citizens to replace immigrants in farm work. On last night’s edition of “The Colbert Report,” Colbert took the challenge, packing corn and picking beans to see if he could handle farm labor. As it turns out, he really can’t.

What a great idea.  As the illegal immigration issue boils over, The house of representatives will spend our tax money to have a comedian (a liberal/left one, of course) testify that he is an inept farm worker.

Maybe next week they'll have Homer Simpson in to read selections from Proust.

I'm sure the laughs will fly thick and fast.

I hope you're laughing too.  You've certainly paid for the privilege.

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

UPDATE:  I certainly am no fan of John Conyers.  But I commend him in this instance, for acting a lot more like an adult than subcommittee chair Zoe Lofgren.

From Fox News:

Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., chairman of the Judiciary Committee, tried to pull the plug on the Colbert's testimony in an effort "to get to the bottom" of the issue. 

 

"I would like to recommend that now we got all this attention that you excuse yourself and you let us get on with the three witnesses and all the other members there," he said. "I'm asking you to leave the committee room completely, and submit your statement."

 

But Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif., chairwoman of the subcommittee, who invited Colbert to testify, intervened.

"Many are eager to hear his comments," she said.

 

Colbert replied that he would only leave at her request. 

 

"I'm here at the invitation of the chairwoman and if she would like me to remove myself from the hearing room, I am happy to do so," he said. "I'm only here at her invitation."

Good for you, Rep. Conyers.  No one can stop Zoe Lofgren from making a fool of herself and forcing the subcommittee to waste its time and the taxpayers' money on some idiotic comedy routine from Steve Colbert (which, I'm reasonably certain, is COAL-bert, not the intentionally pompous coal-BEAR).    But at least Mr. Conyers called her out on it.

Ken Berwitz

In politics, it is easy to be magnanimous and above the fray -- as long as you are winning big.

When you see your lead shrinking?  That's another story.

Andrew Cuomo is the Democratic candidate for Governor of New York.  Despite his reputation for being nasty and abrasive, until now Mr. Cuomo has made himself out to be a model of civility and diplomacy, far above the antics of  Republican challenger and Tea-Party darling "Crazy Carl" Paladino.

But not any more.

Two new polls came out in the past few days, both showing that this is not a Cuomo cakewalk, it is a real race - one that Mr. Paladino (gasp!) could win.

So Andrew Cuomo is suddenly acting like....Andrew Cuomo.

Excerpted from an article by Kenneth Lovett, Albany Bureau Chief for the New York Daily News who, as you will see, does not even pretend to be reporting neutrally:

ALBANY - Democrat Andrew Cuomo on Thursday finally took off the gloves against blowhard GOP foe Carl Paladino with a TV ad ripping the Buffalo developer's state business dealings.

Cuomo seemed to abandon the above-it-all "Rose Garden" strategy that was beginning to worry his camp as one poll showed Paladino, who welcomed the slugfest, surging.

The ad, which will run statewide, looks to define Paladino as a "landlord and developer who has given politicians almost a half-million dollars and gets insider deals from Albany."

It cites a recent Daily News story that found Paladino got a $1.4 million state tax break to create jobs but created only one.

"Carl Paladino isn't part of the solution in Albany, he's part of the problem," the ad concludes.

Cuomo is also preparing to take the fight directly to Paladino with a trip, possibly as soon as Friday, to his rival's home city of Buffalo.

Paladino recently questioned Cuomo's manhood, mocked his father, former Gov. Mario Cuomo, and questioned whether he had the "cojones" to debate him.

On Thursday night, Paladino defended his business dealings as on the up and up and seemed energized that Cuomo finally entered the fray.

Appearing on upstate YNN's "Capital Tonight," the "mad as hell" candidate branded Cuomo "a nasty person and he wants to say nasty things."

"As long as he wants to play the tit-for-tat game, we've got a whole box of ammunition here that we're just going to throw right back at him," he said without specifying.

The back-and-forth came as a new Siena College poll showed Cuomo with a commanding 57% to 24% lead despite a separate poll by Quinnipiac University just a day earlier that Cuomo's lead shrunk to just 6 points.

Thank you, Mr. Lovett, for that evenhandedness.  You win today's keith olbermann award for journalistic neutrality and professionalism. 

Thank you, Mr. Paladino, for acting like a jerk but accomplishing what you tried to do, which is smoke your opponent out and force him to engage you. 

And thank you, Mr. Cuomo, for giving us a look at the real you.  Somehow I suspect this current persona is going to stick around for the rest of the campaign.

Ken Berwitz

On Monday, I chastised President Obama for once again beggaring himself before Iran's illegitimate President, mahmoud ahmadinejad's.  Mr. Obama kissed ahmadinejad's backside - again - by telling him "the door is open" to talks, thus his actions as Iran's "President" will be pushed aside and overlooked. 

Since Mr. Obama became President, ahmadinejad has ignored UN resolutions and sanctions (which did not stop the UN from giving him a worldwide forum yesterday, did it?), lied about the extent of his nuclear program, threatened Israel continually and insulted the United States every chance he got. 

When ahmadinejad was handed an illegitimate "election victory" last year, Iranians went to the streets and protested by the hundreds of thousands.  But President Obama did not give them even one word of support.  Instead, he weasel-worded that it was not our business (but when Israel decided to build residential housing in the eastern half of Jerusalem, its capital city, Mr. Obama couldn't wait to chime in with his condemnation).

And now, days after President Obama looked away from all of this to assure ahmadinejad that "the door is open" anyway, this is his answer - excerpted from today's article in the New York Daily News:

Iran's loony leader sparked an angry exodus from the UN floor Thursday when he dredged up the discredited theory that the U.S. government was behind the Sept. 11 attacks.

In a button-pushing speech before the United Nations General Assembly, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad suggested Washington was looking for an excuse to wage a war in the Mideast to save Israel.

"Some segments within the U.S. government orchestrated the attack to reverse the declining American economy and its grips on the Middle East in order also to save the Zionist regime," he insisted.

"The majority of the American people as well as other nations and politicians agree with this view."

Does President Obama ever learn? 

For a man so fond of talking about "teachable moments", when it comes to Iran he is about as dense as asbestos.

On Monday, I suggested we "Think of Barack Obama as Charlie Brown, and Iran's "leaders" as Lucy with the football."  If all Mr. Obama can do now is reiterate the door is still open, that goes double.

Do we have a serial sucker in the White House?  Barack Obeggar's sorry performance with Iran screams "yes".

Ken Berwitz

They say it takes one to know one.

Excerpted from a report by New York's 1010 WINS radio news:

NEW YORK (1010 WINS) — Former New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer said he will back Democrat Andrew Cuomo come November, but it sure didn’t sound like much of an endorsement.

“Everybody knows that behind the scenes that he’s the dirtiest, nastiest political player out there,” Spitzer said of Cuomo Thursday.

Al Jones of 1010 WINS reports Spitzer, in his new role as CNN commentator, also said the Cuomo will likely face a stiff challenge from Republican Carl Paladino. The tea party candidate also appeared on the news network Thursday, and accused Cuomo of playing dirty.

“He’s sent out in the past week and a half every surrogate he could from the cesspool of Albany and from the cesspool of city government in Buffalo,” Paladino said.

Eliot Spitzer was renowned for his foul temper and mouth.

And this is his assessment of Andrew Cuomo.

That's worth remembering the next time someone (and I've done it myself) accuses Carl Paladino of going too far.

Ken Berwitz

Why would Democrats not want you to see yesterday's lead editorial in the Washington Examiner (www.washingtonexaminer.com)?   

Well, here it is.  See for yourself  (NOTE: usually I just post excerpts.  But this is already a day old.  Besides, I don't want you to miss one word of it):

Examiner Editorial: Obamacare is even worse than critics thought

Examiner Editorial
September 22, 2010

Six months ago, President Obama, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi rammed Obamacare down the throats of an unwilling American public. Half a year removed from the unprecedented legislative chicanery and backroom dealing that characterized the bill's passage, we know much more about the bill than we did then. A few of the revelations:

» Obamacare won't decrease health care costs for the government. According to Medicare's actuary, it will increase costs. The same is likely to happen for privately funded health care.

» As written, Obamacare covers elective abortions, contrary to Obama's promise that it wouldn't. This means that tax dollars will be used to pay for a procedure millions of Americans across the political spectrum view as immoral. Supposedly, the Department of Health and Human Services will bar abortion coverage with new regulations but these will likely be tied up for years in litigation, and in the end may not survive the court challenge.

» Obamacare won't allow employees or most small businesses to keep the coverage they have and like. By Obama's estimates, as many as 69 percent of employees, 80 percent of small businesses, and 64 percent of large businesses will be forced to change coverage, probably to more expensive plans.

» Obamacare will increase insurance premiums -- in some places, it already has. Insurers, suddenly forced to cover clients' children until age 26, have little choice but to raise premiums, and they attribute to Obamacare's mandates a 1 to 9 percent increase. Obama's only method of preventing massive rate increases so far has been to threaten insurers.

» Obamacare will force seasonal employers -- especially the ski and amusement park industries -- to pay huge fines, cut hours, or lay off employees.

» Obamacare forces states to guarantee not only payment but also treatment for indigent Medicaid patients. With many doctors now refusing to take Medicaid (because they lose money doing so), cash-strapped states could be sued and ordered to increase reimbursement rates beyond their means.

» Obamacare imposes a huge nonmedical tax compliance burden on small business. It will require them to mail IRS 1099 tax forms to every vendor from whom they make purchases of more than $600 in a year, with duplicate forms going to the Internal Revenue Service. Like so much else in the 2,500-page bill, our senators and representatives were apparently unaware of this when they passed the measure.

» Obamacare allows the IRS to confiscate part or all of your tax refund if you do not purchase a qualified insurance plan. The bill funds 16,000 new IRS agents to make sure Americans stay in line.

If you wonder why so many American voters are angry, and no longer give Obama the benefit of the doubt on a variety of issues, you need look no further than Obamacare, whose birthday gift to America might just be a GOP congressional majority.

Not a pretty picture, is it?

Now you know why, when the conversation turns to ObamaCare, so many Democratic candidates try to change the subject. 

I don't blame them.  But you sow what you reap.  And November is when the crop is due.

