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.

There’s a disconnect here because the article concedes that Democrats by and large also raised more money than they Republican counterparts thanks to organized labor and other left leaning pressure groups.

“The White House struggled to keep Democrats in line, with a misplaced confidence in the power of the coalition that propelled Mr. Obama into office,” the report says. “Republicans capitalized on backlash to the ambitious agenda Mr. Obama and his party pursued, which fueled unrestricted and often anonymous contributions to conservative groups, some advised by a nemesis Democrats thought they had shaken, Karl Rove.

That money so strengthened the Republican assault across the country that an exasperated Democratic Party strategist likened it to `nuclear Whac-a-Mole.’ Most of all, Republican leaders had the foresight to imagine the possibility of winning again. Even now, they believe they could have taken back the Senate if they had just managed to block at least two Tea Party candidates who proved unelectable.”

This assessment has to be balanced against the grass roots efforts that ultimately propelled other Republican candidates with strong libertarian leanings to victory. Recall, that the NYT (and other press organs) were highly dismissive of Rand Paul in Kentucky and Marco Rubio in Florida. Both candidates challenged the elite establishments of their own parties and connected with an antagonized electorate opposed to the Democratic Party’s spending schemes. Both candidates preserved through negative press coverage with considerable Tea Party support.

It should also be noted that the liberal media’s antipathy toward the Citizens United Supreme Court decision expanding First Amendment freedoms is lurking behind the report. On the question of anonymous donations and the relationship between corporations and the Republican Party, some key facts are in order.

While President Obama has accused the Chamber of Commerce of accepting foreign donations to influence the elections, which would be a violation of the law, his statement is provably false.

“You don’t know,” Obama told a Philadelphia rally for Joe Sestak, the defeated Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate. “It could even be foreign-owned corporations. You don’t know because they don’t have to disclose.”

Only, they do have to disclose. Obama’s statement is actually provably false. You see, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce actually operates a political action committee, which is required to file reports with the Federal Elections Commission (FEC).

You can read the U.S. Chamber PAC’s filings for yourself at http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/cancomsrs/?_10+C00082040.

Additionally, the PAC’s “secret” donor lists are at http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/com_ind/2009_C00082040 and http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/com_rcvd/2009_C00082040. These are all FEC filings. PAC’s are already required to disclose donors under federal law.

In fact, this is a part of the Chamber that is expressly engaged in electioneering, subject to full disclosure. Here are the PAC’s expenditures, all public for the world to see: http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/com_supopp/2009_C00082040.

While it is true that the Chamber’s 501(c)6 filings are not public, that does not mean such disclosures do not exist. Many of them actually should already be available to the Obama Administration. How?

“Any organization, whether or not it engages in electioneering must file tax returns to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), which include who donates,” Americans for Limited Government President  Bill Wilson recently explained

Organizations must file form 990’s, which include Schedule B’s for disclosing donations over specified amounts depending on the type of organization. Minimum net donations which must be included in the forms can range from $1,000 to $5,000, depending on the group.

If the Obama Administration has reason to believe that the Chamber — or any other organization — is using foreign donations to engage in electioneering, it could have the IRS simply conduct an audit, which would quickly get to the truth of the matter.

The obsession with anonymous donors who are not so anonymous is served up to distract from the ideological factors that collapsed the Democratic majority in the House and eroded its position in the Senate. That’s the story.

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.

“The Republican leader, who will become the second person in line to assume the presidency after the new Congress convenes in January, took great pride after the midterm elections in declaring his man-of-the-people plans to travel home as other Americans do,” the NYT says. “In a time of economic difficulty, it was a not-so-subtle dig at Ms. Pelosi, who has access to a military jet large enough to avoid refueling for her flights home to San Francisco. But he is not giving up all the perquisites of power.”

This is what you call sour grapes. The liberal editors at the NYT had envisioned a long reign for the Democrats in the House that ended abruptly after just a few years. On the surface, this report from Jeff Zeleny may appear small, trite and inconsequential. In reality, it should be properly viewed as a dry run for more expansive hit pieces that will be rolled out in short order.

The double standard is now in effect for the incoming House Speaker who will be scrutinized and scorned at every turn. This is not about logic or fairness; it is about agenda-based reporting. The NYT is obviously looking for any conceivable angle that could be parlayed into news reports that distract from the Republican Party’s policy agenda.

