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.

But NYT sees the matter much differently. Somehow the federal government will come through with additional funding to defray costs for the “much- needed” mass transit tunnel, the editorial says. Moreover, Michael Bloomberg, the enlightened mayor of NYC, has “come to the rescue” with a proposal for an alternative tunnel.

“It’s nice to know somebody is thinking big about the region’s economic future,” the NYT sneers even as it acknowledges that the “Bloomberg plan is sketchy, and it is not clear where the money would come from.” That’s quite a pivot.

Gov. Christie connects with voters because they understand as he does that N.J. is essentially bankrupt and cannot afford new spending schemes. In many respects, the budget process at the state level is broken. It is hard reality that continues to elude the Gray Lady, but not the Republican governor it so loaths. Gov. Christie understands cost projects for infrastructure projects are often way off and cost more over the long-term. That’s why he was right to terminate this project in the cradle. For this he deserves praise not scorn.

But the concluding paragraph takes aim at Christie for advancing policies that are consistent with Tea Party sentiment.

“Perhaps some sage from one of the big universities — Princeton or Rutgers? — could help the state spend almost $60 million from the federal government to weatherize New Jersey homes,” the editorial suggests. “After all, Mr. Christie is busy making news and charming the right by downsizing his state, so it falls on others to think about the future.”

Perhaps the NYT could refrain from “charming” big government proponents who have made infrastructure projects quite untenable thanks to unchecked deficit spending.

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.

On the surface, it is very easy for readers to sympathize with financially stressed families that may be evicted from their homes. But emotional appeals should not serve as a substitute for reporting on the economic consequences of government intervention that will cost prospective homeowners over the long-term…

News reports that personalize the misfortunes of individuals who have been identified as potential new constituents for the political class make for highly effective yarns. Here the New York Times takes up the case of Nicholle Bradbury, a resident of Denmark, Maine, who cannot keep up her mortgage payments and faces a potential eviction. On the surface, there is good cause for sympathy.

Questions have been raised about the paperwork and methodology associated with Bradbury’s case. She has also lost her job and her husband can no longer work for health reasons. The family, which includes two teenagers, lives on welfare and foodstamps  according to the report.

The villain here is identified as GMAC, which was previously the financing arm of General Motors. It received $17 billion from taxpayers in an effort to keep it from failing and is now majority-owned by the federal government. The NYT quite correctly offered the lender the opportunity to comment, which GMAC understandably declined to do as the case remains in litigation.

Unfortunately, the story line here omits economic realities that intersect with the interests and concerns of Americans who eager to become homeowners. If the federal government intervenes to prevent market forces from working to alleviate the housing crisis, sales could be halted even as foreclosures accelerate.

To be sure, GMAC should be called out and challenged for using “robo-signers” who are not in command of key facts, but there is also a price to be paid for interrupting the foreclosure process that goes uncovered in the report.

Robert Romano, a senior editor with Americans for Limited Government’s (ALG) news bureau, has filed a very detailed report that explores the potential fallout associated a nationwide moratorium on foreclosures that some lawmakers have proposed.

“There would be several consequences to this,” Romano observes. “If Congress shuts down the foreclosure process, it also would have to shut down the foreclosure sale process, which in the second quarter accounted for over $43 billion of home sales, according to RealtyTrac. Distressed institutions attempting to dig their way out of the financial crisis would be forced to keep that much of these non-performing assets on the books every quarter while a moratorium was in place. That could total more than $150 billion annually for every year a moratorium is in place — all to allow delinquent borrowers to stay in homes they cannot afford. While a moratorium was in effect, prospective homebuyers would also have to put their plans on hold. In short, the housing market would seize up.”

There’s more.

A foreclosure moratorium would also create perverse incentives, Romano explains, that reward the irresponsible at the expense of citizens who are financially positioned to pursue real estate. Under this scenario, delinquent borrowers would have no cause to maintain their homes. Consequently, the quality of neighborhoods would deteriorate, which in turn would undermine housing prices.

“Therefore, an indefinite foreclosure moratorium would actually increase the number of overall foreclosures that ultimately occur,” Romano argues. “That’s very bad policy.”

Going forward, the NYT would better serve its readership with informed analysis from economists who have understanding of long-term consequences that flow out from federal intervention into the private sector. That’s the real story.

When already beleaguered institutions are forced to keep non-performing assets on the books to placate economically illiterate policy makers, average Americans lose out. They should at least have a voice in the NYT. Instead, the Gray Lady appears to be fixated on paperwork issues that are peripheral to the major issues at work here.

If families are evicted from the homes in error, that would be just cause for outrage. But there is some debate about this.  “As was the case for our judicial state review, our initial assessment findings show the basis for our foreclosure decisions is accurate,” Bank of America spokesman Dan Frahm said on October 17th. The bank is once again resubmitting foreclosure affidavits after it had temporarily suspended foreclosure operations across the country.