Ken Berwitz

What would happen if a Republican pitted one ethnic group against another?  Do you need me to tell you?

But what about if the offending party was a Democrat?

Well, first let's see an example, and then we'll decide.  The following genuinely sickening video is of Democratic congressperson Loretta Sanchez of California, whose seat is being challenged by Republican Van Tran:

That overtly racist enough for you?   Me too.

In his blog, John comments that "It will be interesting to see whether a single prominent Democrat will denounce, or even distance himself from, Sanchez's racism.  My guess is that the number of Democrats who do so will be zero."

Pathetically, I couldn't agree more.

But it doesn't stop at Democrats. Where are our wonderful "neutral" media?   And would they be ignoring such overt racism if it were spewed by, say, Meg Whitman or Carly Fiorino, or Sharron Angle or Christine O'Donnell, or...well, you get the picture.

I mean, what do Democrats have to worry about, anyway?  If Al Sharpton can spew his filth all those years and then be respected by media as some kind of Democratic elder, why would they nail Loretta Sanchez?  Heck, she's a Democrat too, isn't she? 

But listen to them squeal like stuck pigs if you call them biased....

Ken Berwitz

Yesterday, the doubtable keith olbermann declared Dick Cheney's daughter, Liz, the "worst person in the world.  Here, via a transcript I picked up at www.newsbusters.org, is why - and please pay special attention to the part I've put in bold print:

OLBERMANN: But our winner, Liz Cheney. I’m just going to read this. It’s self-explanatory: 

"Americans expect our President to do everything possible to defend the nation from attack. We expect him to use every tool at his disposal to find, defeat, capture and kill terrorists. We expect him to deter attacks by making clear to our adversaries that an attack on the United States will carry devastating consequences. Instead, President Obama is reported to have said, ‘We can absorb a terrorist attack.’ This comment suggests an alarming fatalism on the part of President Obama and his administration. Once again the President seems either unwilling or unable to do what it takes to keep this nation safe. The President owes the American people an explanation."

Signed, "Liz Cheney, Chairman, Keep America Safe." 

Madame, who in the hell do you think you’re talking to? The negligence, dereliction of duty and nonfeasance committed by your father and his puppet, the previous President, led directly to this country having to absorb a terrorist attack. To quote you, Ms. Cheney, your father and Mr. Bush failed to use every tool at their disposal to find, defeat, capture and kill terrorists, and were unwilling or unable to do what it takes to keep this nation safe. Your father and Mr. Bush, Ms. Cheney, were utter failures whose track record on terrorism will go down in infamy. And worse still, your statement suggests that this country is not capable of absorbing the consequences of a terrorist attack even though it already has because it had to because your father and Mr. Bush failed to absorb the warning screamed at you by the intelligence community. America, Ms. Cheney, absorbed eight years of your father and George Bush. We have proved we can absorb anything. And the only explanation owed to the American people is by you. Is the name of your group, Keep America Safe, is that deliberately ironic? Or are you in secret agreement that your father and the last President failed utterly to do that? Liz Cheney, chairman, today’s "Worst Person in the World."

Let's forget the wholesale incivility; the wildly hyperbolic personal insults, etc.  Let's just concentrate on the claim that the intelligence community screamed a warning about 9/11 to President Bush and Vice President Cheney.

That is a lie.  Flat out. 

The one and only basis I have ever heard olbermann make for claiming that Bush and Cheney knew about 9/11 was an August 6th, 2001 daily briefing they were given.  I have posted it, verbatim, a number of times over the years. 

Since olbermann apparently is using it again, I will provide this link so that you can read the memo and see what a crock of BS he is shovelling.

But if you don't feel like using that link, here is what I wrote the last time olbermann trotted it out:

Ok, tell me how this leads to 9/11.  I dare you. 

 

The memo refers to a 3 YEAR OLD DOCUMENT which it downplays as "sensational threat reporting".  It indicates that a single plane would be hijacked, not four planes.  It does not indicate which plane(s) would be hijacked.  It does not indicate where the hijacking would take place.  It does not indicate where the one plane it is talking about would fly to.  It does not indicate the plane would be flown into a building, or what particular building it would be.  It does, however, suggest the purpose of the hijacking would be to gain the release of "U.S.-held extremists" - which was not the case. 

 

Does olbermann actually think this should have tipped President Bush off to 9/11? 

 

If so, he is an even more pathetic, bitter, whining jerk than I thought.  And that, folks, is a major accomplishment.

Everything I said then, still goes -- except for the fact that I inadvertently left "liar" out of the adjective list. 

I am adding it now.

Ken Berwitz

When then-senator Hillary Clinton was appointed Secretary of State by President Obama, the disgraced, corrupt, unelected and unwanted Governor of New York, David Paterson, appointed little-known "conservative Democrat" Kirsten Gillibrand to fill her vacated seat.

I think it is reasonably safe to say that Ms. Gillibrand was, at that time, a household name -- in the Gillibrand household and just about nowhere else.  All we "knew" about her is that we were told by New York media that she was a conservative Democrat.

Well, she has been a senator for almost two years now.  And guess what?  She ain't no conservative Democrat.

If you look at Kirsten Gillibrand's voting record (which I did, at the invaluable non-partisan web site, www.vote-smart.org) you will find that the American Conservative Union gives her a rating of 0%.  That means, in their view, she did not take the conservative side of even one issue.  Not surprisingly, therefore, the liberal Americans for Democratic Action, rated Ms. Gillibrand 90%.

Because of who appointed her, and how completely she was misrepresented, it seemed to me (and many others, of course) that Kirsten Gillibrand could be vulnerable.

But until today I didn't realize just how vulnerable.

In last week's Republican primary, her opponent was chosen.  His name is Joe Who.  Ok, ok, Joe DioGuardi.  But, let's be honest:  isn't that the same as Joe Who?

Earlier I pointed out that Kirsten Gillibrand is not a household name.  But next to Mr. DioGuardi, she is Lady Gaga.  Talk about excitement:  DioGuardi, 70 years of age and out of elective politics for 20 years (though not for lack of trying), was the first Certified Public Accountant ever elected to congress!  Rock On!!!

So Ms. Gillibrand is home free, right?

Uh.....nope.

Two polls have come out since Mr. DioGuardi's won the primary.   Quinnipiac puts him behind by just 6% (48%-42%).  SurveyUSA puts him just 1% behind (45%-44%).  Importantly, Gillibrand is under 50% in both polls.

And as I hope I've made clear, the closeness of the race is not because of Joe DioGuardi's star power.  He is is a virtually "sight unseen" candidate.  The closeness of the race is because, opponent notwithstanding, a large segment of voters decline to support Kirsten Gillibrand.   

Please keep in mind that this is before voters find out that Mr. DioGuardi has a rich, productive history of human rights activism.  Illustratively, while in congress he led the fight to confer Congressional Medals of Honor to Black soldiers who fought in WWI and WWII, were recommended for them, but were denied - quite possibly (probably) because of their skin color).  It resulted in 9 Congressional Medals of Honor being awarded, so far.  That is one of many examples.

Can DioGuardi's human rights credentials generate Black interest in his candidacy?  You tell me.

Based on the pre-primary news coverage of this race, a lot of the media thought Ms. Gillibrand's re-election was a reasonably safe assumption.  But I think it is now clear that the seat she currently occupies is very much in play.

Yes, Joe Who...er, DioGuardi can win.

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

NOTE:  Commenter "free" advises me - correctly, as it turns out - that it isn't the Congressional Medal of Honor.  Based on his comment, I checked and found out that the correct name is "Medal of Honor".  I thank "free" for the heads-up, especially since it gets rid of the word "Congressional" which, these days, is not a particularly positive adjective.

Ken Berwitz

For the past week or so I have been speculating on whether Carl Paladino, the politically incorrect take-no-prisoners Republican candidate for Governor of New York, can beat Andrew Cuomo, the state's politically correct, politically connected Attorney General, and son of former three-term governor Mario Cuomo.

Here is the latest insight, excerpted from an article by the Wall Street Journal's Michael Howard Saul:

"I'm angry. The mayor's angry. We're all angry. If you take a poll—are you angry?—100% are angry. How can you not be angry?" said Mr. Cuomo as he stood next to Mr. Bloomberg in City Hall Park.

 

"We can have an anger party —celebrate our anger—or, we can say, let's take that anger, let's take the energy, let's focus it and actually do something to correct the problem," Mr. Cuomo said.

 

Last week, Mr. Paladino, a little-known businessman from Buffalo who has never held elective office, surprised the state when Republicans overwhelmingly chose him as their nominee over Rick Lazio, a former congressman. best known for his unsuccessful bid against Hillary Clinton in the 2000 U.S. Senate race.

 

“We are mad as hell," said Mr. Paladino in his victory speech. "The people have had enough."

 

The growing strength of Mr. Paladino's candidacy—and the real possibility of his denying Mr. Cuomo's longtime dream of following his father, former Gov. Mario Cuomo, into the governor's mansion—came into focus with the release of a poll of likely voters from the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute.

 

The poll showed Mr. Cuomo at 49% and Mr. Paladino, aided by a four-to-one margin among voters who consider themselves part of the tea-party movement, at 43%.

 

A Sept. 1 Quinnipiac poll of registered voters in New York State—different from the poll released Wednesday of likely voters—showed Mr. Cuomo topped Mr. Paladino 60% to 23%.

 

"Attorney General Andrew Cuomo might be a victim of his own excess," said Maurice Carroll, the institute's director. "Politicians and polls have depicted him so relentlessly as a sure thing that he might be a victim of the 'throw the bums out' attitude that hits incumbents in this angry year."

 

Michael Caputo, Mr. Paladino's campaign manager, said, "No matter how you slice that poll it comes up good for Carl and bad for Cuomo."

 

Mr. Cuomo leads 87% to 8% among Democrats, which outnumber Republicans nearly two to one in New York State. Paladino leads 83% to 13% among Republicans and 49% to 43% among independent voters.

 

A new poll shows tea party candidate Carl Paladino trailing front-runner Democrat Andrew Cuomo by just six points in the New York governor's race. Jerry Seib discusses the appeal of Paladino.

 

Asked if he was worried about his candidacy, Mr. Cuomo replied, "No, I'm just angry."