“There was no waiting for Mr. Boehner, who was escorted around the identification-checking agents, the metal detectors and the body scanners, and whisked directed to the gate,” the NYT sneers in the second paragraph.

There is no substantive criticism to be made here as there is “no waiting” for public officials in any number of venues. Moreover, Boehner’s rebuke of Pelosi was rooted in a genuine to desire reform extravagant practices that further burden already beleaguered taxpayers.

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.”

This is all about fishing for a scandal where one doesn’t exist. Gov. Christie is wise to avoid any engagement here with NYT reports that would just play into the agenda of a biased liberal news media. The tone angle of the report is beyond ridiculous. While serving as U.S. attorney, Christie would seek the government rate for any details and then ask for a waiver when one was not available.

“Mr. Christie declined to speak with the inspector general’s investigators,” the report says. “But his secretary at the federal prosecutors’ office told them that he would choose his hotel if he was familiar with the city. If he was not, she would seek a recommendation for a ‘decent’ hotel at or near the site of a scheduled meeting. While she “routinely called hotels to seek the government rate,” when the cost exceeded that rate he would obtain a waiver, according to the report.”

“In several cases, the waiver documentation included a memorandum signed by Mr. Christie saying that a room within the government rate was unavailable,” the NYT continues. “The secretary said the memorandums meant not that a cheaper hotel room could not be found, but that no such rooms fit the criteria of a “decent” hotel near a meeting site.”

Should Christie have stayed in a hostel or a doom room instead?

The total of extra billing was $2,176.00, which is not out proportion with what other prosecutors have charged.

While it’s refreshing to see the NYT take an interest in the spending habits of public officials, the newspapers does not have long history here as advocate for taxpayer interests. Quite the opposite in fact. Over the weekend, Christie did not explicitly rule out a possible presidential run when asked about his ambitions. That’s what this is about. The outrage over expenses is feigned and not real.

There is some good reporting here that flushes out engaging personalities from the across the country who are determined to make a stand on behalf of liberalism and the Democratic Party. But the double-standard is evident. Tea Party activists do not typically receive congenial coverage. The NYT, which is often so certain of lower attendance figures for right-leaning rallies does not have any hard numbers or facts, to account for the numbers its cites…

There are no official figures given by the National Park Service of the Washington D.C. rally held this past weekend that included liberal activists from across the country.  The event sponsored by Viacom’s Comedy Central Network was widely viewed as rejoinder to the rally Glenn Beck of Fox News held at the Lincoln Memorial in August.

The “Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear” did not include any Democratic politicians and instead featured Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert, two left leaning political satirists. The article does a good job of flushing out some of the key personalities and reporting on clever messaging. It does not fixate on the attendance, which would be fine, if the NYT did not go to such great lengths to dismiss turnout figures for Beck’s rally.

“The National Park Service did not offer a formal crowd estimate,” the report says. “But Judy McGrath, the chief executive of Viacom’s MTV Networks unit, said she had been told by the Parks Service that there were `well over 200,000 people” at the rally. Mr. Colbert offered his own guess in a Twitter message: “Early estimate of crowd size at rally: 6 billion.”

“Four friends, dressed as giant tea bags in a spoof of the Tea Party, said Mr. Stewart and Mr. Colbert were the only ones they felt expressed their point of view,” the report explains. “For everything that’s happened in the past two years, ‘The Daily Show’ is how we cope,” said one of the tea bags, S. J. Klein, a 40-year-old man from Anchorage.”

“Alex Foxworthy, a 26-year-old doctoral student from Richmond, Va., summed it up like this: “The battle for the American mind right now is between talk show hosts and comedians. I choose the comedians,” the report continues.

In sharp contrast to the critical view it took of the Beck rally, the NYT plays it straight here. Participants are quoted at length without derisive afterthoughts. The 200,000 estimate from the MTV official does not sound unreasonable on the surface. However, it do not match even more restrained estimates for the “Restoring Honor” event the Fox News personality organized.

Mr. Colbert lampoons conservatives on his show, “The Colbert Report,” and at the rally he played a victim of fear gradually shown the light by Mr. Stewart.

“Your reasonableness is poisoning my fear,” Mr. Colbert was quoted as saying.

It appears the NYT was called out for slyly overstating turnout for the Stewart/Colbert event.

“An earlier version of this article referred imprecisely to the geographical reach of the rally,” correction reads in the online version. “It stretched several long blocks west of the Capitol, not almost to the Washington Monument.”