So in reality, it would seem that the properties in question have been legitimately foreclosed even if the paperwork had some flaws. Allowing delinquent borrows to sidestep their responsibilities should not be the answer as the NYT seems to imply.

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.

A non-profit group called “Americans for Job Security” comes in for some sharp criticism from the NYT, which is now in election mode. The idea here is to undermine Republican efforts that appear to be ascendant and to mischaracterize a Supreme Court ruling that expands First Amendment protections

Non-profit advocacy groups that support private sector interests are operating by way of subterfuge and stealth to advance public policy measures that favor a select few, according to a front page piece that ran Sunday.

Pejorative words like “cloak” and hidden” are used in the headline to set the tone for a highly critical piece that probes into an organization called “Americans for Job Security” based in the Washington D.C. area. But the real targets are the Tea Party movement, the Republican Party and First Amendment freedoms.

AJS is supporting a referendum that would restrict the operations of a gold and copper mine located in Bristol Bay, Alaska. After the mine’s supporters filed a complaint, investigators concluded that the organization was set up to protect the indentify of wealthy activists, the report argues.

“With every election cycle comes a shadow army of benignly titled nonprofit groups like Americans for Job Security, devoted to politically charged `issue advocacy,’ much of it negative,” the report says. “But they are now being heard as never before — in this year of midterm discontent, Tea Party ferment and the first test of the Supreme Court decision  allowing unlimited, and often anonymous, corporate political spending. Already they have spent more than $100 million — mostly for Republicans and more than twice as much as at this point four years ago. None have been more active than Americans for Job Security, which spent $6 million on ads during the primary season. This week, emboldened by the court ruling, the group paid close to $4 million more for ads directly attacking nine Democratic candidates for Congress. That made it among the first to abandon the old approach of running ads that stopped just short of explicitly urging voters to elect or reject individual candidates.”

The idea here is to shut down advocacy work that takes full advantage of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United V. FEC decision earlier this year, which set aside previous restrictions on unions and corporations. It also serves as a not subtle propaganda piece on behalf of the Disclose Act that is now the subject of intense debate on Capitol Hill.

It would not be unreasonable for readers to ask if there is anything said or written  here that could be improved upon by a Democratic consultant? It is very evident the report is crafted with an eye toward dismantling advocacy work that is at odds with a big government agenda.

Under the sub head – “Blurred Boundaries” – the NYT suggests to readers that AJS is skirting the law by operating in close concert with  Republican leaning groups. Although the group has been the subject of complaints filed with the International Revenue Service (IRS) and Federal Election Commission (FEC), there is no hard evidence presented here that demonstrates it violated campaign finance rules.

Additional allegations are also listed under the final section of the report entitled “A Hidden Hand in Alaska.” Here the NYT comments on the results of its own public information request that sought to expose more of the group’s finances and connections. It also reports on legal settlement AJS reached with authorities in Alaska.

This is nothing more than veiled, indirect attempt to complicate Republican campaign efforts and to besmirch average Americans who are part of the Tea Party

They cover a lot of bases here but omit any discussion of the environmental movement’s international dimensions. Polls shows that the public is evenly divided over a ballot initiative that would suspend California’s global warming law until after unemployment falls. Here, the NYT seeks to swing public sentiment by questioning the motives of private donors who are linked in with the Tea Party.

A California ballot initiative that could potentially unravel the anti energy policies Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed into law four years ago is the subject of a report aimed against free market groups. Charles and David Koch described here as the “billionaires from Kansas who have played a prominent role in financing the Tea Party movement” are the primary targets. But out of state business interests also come in for criticism.

Both sides acknowledge that initiative could have national ramifications for the environmental movement and its pursuit of “cap and trade” policies. State-level regulatory efforts that mimic the Kyoto Protocol rippled out of California’s Global Warming Solutions Act and could recede if pro-energy activists prevail in November. The initiative, known formally as Proposition 23, calls for a suspension of anti-emissions restrictions until after unemployment falls to 5.5 percent or lower for at least four consecutive quarters.

Over the past year, the environmental movement has been beset with setbacks that undermine long-standing scientific and economic arguments activists and government officials have invoked to advance regulatory directives. It is evident from this report that the NYT and other left leaning media outlets are panicked by recent developments. The idea here is to discredit the opposition and explain away public opposition as an understandable, albeit misguided byproduct of the recession.

“Traditionally, public support for environmental measures suffers during tough economic times,” the report says. “Here in California, backers of the initiative have seized on that anxiety — which is particularly acute in this state, with its 12.3 percent unemployment rate — in search of a victory.”

