Tuesday, 03 March 2015


Ken Berwitz

I'll try to do this in real time, as best I can.

11:08:  Netanyahu enters the chamber to thunderous applause and cheers.  Hugely positive reception.

@ 11:08 AM   Add Comment


Ken Berwitz

Here, from the great Michael Ramirez, is a cartoon which explains the parameters of President Obama's "deal" with Iran just about perfectly:

Michael Ramirez Cartoon enlarge picture

If a picture is worth 1,000 words, this cartoon is worth 1,000,000.  Thank you, Mr. Ramirez, for laying it out so well.

@ 10:07 AM   Add Comment


Ken Berwitz

This story is so big that even the usually Hillary-loving New York Times, and the Today Show - which usually does just about everything short of picking out furniture with Hillary Clinton - had to make it a lead story today.

Here are the first two paragraphs of Michael S. Schmidt's Page 1 article:

Hillary Rodham Clinton exclusively used a personal email account to conduct government business as secretary of state, State Department officials said, and may have violated federal requirements that officials' correspondence be retained as part of the agency's record.

Mrs. Clinton did not have a government email address during her four-year tenure at the State Department. Her aides took no actions to have her personal emails preserved on department servers at the time, as required by the Federal Records Act.

"It is very difficult to conceive of a scenario - short of nuclear winter - where an agency would be justified in allowing its cabinet-level head officer to solely use a private email communications channel for the conduct of government business," said Jason R. Baron, a lawyer at Drinker Biddle & Reath who is a former director of litigation at the National Archives and Records Administration.

Amazing, isn't it?  Even with this overtly damning evidence, the first paragraph says Clinton "may have" violated federal requirements ---- before the second paragraph tells us that preserving emails on department servers is "required by the Federal Records Act.

Note to writer Schmidt and the Times editors - if federal law requires her to do it, and she didn't do it, that's not a "may have violated federal requirements", that's a DID violate them.

Now: why would Hillary Clinton do this?  When I think of what possible reasons there are, only three words come to mind:  ignorant, stupid and nefarious.

I certainly do not consider Hillary Clinton an ignoramus.

I certainly do not think she is stupid.

That leaves nefarious:  as in what was on those emails that she intended to hide from scrutiny?

The big question:  will the Times, Today and other usually Hillary-fawning venues pursue this story?  Or will they give her the lois lerner treatment and, after a day or two of going through the motions, pretend it doesn't exist/doesn't matter?

I'll be very interested to see, one way or the other.  You should be too. 

Because if mainstream media bails, even somewhat, on Hillary Clinton, what does she have left?  Her accomplishments?  Like which ones?

See my point?

@ 09:09 AM   1 comment


Ken Berwitz

Ever the optimist, I am putting up another demonstration of why the Lost Tribe (i.e. Jews, and non-Jews who support Israel, but reflexively support Obama and Democrats anyway) should start making demands that their party of choice go back to what it was, or they will move on.

The latest evidence?  A CBS News poll that was conducted in late February, in which respondents were asked if they consider Israel an ally - not just a friendly country, but an ally. 

The findings:  

-64% of Republicans consider Israel an ally.  47% of Democrats do. 

-When you add in "friendly country", the Republican level goes to 88%...and Democrats to 80%.  In other words, one in five Democrats consider it either an unfriendly country or an enemy of the USA. 

And that is clearly reflected in the congress as well.  Even the most cursory examination of Republican and Democrat votes regarding Israel will show this divide.

To my Lost Tribe friends:  Is it not clear that this not the Democrat party you cast your lot with all those years ago?

Ronald Reagan, a former Democrat who became a Republican, famously said "I did not leave the Democratic Party, the Democratic Party left me".  That is exactly what has happened to you.

Some of you, I am sure, just don't realize as much. Which is sad.  But, even sadder, I am sure a great many of you do know...but avoid that knowledge because it is much easier, much more comfortable to stay "in uniform", pump out a few negative comments about Republicans, and nod agreement with each other.

The truth is, there are plenty of negative things you can say about both parties.  But that leads to the conclusion that neither should be your unconditional, unthinking, second-nature selection in the voting booth - which is precisely the point I am trying to make.

Time to start considering all your options, Lost Tribers.  Long past time, actually.  I hope you start doing just that. 

And today, as you watch Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's address to a joint session of congress and notice how many Democrats are boycotting/refusing to hear what he has to say about the enormous danger of allowing Iran to become a nuclear power, would be a very good time to start.