Andrew Cuomo is angry?  That's nice.  At who?

The Governor of his state is a Democrat.  The two senators of his state are Democrats.  Democrats hold a majority in the state senate and a supermajority in the state assembly.  Its congressional delegation is comprised of 23 Democrats and 6 Republicans.  Oh yeah, and the Attorney General of the state - fellow named Andrew Cuomo - is also a Democrat. 

Mr. Cuomo's anger reminds me of that classic line from Walt Kelly's great old "Pogo" comic strip:  "We have met the enemy and he is us".

Bottom line:  no one knows for sure how the vote will go in November.  But, in answer to the question "Can Carl Paladino Win?  

You bet he can.

Ken Berwitz

Try to find a Democrat running on his or her support of ObamaCare. 

Outside of the safest Democratic districts (and not even all of those, I suspect), they are about as plentiful as PETA donations to the Michael Vick kennel club.

If you're wondering why, read the following excerpt from Michael Tanner's article in today's New York Post - which I urge you to read, in its entirety, by clicking here:

Today, six months since Congress passed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, President Obama will be celebrating the signature achievement of his administration.

 

It's apt to be a lonely celebration: Few Democratic candidates are willing to talk about the health-care bill -- except the ones running ads to remind the electorate that they voted against it.

 

Still, the president will speak today before a group of state insurance regulators, while a coalition of labor unions and liberal activist groups organize rallies around the country. They'll undoubtedly focus on some of the new law's more popular provisions, many of which start today -- while ignoring the mandates, taxes and rationing that will come later. Indeed, the provisions they'll tout come with asterisks that they won't mention.

 

For example, starting today parents will be able to keep their children on the parents' insurance plan through age 25. But that doesn't come for free. The Department of Health and Human Services estimates that doing so will cost an estimated $3,380 a year per child. And since employers are balking at picking up the added cost, the parents themselves will have to foot the bill.

 

Similarly, as of today, insurers can no longer impose lifetime or annual limits on benefits or refuse coverage to children with preexisting conditions. One can argue that these new rules are the best way to deal with thorny issues -- but no one can claim that insurers will do these things out of the goodness of their hearts.

 

There's no such thing as a free lunch. If you're going to require insurers to cover more expensive customers and provide more benefits, it's going to cost more -- and those costs are going to be passed on to customers in the form of higher premiums. When New York implemented many of these same insurance rules in 1983, premiums rose by nearly $500 per policy -- resulting in nearly 500,000 New Yorkers dropping their insurance.

 

Already this fall, we're seeing premiums jump as much as 9 percent nationally next year, especially in the individual and small-group markets. Some customers are seeing hikes of 20 percent or more. And a significant portion of this increase is directly traceable to the new rules.

 

It may also get harder to find insurance. For example, several major insurers have just announced they will no longer sell "child only" insurance plans -- because they can't afford to comply with the new preexisting condition rule.

President Obama and his Democrat-majority congress passed the health care legislation, as my mother-in-law used to say, 1-2-6.  In other words, so fast that it was law before anyone - even most of the Democrats who voted for it - knew for sure what the legislation entailed.

What we now know is that we were lied to about what it would cost, whether people who like their current coverage would easily be able to keep it, and a raft of other things. 

In this administration, lying is not an art form.  It is a way of life.

Little wonder that so many Democrats are doing a "Who, me?" routine when it comes to ObamaCare.  And less wonder that all indications are leading to a political bloodbath for ObamaCare proponents in November. 

They better hope the condition doesn't become chronic.  The 2012 elections are not that far away.

Ken Berwitz

This picture is currently posted at www.drudgereport.com.  I am putting it up because it so perfectly captures the essence of both Clintons:

There's Bill with his "guffaw, guffaw, nothing fazes me" smile, which thrills his supporters and infuriates his detractors.  And there's Hillary, with her patently phony "delighted surprise" smile, which nobody sees as sincere, not even the people who like her.

Perfect. 

Eat your heart out, Grant Wood. 

Ken Berwitz

To paraphrase Inspector Renault:  I am shocked - SHOCKED - to find that Israel has again been condemned by the Useless Nimrods...er, United Nations.

Excerpted from an Associated Press article:

GENEVA – A report by three U.N.-appointed human rights experts Wednesday said that Israeli forces violated international law when they raided a Gaza-bound aid flotilla killing nine activists earlier this year.

The U.N. Human Rights Council's fact-finding mission concluded that Israel's naval blockade of the Palestinian territory was unlawful because of the humanitarian crisis there, and described the military raid on the flotilla as brutal and disproportionate.

The Israeli Foreign Ministry responded late Wednesday by saying the Human Rights Council, which commissioned the report, had a "biased, politicized and extremist approach."

The Islamic militant group Hamas that controls Gaza, meanwhile, praised the report and called for those involved in the raid to be punished.

The Human Rights Council's report was compiled by former U.N. war crimes prosecutor Desmond de Silva, Trinidadian judge Karl T. Hudson-Phillips and Malaysian women's rights advocate Mary Shanthi Dairiam. It is scheduled to be debated in the council on Monday.

The body, which is dominated by African, Asian and Latin American countries, has in the past repeatedly singled out Israel for criticism. Its resolutions carry little weight in law but are considered an important indicator of global opinion on human rights issues.

What else is new. 

Human misery, killing by the millions, specific acts of genocide, all go virtually unnoticed by the Useless Nimr..er, United Nations. 

But Israel boards a ship that intentionally, with great public fanfare, tries to run their blockade of hamas-dominated Gaza, and actually fights back when people on the ship attack its soldiers?  The outrage could not be greater.

No country has anywhere near the number of condemnations that the UN has voted against Israel.  Sudan?  Iran?  Iraq under saddam?  Rwanda?  The dozens of Arab countries where barnyard animals are treated with more respect and deference than women?  Nope.  Not a chance,  baby.  It's Israel.

The United Nations is morally, ethically and spiritually dead.  It has been for some time.  And its treatment of Israel is a classic example of why.

Ken Berwitz

Andrew Cuomo, the Democratic candidate for Governor of New York and son of former Governor Mario Cuomo, was endorsed today by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg.

Will it help or hurt?  I seriously wonder.

The first thought that comes to mind is that -- like most New Yorkers according to the polls -- Republican candidate Carl Paladino is adamantly against the "ground zero mosque".  By contrast, Mayor Bloomberg is adamantly for it.  Does that mean Mr. Paladino will challenge Cuomo to agree or disagree with Mayor Bloomberg? 

I don't see how that could help Mr. Cuomo, but I sure see how it could hurt him.

Another factor is that Mayor Bloomberg won his third term by using somethign like $100 million of his own money to hopelessly outspend the Democratic challenger, then-City Comptroller Bill Thompson, who is Black.  Given the relative closeness of the race (Bloomberg won 51% to 46%) it is fair to say that if the campaign funding had been anywhere near close, Thompson might well have won.  

I can't help thinking that this does not sit well among some Black voters, who might therefore be negatively impacted by the Mayor's endorsement.

And then we have the overt lie Mr. Cuomo told during the announcement of Bloomberg's support.  From an article at the New York Daily News web site:

Cuomo told reporters he voted for Bloomberg in the past. One problem: Cuomo was only registered to vote in New York City in 2005 and he voted for Democrat Freddy Ferrer.

"He misspoke," Cuomo spokesman Josh Vlasto e-mailed reporters.

Yeah, ok.  "He misspoke".  Just dripping with veracity.

So does Mayor Bloomberg's support help Andrew Cuomo or hurt him? 

Helluva question, wouldn't you say?

Ken Berwitz

The masochist in me came out last night, and I watched a few minutes of keith olbermann's "Countdown" show.

As luck would have it, I caught the part where he sneered out a defense of Chris Coons' article for the Amherst College newspaper, which Coons titled "The Making of a Bearded Marxist".  With olbermann's patented combination of fury and disdain, coupled with an air of transcendental superiority, he informed us that the title was no more than a jest on Coons' part; a reaction to what his friends were calling him after his trip to Kenya.

Despite olbermann's insufferability, that did get me thinking.  Just as a broken digital clock is right once a day, so is keith olbermann right now and then.  Was this such an instance?

Well, I checked.  And the answer is.......No.

Here, from the redoubtable Jeffrey Lord of www.americanthinker.com, are a number of verbatim quotes from Coons' article:

"The point that others ignore is that I was ready to change. Experiences at Amherst my first two years made me skeptical and uncomfortable with Republicanism…"

"Kenya provided a needed catalyst; …I studied under a bright and eloquent Marxist professor at the University of Nairobi…"

"Some of the 'Leftists' that I met were terrifyingly persuasive, although I never admitted that."

 "…several professors challenged the basic assumptions about America and world relations with which I had grown up…and undermined the accepted value of progress and the cultural superiority of the West."

"I came to suspect…that the ideal of America as 'a beacon of freedom and justice, providing hope for the world' was not exactly based on reality."

"What do other nations think of us? Can private enterprise and democracy solve the problems of developing nations? Is Marxism an evil ideology, leading millions into totalitarian slavery? These were some of the questions in the back of my mind…"

"I realize that Kenya and America are very different, but experiences like this warned me that my own favorite beliefs in the miracles of free enterprise and the boundless opportunities to be had in America might be largely untrue."

Are those the words of someone who is doing nothing other than jesting about a ribbing he was taking from his friends?  Or are they the words of someone whose trip to Kenya made him receptive to Marxism?

Remember, this is not Jeffrey Lord paraphrasing Chris Coons. These are Coons' own words.  Verbatim.

Of course, it is also true that the quotes might have been taken out of context. 

But they weren't. 

You can read Coons' entire article by clicking here.  Even toward the end, when Coons says "I have spent my senior year reexamining my ideas and have returned to loving America...", he finishes the sentence with "...but in the way of one who has realized its faults and failures, and still believes in its promise". 

In other words, Coons concludes that America, though faulty and failed, has the promise of being ok, if only it would live up to what he experienced in Kenya. 

Wow.  What a missed opportunity for us!  What a tragedy that we didn't take Chris Coons up on his idea!  

I mean, look at Kenya today - with its Gross Domestic Product of $1,600, which ranks it 193rd in the world, and 50% of its people below the poverty line.  A veritable paradise on earth.