The stipulations included in Proposition 23 “could have the practical effect of killing the law,” the NYT correctly notes. Over the past several decades, the unemployment rate as rarely fallen to such relatively low rate for an extended period of time. AB 32, the Global Warming statute, calls for carbon dioxide and other greenhouse emissions to be reduced back to 1990 levels by 2020. Private industry officials say they that the high cost of compliance would result in job losses and rising gas prices.

There are a number of detailed, scholarly studies that bolster and substantiate the concerns of private industry. The Institute for Energy Research (IER), for instance, has published a report that goes into great detail about the higher costs attached to renewable standards and emissions restrictions. But these hard facts have no place in an agenda laced report that works over time to sully the reputation of business groups, Tea Party activists and individual donors who are committed to private enterprise.

“The campaign against California’s greenhouse gas law comes as business groups have invested heavily across the country in trying to defeat members of Congress who voted for a cap-and-trade  bill that also mandated emission reductions; the bill passed the House but failed in the Senate in the face of strong opposition from lawmakers in industrial states,” the report says.

Looking ahead to November, current polls show that the competing sides are evenly matched.

“Yet supporters said they were concerned that the proposition could slip through at a time when Democratic spirits are low,” the NYT points out. “More significant is the question of how much more supporters of Prop 23 can raise to finance their campaign. Of the $8.2 million raised so far, $1 million came from the Koch firm, $4 million from the Valero Energy Corporation and $1.5 million from the Tesoro Corporation; both corporations are based in San Antonio.”

The article concludes with a spokesman from the NRDC quoted at length expressing concern over the influence and financial backing of anti-regulatory organizations. That’s the pot calling the kettle black.

“We have every reason to believe that they are going to put the money in to run a big television campaign in the most expensive media market in the country,” said Annie Notthoff, the California advocacy director for the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental group. “We certainly are expecting to have a fight on our hands.”

As of 2006, the NRDC has net assets in excess of $125 million and enjoys consistent, steady substantial support from well-endowed left-leaning foundations, according to The Capital Research Center.

NRDC is part of  large, expansive network of left-wing organizations operating under the guise of environmentalism that have worked on national and international level to restrict and restrain America’s economic development.

These outside groups that operate in concert with the European Union and the United Nations at the expense of U.S. taxpayers and consumers deserve greater exposure and attention.

Former Secretary of State George Schultz, who supports Calif.’s global warming law, should be asked about the international backing of environmental groups like the NRDC receive since he’s so concerned about the activities of American citizens who favor affordable energy.

There’s little doubt that Rep. Charlie Rangel’s reputation has suffered throughout Manhattan as a result of  multiple ethics charges. But his fate will be decided in his district alone and not Manhattan at large. That’s why it’s very odd for the NYT to avoid polling just the most likely voters. While it would not be a mistake to also include results from neighboring areas, the sample used here just has 195 respondents with a large margin of error.That’s not helpful to readers.

Even the best polls acknowledge a margin of error that discerning readers should carefully consider. However, the methodology and sampling that is used to determine most Manhattan voters would prefer to see Rep. Charles Rangel leave Congress is flawed to the point where it is highly misleading. This is more a question of competence and less a question of bias.

A New York Times poll revealed a “significant reversal in public sentiment” that now shows a clear majority of Manhattan voters have an unfavorable view of the congressman and believe there is some merit to the charges against time. Rangel stands accused of multiple charges that include agreeing to four rent-stabilized apartments in Harlem, neglecting to pay taxes on a beachfront home in the Dominican Republic and using his House office to raise money for an education center.

Here is how the poll numbers break down, according to a NYT report. Only 23 percent of respondents say he should continue his re-election efforts. Meanwhile, 46 percent say he should end his campaign and step down at the end of his current term, while 24 percent say he should resign immediately.

But there are a few problems here. For starters just 195 registered voters were polled and this includes a sampling error of plus or minus seven percentage points. That’s a large error margin for such a small sample. Moreover, the NYT declined to poll Rangel’s district; that’s an odd omission. While results pulled from Manhattan as a whole are interesting and suggestive, they have little practical value. The article concludes with quotes from residents outside of Rangel’s district, which are meant as a rejoinder to those inside his district with misgivings. Shouldn’t this be turned around?

As a long time serving member with strong ties to favorable media organs, Rangel has a nationwide identity. But his future in politics will be determined by constituents who are now weighing the ethics charges. A more compelling report could have been built around voters who have previously supported the Harlem Democrat, but now have doubts. Unfortunately, this article does not provide readers with any meaningful insight into where the most decisive block of voters may be heading.

Readers are told the Rangel retains the upper hand in his primary battle, despite the allegations. But this assertion is not substantiated. There is just as much anecdotal evidence that suggests Rangel’s base is evaporating as there is for continued support.