Even so, there are several paragraphs at work here that provide readers with an informative view of what transpired without editorializing. This approach should be allied to right-leaning events. Here an activist offers up a guess as to the actual attendance without authoritative sourcing and Colbert jokes about figures that go into the billions.

If there’s that much uncertainty, then the report should acknowledge this much up front. To do otherwise, allows for spinsters on both sides of the political spectrum to peddle their agenda.

Several paragraphs down into a report on the “One Nation” rally readers finally learn that liberal activists could not match the crowds Glenn Beck attracted to the Lincoln Memorial in August. The key sponsors of the event, which include organized labor, are permitted to offer up factually dubious quotes without any criticism or examination.

Left wing activists who organized the “One Nation Coming Together” event at the Lincoln Memorial earlier this month as a rejoinder to Glenn Beck’s “Restoring Honor” rally fell flat in terms of attendance, energy and enthusiasm. Even the New York Times was forced to concede that liberal demonstrators could not match attendance figures for Beck’s Aug. 28 rally also held at the Lincoln Memorial. The first few paragraphs are sympathetic and supportive of “One Nation,” which was funded and supported by organized labor.

“More than 300 groups organized Saturday’s march to build momentum for progressive causes like increased job-creation programs and to mobilize liberal voters to flock to the polls next month,” readers are told. “The rally’s sponsors, including the N.A.A.C.P., the A.F.L.-C.I.O., the Sierra Club and the National Council of La Raza, said they also hoped to demonstrate that they, not the Tea Party, represented the nation’s majority.”

Tens of thousands were reportedly in attendance on a bright, sunny auspicious day replete with American flags and unifying themes that contrast with what organizers called the “divisiveness” of the Tea Party. But this is a very debatable assertion. It can be argued that each of the “One Nation” sponsors have advanced divisive polices that are offensive to mainstream sensibilities. This point is not raised here and as a general rule reporters should not interject themselves into the debate. However, the NYT has not operated in a restrained, detached manner when reporting on Tea Party activism. As TimesCheck has previously noted, reporter Kate Zernik has often invoked race as a way to delegitimize small government activists.

If this approach carried over to coverage of liberal activists, questions would be raised about the motivations and ethics of liberal demonstrators.  Of course, the NYT is not inclined in this direction.  However, it does deserve credit for reporting on a key fact; 13 paragraphs down into the story, but that’s still progress.

“Significant areas of the National Mall that had been filled during Mr. Beck’s rally were empty,” the report acknowledges. “In a broadcast on Thursday, Mr. Beck criticized the liberals’ march, saying his supporters paid their own way to drive to Washington, while labor unions chartered hundreds of buses to ferry demonstrators to Saturday’s rally.”

If the reverse were true, it would most likely be reported in both the headline and lead paragraph. “Liberal Activists Surge Past Glenn Beck’s Divisive Rally,” the NYT would have fit nicely with the paper’s preferred narrative.

Remarkably, the NYT does inform readers that at least some of Beck’s observations about the liberal rally are on the money.

“On Thursday Mr. Beck warned that the march included Marxist, Communist and revolutionary groups,” the report says. “Among the organizations endorsing the march were the Communist Party USA, the United Church of Christ, Jewish Funds for Justice, the National Urban League, the National Baptist Convention, People for the American Way and the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force.”

But then again, the NYT has a different view of extremism.

Thanks to Glenn Beck of Fox News, more Americans are becoming acquainted with the Progressive Era and its separation from the founding period. But Beck and others do come in for some sharp criticism from the left in an online forum hosted by the NYT that analyzes conservative criticism of President Woodrow Wilson…

An online discussion entitled “Hating Woodrow Wilson” hosted by The New York Times is being used by the left as a way to attack and sully Fox News personality Glenn Beck who has been sharply critical of the former president and the progressive era in general. But it does offer a number of engaging nuggets that are worth reviewing.

Some of the liberal commentators make the point that Beck and company are too fixated on Wilson and do not take into proper account the progressive contributions of Teddy Roosevelt and others. The discussion does open some worthwhile historical considerations that serious thinkers on both sides of the political spectrum should peruse.