Then again, a couple more years of President Obama with a Democratic congress, and we......well, never mind.

Anyway, it serves me right, for thinking that olbermann could tell the truth.

By the way, regarding political incivility:  during the few minutes I watched, olbermann called Glenn Beck "the stupidest man breathing".  Does that count as an example?

How proud MSNBC must be.

Ken Berwitz

Why do our media continue to portray CAIR as a "moderate" Islamic group?  Based on what?

Once you read this excerpt from an excellent, highly informative article by one or more (understandably) anonymous writers at dailycaller.com, I have a feeling that you'll be asking the same questions.  Please pay particular attention to the quote I have put in bold print:

CAIR tries to squash criticism of agenda through intimidation and lawfare, critics say

By The Daily Caller | Published: 3:22 AM 09/22/2010 | Updated: 9:31 AM 09/22/2010

“Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other faith but to become dominant. The Koran, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth,” the San Ramon Valley Herald reported the founder of the Council of American Islamic Relations (CAIR), Omar Ahmad, saying before a Muslim audience in 1998.

But if yours is an Islamist organization, operating as a mainstream advocacy group in a country that has not accepted Allah as supreme, how do you remain relevant and keep Islam on a pedestal? Answer: sue, coerce, and intimidate those who say or write things damaging to the image of the faith and its followers.

Since their founding in 1994, CAIR has sued and/or attacked with consequence such media outlets as: The Washington Times, The Los Angeles Times, The National Post, National Review, Anti-CAIR, various talk radio hosts, and college newspapers. Recently, even The Daily Caller has found itself caught in CAIR’s crosshairs.

“It is really impossible to know how many people have been intimidated with these lawsuits because if you read the original letter they sent to me, you know, ‘don’t discuss this with anybody else.’ How many people have succumbed to that and said, ‘hey, we don’t want to get involved in this,’ and they’ve quietly gone away,” Andrew Whitehead, a blogger CAIR sued in 2004 for defamation, told The Daily Caller.

Indeed, it was difficult to find individuals to go on the record for this article about CAIR’s alleged intimidation tactics for just that reason, as well as safety concerns of sources.

Whitehead’s case eventually was dismissed in 2006 after CAIR refused to disclose pertinent information (including the origin of its funding and their alleged connections with Hamas and other radical organizations) requested by the defense during the “discovery” phase of the proceedings.

CAIR, billed by some as the country’s largest “moderate” Muslim rights group, is alleged by others to be in reality a radical front group with ties to terrorists and a record of unsavory dealings — which caused the FBI to end all of its dealings with the group in 2009.

According to Stephen Schwartz, executive director of the Center for Islamic Pluralism, the CAIR’s primary directive is safeguarding radicalism. “Their actual mission, on the record — which is demonstrated by their public record from the beginning — is to advocate for and protect the influence of Hamas, the Wahhabis from Saudi Arabia, Pakistani radicals. I mean they are interested in legally protecting radical Islam,” Schwartz told TheDC.

Despite such concerns, the group continues to wield a great deal of power as the purported mouthpiece for “moderate” Islam both in government and in the media.

Does that give you any sense that CAIR is "moderate"?  Me neither.  So why are so many of our wonderful "neutral" media agreeable to characterizing the organization that way? 

Are they intimidated?  Scared?  Quite possibly yes.  I don't know the answer to that question.

Are they in sympathy with CAIR?  I don't know the answer to that question.

But obviously there is ample reason to decline calling CAIR "moderate".  So when will our media act accordingly?

Unfortunately, I don't know the answer to that question either.

Ken Berwitz

If you have young children, or grandchildren, or know someone who has them, you've probably come in contact with the Muppets movie titled "Elmo in Grouchland".  It is a delight.

Unfortunately, Lisa Murkowski, the current Republican senator from Alaska (I don't know if that "Republican" part will be correct by the end of the day), seems determined to put herself into the political version of this  fantasy world by claiming that Alaskans, en masse, want her to continue as senator.

Huh? 

Which Alaskans? 

Certainly not Democrats, who nominated Chris McAdams as their candidate.

Certainly not Republicans, who ousted her in favor of the more conservative, Palin-backed, Tea Party-backed Judge Joe Miller.

But, despite this rejection, and despite the fact that Mr. Miller won the primary fair and square, Ms. Murkowski is so ticked off that she has decided to run as a write-in candidate. 

That, folks, is the Grouchland express. 

FYI, only one write-in candidate has ever won a senate seat in the history of the United States:  Strom Thurmond, in 1954.  And the only reason he won was that the Democratic incumbent, Burnet Maybank, died two months before the election and Democratic leaders (Thurmond, at that time, was a Democrat) decided to dispense with a primary and hand-pick their own candidate, who Thurmond then defeated. 

By contrast, Lisa Murkowski is running write-in because there was a primary and she lost it.

I watched Lisa Murkowski on the Today show (which, given my frequent criticism of its political interviews, deserves a commendation - to Matt Lauer specifically - for the fairness of questions aimed at her).   She looked at the audience with a straight face and said:

“What is going on here in Alaska is about providing, providing Alaskans a choice in this election. 

 

I, I did not prevail in that primary.  But what happened after that primary was, was absolutely an uprising from the people of the state of Alaska saying “Lisa, you cannot, you cannot end this.  Please stay in this fight.  Please give us a choice.”  

 

It was an outpouring from thousands of Alaskans, from all over the state.  In response to that, what do you do?  What do you do?

Someone should tell Ms. Murkowski that when you make a statement worthy of a small-time carnival barker, you can't be stammering it out that way.  Even the most gullible listeners will be likely to recognize that you don't believe what you're saying, and (correctly) conclude that it is a pile of  horse manure.

When Lauer reminded her that the voters did have a choice and chose the other guy, Murkowski - incredibly - complained that 85% of Alaskans had no participation in the choice.  Evidently her comment is supposed to convey that only 15% of Alaskan voters are registered Republicans.  However, according to the Anchorage Daily News, the latest data (2008) have it at 25%.  I'll leave you to decide if this is an inadvertent mistake or just a plain, flat-out lie.  I'll also leave you to decide whether it even matters. 

Regarding the legitimacy of Mr. Miller's primary win, I have two questions:  1) Would Ms. Murkowski be complaining about what percentage of Alaskans participated in the Republican primary if she had won?  2) What would she have said about Joe Miller if he had lost and then complained about it the way she is complaining?

Look, it is a free country.  Lisa Murkowski has the right to be grouchy about her loss and delude herself into thinking the state is going nuts over the prospect of losing her.  She also has the right to engage in a write-in campaign that has almost no likelihood of accomplishing anything other than possibly losing her fellow Republican the senate seat he won the right to run for, fair and square. 

But why?

Later in the interview Ms. Murkowski whined about how much out-of-state money streamed in to support Joe Miller.  That being the case, I would love media (very much including the Today show) to monitor how much out-of-state money - especially money from usually Democratic sources - streams in to support her write-in campaign. 

Do you think she'll turn the money down?  

I'd put the chances right up there with the chances of Michael Moore supporting Christine O'Donnell in Delaware.

Ken Berwitz

On Sunday I wrote this about New York State's thoroughly non-political Republican candidate for Governor, Carl Paladino:

I have no doubt that there are a lot of people who will write Carl Paladino off as a consummate barroom loudmouth who thinks making a lot of money and having a lot of opinions is good enough to propel him into the Governor's mansion.

But I also have no doubt that there are a lot of people who will embrace Carl Paladino as a man of the people, saying the things that they themselves would say - not in political weasel-language, but plainly and openly.  They will notice that, unlike the measured words of career office-seekers which can be manipulated into meaning this or that, Paladino's opinions are crystal-clear and (though there will inevitably be a lapse here and there) almost never subject to "clarification".

Warts and all, they will see him as a breath of fresh air - an antidote to the Andrew Cuomo types.

Today we have this, excerpted from Fred Dicker's article in the New York Post:

A stunning new poll this morning shows Democratic Attorney General Andrew Cuomo holding a mere six point lead over bomb throwing Buffalo businessman Carl Paladino in what until now has been Cuomo's runaway race for governor.

 

The startling Quinnipiac University survey of likely voters showed Cuomo ahead of Republican Paladino by 49-43 percent, a far cry from the 60-23 percent lead he held in a Quinnipiac poll of registered - but not necessarily likely - voters released Sept. 1.

 

Since the poll's margin of error is plus- or minus-3.6 percent, the findings - if accurate -- mean the race between the popular and well-known attorney general and the little-known but highly controversial, Tea Party-linked, Paladino could be a dead heat.

 

AP

The new poll did not ask voters if they backed Conservative Party candidate Rick Lazio, even though he's expected to be on the November 2 ballot draining votes from Paladino, who defeated him in last week's GOP primary.

 

The new poll found Paladino leading Cuomo among Tea Party backers by a whopping 4-1 margin.

 

While just 18 percent of likely voters consider themselves part of the Tea Party movement, they supported Paladino 77 - 18 percent.

 

Cuomo led among Democrats, 87-8 percent, while Paladino was ahead among Republicans, 83-13 percent.

 

The crucial difference appeared to be among self-styled independent voters, who picked Paladino over Cuomo, 49-43 percent.

I finished my Sunday blog this way:

Should Carl Paladino win the election?  That's up to the voters.

Can Carl Paladino win the election?  You bet he can.

Needless to say, that still goes.

Ken Berwitz

Lisa Murkowski is going down in flames.

Here is her new ad, in which she says, so help me, that:

-"When the votes from the primary were counted, nobody was more disappointed than me", and

-"Alaskans have spoken.  They cannot accept the extreme views of Joe Miller...."

Well, she's half right.  Apparently pretty much no one was as disappointed as her.

Why do I say this?  Because today, the same day this ad was released. Rasmussen came out with its first poll since Ms. Murkowski declared herself a write-in candidate.

The results?  Joe Miller - the guy Alaskans are supposed to be rejecting - is at 42%.  Lisa Murkowski is at 27%, and Democrat Scott McAdams is close behind at 25%.

I just read that tomorrow Republicans will move to strip Murkowski of her committee assignments.  Frankly I'm surprised it wasn't done the day she declared war on Joe Miller.  Did he not win the Republican primary, fair and square? 