@ 08:36 AM   Add Comment

Monday, 02 March 2015


Ken Berwitz

A quick point to be made here:

Now we are getting indications from Arab states, which are - understandably - scared excrement-less of Iran going nuclear, indicating that if a "deal" is cut which allows Iran to continue its nuclear program, they will assume Iran is moving ahead with nuclear weapon capability...and quickly start nuclear programs of their own.

Maybe Barack Obama can be duped into thinking that's not how it will go down but, apparently, others are seeing what is right in front of their eyes.

The answer here is a simple, straightforward one.  No to Iran. 

You don't allow the single most prolific backer of terrorism in the world, and one specifically commited to obliterating Israel, to create the means by which it can be done. 

The Arab gulf states know that, although Israel is Iran's prime target, it is far from the only one.  Even if the hapless, hopeless Obama/Kerry tandem can't figure it out.

I wish Benjamin Netanyahu every success in his attempt to make this clear to the U.S. congress tomorrow -- and marvel at the improbable group of supporters he inherently will be speaking for.

@ 21:14 PM   Add Comment


Ken Berwitz

Today's Quote Of The Day comes to us from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

In a previous blog, I noted that he had made a terrific speech before AIPAC (The American Israeli Political Action Committee). 

Here is a key part of what Mr. Netanyahu said:

"My speech is not intended to show any disrespect to President Obama or the esteemed office that he holds. I have great respect for both. My speech is also not intended to inject Israel into the American partisan debate. An important reason why our alliance has grown stronger, decade after decade, is that it has been championed by both parties, and so it must remain.

"The purpose of my address to congress tomorrow is to speak up about a potential deal with Iran that could threaten the survival of Israel. Iran is the foremost state sponsor of terrorism in the world. Imagine what Iran would do with nuclear weapons. And this same Iran vows to annihilate Israel. If it develops nuclear weapons it would have the means to achieve that goal. We must not let that happen."

What we were treated to in this, and the rest of his speech, is plainly spoken common sense, from a man who has a well-earned reputation for providing just that - which is why he earns today's Quote Of The Day honors.

In those few words, Benjamin Netanyahu not only put to rest several of the issues, real and bogus, that have been invoked about his appearance before congress tomorrow, but actually gives Democrats who are currently intending to boycott the speech a face-saving out:  "Well, he says he respects the President, acknowledges his support for Israel, and assures us he is here only to outline his view of the danger in making a deal with Iran.  If that is why he is here, I am now comfortable with his motives and will be there for his speech".

Let's see how many of them take advantage of Mr. Netanyahu's generous olive branch... and how many don't.

@ 16:56 PM   Add Comment


Ken Berwitz

The Paragraphs Of The Day - usually it's just one, but today there are two - come from today's Washington Examiner editorial which decries the obvious dislike (or a lot worse) that President Obama holds not just for Israel's Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, but for Israel itself.

The editorial is excellent, and I urge you to use the above link to read every word.  But the last two paragraphs sum things up so well that they garner Paragraph(s) Of The Day honors:

Even if we were to set aside any notion of the importance of the U.S.-Israel relationship or dismiss the significance of the vow "Never Again," and merely look at the issue in the most narrow and dispassionate terms of what's in America's national security interests, the administration's moves are dangerous. In trying to prove that he won't be cowed by any sort of lobbying effort by the pro-Israel community, Obama has been stubbornly refusing to see that his policy has elevated a radical Islamist regime as a regional power - a regime that has for decades called for "Death to America" and has been a leading state sponsor of terrorism. Allowing Iran to go nuclear not only alienates Israel, but also Arab nations that would also be threatened.

As thousands gather for this year's AIPAC conference on Monday, Obama won't be addressing them, as he last did in 2008 and 2012, when he was seeking election. Instead, he will send National Security Advisor Susan Rice (who recently called Netanyahu's visit to Congress "destructive") and U.N. Ambassador Samantha Power. No doubt, the two will speak in platitudes about the importance of the U.S. relationship with Israel. But it's getting more difficult to hide the fact that Obama's foreign policy is blinded by his hostility toward Israel to the point where he's putting America's own national security at risk.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

Remember:  Barack Obama is the same foreign policy deep-thinker who told us al-qaeda was "virtually eliminated", ISIS was a "jayvee squad" facilitated the demise of moamar qaddafi....to be replaced by a virtually nonexistent government where Islamic terrorists are thriving, facilitated the demise of Egypt's Hosni Mubarak...to be replaced by a Muslim Brotherhood stooge who ignored the Egyptian constitution and eventually had to be removed from power by the military, has warned Syrian butcher bashar al-assad about crossing a red line...and then did nothing about it when he did...and has been made mincemeat of for years by Russian KGBer vladimir putin.