Michael Lind with the New America Foundation throws down the gauntlet with this dig at conservatives:

“Each faction on the right has had its own view of the past, with its own canon of heroes and its own list of villains. While many conservatives claim to be “constitutionalists,” some states’ rights theorists argue that not only the Civil War but also the Founders’ Constitution of 1787 led to a tyrannical consolidation  of power in the federal government. For decades highbrow cultural conservatives have accused the 18th century French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau of wrecking Western civilization with his cult of the primitive. For most conservatives, however, the fall of America from the paradise of small government to the hell of statism came with the New Deal and the Great Society. Franklin Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson, one would think, would be more natural targets of the right than Woodrow Wilson. Perhaps someone should tell Glenn Beck.”

One of the most insightful, probing contributions in the exchange comes from George H. Nash, a historian and biographer, who explains how  contemporary Tea Party activism directed against President Obama’s policies also connect with renewed antipathy toward Wilsonian progressives. He writes:

“In place of a regime of carefully limited government, the Progressives initiated one of potentially unlimited government guided by bureaucrats and experts increasingly insulated from popular consent. In place of the traditional understanding of our rights as natural and unalienable, the Progressives claimed that our rights were derived from government — the state — and could be created or abridged as the custodians of the state deemed expedient, in the light of modern conditions and the perceived imperatives of progress.

Why is this view of Woodrow Wilson now agitating the American Right? The answer is simple: conservatives see in the Obama administration another great leap in the working out of an unconstrained, Wilsonian vision of government-from-above. And like Americans in 1776, conservatives are responding with the cry: Don’t tread on me!

As the Tea Party movement attests, conservative Americans resent the royalization of American politics that has afflicted much of American liberalism for decades. They do not want to be ruled or “nudged” by a government of their “betters.”

Like America’s Founders, conservatives in 2010 prefer a government of and by, and not just for, the people.”

For months now, political scientists on both sides of the political spectrum have acknowledged that the Republicans stand a better than even chance of capturing the House. In an effort to pump up the deflated liberal base, the NYT now says that GOP prospects are overstated and “uncertain.” That’s why you call spin not reporting…

To be sure, the Democratic Party is back on its heels and Republicans stand a good chance of taking back the House and perhaps capturing the Senate.  This much is acknowledged at the outset of a New York Times front page spread that is replete with the word “but” and other qualifiers that are designed to reinvigorate a depressed liberal base.

In reality, most political analysts on both sides of the ideological spectrum see strong indications that the GOP could achieve gains that are well above the historical average for mid-term elections. Their analysis goes missing here as it does not fit in with the pro-Democratic spin that is passed off as straight reporting.

“The chances of a Republican takeover in the House remain far greater than in the Senate, according to a race-by-race analysis by The New York Times,” the report says. “But enough contests remain in flux that both parties head into the final four weeks of the campaign with the ability to change the dynamic before Election Day.”

Yes, there is a certain tendency for races to tighten in the final weeks of a campaign, which is not unprecedented, the NYT concedes. But the Democrats have already recovered from their summer slump and are now poised to hold both chambers, readers are told.

“Yet even as spending from outside groups is threatening to swamp many Democratic candidates, Republican strategists estimated that only half of the 39 seats they need to win control of the House were definitively in hand,” the report continues.

“Many Democratic incumbents remain vulnerable, but their positions have stabilized in the last month as they have begun running negative advertisements to raise questions about their Republican challengers and shift the focus of voters away from contentious national issues like health care, bailouts and President Obama’s performance.”

Beware of sentences that include “yet” and “but” as they typically serve as antecedents for liberal editors who are out to revise and deny political trends that point to a potential election day blow out against the current majority.

The only hard evidence offered up that points to signs of life for Democratic candidates relates back to California where incumbent Sen. Barbara Boxer is facing a stiff challenge. She has pulled ahead in the race over former business executive Carly Fiorina, but the lead is in single digits.

“Democrats pointed to positive signs in recent weeks, including that Senator Barbara Boxer, a third-term Democrat, appears to be running ahead of her Republican challenger, Carly Fiorina, in California. Mrs. Boxer’s seat is among those Republicans have been working to capture.

But the fact that Democrats have to spend time and resources on a U.S. Senate race that is normally a slam dunk means that they are drawing financial support away from other candidates in close, competitive races.

And finally, the headline used here “House Majority Still Uncertain, Republicans Say” greatly overstates any qualifying statements from party officials. Rep. John Boehner (R-Ohio), the House Republican leader tells the reporter “We have a lot of work to do.” That can hardly been interpreted to mean the GOP is suddenly glum about its prospects. Moreover, most of the quotes are from Democratic operatives who will of course tell the liberal news media what it wants to hear.