“Despite Mr. Rangel’s troubles, he remains the clear favorite in the primary,” the NYT declares. “The poll measured the views of those throughout Manhattan, not only those in his district, but the results are telling because he represents about 40 percent of the borough’s residents.”

The results are not as telling as they should be because they do not include a sampling that pulls exclusively from likely voters in Rangel’s district. If this result were reported in tandem with results from other parts of Manhattan, that would have had more relevance. Unfortunately, the Manhattan poll results that are reported are far too limited in scope to have any real meaning.

Despite an avalanche of negative press coverage, Nevada U.S  Senate Candidate Sharron Angle remains very competitive in her race against Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. For this reason, she needs to be taken down and discredited along with Tea Party activists who are changing American politics…

After taking direction from left wing editors opposed to constitutional limited government and Tea Party activism, New York Times reporter Adam Nagourney glared in disgust at the video image, before launching into his agenda laced, hysterical, high-pitched, condescending, factually dubious front page smear piece aimed against Nevada’s rising star Sharron Angle.

No doubt, Nagourney took cues from the big government activists who masquerade as detached news professionals. He also makes blanket assertions about the political viability of conservative policy stances that are very debatable. The remaining observations from the preceding paragraph are skewed and overly speculative in their own way.

But they are also written very much in the spirit of the Nagourney’s own report, which maintains a derisive, opinionated tone from beginning to end. Consider the lead paragraph.

“Sharron Angle leaned across a table in her campaign office here, defending her suddenly embattled campaign to defeat Senator Harry Reid, the Democratic majority leader, under the gaze of a half-dozen advisers and an official videographer packed into the room.”

This is the kind of hackneyed, trite, biased and unseemly approach to campaign coverage that necessitates media watchdogs like TimesCheck. Is there anything written or said here that a paid operative of Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) would have done differently and to greater effect to sully the reputation of his election challenger? In reality, there is a little room for improvement.

“Harry Reid should be brought up on wage and hour law violations, if he does not pay the reporter,” Don Todd, a former Labor Department official now with Americans for Limited Government said in an interview. “The left wing incorrectly assumes women are naturally part of their constituency, so they become alarmed when they see someone out there who does not follow that script.”

Angle is a Tea Party favorite who prevailed over moderate, establishment Republicans in her party’s primary. While NYT does not deny that Reid is in political trouble, it does peddle out the idea that he would be far easy to dislodge with a conventional Republican candidate. One of Angle’s primary opponents is trotted out here to help substantiate liberal spin that is passed off as reporting.

The special election held earlier this year in Pennsylvania 12 demonstrates that conservative-leaning candidates in both parties now have traction with voters. Here a centrist Republican lost out to a Democrat who opposed ObamaCare and environmental regulations, while supporting Second Amendment rights. Yet, in Nevada the NYT tells readers that conservatism is somehow a liability.

“Since Ms. Angle won, her campaign has been rocked by a series of politically intemperate remarks and awkward efforts to retreat from hard-line positions she has embraced in the past like phasing out Social Security. There have also been a staff shake-up and run-ins with Nevada journalists, including one in which a television reporter chased her through a parking lot trying to get her to answer a question.”

Apparently, the misuse of reconciliation to force through unpopular, coercive and costly healthcare legislation is not a hardline position. Advancing the agenda of big labor and environmental extremists at the expense of average Americans is also considered mainstream.

There is no denying how beneficial the Tea Party movement was to Angle in her primary, the NYT concedes. Even so, he views are unacceptable to the larger electorate, the report claims. Faint praise is always followed up with a qualifying point.

“But some of her conservative positions could prove to be a hurdle come November,” the report says. “She has for example called for the elimination of the Energy Department and the Environmental Protection Agency…”

In her interview with Nagourney, Angle draws a connection between the modern conservative movement and the founding period that helps to put her candidacy into proper perspective. Names like Thomas Jefferson, George Washington and Benjamin Franklin still resonate in America. Meanwhile, Sen. Reid’s son Rory is reticent to invoke the family surname in his own separate race for Nevada governor.

After orchestrating an incessant chain of negative, misleading press coverage crafted to sabotage her candidacy, the NYT is miffed to find that Angle is not exactly enthusiastic about interacting with the liberal media.

“In the course of the interview, Ms. Angle spoke slowly and cautiously,” the report says. “She appeared reluctant to engage, frequently citing stock answers to questions.” Not too subtle.

The report also ends on a note of criticism compliments of the Republican establishment, which claims Angle is not open to outside advice. Here the NYT concurs. But the key point is missed.

With an eye toward history, Angle places a greater premium on restoring the founding period than she does on placating elite opinion inside either major party.