If Barack Obama is this incompetent everywhere else, why would anyone expect him to perform any more capably with Israel?  Supporters of Israel had every reason to expect nothing - and, arguably, got even less.

Prime Minister Netanyahu gave a bravura performance this morning at AIPAC - an organization that, as would be expected, is entirely friendly to him.  His speech was compelling, on-target, and devoid of the rancor he has every reason to feel for Obama & Co.  In other words, he acted like a big boy. 

Tomorrow Mr. Netanyahu will address a joint session of congress, where most members will also be friendly....but those who are not - virtually all of them Democrats (paying attention, Lost Tribers?)...will act like little boys and girls, and head for parts unknown while he speaks.

Ironically, by not showing their anti-Israel faces, they are doing Prime Minister Netanyahu a favor. 

And, even more ironically, by showing how sizable, and dedicated, the Democrat anti-Israel contingent is, they're doing the Republican Party a favor as well.

Brilliant move, guys. Honest.

@ 15:14 PM   Add Comment


Ken Berwitz

New York Times Op-Ed columnist Charles Blow is fun to read.  His stock in trade, these days, is picking up on poll data (from the polls which have results he likes), posting the data in huge print, and writing colmns which make conclusions based on those poll data.

His latest column is about CPAC - the Conservative Political Action Committee - and its just-ended convention.

Use the link I've provided and you will see that Mr. Blow has put up a series of poll results showing the country is emphatically against Republicans on key issues, which presumably is why he characterizes the CPAC convention as - to use the title of his column - "Hackneyed and Hollow".

Mr. Blow fleshes out that characterization by telling us that "There remains in the Republican Party, as evidenced by the speakers at this event, a breathtaking narrowness of vision and deficit of creative thought."

I am no apologist for CPAC, I assure you.  But this is too easy to answer for me to pass up the opportunity.

According to the University of Virginia's political pundit, Larry Sabato, over the 6 years President Obama has been President.  Republicans' "breathtaking narrowness of vision and deficit of creative thought" has resulted in gaining 13 Senate seats, 11 governorships, 69 House seats, 30 state legislative chambers and 913 state legislative seats.

According to politifact.com - which ain't exactly an arm of CPAC - these losses are at least double those seen for any other two term presidency since Truman (and who knows how far back before that?).

This being the case, I have a question for Mr. Blow:  If Republicans' narrowness of vision and deficit of creative thought have yielded those gains, what would you say about the presumably broader vision and surfeit of creative thought provided by Democrats?  Any thoughts on why they were the losers of everything Republicans gained?

Tell me, sir:  knowing those actual results, do you really still think the public is that negative about Republicans?  That positive about Democrats?  That they join you in seeing the reasons for voting in so many Republicans "hackneyed and hollow"?

Just asking.....

@ 10:46 AM   1 comment


Ken Berwitz

John McCain was on MSNBC this weekend...and I suspect he spun a few heads with his remarks about John Kerry.

As any regular reader of this blog knows, I have cited Kerry many times for being in public office as long as he has without any discernible accomplishments.  Sadly (though predictably), this has continued with his tenure as Secretary Of State.

I did not watch the interview.  But, according to this Associated Press article, Mr. McCain said, among other things, that Kerry:

-has "accomplished nothing except mileage",

- demanded that his interviewers  "tell me one accomplishment that he has made." (I don't know of any - do you?), and

-and added in Kerry's boss, by characterizing Barack Obama's foreign policy this way:  "I would say worse than adrift. I would say delusional.".

My question to you:  which of these statements is anything but accurate?

Personally I would have said it a bit more colorfully (then again, McCain was on a TV show, so maybe in a different venue he would have too).  But I would have reached the same conclusions.

Less than two more years of this nightmare to go.  I count the seconds.

@ 09:59 AM   8 comments


Ken Berwitz

Jewish organizations in the USA. I used to have great regard for them, and felt they performed important, even vital, service for Jewry in the USA and around the world.

I knew that virtually all of them were partisan Democrat organizations.  But that made sense, since Democrats, far more than Republicans, were fully supportive of equality for Jews in the USA and for Israel.

But, over the years, a sad shift has taken place.  Now the Democrat Party, far more than the Republican Party, is the place for anti-Jewish and anti-Israel sentiment.  And the Jewish organizations I respected so much have remained virtually unchanged in their partisanship.  They are still sucking up to Democrats and disdaining Republicans...