Apparently, Andrew Cuomo’s Republican challenger has a real shot at winning the race for governor of New York. Otherwise the NYT would not be so fixated against Carl P. Paladino, a Tea Party candidate, who secured the GOP nomination and is now gaining in the general election. He is “angry” and so is the electorate, the NYT declares.

How much is too much?

That is the question the New York Times asks in yet another hit piece aimed against Carl P. Paladino, the Republican candidate for governor who is gaining against Andrew Cuomo, the Democratic nominee.  Paladino is also a Tea Party favorite, which naturally lends itself to negative coverage. But he is also said to be “angry.”

This front page piece is interlinked with a series of reports that essentially does the bidding of Democratic operatives who are out to sully Paladino’s reputation and to undermine Tea Party activists.

The first few paragraphs here are built around the confrontation Paladino had with a reporter from the New York Post last week who has been targeting his family. While there may be room for legitimate criticisms and questions the relate back to Paladino’s private life, media professionals also have good cause to raise concerns about the techniques and tactics Fredic U. Dicker, the Post reporter, has applied against the Republican candidate. He has made it harder for all them to properly scrutinize Paladino’s record and history, while giving a free pass to Cuomo.

The question included here in the opening sentences “In an election season defined by anger, how much is too much?” should be turned back on the NYT. In anticipation of significant Republican mid-term election gains, a concerted effort is underway to explain away and delegitimize conservative victories.  The electorate is not rational it is angry; this is the narrative the NYT has been advancing for at least the past few months.

“Mr. Paladino’s broader challenge echoes those of other Tea Party insurgents around the country, as passionate but untested candidates have toppled more-established Republicans in primaries only to struggle under the bright lights and scrutiny of general election campaigns,” the report declares.

“But even in a year when anger is the dominant theme of national politics, Mr. Paladino has stood out as a candidate defined by his ire,” the report continues. “He has often promised to take a baseball bat with him to the State Capitol and referred to Albany denizens as leeches, pigs and wimps, and — in the case of Sheldon Silver, the speaker of the Assembly and an Orthodox Jew — as the Antichrist.”

Left wing activities and their newspaper allies are terrified that Paladino might actually capture the State House in a critical blue state and help catapult other Republican candidates. Perhaps it is the news media is becoming angry and unhinged. If Dicker is not angry than what else is he? Inquisitive?  He’s certainly not detached and dispassionate.

Finally a few paragraphs done into the story the NYT does hint at the possibility that Paladino may not have been entirely at fault in his exchange with The Post reporter.

“Not everyone thought Mr. Paladino was the bad guy in the exchange,” the report says. “Some questioned whether Mr. Dicker, who repeatedly wagged his finger in Mr. Paladino’s face, had been overly aggressive. Even Gov. David A. Paterson, a Democrat, while saying that Mr. Paladino had responded inappropriately, said he sympathized with Mr. Paladino’s anguish about news media intrusion into his family life.”

The report is also sprinkled with suggestions and innuendos that Paladino has become radioactive in the eyes of high ranking Republican officials and other candidates. But when the NYT finally produces quotes  that actual statements are much more equivocal and reflective.

Consider these comments from Rep. Peter King, the Long Island Republican congressman.

“Some Republicans found their doubts ripening overnight,” the report says. “In an interview earlier in the week, Representative Peter T. King, a Republican from Long Island, said that Mr. Paladino “may be reading the public mood better than anyone.” But in a follow-up interview on Thursday, Mr. King expressed concern about Mr. Paladino’s behavior.

`I’m always skeptical and concerned when a candidate goes into his opponent’s personal life,’Mr. King said, declining to elaborate.”

Rep. King is a very careful politician. That’s not news.

Is it possible for the NYT to run a piece about a Tea Party candidate that does not involve the race card? The Republican candidate for governor in New York, who is also a Tea Party favorite, certainly deserves scrutiny and attention.  But the unsubstantiated allegations and personal attacks subtract from what could have been an informative report that fills in biographical details voters should know…

Let’s take this from the perspective of a reader who is not familiar with the Tea Party candidate running for governor of New York as a Republican. Carl P. Paladino comes across as an unstable, overly emotional man with no sense of style. You know a political race has taken an unexpected turn against liberal elites when the challenger earns an unflattering front page spread in The New York Times.

The first few paragraphs are laced with subjective comments and observations that serve to persuade rather than inform. The idea here is convince readers that Paladino lacks statesmanship. In comparison to who? Eliot Spitzer.