Ms. Murkowski is now the enemy.  And Republicans should be treating her as such.

I wonder if anyone will be more disappointed than her on election day. 

Ken Berwitz

Does the Service Employees Union International (SEIU), thus the Democratic Party, have Wisconsin's media in its hip pocket?

Read the following excerpt from Lachlan Markay's piece at newsbusters.org, and then decide:

SEIU Activist: Local Networks 'Willing Partners' in Campaign Against Wis. GOP Gubernatorial Candidate

By Lachlan Markay

Mon, 09/20/2010 - 16:53 ET

 

Are the three news networks actively working to defeat the Republican candidate for Governor in Wisconsin? According to the far-left Service Employees International Union, yes, they most certainly are.

SEIU spokesman John-david Morgan - also, incidentally, a former journalist - told a staffer (audio embedded below the fold) for GOP gubernatorial candidate Scott Walker that local media affiliates for all three major networks were "willing partners" in the union's efforts to defeat Walker. The staffer gave a fake name and recorded the conversation without Morgan's knowledge.

"They've really been willing partners in it," Morgan told the staffer. "They come in with the TV cameras, and [channels] 58, 12 come, and 6 doesn't always. But, yeah, they've been really helpful. They think it's fun." Channels 58 and 12 are Milwaukee's CBS and ABC affiliates, respectively. "It's not perfect," Morgan added, but "they get our message across."

I suggest you use the link I've provided to read Mr. Markay's entire piece, and listen to the audio he has provided.  The damning quote occurs about one-third of the way through.

What a farce.  What a disgrace.

Or, put another way, media-wise it is business as usual.

Ken Berwitz

If you believe Democratic house majority leader Steny Hoyer, Democrats are thundering forward and taking back the momentum from Republicans.

Does he have a point?

Well, let's first look at what Mr. Hoyer said, excerpted from a short article at politico.com:

Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said Tuesday he sees a “resurgence” for Democrats in a new Gallup poll, striking an optimistic tone as Democrats prepare for the party’s worst election environment since 1994.

“That’s an 11 point turnaround in less than 21 days. That doesn’t sound like a death knell to me. That sounds like a party that’s on the move and a public that is becoming more and more aware of the radical policies being proposed by some republican nominees,” he said.

“I don’t think it’s a death knell. I think there’s a resurgence of Democrats around the country.”

Ok, now let's look at the following chart, pulled from www.realclearpolitics.com, which shows when Gallup had Republicans ahead by 10% - and the major polls taken from that time to the present:

Polling Data	Date	Sample	Republicans	Democrats	Spread
RCP Average	9/7 - 9/19	--	45.6	41.9	Republicans +3.7
Gallup	9/13 - 9/19	2925 RV	45	46	Democrats +1
Rasmussen Reports	9/13 - 9/19	3500 LV	48	38	Republicans +10
FOX News	9/14 - 9/16	900 RV	46	40	Republicans +6
CBS News/NY Times	9/10 - 9/14	LV	40	38	Republicans +2
Associated Press/GfK	9/8 - 9/13	LV	53	43	Republicans +10
Gallup	9/6 - 9/12	1527 RV	48	43	Republicans +5
Rasmussen Reports	9/6 - 9/12	3500 LV	47	38	Republicans +9
PPP (D)	9/10 - 9/13	590 RV	44	45	Democrats +1
Politico/GWU/Battleground	9/7 - 9/9	1000 LV	43	43	Tie
Quinnipiac	8/31 - 9/7	1905 RV	42	37	Republicans +5
CNN/Opinion Research	9/1 - 9/2	936 RV	52	45	Republicans +7
FOX News	9/1 - 9/2	900 RV	46	37	Republicans +9
Gallup	8/30 - 9/5	1651 RV	46	46	Tie
Rasmussen Reports	8/30 - 9/5	3500 LV	48	36	Republicans +12
ABC News/Wash Post	8/30 - 9/2	LV	53	40	Republicans +13
Democracy Corps (D)	8/30 - 9/2	845 LV	49	42	Republicans +7
USA Today/Gallup	8/27 - 8/30	928 RV	49	43	Republicans +6
National Journal/FD	8/27 - 8/30	1116 RV	36	38	Democrats +2
Rasmussen Reports	8/23 - 8/29	3500 LV	45	39	Republicans +6
Gallup	8/23 - 8/29	1540 RV	51	41	Republicans +10

That puts a bit of a different light on things, doesn't it?

Most polls continue to show Republicans leading.  This includes two recent polls - one by Fox News, which many people would consider Republican-friendly and the other by the Associated Press, which many people would consider Democrat-friendly - showing Republicans with a double-digit lead.

Now let's isolate the Gallup poll only, to see how it has moved over this period of time:

9/13 - 19:      Democrats +1

9/6 - 9/12:     Republicans +5

8/30 - 9/5:     Tie

8/23 - 8/29:   Republicans +10

As you can see, Gallup, for whatever the reason(s), is fluxuating quite a bit.  In the three weeks since it showed Republicans +10, it has moved 10%, (to a tie), then 5% (to Republicans +5%), then 6% (to Democrats +1).   That is an average movement of 7% a week.

If the other polls were doing the same, it would be reasonable to conclude that this is the way things are.  But that does not seem to be the case.  Rasmussen, which also posts new data every week, shows differences of +6%, -3% and +1% (average movement of 3.3%) during the same period.  Fox, which is shown twice, only differs by 3%.

What are we supposed to make of this?  Beats the hell out of me.  Election day is still the only "poll" that counts.

But it's fun to watch -- even if Mr. Hoyer apparently has quite a bit less to be happy about than he thinks.

Ken Berwitz

Just in case you thought it was only Barack Obama and Rod Blagojevich...

Natasha Korecki, Chris Fusco and Lynn Sweet of the Chicago Sun-Times have put out a devastating expose of Jesse Jackson Jr's apparent involvement in the buying and selling of President Obama's former senate seat.

You can read it all by clicking here.  But I thought you might be interested to see a few key excerpts, so here they are:

Fund-raiser: Jesse Jackson Jr. behind $6M Senate-seat scheme

Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. directed a major political fund-raiser to offer former Gov. Rod Blagojevich millions of dollars in campaign cash in return for an appointment to the U.S. Senate, sources said the fund-raiser has told federal authorities.

The allegation by Oak Brook businessman Raghuveer Nayak counters public statements made as recently as last week by Jackson that he never authorized any deal to attempt to buy the Senate seat.

Nayak also told authorities he paid for two airline trips for a "social acquaintance" of the Democratic congressman at Jackson's request, raising more potential ethical and political problems for Jackson.

 

The FBI interviewed that acquaintance -- a Washington, D.C., restaurant hostess named Giovana Huidobro -- about a year ago as part of its corruption probe of Blagojevich. Authorities were trying to determine whether Jackson had asked Nayak to offer Blagojevich campaign cash in exchange for the then-governor appointing Jackson to the seat once held by President Obama, according to sources with knowledge of the probe.

 

Through a spokesman, Jackson declined to comment for this story.

 

In a radio interview about the mayor's race last week, Jackson challenged federal prosecutors to "bring it on" if they have evidence he was a conspirator in Blagojevich's corruption case.

 

The Sun-Times has been investigating the new allegations since the beginning of the year.

 

Jackson repeatedly has denied any wrongdoing, including making any offers to Blagojevich in exchange for the Senate-seat appointment.

 

Nayak, however, has told investigators a different story.

 

Jackson has not been charged with any crime. Nor has Nayak, who contributed $12,000 to Jackson's congressional campaign between 2001 and 2006. Nayak faces his own federal scrutiny, including a current IRS inquiry involving his business dealings with state official and fund-raiser Rajinder Bedi.

 

Nayak is a family friend of the congressman and his father, the Rev. Jesse Jackson. Nayak also has been a business partner with the congressman's brother Jonathan Jackson.

 

Congressional ethics investigators began an inquiry into Jackson last year but suspended it in mid-September 2009 after authorities told them the inquiry might interfere with "pending criminal proceedings and ongoing investigation." Ethics officials have since declined to comment about the status of the Jackson inquiry, as has the FBI and U.S. attorney's office.

 

Prosecutors charged the former governor with trying to trade a Senate -seat appointment to Jackson in exchange for what Blagojevich believed to be a $1.5 million offer.

 

At Blagojevich's trial, Bedi said he, Jackson and Nayak were present at an Oct. 28 meeting at which fund-raising for Blagojevich was discussed in exchange for Jackson's appointment.

 

But at the previously undisclosed Oct. 8 meeting, Nayak told authorities that Jackson directed him to approach the Blagojevich camp with an offer of $5 million and $1 million.

 

At trial, Robert Blagojevich, Friends of Blagojevich chair, said he was twice approached by Indian fund-raisers offering money for Jackson. He testified that Nayak had offered the $6 million for Jackson.

Here's a tough one for you:  Try and find a "good guy" in this story. 

You might as well look for a Hebrew School in Mecca.

This is what President Obama  - and Rahm Emanuel and Valerie Jarrett and Arne Duncan and so many other parts of the Obama administration came out of. 

That explains a lot, doesn't it?

Ken Berwitz

For many years, the Carnahan name has been very important in Missouri politics.   Mel Carnahan was the Governor of Missouri and, until his untimely death in a plane crash, was running for the U.S. Senate.  His wife, Jean, replaced him on the ballot and narrowly lost to Republican Jim Talent.   

Moving on to the next generation, Mel and Jean Carnahan's daughter, Robin, currently is Missouri's Attorney General and is running for the U.S. Senate.  Her brother, Russ, is a member of the house of representatives, running for re-election. 

So what's their problem? 

Their problem is brother Tom:  specifically what Tom has gotten from the Obama administration.

The following excerpt of an article by Jake Wagman, of stltoday.com, provides the specifics:

ST. LOUIS -- Republicans have been running all summer with the wind at their backs  -- now the fall breeze has offered the Missouri GOP a boost, too, in the form of a stimulus gust blowing towards the opposition.

The $107 million in stimulus cash awarded to Tom Carnahan, however, couldn't have come at a worse time for his siblings, both of whom are on the ballot in November.

