Category — NY Times

I just took the bookmarks to the NY Times, LA Times, Boston Globe, and Washington Post out of my web browser and will no longer regularly visit those sites.  I can’t support them with web traffic given their unbelievably biased coverage this election season.  The latest example is this non story over Sarah Palin’s wardrobe.  Sarah wasn’t given 2 phony baloney book contracts by her liberal friends in the media, so the Republican Party spent $150K on a campaign wardrobe.

I know.  I too was horrified!  A politician bought nice suits for a campaign—news flash at 11!  Of course, we don’t know how much Barack Obama and Joe Biden spend on their suits.  I’m sure they buy their shirts at the Burlington Coat Factory and their jackets and pants off the rack at the Men’s Warehouse, right?  And the media doesn’t seem real interested in Michele Obama’s lobster and Iranian caviar lunch at the Waldorf Astoria.  Do you think the Obamas paid for that with their own money?

Meanwhile, the media fastidiously ignores the real money scandal of this Presidential Election—Barack Obama’s broken promise to accept public financing and the $600 million he’s attempting to buy the presidency with.  Think the media might touch on that subject had McCain broken his promise?  Don’t hold your breath waiting for them to demand answers from Obama on that lie.  But the story gets even better now that we find out the Obama campaign isn’t policing its Internet donations.

That’s right!  ACORN can register Mickey Mouse to vote and foreign nationals can donate in Mickey’s name at the Obama web site.  Obama turned off the standard credit card protection and name verification apparatus used by any somewhat credible online merchant.  Remember all the hype about the small donations and brand new contributors to the Obama campaign?  I’m guessing a lot of them are not real people, foreign nationals, or terrorists living in a cave between Afghanistan and Pakistan.  That might be an interesting and important story.  If only the media wasn’t so busy looking for price tags on Sarah Palin’s clothes, maybe they could devote some time to it.

There is one ray of “sunshine” in this whole sordid tale.  As Michele Malkin notes, the mainstream media is dying.  Moody’s announced today that it might cut the NY Times debt to junk status given its latest horrific quarter, and the Times isn’t the only MSM outlet struggling to keep its head above water.  It’s a shame that it has to come to this.  A strong, unbiased, media with an investigative bent would add such value to our democracy, but when you shift from journalist to liberal propagandist, you deserve to sink.

Update:  Over at the Corner, they make the point that someone would have to knowingly disable the automatic checks to reach the level of fraud Obama’s donation site is capable of producing.

Honestly, I wouldn’t line my bird’s cage with the NY Times because that would mean I paid to read this:

Mr. Obama said that he would begin to address the country’s deep deficit by raising taxes on the wealthy, while cutting them for the vast majority of American workers. But he dodged the question of what programs he would have to sacrifice to help foot the proposed bailout’s $700 billion price tag. Mr. McCain dodged the same question with equal energy.

That’s  a lie.  McCain responded to that question with a spending freeze on everything but a few programs.  Obama couldn’t find one program that he would delay and called for a scalpel approach to spending eventhough the president doesn’t have line item veto powers.  And that’s only the tip of the iceberg in this hatchet job.  For example, how many times do you think the ‘paper of record’ called Reagan “sunny and avuncular” while he was president?  But when they want to draw negative contrasts with McCain, they have no problem repudiating their past history.

The media is way beyond bias now.  They’re the Fed and Barack is AIG–he’s ‘too big to fail’.

John McCain spent most of his career bashing conservatives, cultivating media “friendships”, and celebrating his maverick image.  Therefore, the NY Times rejection of his Op Ed because it’s not “Obamaish” is just laced with bitter irony.  However, I’d be curious to know how many rewrites Obama did on his piece before it was accepted.  Truth be told, and as clearly implied by the Times response that Obama’s piece just “worked” for them, they treat every utterance by Obama like he’s giving the Sermon on the Mount.

When it’s all said and done, I wonder if the wedge McCain drove between himself and the base for media approbation will pay off?  I’m skeptical that he’ll get more independents and liberals than the conservatives he turned off with his “maverick” ways.

Barack Obama broke his promise to accept public financing, but don’t worry, he’s not like the others:

The presumptive Democratic nominee says his 1.5 million donors represent a real grassroots campaign. “What we’ve built frees ourselves from special interests,” he said, unlike Republican John McCain’s operation, which Obama said is based on big donors and lobbyists.

Of course, when Obama lies, the NY Times is at the ready with a quick hallelujah!  However, a quick examination of the facts tells another story:

Obama’s team in Nevada, put together last summer to help him with the state’s January caucuses, included at least two Nevada lobbyists: one that represented Barrick Gold of North America, a mining company that also lobbies in Washington, and another whose clients included U.S. Airways, Corrections Corp. of America and consulting company Accenture, which lobby in Washington.

Barack thinks we’re as dumb as he looks standing behind his fake presidential seal.  Special interests are going to play a major role in politics no matter how many laws are passed.  Barack’s nose is a lot longer after telling these whoppers.

When was the last time the NY Times had to explain itself?  Just rebutting its critics on the McCain article indicates they let their liberal biases get the best of them.  There is one reader question I’d add to the mix though: 

When will the Times splash a page one article on Barack Obama’s drug use full of anonymous sources?

But we already know the answer to that one.  Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil when it comes to liberals.

So let me see if I have this straight. The New York Times puts out a hit piece on John McCain who’s been pandering to the media by sticking it to Republicans and conservatives for years. But because the “maverick” didn’t understand that the media only truly supports Democrats, all of the sudden conservatives are suppose to rally with money and support for him?

Color me unimpressed. Sounds like you should have considered who your true friends might have been years ago.

 McCain received a solid dose of LBJ spearing. As LBJ said, “Let him deny it.”

 Last night, around dinnertime, The New York Times posted on its website a 3,000-word investigation detailing Senator John McCain’s connections to a telecommunications lobbyist named Vicki Iseman. [snip]

Beyond its revelations, however, what’s most remarkable about the article is that it appeared in the paper at all: The new information it reveals focuses on the private matters of the candidate, and relies entirely on the anecdotal evidence of McCain’s former staffers to justify the piece–both personal and anecdotal elements unusual in the Gray Lady. [snip]

Well boyo, this is just a start and you are begging already.