“Mr. Paladino, 64, a rumpled, weary-eyed developer from western New York, seemed to emerge from nowhere to capture the Republican nomination for governor, a political unknown who became a vessel for Tea Party-tinged anger against insiders and incumbents,” the report says. “But for decades he has been an outsized, impulsive and often outrageous figure: polarizing in his politics, relentless in amassing his real estate empire and irrepressible in seeking to impose his will on civic life.”

“Interviews with dozens of people who know him — friends, relatives, admirers and adversaries — revealed a highly emotional man who oscillates between cursing his enemies and crying over his friends’ sorrows, who believes in elbows-out confrontation no matter the cost and whose lifelong dealings with the government have fueled his enormous wealth and his bottomless rage,” the report continues.

The article then proceeds to review Paladino’s family history and early work experience, which is fair enough. But it concludes with a section entitled “The Style of a Bully” that is very one-sided and overloaded with innuendo. No Tea Party report is complete unless the race card is inserted in some form.

While in Buffalo, Paladino clashed with James W. Pitts, the city council president.

“Mr. Pitts was the ranking black official in Buffalo and Mr. Paladino’s efforts were denounced  as an attempt to erode emerging black political power,” The Times tells readers. “Undeterred, Mr. Paladino financed repeated charter-reform campaigns that sharply reduced the powers of the office that Mr. Pitts held.”

There’s certainly ample room to be critical where personal missteps have affected Paladino’s family relationships and private life. But there is nothing described in the report that is out of proportion with or even up to the level of many transgressions that involve career politicians in state houses and on Capitol Hill.

This could have been an informative and helpful news piece for voters who are unfamiliar with Paladino. Instead, the reporting is intermixed with too many ad hominem attacks to serve as a reliable source of straight news. Paladino should have been permitted to respond to at least some of the criticisms and attacks that his political enemies put into circulation.

Being a candidate for high office, he should expect to be the focus of critical news stories that probe into his background. Frankly, voters are entitled to know about any personal transgressions that could have ramifications for him in office.

But, at the same time, the criticisms should be balanced against comments from friends and allies who are not quoted here.

Key figures in both political parties recognize Barry Jackson as a formidable Republican operative who is very adept at protecting his party’s interest. He now serves as the chief of staff to House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio), which means he can expect to be on the receiving end of negative press coverage in the run up to the Nov. elections.

With the mid-term elections just a few weeks away, the New York Times appears set to attack Rep. John Boehner (R-Ohio), the House Minority leader, from every direction. An article that ran in Saturday’s paper begins with demeaning and disparaging comments about Barry Jackson, Boehner’s chief of staff, that are juxtaposed with an unflattering photo.

“Mr. Jackson, the chief of staff to Mr. Boehner, the House Republican leader from Ohio, is shaggy-haired and dough-faced, pale to Mr. Boehner’s preternatural tan,” the report begins. “He is rumpled and pudgy; his boss is lean and sharply tailored. While Mr. Boehner, 60, loves golf, Mr. Jackson, 49, prefers car racing — he has been going to the dirt tracks ever since he was a child in Ohio and makes an annual pilgrimage to the Indianapolis 500.”

Jackson is not someone who covets or seeks media attention; laudatory traits that are viewed as negatives here.

“Mr. Jackson is also press-shy,” the report says. “Friends and journalists say he seems almost physically uncomfortable around reporters. When reached at the Capitol for comment for this article, Mr. Jackson simply said: `I’m John’s chief of staff. I’m John’s chief of staff.’ Even though he avoids the limelight and does not publicly take credit, Mr. Jackson’s faint fingerprints were all over the Pledge to America, the campaign platform and legislative blueprint released Thursday that Republicans say they will follow if they win back the House,” the report continues.

While he may appear awkward and ungainly in the eye of a hostile media, there is no denying that Jackson is a serious intellectual force and a shrewd strategist who can help his party remain on offense after the November elections, the report acknowledges. When Republicans took control of the House in 1994, he was widely recognized as a key player. Jackson also helped safeguard the party’s interests earlier this year when negotiations over health care policy intensified.

Jackson has attracted the attention of the NYT because he is an effective, tough, agile political operator. He can expect subsequent reports to intensify in criticism, especially if his boss becomes House Speaker.

At one point he is described as “Mr. Boehner’s Karl Rove.”

That is not meant as a compliment.