While Tom Carnahan has been in the wind energy business for several years -- he formed St. Louis based Wind Capital Group in 2005 -- the announcement made on Friday by the White House that his wind project in northwest Missouri will receive stimulus cash presents an unwelcome liability for the family's political aspirations.

Still, All Republicans need is the perception of coziness to slam Tom's sister, Democratic Senate hopeful Robin Carnahan, and brother, U.S. Rep. Russ Carnahan.

“When it comes to the Barack Obama’s $814 billion boondoggle known as the ‘stimulus,’ it’s all in the family for the Carnahans," Lloyd Smith, executive director of the Missouri GOP, said in a statement. "Robin Carnahan supported it, Russ Carnahan voted for it, and now Tom Carnahan is profiting from it.”

Republican Ed Martin is already calling on Russ to ask his brother to give the money back.

"I am writing today on behalf of the many unemployed constituents of your district to request your brother forfeit his $107 Million in stimulus money," Martin wrote to Russ Carnahan. "I believe that money could be better spent on job re-training to help small business startups right here in your district."

Over $100 million in so-called "stimulus" money to the brother of two Democrats running for office this year?  Wow.

Can the Obama administration show that other alternative energy companies - including companies owned by Republcans - are being given similar handouts?  Because if it can't, then this stinks like a two week old kettle of unrefrigerated herring.

Maybe it would be good if sister Robin and Brother Russ had something to say about the $107 million of taxpayer money that their brother just raked in.

I, for one, would love to hear what they come up with.

Ken Berwitz

In the previous blog I showed one of the various ways that the Today Show is carrying water for Democrats - i.e. by its daily attacks on Christine O'Donnell, whom it never fails to identify as a "Tea Party favorite" or words to that effect (which means the same attack can be extended to other nominees favored by the Tea Party as well).

John Nolte of bighollywood.breitbart.com has written an excellent piece about how some "comedy shows" (depends on your taste, I suppose) are working on behalf of Democrats, which I urge you to read in its entirety.  But let me whet your appetite with this segement:

In desperate Hail Mary moves to protect Obama and Democrats from what’s looking like a November rout, three of the left’s most beloved Palace Guards have just upped their game considerably. Bill Maher’s now openly blackmailing Delaware Republican Senate Candidate Christine O’Donnell, threatening a weekly drip-drip-drip of videos he thinks will ruin her candidacy unless she agrees to appear on his show – which is where he’ll really pull out the stops to finally win that Emmy by attempting to destroy her:

ABC News:

On Friday, Maher released on his new HBO show, “Real Time,” an unaired clip of O’Donnell admitting to a brief dalliance with witchcraft.

“I dabbled into witchcraft — I never joined a coven. But I did, I did. I dabbled into witchcraft. I hung around people who were doing these things. I’m not making this stuff up. I know what they told me they do,” she said.

“One of my first dates with a witch was on a satanic altar, and I didn’t know it. I mean, there’s little blood there and stuff like that,” she said. “We went to a movie and then had a midnight picnic on a satanic altar.”

O’Donnell appeared on the political talk show on 22 different episodes, and Maher has said he will air a clip of O’Donnell every week until she agrees to appear on his show.

“It’s like a hostage crisis,” Maher said. “Every week you don’t show up, I’m going to throw another body out.”

Does anyone find a young naive girl (or woman) under the influence of a guy she digs temporarily taking a wrong turn into witchcraft even a tenth as creepy as a grown man taking his children into Reverend Jeremiah Wright’s church? How about Ms. O’Donnell’s opponent dabbling, as an adult, in Marxism?

Meanwhile over at Comedy Central, Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert have just announced dueling Beck-like rallies. Obviously their real goal is to mock the hundreds of thousands of everyday people who gathered last month to worship God and love their country. What better way to make average Americans who dare to oppose socialism feel like freaks than with big rallies called ”Keep Fear Alive” and ”The Million Moderate March” (I guess Stewart won’t be attending that one).    

And yet, as NewsBusters reports, it sure isn’t going to be moderates organizing Stewart’s “Million Moderates March.” Meet Stewart’s very own Clintonistas:

We’ve discovered that a permit application was submitted for the Oct. 30 rally rivalry, on Sept. 8 to the National Park Service by Minassian Media, Comedy Central and Chris Wayne and Associates.

Craig Minassian is a former Clinton administration press aide who is now a consultant to Comedy Central. Wayne is a former Clinton White House event organizer who works on large-scale media events and promotions.

Undoubtedly, the only outcome any of this will achieve will be to further energize those of us backing O’Donnell and the Tea Party. The beauty of this election cycle is that the left has had no Republican leader or figurehead to marginalize and demonize, forcing them to attack and Alinsky the voters directly. For some reason, these ethereal idiots still haven’t figured out that is why their poll numbers and futures are circling closer and closer to the drain.

If these attacks do nothing else, I would hope they demonstrate to the, oh, few dozen people left who aren't already aware, that Maher, Stewart, Colbert, etc. have made themselves into Democratic operatives.

Then again, maybe not.  People who don't already know this probably are immune to finding out.

Ken Berwitz

Another day, another hit piece on Christine O'Donnell by the Today show. And another day that her opponent, who at one time was (and possibly still is) a self-described marxist, is given a free pass.

This hit piece again, done ironically enough by another O'Donnell (Kelly) - no relation, I'm sure -  goes after Christine O'Donnell regarding allegations that she misused campaign funds.  The charges are unevidenced, unproved and based on claims by a left wing "watchdog group" (whose partisanship was, of course not mentioned in the Today report) that spring from one disgruntled former campaign worker.  

And, of course, the Today report also redredged Ms. O'Donnell's brief dabbling in witchcraft, which occurred while she was in high school,  to make sure it was again reinforced in viewers' minds.

And what about Christine O'Donnell's opponent, Chris Coons?  What did the Today show have to say about him?

The fact that Mr. Coons, while a senior in college, wrote an article about his political transformation titled "The Making of a Bearded Marxist"?  Not mentioned at all.  I doubt that Today viewers even know Mr. Coons' name, let alone his past.

Oh, yeah, I forgot.  Today's "report" also put on Bill Maher - who has degenerated from a pretty funny left wing political satirist into a viciously offensive jerk - to toss a few personal insults O'Donnell's way.

This, pathetically enough, is what passes for news reportage on the Today Show.

Is it working?  I don't know.  But if it does work, how proud Mr. Lauer, Ms. Viera and Kelly O'Donnell will be.

There's nothing like journalistic professionalism, integrity and ethics.....

Ken Berwitz

From Reuters:

WASHINGTON, Sept 20 (Reuters) - U.S. President Barack Obama will use his visit to the United Nations General Assembly later this week to emphasize to Iran that the "door is open" to them for international engagement, the White House said on Monday.

 

White House deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes told reporters during a telephone briefing that in order for Iran to walk through that door, it would have to demonstrate the peaceful intent of its nuclear program.

Oh, brother.  Here we go again. 

Think of Barack Obama as Charlie Brown, and Iran's "leaders" as Lucy with the football.

Some people never learn.  I wish one of them wasn't in the oval office.

Ken Berwitz

Black Liberation Theology is an odious, racist, socialist/marxist abomination. 

Did Delaware's Democratic senatorial candidate Chris Coons (yes, I'm aware he is White), support it?  Does he support it now?

Jeffrey Lord at American Spectator thinks so.  And he has written a carefully referenced article which makes a persuasive argument that Coons was, and probably still is, in that camp.

It is far too long to post here, so I'm giving you this link in the hope that you will read Mr. Lord's entire piece.  Here is a key segment:

The Republican Establishment and the Left having now made O'Donnell's actions in her twenties an issue, the question comes round.

What was Chris Coons doing in his twenties?

Answer? He was in Africa volunteering for the South African Council of Churches, a group that holds to the self-same Black Liberation Theology philosophy preached by James Cone and Jeremiah Wright. The philosophy that has at its core the principles of "Marxism dressed up as Christianity." The philosophy that is at the very heart of the Obama administration and its actions since taking office two years ago.

The philosophy that Coons will undoubtedly all-too-eagerly represent if he is elected as an Obama Democrat to the seat once held by Obama Vice President Joe Biden of Delaware.

David Weigel over at the liberal Slate is not alone in noting:

But check out Coons' message! In a Democratic state, he does not mention that he is a Democrat. We learn that he balanced the budget, cut spending, and cut his salary. That's what Jim DeMint would do if we gave him New Castle County, isn't it? 

Imagine that.

Chris Coons can't even bring himself to mention he's a Democrat in supposedly Blue State Delaware. So how exactly would the realization that he went out of his way to support a group advocating liberation theology be received in Delaware? And a liberal columnist is -- really -- trying to compare him to South Carolina's conservative Republican Senator Jim DeMint?

Question.

Do you think Jim DeMint would have volunteered to go to Africa in his twenties and volunteer for a group selling liberation theology -- "Marxism dressed up as Christianity"?

Of course not.

Liberals have committed what in the world of baseball is called an "unforced error": they made Christine O'Donnell's twenties an issue in this critical campaign year.

Why was this a mistake?

Because now it has directed attention to exactly what Chris Coons was doing in his twenties. And what he was doing was "volunteering" -- which is to say he was actively, quite deliberately aiding socialist Africans who believed in the liberation theology philosophy that is now at the very center of the controversy surrounding the Obama administration's policies. There can be little doubt based on Coons volunteer work in Africa that if he ever got the chance to take Obama Vice President Joe Biden's Senate seat from Delaware, he would instantly start voting with Barack Obama and the vision behind liberation theology that Coons found so dazzling during that 1980s sojourn to Africa.

It is exactly the same socialist vision of wealth redistribution preached by Jeremiah Wright in Barack Obama's Trinity Church for twenty years while the future president sat in those pews. It is exactly the vision behind the policy and personnel of the Obama administration -- from Van Jones the now-departed self-described Communist and White House Green Jobs czar to Mark Lloyd the Hugo Chavez-admiring FCC diversity czar to Anita Dunn the Mao-quoting ex-White House aide to Ron Bloom the SEIU negotiator turned "manufacturing czar" to Carol Browner, a leader in the climate-change division of the "Socialist International" turned Obama global warming czar to the nationalized health care admiring Medicare administrator Donald Berwick to the social justice-promoting consumer activist Elizabeth Warren and on and on -- right into the Oval Office and President Barack Obama himself.