...which tells me that, like the NAACP has become for Black citizens, these groups are more self-congratulatory societies which enjoy their status among Democrats too much to risk damaging them by calling out the increasingly anti-Jewish, anti-Israel nature of the Democrat Party.

Let me show you a classic case in point. 

Over the weekend, there was a full page ad in the New York Times, attacking Susan Rice for her indifference to the fate of Israel at the hands of Iran - a country where the government stooges chant "Death To America, Death To Israel", and which is on record as intending to "wipe Israel off the map".

The ad goes into detail to show that this is not the first time Rice has put politics over genocide, and cites her despicable record on Rwanda as well. 

Here it is:

That ad is blunt, hard-hitting....and, sad to say, rings true.

But, immediately, virtually every Jewish organization in the USA fell over each other to denounce it.  If you read this article in the Jerusalem Post, you will see that the denunciations include comments such as: "revolting", "spurious and perverse", "outrageous", "entirely inappropriate", "ad hominem", "grotesque", "abhorrent", "a sinister slur" and that the ad "is completely inconsistent with the record of friendship and loyalty this public official has shown Israel and the Jewish people".

Tell me:  which of these denunciations in any way accuses the ad of being untrue - including the dodge that Susan Rice is "friendly and loyal to the Jewish people" but does not talk about her ongoing record of being anti-Israel (here is one example, here is another, and there's plenty more where that came from).

The answer?  NOT ONE of them. 

If this ad were untrue in any way, wouldn't you be seeing specific examples of what those untruths were?

The fact that all they can do is fecklessly barf out boiler-plate condemnations like "revolting", "perverse", "outrageous", blah, blah, blah, yada, yada, yada, - without providing even one example of anything that is untrue or even exaggerated about what the ad says - shows us what has become of these groups; what they have devolved into.

That is why I have so little regard for them anymore.  Do you blame me?

@ 09:01 AM   Add Comment

Sunday, 01 March 2015


Ken Berwitz

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@ 20:31 PM   Add Comment


Ken Berwitz

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

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

Let's start with the headline alone:

Poll: Nearly Half of Americans Take Issue With Netanyahu Speech

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Don't count on making that case either.

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

And, finally, two questions:

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

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

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

I don't expect an answer to either.

@ 15:34 PM   Add Comment


Ken Berwitz

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

...how do the people feel?

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

That clear enough?

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

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

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

Nobody can say you aren't earning it..

@ 15:10 PM   Add Comment


Ken Berwitz

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

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

Does she have a chance? Sure she does.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stay tuned.

@ 15:07 PM   Add Comment


Ken Berwitz

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just like it did in North Korea, guys?

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

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

@ 15:01 PM   Add Comment


Ken Berwitz

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


So what do you figure they'll try next?

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

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

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

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

@ 14:55 PM   Add Comment

Multi-Year Archive
We're Hopelessly Partisan

hopelesslypartisan.com, is a web site which is dedicated to honest, blunt, debate on the issues of our time.

Privacy Notice: In conjunction with the ads on this site, third parties may be placing and reading cookies on your browser, or using web beacons to collect information.


At "Hopelessly Partisan" we discuss all issues, big and small. Such as:

-How does President Obama deal with a completely Republican congress?

-How will Harry Reid like watching Mitch McConnell take the bills he sat on for years and send them to the senate floor?

-Why is Hillary Clinton suddenly harder to find than Waldo? Is it the Jeffrey Epstein/Hubby Bubba scandal?

-Will Brian Williams ever do another broadcast for NBC?

-Will Benjamin Netanyahu incur the wrath of Obama and make that speech before Congress?

Right down to:

-Is Michelle Obama contributing to childhood obesity because kids are tossing out her idea of lunch and heading for Mickey D's instead?

-Will there ever be a worse Super Bowl call than that pass play at the goal line?

-Did Melissa Harris-Perry really ask the Attorney General of the United States to quack like a duck?

In here, nothing is sacred and nothing is out of bounds.

So settle back, preferably after laughing your way through a copy of "The Hopelessly Partisan Guide To American Politics", and let the battle begin. In this blog, your opinion counts every bit as much as anyone else's, maybe even more.

And to show that my willingness to provide all sides of the issues is sincere, here are links to a variety of web sites, from the left, the middle (more or less) and the right. Read them and either smile in agreement or gnash your teeth in anger!!


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


  Drudge Report
  Real Clear Politics
  The Hill


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

About Us  
Blog Posts