Yes, the Republicans benefited from corporate donors and other political entities that offered up critical financial support in the run up to 2012. But, even the New York Times is forced to admit that on balance the Democrats raised more money. So what was the decisive factor? Shady “outside organizations” and anonymous donors? How bout ideology? The GOP’s renewed commitment to constitutional limited government struck a chord with Tea Party activists and average citizens who are rightly concerned about Team Obama’s big government schemes.

Republican operatives should be credited and recognized for their aggressive fundraising efforts, shrewd communication tactics and for cultivating an alliance with “outside interests” and corporate benefactors. But party’s renewed commitment to constitutional limited government had very little bearing on the 2010 election returns.

This is the central message of a New York Times post-election report that somersaults away from acknowledging the powerful influence Tea Party activists had on independent voters. While it is evident from the election returns and opinions polls that the public favors tighter restraints on federal power, the newspaper takes care to sidestep any discussion of ideological. Instead, the report peddles alternative explanations for the 2010 results that fixate on corporate interests that supposedly have impure motives and shady political entities tied with Karl Rove, the former political advisor President George W. Bush.

READ THE FULL ARTICLE >>

Popularity: 7% [?]

Where is the money suppose to come from for this proposed commuter rail tunnel linking NYC and New Jersey. The Gray Lady never quite gets around to answering this in a highly partisan editorial that takes aim at Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey for canceling the project. It also praises Mayor Mike Bloomberg of NYC for offering up an alternative plan that the editorial admits “sketchy.” What? N.J. voters know their state is out of money….

Despite all the evidence out there to the contrary, the New York Times continues to argue in favor of government spending as the antidote for economic malaise and fiscal restraint. While the paper is certainly entitled to editorialize against public officials, the highly partisan and condescending tone it adopts here against Gov. Christ Christie of New Jersey and his budget cutting policies is highly instructive.

A Quinnipiac University survey shows public sentiment very much in support of the governor’s decision to cancel an $8.7 billion commuter rail tunnel to New York City. The poll shows 53 percent of voters supporting Christie versus 37 percent who do not. Over 30 percent of Democrats also said they support Christie’s actions.

Using the 2005 initial projection of $5 billion, New Jersey officials proceeded to obtain $3 billion from the federal government, spend $600 million in start-up costs, and commit another $1.2 billion in contracts and fees.  Now, as the expected cost of the project has ballooned to $10 billion – double the original estimate – construction has ceased as the state’s budget woes have worsened.  This essentially means taxpayers will have spent over $4.5 billion for nothing.

READ THE FULL ARTICLE >>

Popularity: 9% [?]

Beyond ridiculous is the best way to describe this report on pg. A9 of the Sat. Oct. 20 edition that takes aim at Rep. John Boehner, the Ohio Republican who is set to become the new House Speaker in January. The NYT is beside itself because he received an escort through security. This is a lame, empty attempt to sabotage the GOP leader.

With the controversy over the Transportation Safety Agency’s (TSA) new security policies heating up, the New York Times has seized upon Rep. John Boehner’s recent flight out of Reagan National in an effort to needle the incoming Republican House Speaker for receiving an escort through security. This is a nothing story replete with snide comments and editorial observations that do not belong on the news page.

Boehner is a hypocrite because he criticized Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) for using military instead of commercial aircraft, but now sees fit to invoke privileges that are not available to average citizens the NYT tells readers.

READ THE FULL ARTICLE >>

Popularity: 4% [?]

While it has every right to editorialize on behalf of global warming alarmists, the NYT should at least acknowledge the existence of updated research and the simmering scientific disputes, which have greatly unsettled the so-called “consensus” green activists have used as a rationale to advance the  Kyoto Protocol and other regulatory schemes…

Precious little progress has been made from the alarmist perspective since the United Nations climate change conference held last December in Copenhagen, Denmark, a blogger for the New York Times concedes. Looking ahead to the next conference, which opens at the end of November in Cancun, Mexico there is now speculation that this may be last gathering. Although green activists continue for push for a binding international agreement to lower emissions, government officials are unlikely to advance any substantive measures.

“Now many are wondering whether the process itself, under the auspices of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, is so flawed that it should be scrapped,” the blog says.  “Is it realistic to expect that 200 nations with vastly different interests, from China to Saudi Arabia to Bolivia to Micronesia, can come together to address a problem that will affect them in vastly different ways? Is there a better way to attack a global problem largely caused by a handful of large industrialized countries? Should the next so-called `conference of the parties’ be the last?”

Since the mid-1990s, the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has been invoked as the final authority on the question of man-made global warming. But it has come under severe criticism recently over its methodologies and procedures.

READ THE FULL ARTICLE >>

Popularity: 19% [?]

So while serving as a U.S. attorney, now Gov. Chris Christie would sometimes get waivers for hotel stays when the government rate was not available and the NYT is scandalized. Every effort is made here to uncover wrongdoing where non exists. NJ’s budget-cutting chief executive has become a national figure and a possible presidential contender. The outrage here is feigned and not real. Since when is the NYT concerned about taxpayers?

Even as the New York Times concedes that Gov. Chris Christie of N.J. is a “rising star in the Republican Party” thanks to his budget cutting, it needles him for billing taxpayers for hotel stays. This criticism is  recycled from the state’s 2009 gubernatorial race that ended with Christie unseating Democratic Gov. Jon Corzine.

But it has made its way into the news again on the basis of a report that the U.S. Justice Department released on Monday. Christie served as the U.S. attorney from 2002 until 2008.

“The report cited stays in the $449-per-night Nine Zero Hotel in Boston and the $475-per-night Four Seasons Hotel in Washington,” the NYT informs readers. “Both cost more than double the government rate for those cities. In all, Mr. Christie exceeded the lodging rate on 14 of 23 trips without adequate justification, billing taxpayers $2,176 in excess of the maximum normal rates.”

READ THE FULL ARTICLE >>

Popularity: 10% [?]