Christine O'Donnell's "dabbling in witchcraft", which she briefly did as a high school student and then dropped, continues to generate wall to wall coverage at CNN, MSNBC, etc.  But where are the stories about Chris Coons' involvement with Black Liberation Theology, which Mr. Coons dabbled in much later in his life than high school, and engaged in far longer (we do not know for sure that he has renounced it even to this day)?

Can media possibly be this partisan?  Can they possibly this whorishly committed to one side? 

My answer is in the form of a question:  In his 20's Chris Coons was a self-described marxist and now we find out that, apparently, he also supported Black Liberation Theology.  So, other than my blog and the links I've provided, where else have you seen this reported?

There's your answer.  How do you like it?

Ken Berwitz

Before you finish the sentence in my title, read this excerpt from an article at Rasmussen Research today:

Fifty-two percent (52%) of Likely U.S. Voters say their own views are closer to Sarah Palin’s than they are to President Obama’s, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey.

 

Just 40% say their views are closer to the president’s than to those of the former Alaska governor and Republican vice presidential candidate.

 

Among the Political Class, however, 68% say their views are more like Obama’s, while 63% of Mainstream voters describe their views as more like Palin’s

Ok.  Now finish the sentence.

Ken Berwitz

The Today Show led this morning's broadcast with a teaser, and then did a story, about Delaware's Republican senate candidate, Christine O'Donnell, dabbling in witchcraft.

If Ms. O'Donnell actually was involved in witchcraft, that would be pretty damning stuff.

But, let's remember, this is the Today show we're talking about.  It turns out that the "dabbling", which was whimsically mentioned during O'Donnell's appearance on Bill Maher's show 11 years ago, occurred briefly, when she was in high school.

In other words, it was a non-story that was elevated and magnified so that Today could do what it does best, which is facilitate the efforts of Democrats who want to make Christine O'Donnell look and sound like a lunatic, then position her as the face of the Republican party in 2010.

As readers of this blog know, I have very little regard for Christine O'Donnell as a candidate.  But I'd like to think my reasons actually are reasons, as opposed to this absolute dog crap.

Incidentally, I wonder if the Today show will be doing any stories about the baggage that Ms. O'Donnell's opponent, Chris Coons, carries into this race.

If Today ever chooses to look at Mr. Coons, it can start with the article he wrote for his college newspaper (Amherst) the year he graduated (not high school, folks, but upon ending his college career).  The article was about his political transformation after spending a semester in Kenya, Africa.  In part, it said:

“My friends now joke that something about Kenya, maybe the strange diet, or the tropical sun, changed my personality; Africa to them seems a catalytic converter that takes in clean-shaven, clear-thinking Americans and sends back bearded Marxists”

Coons' supporters might say something like "Ahh, but that is just a general statement.  Coons didn't say that he specifically came back that way, did he?"

Unfortunately for Coons, however, the response is "Er, yes he did.  The title of his piece was "The Making of a Bearded Marxist"

So tell me:  Which would you worry about more?  Christine O'Donnell's brief dabbling in witchcraft during the high school years, or Chris Coons' definitive assertion that he was a marxist after graduating college?

Hello, calling the Today show.......................

Ken Berwitz

I can't be surprised anymore.

Hapless Harry Reid has managed to act like a tone-deaf dimwit again.  Twice (that I know of) in just one week's time.

First he attached a controversial initiative aimed at giving illegal aliens citizenship to a military defense bill.  In other words, in order to vote in favor of a bill for military defense, congress would also have to vote the "DREAM" act into law.  This turns a non-controversial bill that would have sailed through with bipartisan support into a partisan battle-royal.  Nice going, Harry.

Then he makes this impossibly idiotic comment about Democratic senatorial candidate Chris Coons:

"I've always thought Chris Coons is going to win. I told him that and I tried to get him to run. I'm glad he's running. I just think the world of him. He's my pet."

"He's my pet"?  "He's my pet"? 

What is Chris Coons supposed to do?  Roll over and go "Woof woof, thank you Harry" woof woof awwwuuooooooooo"?

Can Harry Reid possibly be this stupid?  This clumsy?  This politically ignorant? 

The answer, in a word, is yes.  He can be and is.

When Sharron Angle won Nevada's Republican senatorial nomination, a lot of people thought it would hand the race to Reid.  But every time Hapless Harry opens that mouth of his, he seems determined to deliver it to her on a silver platter.

I'm not a big fan of Sharron Angle's.  But compared to Reid?  I hope that handing over the Nevada senate seat is his most successful initiative of the year.

Ken Berwitz

Carl Paladino is a self-made, successful lawyer and real-estate developer (to read some of the accounts from our wonderful "neutral" media, you'd probably think he never got beyond 2nd grade).  He is feisty, combative, crude, non-political, and has a talent for saying the wrong thing in the wrong way.  Mr. Paladino has enormous financial resources, which he apparently will not hesitate to use in the campaign.

Mr. Paladino is also the Republican Gubernatorial candidate in New York.  And the qualities described above may well propel him to victory over his Democratic opponent, Andrew Cuomo.

Andrew Cuomo, also a lawyer, is the son of Mario Cuomo, himself a former multi-term Governor of New York.  He has been the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development and is currently New York's Attorney General.  While Cuomo has certainly demonstrated a capacity to show serious anger, he is very political and very aware of saying the right thing.  Mr. Cuomo has enormous political resources, which he apparently will not hesitate to use in the campaign.

Today's New York Times has an article which describes a letter Mr. Paladino has sent to Mr. Cuomo regarding one or more possible political debates.  This letter is a classic example of what is wrong with Paladino, what is right about him and why he has a chance to be New York's next Governor.

You can read the entire article by clicking here.  But here are a few excerpts from Mr. Paladino's letter:

“It’s difficult to understand why you, a polished veteran campaigner, scion of a political dynasty and king-designate, would fear a simple businessman from Buffalo, who candidly has never been in a debate in his life — except maybe in a bar” ;

“What I find most offensive, other than the arrogance toward the public by your lack of a public answer, is the idea that this is somehow your decision. You have some sense of entitlement based on being the son of Mario Cuomo, a governor who left our state economy in a wreck.”

“Andrew, for the first time in your life be a man. “Don’t hide behind daddy’s coattails even though he pulled strings to advance your career every step of your way.”

Now there's language you don't often come across in a gubernatorial race.

I have no doubt that there are a lot of people who will write Carl Paladino off as a consummate barroom loudmouth who thinks making a lot of money and having a lot of opinions is good enough to propel him into the Governor's mansion.

But I also have no doubt that there are a lot of people who will embrace Carl Paladino as a man of the people, saying the things that they themselves would say - not in political weasel-language, but plainly and openly.  They will notice that, unlike the measured words of career office-seekers which can be manipulated into meaning this or that, Paladino's opinions are crystal-clear and (though there will inevitably be a lapse here and there) almost never subject to "clarification".

Warts and all, they will see him as a breath of fresh air - an antidote to the Andrew Cuomo types.

Should Carl Paladino win the election?  That's up to the voters.

Can Carl Paladino win the election?  You bet he can.

Ken Berwitz

That is a long title,  But, as you will see, a necessary one.

Craig Newmark is the founder and namesake of “Craigslist”, a hugely successful internet source for goods and services.  Unfortunately, some of those services are beyond ugly.

Until recently, Craigslist was a prolific supplier of sex, apparently including prostitution and, quite possibly, underage girls.  

Then there were the killings.  

-John Katehis allegedly killed ABC radio personality George Weber after Weber posted a personal ad on Craigslist. 

-Chad Johnson hired Jennifer Papain for sexual services through Craigslist, and allegedly choked to death. 

-Philip Markoff hired Julissa Brisman for sexual services and allegedly killed her (we’ll never know for sure because he subsequently committed suicide in jail).

Not surprisingly – but damn well belatedly – Craigslist has been shamed into dropping this part of its business.

Tell me:  If you were a politician, would you accept money from the founder of Craigslist?  If you had already accepted money from him, would you keep it or hand it back?

Well, Human Events Magazine has conducted an extensive investigation into who Craig Newmark has made political contributions too.  And guess what?  Every penny it has found so far, something like $84,000 in total, was given to Democrats.  Not one penny to Republicans.

Which ones?  Here is a partial list, from Emily Miller’s September 15^th article:

Democratic National Campaign Committee (DCCC)—Keeping the money?

The House Democrats have accepted four donations from Newmark, totaling $11,500. 

“We’re not going to get into that,” responded DCCC spokesman Ryan Rudominer said about the charges that Democratic campaigns accepted money made from child prostitution. 

Asked if we should then assume that the House Democrats were keeping the money, Rudominer said, “I’ll have to get back to you on that” and hung up the phone. 

Sen. Al Franken (D- Minn.)— Decision pending. 

Franken received two donations to his Senate campaign (total $1,500) and three donations to his leadership political organization, the “Midwest Values PAC” ($1,500) for a total of $3,000. 

Thomas Borman, the treasurer for both Franken’s campaign and PAC, told HUMAN EVENTS that “we probably will” return the money. Borman said that “it sure feels like we ought to be giving the money back” but he did not want to make a final decision without talking to his political director. Borman did not respond to several follow up calls about his final decision. 

Sen. Barbara Boxer (D- Calif.)—Keeping the money?

The House Democrats have accepted four donations from Newmark

Boxer received two donations totaling $2,000 from Newmark. An assistant to Boxer’s campaign manager Rose Kapolczynski called to say that the campaign would call back again with a response. We’re still waiting. 

Sen. Dick Durbin (D- Ill.)—Keeping the money?

Durbin received two donations totaling $1,000. Durbin’s senate office said the campaign’s fundraiser Nancy Kohn would make decisions on donations. Kohn did not return several calls. 

Sen. Mark Begich (D-Alaska)—Keeping the money?

Begich has accepted a donation of $500 from Newmark. Calls to his offices in D.C. and Anchorage were not returned. 

Rep. Mary Jo Kilroy (D-Ohio)—Giving the money to charity.

Kilroy received three donations from Newmark for a total of $1,250. 

“She will be returning the money,” her spokesman Brad Bauman tells HUMAN EVENTS in response to our investigation. 

