Exposed: The NYT’s Democrat talking points on John Boehner’s lobbyist ties

Courtesy of Tim Carney, we learn that this past weekend’s NYT hitpiece on House Minority Leader John Boehner and his “tight bind to lobbyists” left out what should have been the real story: House and Senate Democrats – including “leaders” like Pelosi and Reid – who outshine Boehner in the lobbyist money dept. Carney writes:

If you read this weekend’s New York Times’ hit job on would-be Speaker John Boehner and his “lobbyist friends,” you might think, as the reporter clearly thinks, that John Boehner is cozier with lobbyists than most powerful politicians are.

But did you know: 

  • Nancy Pelosi has raised almost twice as much money from lobbyists this election as Boehner has?
  • At least 18 House Democrats have raised more lobbyist cash this election than Boehner has.
  • Chuck Schumer and Harry Reid have pocketed more lobbyist cash in the past 18 months than Boehner has raised in the past 6 elections, combined?

Here’s the heart of the article, with emphasis added:

While many lawmakers in each party have networks of donors, lobbyists and former aides who now represent corporate interests, Mr. Boehner’s ties seem especially deep.

Yes, to Times reporter Eric Lipton, Boehner’s lobbyist ties seem especially deep. What if we tried to use facts and data, rather than the reporter’s impression, to measure Boehner’s lobbyist ties against those of other politicians.

As the case always is, the NYT never lets the facts get in the way of a good old fashioned slanted piece against Republican leaders , even when the leaders in the party currently in control in Washington, DC actually have more extensive ties to lobbyists – and the deeper pockets, too.

For whatever you think of Boehner, make no mistake about it: This was a deliberate attack on the House Minority leader at a time when he has stepped it up against President Obama and the failed economic policies of this administration. You can better believe O and Co. have been paying attention to what Boehner’s been saying because they’re firing back at him and, in effect, are making him the “Newt Gingrich” of this election cycle much like the Clinton admin did to Newt himself in the 90s. In turn, the NYT has once again lovingly provided a campaign talking points memo disguised as “unbiased news.”

Ed Morrissey is on the same page and, while also noticing that this isn’t the first time the NYT has gone to bat for BarryO (see here, here, and here for examples), also notes:

In this case, the use of the phrase “especially deep” shows that the Times wanted to make Boehner look as though he was on the extreme outlier of the common practice of fundraising among lobbysists. Whatever one thinks of that practice, it’s one of the truly bipartisan efforts on Capitol Hill. But in this cycle, the top five recipients are all Democrats, including two in Senate leadership (Reid and Schumer), as well as six of the top ten (3 Republicans and Charlie Crist being the others), and eleven of the top 20 — and one of the Republicans on that list, Lisa Murkowski, is no longer a Republican candidate.


So with that in mind, why did the New York Times decide to focus on John Boehner instead of all the bigger targets in the House and Senate? Quite obviously, they’re attempting to run interference for Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi by pushing a distorted, irresponsible, and highly inaccurate picture of Boehner as some sort of lobbyist lackey. It’s exactly the kind of political reporting that we’ve come to expect from the Times: unethical, biased, and sloppy. In their headline, they accuse Boehner of being “tightly bound” to lobbyists, but clearly it’s the New York Times that is “tightly bound” to this White House and the Democratic Party.

You betcha.

We saw this same BS during the campaign, where Barack Obama himself repeatedly told the lie that he was responsible “only to the people.” It wasn’t true then, and it’s not true now. But don’t hold your breath waiting for our national “state run” liberal media outlets to devote too much time to exposing these inconvenient truths in any significant way right now, not when  House and Senate majorities are at stake. Priority One right now is to turn back what could be a tidal wave of Republican wins in November, and the MSM, liberal special interest groups (including unions), Congressional Dems, and the WH itself will use just about any tactic necessary in order to keep that from happening.

Gird your loins, my dear readers. The next two months are going to be quite bumpy.

Truther mosque?

Well, isn’t that interesting? The Imam who wants to build a mosque community center rabat at Ground Zero in order to build bridges of understanding and religious tolerance is closely associated with an Islamic 9-11 Truther:

In his interview with CNN’s Soledad O’Brien on Wednesday, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf defended his plans to build a mosque and Islamic center near Ground Zero, saying “You cannot heal a trauma by walking away from it. We have to sit down. We have to talk about it. We have to dialogue about it and find a way to move through it and beyond it.”

But a trove of videos and writings available on the Internet shows that a longtime partner of Rauf believes the 9/11 terror attacks were “an inside job” by U.S. government and corporate interests, the Investigative Project on Terrorism found.

Faiz Khan, a physician who claims to have been a first responder after the September 11 attacks, is a founding member of the Muslim-Jewish-Christian Alliance for 9/11 Truth and is on the advisory board of the Muslims for 9/11 Truth. In an essay on the Alliance’s website, he argued that “the prime factor for the success of the criminal mission known as 9/11 did not come from the quarter known as ‘militant Islam’ although the phenomenon known as ‘militant Islamic networks’ may have played a partial role, or even a less than partial role – perhaps the role of patsy and scapegoat.”

Be sure to read the rest. The more that comes out about the background of those behind the project, the more I think it just isn’t going to happen.

Via The Weekly Standard

(Crossposted at Public Secrets)

Time to play “what if a white pol had said that?”

Race-baiting politics once again strike in NYC.  Via the NY Post:

Mayor David Dinkins encouraged voters to embrace a state Senate candidate because he looks “more like us.”

“It’s important, it is so very important, particularly for the people of this district who vote on Tuesday to recognize how important it is to understand that the city is changing,” Dinkins said in his endorsement of state Senate candidate Assemblyman Adriano Espaillat on Thursday.

“Most people in the city are going to look more like us than others and that’s just a fact,” Dinkins said.

Espaillat opponent Mark Levine, who is white, yesterday called on Espaillat, who is Hispanic, to denounce the divisive comment.

Espaillat did not repudiate Dinkins’ words.

“Mayor Dinkins is one of New York’s finest public servants, and he’s built his career around the principle that communities of different ethnic and economic backgrounds must work together if we want to bring about long-term change,” Espaillat said in a statement.


Espaillat and Levine are both frontrunners in the race to fill Attorney General hopeful state Senator Eric Schneiderman’s seat. The district includes the diverse population of the Upper West Side, Washington Heights, and Inwood, in Manhattan and Riverdale, in the Bronx.

Hey, why doesn’t Dinkins call for a caramel/“chocolate” city while he’s at it?

Seriously – just imagine for five seconds what would happen if a white politico said anything of the sort.  Especially if he/she were a conservative.  As usual, the double standards are alive and well on the issue of race-baiting, not to mention the fanatical obsession with identity politics.  Let’s not make our choices based on the best candidate to fill xyz position.  Let’s choose on the basis of race.  As long as it’s a liberal Latino or black candidate, of course.

 Move along here. Nothing to see …

In search of: People of Color

If you listen to the mainstream media narrative, the Tea Party movement is a Whites-only affair, the second coming of the angry white man, and a thinly disguised Klan revival. To find out the truth behind this, Bob Parks went on the scene at the Tea Party rally in Washington D.C. Here’s what he found:

Weird. I thought sure he’d find some.

via Big Journalism

(Crossposted at Public Secrets)