Bauman says that Kilroy’s campaign will donate the full amount of Newmark’s money to a charity that focuses on child trafficking. 

Rep. George Miller (D- Calif.)—Keeping the money?

Miller received a donation of $1,000 in June. Calls to both Miller’s campaign and congressional offices were not returned. 

Rep. Mark Schauer (D-Mich.)—Keeping the money?

Schauer accepted a $500 donation in March. Neither Schauer’s campaign manager Andrew Piatt nor his campaign spokesman Zack Pohl returned repeated calls. 

Rep. Jerry McNerney (D- Calif.)—Keeping the money?

McNerney has taken three donations from Newmark, totaling $1,000. The campaign spokesperson Sarah Hersh did not return calls. The campaign office refused to give out the name of his campaign manager.  

 And now, two big questions:

1.  Will our wonderful “neutral” media be running with this story?  Keep in mind, please, that Ms. Miller's article was published FOUR DAYS AGO.

2. Would they be running with it if these were Republicans instead of Democrats?

Somehow I think you already know the answer to both questions….

But listen to them squeal like stuck pigs if you call them biased.

Ken Berwitz

Here is an editorial from this morning's New York Times, about "zero tolerance" in public schools.  See what you think about it...and then I'll give you my opinion:

Editorial

One Strike and They’re Out

Published: September 18, 2010

 

Schools are right to expel students who carry weapons or who otherwise pose a safety threat. But they have taken “zero tolerance” to extremes, suspending ever larger numbers of children for merely disruptive or nonthreatening behavior. Suspension rates for black male children are disproportionately, devastatingly high.

A new report published by the Southern Poverty Law Center found that in 2006, more than 30 percent of black male middle school students in 15 urban districts were suspended from school. In Milwaukee and Florida’s Palm Beach County, suspension rates for black males were said to exceed 50 percent.

Based on federal school data, the research found that the percentage of students suspended at least once in grades K through 12 has nearly doubled over the last four decades — to 6.9 percent in 2006 from 3.7 percent in 1973. The suspension rate for black children in that time jumped to 15 percent from 6 percent.

The racial disparities in middle schools were especially alarming. In 2006, 28 percent of black boys and 18 percent of black girls were suspended, compared with 10 percent of white boys and 4 percent of white girls.

The data does not include why children were suspended. But previous studies suggest that an overwhelming majority of all races are suspended for behavior like truancy, disrupting class, abusive language or getting into shoving matches.

The federal suspension data is not comprehensive — which means that the real situation is likely worse. School reports to the federal government do not reflect multiple suspensions, so that students who may have been thrown out 10 times were counted as having been suspended only once.

The federal government clearly needs to do a better job of collecting information on this issue and pushing the states and localities to fix the problem. The Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights should also look at the districts with the worst racial disparities.

Ok, you read it, and you thought about it.

Now here's what I think.

I think that, if all I knew about the New York Times was what I read in this editorial, I would assume that the paper's editorial board was out of its mind.

Despite its first paragraphs, the thrust of this editorial is not that there is "zero tolerance" for bad behavior, because the bad behavior described in the editorial is far from minimal (we'll get to that later).

In actuality, the Times is complaining that Black children are more likely to be suspended for engaging in bad behavior than non-Blacks.

Is the Times saying that the children involved are not doing what they are being suspended for?  Nope.  The complaint is that too many Black children are being suspended, period - as if their behavior is irrelevant to the issue.

That is flat-out nuts.

In case the Times hasn't noticed, when it comes to educating children, urban schools in predominantly Black areas are at the bottom of the heap.  With precious few exceptions, children do not come out of those schools educated, or prepared for the world around them.

There are many reasons for this awful reality.  But can anyone doubt that among them are...

-truancy, which means no schooling takes place,

-disrupting class, which means no one in the class can be taught,

-abusive language, which negates any teacher's authority, thus making the schoolroom a joke, and

-getting into shoving matches, which means physical attacks rather than education is taking place?

What would the Times editorial board like to do?  Allow those behaviors to go unpunished?  Allow the schools to reprimand students who engage in them, and then send them right back into class?

Or is it just a matter of making sure that Black kids are suspended in direct proportion to their incidence in the population - which means schools either have to ignore the behaviors or start suspending White kids who aren't engaging in them?.

Does the New York Times editorial board want schools to educate Black children, or are the hellholes that urban schools have become - in no small part because of the Times' quality of "thinking" -  nothing more than an opportunity for them to make a politically correct statement about race? 

Do they even care whether Black children have a chance to obtain an education?

You read the editorial.  You tell me.

One other thing:  based on this sorry, mindless piece, The New York Times editorial board does not even know the word "data" is plural.  Maybe a few of them should be suspended.

Ken Berwitz

Gary Younge writes for London's Daily Guardian.  I don't agree with a lot of what he says, but this segment of his commentary from last week , which I just read this morning, is right on target:

Christine O'Donnell, a candidate in Delaware's Republican senatorial primary, is against masturbation and believes that her opponent's supporters follow her home at night and hide in her bushes. For her, last Thursday was a day of mixed fortunes.

First, she won the endorsement of Sarah Palin, who told Fox News's Sean Hannity: "[O'Donnell] is the real conservative in the race."

Then came word that her own party had filed a formal complaint against her with the Federal Election Commission for collaborating with the Tea Party Express in ways that are illegal. "Sadly, Christine's just not really a legitimate candidate in Delaware," the Republican state committee chairman, Tom Ross, said recently. "She makes a decent presentation until you know the facts."

Propelled by conservatives from afar and repelled by her party establishment at home, O'Donnell is the latest Tea Party candidate to surf a late tide of insurgent support that could clinch her the party's nomination tomorrow. Democrats, like O'Donnell's supporters, are praying for her victory. Polls show that against her their candidate would have a nine-point lead; against her more moderate opponent, Mike Castle, the Democrat would trail by 11 points. Their precarious control of the Senate will hinge on precisely these outcomes.

The fact that the best hope for the Democrats in November's midterm elections is for Republicans to select candidates so ridiculous and reactionary that voters have no choice but to vote Democrat lays bare the parlous state of American electoral politics.

Simply stated, Christine O'Donnell is the Republican answer to Alvin Greene. 

And, as Mr. Younge points out, the ludicrous nature of her candidacy may be the only thing that saves Democrats from losing the senate.

Ironically, however, this may not be good for Democrats.  Let me explain. 

If Republicans win the house (which appears very likely) and the senate, Barack Obama and his fellow Democrats will have an opening to blame them for the mess this country is in.  The strategy would be that "we put the pieces in place to fix Bush's mess, and then Republicans came back along to put us right back in that mess".

If, however, Republicans take the house and gain senate seats, but not enough to take control of the body (say, 48 or 49 of them), it effectively disallows that strategy from being used - and almost certainly prevents Democrats from pursuing the kinds of policies they have foisted on us over the past two years.

Wouldn't it be ironic if a losing O'Donnell candidacy helps Republicans more than it hurts them?

Ken Berwitz

For a guy who likes to eat as much as I do, I wonder why, as the years pass, fasting on Yom Kippur becomes easier and easier.

I'm sorry for not mentioning that I would not be blogging yesterday, but my computer went down shortly before sundown on Friday (according to Jewish law that is when the new day begins) and I couldn't.  Maybe that was the computer's way of fasting also.

Why does a non-religious person like me fast?  Out of respect for the generations of Jews who were religious, and either could not openly be observant, or were attacked, sometimes hurt or even killed, because they did.

But, as Scarlett O'Hara (who, to my knowledge, did not observe Yom Kippur) said, tomorrow is another day.  And today is tomorrow if you're referring to yesterday, which I am (if you just said "huh?" I don't blame you). 

Translation:  I think I'll have some coffee and maybe a bagel.

Ken Berwitz

Here's a little insight into how the so-called "stimulus package" is shaping up in Los Angeles.

My source? The report issued by Los Angeles City Comptroller Wendy Greuel. 

According to Ms. Greuel, the city has spent a total of $111,000,000 in stimulus money.  And it has yielded a total of.....

54.46 jobs either "created or retained" (the fraction is because this is computed by hours rather than individual warm bodies).

That's right.  There's no typo.  One hundred and eleven million dollars to generate 54.46 jobs.

In case you're wondering, that comes to $2,038,193.17 per "created" or "retained" job. 

And if you assume an equal number were"created" and "retained", it comes to 27.23 new jobs at $4,076, 386.34 each.

Do you doubt that this is true?  I know I'd be suspicious.

If so, I strongly urge you to read the actual press release so you can see for yourself.

Personally I doubted it even after reading the press release.  So I called Ms. Greuel's office and spoke to Alma there, who assured me it was correct.  She left me with the impression that I was far from the first person who had called about this today.

Hey, I have a great idea!!

Since the Obama administration loves to spend money on those signs that tell you the roadwork has been paid for with stimulus money (regardless of whether that roadwork would have been done anyway, let's remember), how about putting up huge signs at all the main  roads into town, the train station, bus depot and LAX, saying:

"No thanks necessary, we'll just keep up the good work:

President Obama and the Democratic Congress"

Heck, look at how many more jobs could be created or saved in the making of those signs.....

Ken Berwitz

The latest data on poverty in the USA have been released.  And, sad to say, it is one of the few things in this country on the upswing.

Investors Business Daily has published a devastating analysis of why this is happening.  I will put up the first part below, but I urge you in the strongest of terms to use this link and read it all:

September 17, 2010

Our Rate Of Poverty Isn't a Surprise

By Investor's Business Daily

Poverty: A new report comes as a punch in the gut for proud Americans: One in seven of us is poor, government data show. Surprised? Don't be. It's what happens when you kill the most productive parts of a country.

An estimated 14.3% of the population, or 43.6 million people, were considered poor in 2009, up from 13.2% the year before, the Census Bureau reports. This is the highest share living in poverty since the government began keeping records half a century ago.

How can this be in the richest nation on Earth?

Since Democrats took power - Congress in 2007, the White House in 2009 - policies that punish the productive private economy have become the norm.

Meanwhile, government wastes massive sums bailing out failed businesses, purchasing bad loans and rewarding those who borrow too much, make bad economic decisions or belong to unions.

Knowing this, no one should express shock that 15 million Americans don't have jobs, and that perhap